The PLs 'most influential' players

[mdearlove]

Interesting article on the Most Influential players in the PL:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40974299

 

Our most / least influential in their terms are -

Steven Davis 1.24 Dusan Tadic -0.23

Oriol Romeu 1.03 Pierre-Emile Hojbjerg -0.22

Virgil van Dijk 0.96 Jack Stephens -0.14

[mrfahaji]

Interesting article on the Most Influential players in the PL:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40974299

 

Our most / least influential in their terms are -

Steven Davis 1.24 Dusan Tadic -0.23

Oriol Romeu 1.03 Pierre-Emile Hojbjerg -0.22

Virgil van Dijk 0.96 Jack Stephens -0.14

 

Interesting as a quick read but not particularly insightful once you've read how it's calculated. I thought it was going to be a comprehensive statistical analysis of their performance. Instead it's just whether we scored more than the opposition while they were on the pitch. So if a player was on the pitch for the first half, covered every blade of grass, made two goalline clearances, set up 5 goalscoring opportunities and won a penalty, then subbed (due to injury, ha) but it was 0-1 at HT and 2-1 at FT, his contribution would be a negative one. Hmmmm.

[VectisSaint]

Interesting as a quick read but not particularly insightful once you've read how it's calculated. I thought it was going to be a comprehensive statistical analysis of their performance. Instead it's just whether we scored more than the opposition while they were on the pitch. So if a player was on the pitch for the first half, covered every blade of grass, made two goalline clearances, set up 5 goalscoring opportunities and won a penalty, then subbed (due to injury, ha) but it was 0-1 at HT and 2-1 at FT, his contribution would be a negative one. Hmmmm.

Clearly you didn't actually read the article, at least if you did you didn't comprehend it. I know the article (as opposed to the study) was written by a numpty so doesn't explain things very well but it clearly states that it is based on "expected goals, rather than actual goals". There are also a lot of other factors in the study itself, it is not just based on goals or expected goals scored. I don't think the data reflects very well the actual influence of some players, i.e. the model is flawed, but can be used together with loads of other data to help analyse what is actually happening. It is not the be all and end all on its own. Most of the numpties commenting on the BBC don't seem to be able to grasp that this data was not devised by the BBC, and also unable to deal with the fact that their favourite player does not show up as the best even though their rose-tinted spectacles say they should. Still it does show for Saints what most people think that the most influential players for us were Romeu and Davis and that Tadic is a waste of space. Davis top of our list despite being **** poor for large parts of last season, probably reflects more on how poor we were as a team last year more than anything.

[Nordic Saint]

Interesting article on the Most Influential players in the PL:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40974299

 

Our most / least influential in their terms are -

Steven Davis 1.24 Dusan Tadic -0.23

Oriol Romeu 1.03 Pierre-Emile Hojbjerg -0.22

Virgil van Dijk 0.96 Jack Stephens -0.14

 

Although he is ridulously underrated by some fans on here, I always feel we miss Steven Davis badly when he doesn't play. The Wolves game was a typical example of how our midfield can become directionless and lethargic without him. Ward-Prowse, Tadic and Hojbjerg contribute nowhere near as much.

[mrfahaji]

Clearly you didn't actually read the article, at least if you did you didn't comprehend it. I know the article (as opposed to the study) was written by a numpty so doesn't explain things very well but it clearly states that it is based on "expected goals, rather than actual goals". There are also a lot of other factors in the study itself, it is not just based on goals or expected goals scored. I don't think the data reflects very well the actual influence of some players, i.e. the model is flawed, but can be used together with loads of other data to help analyse what is actually happening. It is not the be all and end all on its own. Most of the numpties commenting on the BBC don't seem to be able to grasp that this data was not devised by the BBC, and also unable to deal with the fact that their favourite player does not show up as the best even though their rose-tinted spectacles say they should. Still it does show for Saints what most people think that the most influential players for us were Romeu and Davis and that Tadic is a waste of space. Davis top of our list despite being **** poor for large parts of last season, probably reflects more on how poor we were as a team last year more than anything.

 

Clearly, you're right

 

I was skim reading it and then I came across the "how it works - in detail" section, and in that passage it doesn't mention expected goals anywhere, just an example of goals for/against. I wrongly assumed that "in detail" meant it would include the full extent of the calculation, rather than simplifying it!

[Redslo]

Although he is ridulously underrated by some fans on here, I always feel we miss Steven Davis badly when he doesn't play. The Wolves game was a typical example of how our midfield can become directionless and lethargic without him. Ward-Prowse, Tadic and Hojbjerg contribute nowhere near as much.

 

In an article linked in the original article linked by the original poster, Tadic shows up as the worst performer in the league in goals scored compared to expected goals.

 

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40699431

[Toadhall Saint]

In an article linked in the original article linked by the original poster, Tadic shows up as the worst performer in the league in goals scored compared to expected goals.

 

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40699431

 

Expected goals?