How many shots are needed for saints to score?

[gio1saints]

I’m unsure whether this is common knowledge here but at present the stats are as follows : 

1. Saints need to shoot 9 times in order to score a goal. (percentage is 0.11 of our shots go in). A match with 27 shots we should be scoring with three,  on average, basically. Does not mean 27shots =3 goals, but it does mean, on average, this season, 27 shots should mean 3 goals. 

2. Saints score just under one in three of every shot on target (percentage 0.3) meaning 3/10 shots on target go in. Does not mean about one in every three shots we hit the target will go in. It means that, on average, this season, 1 in about 3 go in. 

Apologies if that explanation sounds pedantic but it’s pretty important - someone is sure to come on here at some point and say “ but we had 5 shots on target but no goals so you and all this data shite are hillocks” 😂

( source FBref database) 

 

NB, If, like me, you like a flutter and you see that Saints have had a sack full of shots and ditto shots on target in a match ( as an example say we had 10 shots first half today v Norwich and 5 on target but no goals) then it’s the kind of in match situation where I might be tempted to bet on saints actually scoring at some point second half. But that’s only if the odds are decent - in the situation above I’d say it was evens or better we’d score second half so the odds must be at least evens or frankly better or 7/4 or better for me to place the bet. 

 

Edited January 1 by gio1saints

[Miltonaggro]

Fucking loads. 

[gio1saints]

4 minutes ago, Miltonaggro said:

Fucking loads. 

Great answer! Though statistically compared to rest of this league not as many loads as one might think 🤣

[Micky]

Depends whose shooting, if it's Che then your talking very large numbers...!

[gio1saints]

17 minutes ago, Micky said:

Depends whose shooting, if it's Che then your talking very large numbers...!

I think Che’s numbers are available….what would your guess be? 

[Bad Wolf]

1 hour ago, gio1saints said:

I think Che’s numbers are available….what would your guess be? 

I reckon it's lower than you'd think because he doesn't actually take that many shots. He uses misses a sitter per game but just one of them.

[gio1saints]

33 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

I reckon it's lower than you'd think because he doesn't actually take that many shots. He uses misses a sitter per game but just one of them.

Close!
Here are the facts which basically show his shooting stats rate this season. 
 

He has scored six goals so far - 6 goals from 23 shots of which 14 on target. In general, as you’d expect from our main striker, his figures are better than the average in our team. Not saying that’s great - it actually more highlights that putting ball in the net more still our issue ( who knew!!) 

Shots Data	Total	Per 90 Minutes	Percentile
Shots Taken	23	2.01	94
Shots On Target	14/ 23	1.22	97
Shots Off Target	9/ 23	0.79	84
Hit The Woodwork	1 times	0.09	89
Shot Conversion Rate	26.09%		86
Shot Accuracy	60.87%		81
Shots Per Goal Scored	3.83

Che Adams has taken 23 shots in 21 matches so far in the Championship 2023/2024 season. Of the 23 shots, 14 shots were on target and the other 9 shots were off target. That means that Adams's shooting accuracy is 60.87%. He scores a goal for every 3.83 shots he takes and takes 2.01 shots per 90 minutes on the pitch.

 

[SotonianWill]

17

[Badger]

21 today according to BBC stats

[Tommy Mulgrew]

7 hours ago, Micky said:

Depends whose shooting, if it's Che then your talking very large numbers...!

 

5 hours ago, gio1saints said:

Adams has taken 23 shots in 21 matches so far in the Championship 2023/2024 season. Of the 23 shots, 14 shots were on target and the other 9 shots were off target. That means that Adams's shooting accuracy is 60.87%. He scores a goal for every 3.83 shots he takes and takes 2.01 shots per 90 minutes on the pitch.

 

Che manages to do quite a few air-kicks; he failed to make contact a few times today right in front of goal.  That flatters his stats.

[chiknsmack]

12 hours ago, gio1saints said:

If, like me, you like a flutter and you see that Saints have had a sack full of shots and ditto shots on target in a match ( as an example say we had 10 shots first half today v Norwich and 5 on target but no goals) then it’s the kind of in match situation where I might be tempted to bet on saints actually scoring at some point second half.

Sounds a bit like the Gambler's Fallacy. "If, like me, you like a flutter and you see that black has come up on the roulette wheel a sack full of times in a row (as an example say it's landed on black 10 times in a row but not red) then it’s the kind of situation where I might be tempted to bet on red."

There's also the fact that your stats come from past results, and past results aren't necessary a predictor of future performance. Saints might have scored 3 goals for every ten shots on target this season, but against an above-average keeper the conversion rate may be lower (and against a shit keeper it may be higher). Ditto if we (somehow) have worse finishers than usual taking these shots.

Regression/reversion to the mean is a thing, but over a single game the numbers can stay well away from the long-term average without it being a statistically-crazy outcome. So while you can just say "We've had five shots on target in the first half for no goals - below our average conversion rate -  so I expect us to outperform our conversion rate in the second half and therefore score at least one goal", that doesn't mean it'll happen.

[gio1saints]

Guilty as charged. A intelligent answer on this forum can be like hens teeth so I’m super grateful! You are absolutely correct by spotlighting the classic fatal flaw in my comment. 

45minutes football and even 25 matches of football preceding it is a weak measure of probability of what’s going to happen or is more likely to happen I should say, in the next 45 minutes. 
 

There may be a few mitigating ( but not winning - yours is superior overall) arguments available however which might be of succour to the degenerate gambler ( not me I hope😂) : 

1. Unlike Roulette football is a game of ( mostly) skill, not chance. This should, in theory, enhance result predictability. 
 

2. Time is of relevance. Results by different players in Saints teams of yore v Norwich (in this example) are of very little relevance to Jan 2024 result probability today. Results from a match up of the same teams and (almost) the same players four months ago is much more relevant, and adds weighting accordingly. 

2. The data group used as reference included matches against every possible opponent in the league at least once including the current opponents. This rounds up / down the gross league statistical probability within a relevant time frame. 

3. Semantics time, “tempted to“ is not same as “ will bet”. There is necessarily an evaluation of the odds offered before I might decide to bet on such a situation. 🤓. 

It goes without saying that my personal evaluation of probability with that  suggested by the bookies is a critical factor. For instance if the bookies gave 2/1 on Saints scoring second half I might have considered taking that - but if they offered 2/5 I would decline. 
 

I managed to throw some “ insurance”  money away on the match though because as soon as we went 0-1 up the odds on Norwich winning 2-1 ( my insta- evaluation of their most likely win in the last 25 minutes or so) went to 28/1. I consequently spent the equivalent of a seat plus travel costs getting there to insure they did not. And got what I deserved / wanted- lost the money but saints did not lose! That’s a degenerate approach lol.