DAFC.net
Home 06 July 2022 
 Post Message  |  Top of Board  |  Go to Topic  |  Search  |  Twitter Updates  |  Log In   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 
[ please login to use the Like feature ]
 Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: Gadgie59  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 17:17

Last week I posted some stats, taken from BBC’s website.

In a nutshell, Morton had 3 shots on target and 3 goals.

In the Hamilton/Arbroath game, they had 4 and 5 shots, on target, respectively.
QOS/Raih, 4 and 4. (Both matches ending 1:1).

Over the season, so far, get a shot on target on the pars goal and there’s a 50/50 chance you score. By contrast, you need more than 3 on target to get one goal against Morton. (Today we had 2 shots on the Morton goal, so statistically we were fortunate to score).

Fix that and I’m sure things will improve.


“Football is a beautiful game,
It should be played beautifully.”
Brian Clough.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: dd23  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 17:47

Takes us back to when David Hutton was in goals for us. He never saved anything, get a shot on target and chances are it would be a goal. Our two keepers are by far the worst in the league.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: gordi-b  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 18:04

For a 6ft plus goalkeeper OFW,S effoerts at crosses are lamentable .he never comes for a cross and his effort just before their first goal was laughable i cringe when we have corners and set pieces against , agree with dd23 we have the worst two keepers in the League

G.B
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: Grant  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 18:05

Shots on target is an absolutely useless metric to determine much by.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: dd23  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 18:19

Quote:

Grant, Sat 06 Nov 18:05

Shots on target is an absolutely useless metric to determine much by.


Not when you’re comparing goals scored it isn’t.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: Gadgie59  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 18:21

Any stat you care to choose can be a useless metric.

What is pretty clear is we concede goals at an alarming rate and that is almost certainly why we are struggling to win games.

It isn’t rocket science either to say if you don’t get shots on target you’re not going to win games .... pretty obvious stuff.

Comparing stats of teams at the bottom of the league against those at the top isn’t going to say much either ... teams at the top will obviously have better numbers; that’s why they’re at the top.

But comparing like with like does provide something useful. Basically every other team in the league can survive about 3 shots on goal before they a actually have to pick the ball out of the net. Unfortunately, we barely survive 2.

What to do?

Well, if we are poor at actually stopping shots that are on target; then we need to stop other teams getting shots on target. Translate that into defensive tactics - don’t sit back and wait for the opposition to take pot-shots; close them down further up the park ..... maybe?


“Football is a beautiful game,
It should be played beautifully.”
Brian Clough.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: veteraneastender  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 20:29

"Shots on target is an absolutely useless metric to determine much by. "

Surely there "has" to be a correlation between shots on target and goals scored ?

The fewer of the former "must" result in fewer of the latter ?

Of course, the definition of shots on target needs to be clear.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: Grant  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 20:40

Quote:

veteraneastender, Sat 6 Nov 20:29

"Shots on target is an absolutely useless metric to determine much by. "

Surely there "has" to be a correlation between shots on target and goals scored ?

The fewer of the former "must" result in fewer of the latter ?

Of course, the definition of shots on target needs to be clear.




No, not really.

You could have 50 shots on target a game, if they're poor quality chances then you shouldn't be surprised when you don't score many goals.


As I said, shots on target is a useless metric. No idea why if you're going to use stats to try and help make a point with regards to a game you'd use it xG is a far more pertinent, and truthful representation.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
-
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: veteraneastender  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 22:17

Quote:

Grant, Sat 06 Nov 20:40

Quote:

veteraneastender, Sat 6 Nov 20:29

"Shots on target is an absolutely useless metric to determine much by. "

Surely there "has" to be a correlation between shots on target and goals scored ?

The fewer of the former "must" result in fewer of the latter ?

Of course, the definition of shots on target needs to be clear.




No, not really.

You could have 50 shots on target a game, if they're poor quality chances then you shouldn't be surprised when you don't score many goals.


As I said, shots on target is a useless metric. No idea why if you're going to use stats to try and help make a point with regards to a game you'd use it xG is a far more pertinent, and truthful representation.


As I said, what constitutes a shot on target needs to be defined.

My thinking is any deliberate attempt to score which would have resulted in a goal except where denied by the action of the opposition.

So, for example, a mishit trundler, which runs harmlessly into the goalkeeper’s hands would not meet the definition.

Post Edited (Sat 06 Nov 22:20)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: veteraneastender  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 22:19

No shots on target = no goals.

Post Edited (Sat 06 Nov 22:21)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: cfad  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 22:31

Quote:

veteraneastender, Sat 06 Nov 22:19

No shots on target = no goals.

Post Edited (Sat 06 Nov 22:21)


Very astute
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: Grant  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 22:40

Quote:

veteraneastender, Sat 6 Nov 22:17

Quote:

Grant, Sat 06 Nov 20:40

Quote:

veteraneastender, Sat 6 Nov 20:29

"Shots on target is an absolutely useless metric to determine much by. "

Surely there "has" to be a correlation between shots on target and goals scored ?

The fewer of the former "must" result in fewer of the latter ?

Of course, the definition of shots on target needs to be clear.




No, not really.

You could have 50 shots on target a game, if they're poor quality chances then you shouldn't be surprised when you don't score many goals.


As I said, shots on target is a useless metric. No idea why if you're going to use stats to try and help make a point with regards to a game you'd use it xG is a far more pertinent, and truthful representation.


As I said, what constitutes a shot on target needs to be defined.

My thinking is any deliberate attempt to score which would have resulted in a goal except where denied by the action of the opposition.

So, for example, a mishit trundler, which runs harmlessly into the goalkeeper’s hands would not meet the definition.


It is defined, very clearly.

"Is a clear attempt to score that would have gone into the net but for being saved by the goalkeeper or is stopped by a player who is the last-man with the goalkeeper having no chance of preventing the goal (last line block)."

You having your own arbitrary definition doesn't matter a jot.

What you just described there is a shot on target, because if the goalkeeper let's it slip through his hands its a shot... On target.

We had by definition, four shots on target today.


And even then, its a completely baseless metric because those four shots could have been anything, just simply saying "oh more shots on target equals more goals" is absolutely nonsense, I'd rather have one chance which is a tap in from a yard, than 10 on target attempts from 30 yards.

Post Edited (Sat 06 Nov 22:41)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: parathletic  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 22:53

Topic Originator: veteraneastender like | nolike
Date: Sat 6 Nov 22:19

No shots on target = no goals.

Post Edited (Sat 06 Nov 22:21)

https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/daily/2019/01/12/news/fans-stunned-after-burnley-win-2-1-despite-having-zero-shots-on-target-1527013/

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: buffy  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 22:55

Quote:

parathletic, Sat 06 Nov 22:53

Topic Originator: veteraneastender like | nolike
Date: Sat 6 Nov 22:19

No shots on target = no goals.

Post Edited (Sat 06 Nov 22:21)

https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/daily/2019/01/12/news/fans-stunned-after-burnley-win-2-1-despite-having-zero-shots-on-target-1527013/


They were OGs

buffysbuns.wordpress.com
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: parathletic  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 22:56

Exactly!

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: parathletic  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 23:06

Out of curiosity I just looked at shots stats and interestingly Arbroath have both most shots and most shots on target in the league. We are 9th in shots with only Ayr behind and rock bottom of shots on target with 40 in total.


We have also conceded the fewest fouls by a considerable distance which you wouldn`t expect for a team who should be fighting for their lives.



Post Edited (Sat 06 Nov 23:10)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 23:08

What about a blistering shot which comes back off the inside off the post and rebounds back into play?

As I understand that is NOT a shot on target, and you will not be surprised that I have no idea what that constitutes under xG. To me it`s a near as dammit to a goal but presumably not recorded as such.

I do know something however, which I learned from Charlie Dickson. The more efforts on goal the more chance of a goal. Jock Stein agreed.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: Grant  
Date:   Sat 6 Nov 23:46

Quote:

sammer, Sat 6 Nov 23:08

What about a blistering shot which comes back off the inside off the post and rebounds back into play?

As I understand that is NOT a shot on target, and you will not be surprised that I have no idea what that constitutes under xG. To me it`s a near as dammit to a goal but presumably not recorded as such.

I do know something however, which I learned from Charlie Dickson. The more efforts on goal the more chance of a goal. Jock Stein agreed.


The xG would depend on where the shot was taken from sammer.

It's a pet peeve but people trying to use shots on target as a way to show how a game went annoys me.

Take these two well known misses

Click here

Click here

Neither on target, however I'm sure we'll all agree that they'd be worth bringing up if you were talking about chances in a game? What about a penalty that gets skyed over, a pretty decent chance right?

Except if you're just mindlessly quoting shots on target it wouldn't count these efforts, despite them being far more relevant. I've had a bit of ridicule on here before for banging the drum with regards to xG, but if you're going to use any stat for reference with regards to the quality of chances you're making, then it's the only stay that's relevant.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Sun 7 Nov 00:08

Clip is excellent argument for your point Grant, just a pity it happened to be Scotland.

But are we entering another corridor of uncertainty: what constitutes a `chance.`

The 1978 FA Cup Final is on Youtube and John Wark drives two beautifully struck shots from around 20 yards which hit the inside of the Arsenal post. Pat Jennings never even moved. That is not a shot on target, but how is categorised under xG?

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: Gadgie59  
Date:   Sun 7 Nov 00:38

Definition of “shots on target” (that I’ve used):
It’s the number in the box under “shots on target” quoted by the BBC.
I don’t know what their specific definition is, but presumably it is the same for all teams and games; so is a reasonable parameter for comparison purposes as any inaccuracies and variations will even out over a sufficient period of time.

In terms of performance and more significantly, results, the fact that (from the BBC’s numbers) we concede goals far more easily than any other team in the league. That’s a fairly compelling ‘stat’ which seems to offer a reasonable explanation as to why we’re bottom of the league.

In terms of the actual ‘quality’ of the attempts made on our goal would appear to be of little relevance... just as scoring a superlative single goal but conceding two howlers will still lose the game.

Personally, I would prefer to score the quality goals; but at the business end of modern day football it’s results that count. And, right now, quality doesn’t seem to be a requirement for scoring against us ..... the same stats pretty clearly show that Morton defend a lot more ‘shots on target’ than we do; they don’t concede as many goals though and they’ve actually won games. I haven’t cross checked QOS, but I suspect the numbers will not be that different.

Although we are at the bottom of the league, I don’t think the quality of the players is the real problem. Before the season kicked off, we were being rated as title contenders; this was a fairly general consensus from various quarters, journalists, media, pundits etc. The squad we have is, I genuinely believe, capable of considerably better than the story so far ... we just need some inspiration to break out of the rut.


“Football is a beautiful game,
It should be played beautifully.”
Brian Clough.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Shots versus goals
Topic Originator: parathletic  
Date:   Sun 7 Nov 00:48

Shots to date

1 Arbroath 150
2 Partick Thistle 147
3 Inverness Caledonian Thistle 144
4 Kilmarnock 137
5 Raith Rovers 124
6 Queen of the South 123
7 Hamilton Academical 121
8 Morton 114
9 Dunfermline Athletic 107
10 Ayr United Ayr United 104


Shots on target


1 Arbroath 67
2 Partick Thistle 57
3 Inverness Caledonian Thistle 56
4= Queen of the South 52
4= Raith Rovers 52
6 Kilmarnock 47
7 Hamilton Academical 44
8= Ayr United 42
8= Morton 42
10 Dunfermline Athletic 40


On this evidence there is some co-relation between shots and goals. Arbroath and Partick lead both the charts and they are the highest scorers in the division.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Top of Board  |  Forum List  |  Threaded View   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 


Rows: 0
 Forum List  |  Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
 Remember my login:
   
 Forgot Your Password?
Enter your email address or user name below and a new password will be sent to the email address associated with your profile.
Security : type 'pars' in the box:
email:
© 2021-- DAFC.net