I suspect the next League Two/League One side with a vacancy would be happy to have him. Though he would probably be working on a far lower budget than he was at the Tommy Robinson Arena.
It's interesting, right enough, but I don't quite understand the table. Is a negative score - and Stoke's is massively lower than even the next team up - the indicator of bad luck or does the table just show the difference between shots on target for and against, which can be then used to compare with performance in the league to determine whether teams have been lucky or unlucky? If it's the former, very bad luck Stoke and Jones. If the latter, then not hard to see why they're bottom and the club wanted to change things up.
I think the PDO ranking is based on who has had the highest proportion of shots on target (for) go in, and the lowest proportion of shots on target (against) go in - the assumption is that luck determines whether each shot on target is saved or not.
Having a good goalkeeper would make you ‘lucky’ in these stats, as would having a low number of easy to save shots from further out.
I'm pretty sure that Stoke were terribly underperforming compared to their xG (which isn't nearly as nerdy as it sounds, btw). But then I suppose that would raise questions about their finishing deficiencies and the reasons for them.
Comments
I found this quite interesting:
I suspect the next League Two/League One side with a vacancy would be happy to have him. Though he would probably be working on a far lower budget than he was at the Tommy Robinson Arena.
Is there a table to show which teams 'make their own luck'?
It's interesting, right enough, but I don't quite understand the table. Is a negative score - and Stoke's is massively lower than even the next team up - the indicator of bad luck or does the table just show the difference between shots on target for and against, which can be then used to compare with performance in the league to determine whether teams have been lucky or unlucky? If it's the former, very bad luck Stoke and Jones. If the latter, then not hard to see why they're bottom and the club wanted to change things up.
I think the PDO ranking is based on who has had the highest proportion of shots on target (for) go in, and the lowest proportion of shots on target (against) go in - the assumption is that luck determines whether each shot on target is saved or not.
Having a good goalkeeper would make you ‘lucky’ in these stats, as would having a low number of easy to save shots from further out.
I'm pretty sure that Stoke were terribly underperforming compared to their xG (which isn't nearly as nerdy as it sounds, btw). But then I suppose that would raise questions about their finishing deficiencies and the reasons for them.
Oh I’m not quite right, the table is based on PDO less xPDO rather than just the PDO itself.
In any case, I’m not convinced that it is really a good measure of who has been lucky or unlucky.
There are better models, as Mark points out, but I'd never seen that one before. Always interested in these newfangled ways of analysing the game!
is there analysis on overpaid members of the squad refusing to do what the new manager says and the board not backing him?
I believe that's called the PDS (prima donna scale).
Any table that has us with similar stats to Liverpool, City and Leicester this season can't be taken as a bad thing
So who in League one do we think is in danger from the threat of a lurking Rev? Kenny Jackett?
I was really enjoying this season but now that I've found out we're unsustainably outperforming our xPDO it has pretty much ruined it
Might not go again
If we win by penalties or own goals this weekend it will leave a bitter taste....
So we're on top of the "Luck" table?
I must have missed all these lucky breaks we're getting!?
Surely combining goals per shots on target and your saves per shots on target just measures how good your attackers and goalkeeper are?