Emotions aside, how have we performed based on chances created and conceded?

[elevengoats]

I want to talk about our performance. Not my feelings about the performance but the actual stats explaining our performance. Our manager keeps talking about us getting unlucky with missing chances. That is true to some extent but then I went and checked how many (and what quality) chances we have created. Thankfully there is a metric called xG (the sum of all chance probabilities in all games this season). So for example if there is a chance that players based on historical records will convert in 1 out of 5 times, xG is 20% or 0.2.

What do you think I found when I looked at xG created (excl penalties) by team this season? Yep, we are pretty poor but not as poor as I was expecting. We are 7th and not that that far behind the 3rd (behind nevertheless).

1. Rangers 22.12
2. Celtic 21.12
3. Motherwell 14.23
4. Kilmarnock 12.54
5. St. Mirren 12.32
6. St.Johnstone 11.67
7. Hibernian 11.15
8. Hearts 10.91
9. Livingston 9.88
10. Ross County 9.09
11. Aberdeen 8.75
12. Hamilton 5.41

Then I looked at chances conceded and we are really poor in this department. xG conceded (excl penalties):

1. Celtic 5.53
2. Rangers 5.99
3. Motherwell 11.61
4. Kilmarnock 11.73
5. St. Mirren 12.12
6. Hearts 12.25
7. St. Johnstone 13.62
8. Aberdeen 13.50
9. Livingston 14.39
10. Hibernian 15.97
11. Ross County 16.14
12. Hamilton 16.33


So emotions aside, and luck aside (Hecky keeps talking about missing chances etc.), we are simply not creating enough and giving away way too many chances. Our form has been way outside the top 6. We are probably slightly lower than we should be in terms of points but only slightly. Journalists should not allow our manager to get away by complaining about getting unlucky.

I know I might not be saying anything new that people didn’t feel anyway but at least for me this is the first time I see advanced performance statistics confirming these feelings.

* Note: I used ModernFitba as the source for xG stats.

[Hibee Mac]

I want to talk about our performance. Not my feelings about the performance but the actual stats explaining our performance. Our manager keeps talking about us getting unlucky with missing chances. That is true to some extent but then I went and checked how many (and what quality) chances we have created. Thankfully there is a metric called xG (the sum of all chance probabilities in all games this season). So for example if there is a chance that players based on historical records will convert in 1 out of 5 times, xG is 20% or 0.2.

What do you think I found when I looked at xG created (excl penalties) by team this season? Yep, we are pretty poor but not as poor as I was expecting. We are 7th and not that that far behind the 3rd (behind nevertheless).

1. Rangers 22.12
2. Celtic 21.12
3. Motherwell 14.23
4. Kilmarnock 12.54
5. St. Mirren 12.32
6. St.Johnstone 11.67
7. Hibernian 11.15
8. Hearts 10.91
9. Livingston 9.88
10. Ross County 9.09
11. Aberdeen 8.75
12. Hamilton 5.41

Then I looked at chances conceded and we are really poor in this department. xG conceded (excl penalties):

1. Celtic 5.53
2. Rangers 5.99
3. Motherwell 11.61
4. Kilmarnock 11.73
5. St. Mirren 12.12
6. Hearts 12.25
7. St. Johnstone 13.62
8. Aberdeen 13.50
9. Livingston 14.39
10. Hibernian 15.97
11. Ross County 16.14
12. Hamilton 16.33


So emotions aside, and luck aside (Hecky keeps talking about missing chances etc.), we are simply not creating enough and giving away way too many chances. Our form has been way outside the top 6. We are probably slightly lower than we should be in terms of points but only slightly. Journalists should not allow our manager to get away by complaining about getting unlucky.

I know I might not be saying anything new that people didn’t feel anyway but at least for me this is the first time I see advanced performance statistics confirming these feelings.

* Note: I used ModernFitba as the source for xG stats.

A very good point well made.

I just finished watching the Chris Maxwell press conference where he continually spraffs the same nonsence as the manager about being unlucky and playing really well but not getting the rub of the green. Nonsense, this is one of the worst Hibs teams in memory and some grim football to watch.

The stats seem to go some way towards backing that up.

[basehibby]

I want to talk about our performance. Not my feelings about the performance but the actual stats explaining our performance. Our manager keeps talking about us getting unlucky with missing chances. That is true to some extent but then I went and checked how many (and what quality) chances we have created. Thankfully there is a metric called xG (the sum of all chance probabilities in all games this season). So for example if there is a chance that players based on historical records will convert in 1 out of 5 times, xG is 20% or 0.2.

What do you think I found when I looked at xG created (excl penalties) by team this season? Yep, we are pretty poor but not as poor as I was expecting. We are 7th and not that that far behind the 3rd (behind nevertheless).

1. Rangers 22.12
2. Celtic 21.12
3. Motherwell 14.23
4. Kilmarnock 12.54
5. St. Mirren 12.32
6. St.Johnstone 11.67
7. Hibernian 11.15
8. Hearts 10.91
9. Livingston 9.88
10. Ross County 9.09
11. Aberdeen 8.75
12. Hamilton 5.41

Then I looked at chances conceded and we are really poor in this department. xG conceded (excl penalties):

1. Celtic 5.53
2. Rangers 5.99
3. Motherwell 11.61
4. Kilmarnock 11.73
5. St. Mirren 12.12
6. Hearts 12.25
7. St. Johnstone 13.62
8. Aberdeen 13.50
9. Livingston 14.39
10. Hibernian 15.97
11. Ross County 16.14
12. Hamilton 16.33


So emotions aside, and luck aside (Hecky keeps talking about missing chances etc.), we are simply not creating enough and giving away way too many chances. Our form has been way outside the top 6. We are probably slightly lower than we should be in terms of points but only slightly. Journalists should not allow our manager to get away by complaining about getting unlucky.

I know I might not be saying anything new that people didn’t feel anyway but at least for me this is the first time I see advanced performance statistics confirming these feelings.

* Note: I used ModernFitba as the source for xG stats.

From what I've seen there HAS been some welcome improvement over the last four games - which has pretty much coincided with the recruitment of Halberg as it goes. I've got to qualify that though. The improvement has seen our performances progress from ABYSMAL to what could be described as DECENT.

Early season we just seemed to be letting the opposition line up to have chance after chance against us. The team was just set up wrong and our defence was woefully exposed. We have tightened up thank **** - although still seem nervous as a bunch of kittens as soon as we take the lead!

Up front we remain toothless - which could in my opinion be changed somewhat if you gave Doidge and Kamberi a run playing together

[B.H.F.C]

A very good point well made.

I just finished watching the Chris Maxwell press conference where he continually spraffs the same nonsence as the manager about being unlucky and playing really well but not getting the rub of the green. Nonsense, this is one of the worst Hibs teams in memory and some grim football to watch.

The stats seem to go some way towards backing that up.

It concerns me that the players think they’re doing all right. I don’t think we have any standards or demands.

As much as they were ‘frustrated’ last week, I bet most of them thought it wasn’t a bad point away from home, dodgy pitch etc.

[B.H.F.C]

From what I've seen there HAS been some welcome improvement over the last four games - which has pretty much coincided with the recruitment of Halberg as it goes. I've got to qualify that though. The improvement has seen our performances progress from ABYSMAL to what could be described as DECENT.

Early season we just seemed to be letting the opposition line up to have chance after chance against us. The team was just set up wrong and our defence was woefully exposed. We have tightened up thank **** - although still seem nervous as a bunch of kittens as soon as we take the lead!

Up front we remain toothless - which could in my opinion be changed somewhat if you gave Doidge and Kamberi a run playing together

The point on the defence is fair. Having a more settled back four has helped as well I think.

[Speedy]

Doidge probably explains any variance in chances creates and chances converted.

Whether that 'bad luck' will continue is yet to be determined but if we were as good as we should be then we'd be an unlucky mid table, not an 'unlucky' 2nd bottom.

[Lunatic]

Do you know what's most worrying about these statistics? The only team below us is actually above us in both categories. So, if we're talking of bad luck, st Johnstone are likely due some improved results if they regress to the mean (in shot conversion and or goal prevention), as one would expect.....

[matty_f]

I'd be interested to see how the stats looked if you took out the Rangers game (and to make the comparison fair, do the same for the other teams).

That one match will skew our stats, especially the defensive ones, because we were so bad and the defeat was so heavy, significantly without necessarily giving a representation of how we’ve played in the other games.

We barely gave Aberdeen, Hamilton, Hearts etc a handful of chances across those games but probably have Rangers upwards of 20, so it’ll have has a massive impact.

[lyonhibs]

I think Stevie Wonder could've told you we're conceding more chances than we're creating on average this season, a cursory glance at the league table reveals that. Allied to our "strikers" habitually making a dog's dinner of the chances we do create and it's a toxic mix that will soon, surely, result in a taxi for Heckingbottom.

[JimBHibees]

It concerns me that the players think they’re doing all right. I don’t think we have any standards or demands.

As much as they were ‘frustrated’ last week, I bet most of them thought it wasn’t a bad point away from home, dodgy pitch etc.

They will think they are doing alright based on the caveat they should have beaten both Aberdeen and Hamilton. 3 points in they games allied to the point v Celtic and beating Killie in the cup would actually look like a decent run. Their mindset will be quite rightly from their perspective we are unbeaten in 4.

[chrisski33]

I'd rather just see us win some games!

[elevengoats]

I'd rather just see us win some games!

Everyone would. You need foundation to become consistent at winning games. xG stats show that we haven't had this foundation this season so far.

[elevengoats]

I'd be interested to see how the stats looked if you took out the Rangers game (and to make the comparison fair, do the same for the other teams).

That one match will skew our stats, especially the defensive ones, because we were so bad and the defeat was so heavy, significantly without necessarily giving a representation of how we’ve played in the other games.

We barely gave Aberdeen, Hamilton, Hearts etc a handful of chances across those games but probably have Rangers upwards of 20, so it’ll have has a massive impact.

I will see if I can create a 'performance table' by calculating how many points each team should have got by comparing xG created and xG conceded in each individual game. Will see if such stats are available but would give a view on the 'true' position in the table purely based on the quality of chances created and conceded in each game (excluding the luck factor at missing good chances and scoring from impossible positions). My expectation is that we will see that Hibs haven't been great but who knows... maybe it really was the Rangers game skewing the hell out of these stats.

[matty_f]

I will see if I can create a 'performance table' by calculating how many points each team should have got by comparing xG created and xG conceded in each individual game. Will see if such stats are available but would give a view on the 'true' position in the table purely based on the quality of chances created and conceded in each game (excluding the luck factor at missing good chances and scoring from impossible positions). My expectation is that we will see that Hibs haven't been great but who knows... maybe it really was the Rangers game skewing the hell out of these stats.

It would be interesting, this is the thing with stats - they give you loads of questions and you can play with them to get the answers.

Clearly there's an argument that the Rangers game shouldn't be removed because it happened and so should be reflected, but imho it was an anomaly, and so the impact it has on the overall stats is disproportionate and means you can't really tell how we did in the other games accurately.

[elevengoats]

Okay, so I looked at Hibs vs Hamilton detailed stats.

What Heckingbottom said:
“There was some real good play, especially in the first half, and we could not put the game to bed. That’s the overriding feeling from the game. (...) We should have had the three points. I want to be sitting here talking about players who have performed well, and I’m not, which is a frustrating thing.”

What actually happened:
Hibs created xG of 1.05 (so basically enough to score 1 goal) and Hamilton created xG of 0.97 (again, enough to score 1 goal).
What was the fair result based on chances created? 1:1. What was the actual result? 1:1


We got exactly what we deserved against Hamilton. No more and no less. I want journalists to challenge Heckingbottom on this.

[500miles]

Okay, so I looked at Hibs vs Hamilton detailed stats.

What Heckingbottom said:
“There was some real good play, especially in the first half, and we could not put the game to bed. That’s the overriding feeling from the game. (...) We should have had the three points. I want to be sitting here talking about players who have performed well, and I’m not, which is a frustrating thing.”

What actually happened:
Hibs created xG of 1.05 (so basically enough to score 1 goal) and Hamilton created xG of 0.97 (again, enough to score 1 goal).
What was the fair result based on chances created? 1:1. What was the actual result? 1:1


We got exactly what we deserved against Hamilton. No more and no less. I want journalists to challenge Heckingbottom on this.

Even if Horgans sitter was the only other chance we made in the first half, we still scored another. How does that translate into 1.05xG?

Plus we should have had 1, maybe 2 pens. Does that factor in?

[matty_f]

Okay, so I looked at Hibs vs Hamilton detailed stats.

What Heckingbottom said:
“There was some real good play, especially in the first half, and we could not put the game to bed. That’s the overriding feeling from the game. (...) We should have had the three points. I want to be sitting here talking about players who have performed well, and I’m not, which is a frustrating thing.”

What actually happened:
Hibs created xG of 1.05 (so basically enough to score 1 goal) and Hamilton created xG of 0.97 (again, enough to score 1 goal).
What was the fair result based on chances created? 1:1. What was the actual result? 1:1


We got exactly what we deserved against Hamilton. No more and no less. I want journalists to challenge Heckingbottom on this.

How does the fact they had a penalty affect the stats? I would have thought that would be an expected goal opportunity.

[elevengoats]

How does the fact they had a penalty affect the stats? I would have thought that would be an expected goal opportunity.
Massively, people convert penalties on average at a rate of 76% or something (76% in England, might be slightly different in Scotland but probably fairly similar), so typically penalty would give you xG of 0.76. I don't have individual stats unfortunately for Horgan's chance and other chances but it's not like players always score them - they would typically be converted at a rate of 30% or so. I would imagine there were smaller chances as well with 2%, 5% probabilities etc. Either way, the total xG Hibs got (including the chance for the goal, Horgan's chance and other chances) was 1.05. Hamilton created way less if we exclude the penalty (a fair result would have been 1:0 Hibs in case there was no penalty). But there was.

[elevengoats]

Even if Horgans sitter was the only other chance we made in the first half, we still scored another. How does that translate into 1.05xG?

Plus we should have had 1, maybe 2 pens. Does that factor in?

Potential mistakes by referees don't factor in, no. So yes, Heckingbottom can definitely blame referees but I'm afraid he can't really blame missed chances.

[matty_f]

Potential mistakes by referees don't factor in, no. So yes, Heckingbottom can definitely blame referees but I'm afraid he can't really blame missed chances.

He sort of can, though - if you take the argument that the penalty happened and so should be counted (which I agree with), our goal didn't come from a chance that would have been a high expected goal opportunity whereas the chance missed by Horgan would definitely have come from one, so there is an argument to say missed chances cost us.

[elevengoats]

He sort of can, though - if you take the argument that the penalty happened and so should be counted (which I agree with), our goal didn't come from a chance that would have been a high expected goal opportunity whereas the chance missed by Horgan would definitely have come from one, so there is an argument to say missed chances cost us.

Haha that is true. But that's just not being honest about things. Then he would be saying - yeah, it's logical that we score from 5% chances and it's unlucky we are missing 50% chances. The truth is, these things tend to even out. You might score from a low probability and then miss from a high probability. The sum of all probabilities tells you what you really deserve. In this case, we deserved 1 goal and got 1 goal. :D

[matty_f]

Haha that is true. But that's just not being honest about things. Then he would be saying - yeah, it's logical that we score from 5% chances and it's unlucky we are missing 50% chances. The truth is, these things tend to even out. You might score from a low probability and then miss from a high probability. The sum of all probabilities tells you what you really deserve. In this case, we deserved 1 goal and got 1 goal. :D

I know, but that's stats for you.

Great thread, by the way - very interesting. :aok:

[wookie70]

I think Mallan scores the type of chance against Hamilton more times than he misses. Kamberi and Doidge in a one on one will be afforded the same ratio but I fully expect Flo to maybe score twice as many as Doidge. Very anecdotal but thestats are fairly blunt albeit very interesting. He is exceptional when he has time to strike the ball. What would our xG stats look like over the last 4 games compared to our competitors

[B.H.F.C]

They will think they are doing alright based on the caveat they should have beaten both Aberdeen and Hamilton. 3 points in they games allied to the point v Celtic and beating Killie in the cup would actually look like a decent run. Their mindset will be quite rightly from their perspective we are unbeaten in 4.

It’s fine thinking we’re unbeaten in four, because we are. They shouldn’t be thinking we’re doing all right though, because we’re not.

[HFC 0-7]

It would be interesting, this is the thing with stats - they give you loads of questions and you can play with them to get the answers.

Clearly there's an argument that the Rangers game shouldn't be removed because it happened and so should be reflected, but imho it was an anomaly, and so the impact it has on the overall stats is disproportionate and means you can't really tell how we did in the other games accurately.

That’s a tricky one, removing certain outcomes because of anomalies. Often when conducting analysis you can take out the best and worse results, removing just one can skew outcomes. We can’t start taking out games because of penalty decisions against unless we take the ones out that go for us. We could remove the rangers game but should we then remove the st Mirren game. We could take out the Hamilton game because we should have had a penalty but should we remove the Celtic game as well as they should have one.

With a game like football with so many variables you would need a quantum computer to properly analyse it!

[Ozyhibby]

Stats are great back up for what we all see with our eyes. We are not very good and deserve to be 11th in the league.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ancient hibee]

That’s a tricky one, removing certain outcomes because of anomalies. Often when conducting analysis you can take out the best and worse results, removing just one can skew outcomes. We can’t start taking out games because of penalty decisions against unless we take the ones out that go for us. We could remove the rangers game but should we then remove the st Mirren game. We could take out the Hamilton game because we should have had a penalty but should we remove the Celtic game as well as they should have one.

With a game like football with so many variables you would need a quantum computer to properly analyse it!
Only one game is an anomaly,the St Mirren game,because we won it.

[basehibby]

I'd be interested to see how the stats looked if you took out the Rangers game (and to make the comparison fair, do the same for the other teams).

That one match will skew our stats, especially the defensive ones, because we were so bad and the defeat was so heavy, significantly without necessarily giving a representation of how we’ve played in the other games.

We barely gave Aberdeen, Hamilton, Hearts etc a handful of chances across those games but probably have Rangers upwards of 20, so it’ll have has a massive impact.

I think you'll find that the likes of Motherwell, Killie and St Johnstone had loads of shooty in chances against Hibs and all could have scored more than they did. Our form has picked up a bit with three creditable and deserved draws. But it could scarcely have got worse - the stats don't lie!

[hibbydog]

Cold facts don’t lie. It proves that We are a poor side.

So.....all this nonsense from the manager about being unlucky has to stop. You make your own luck. It’s as if he believes the point of the game is to create chances and the rest is down to luck?

Totally soft excuse. Really obvious point but, there is a skill in keeping your composure and a technique in choosing the right option at the crucial moment. That turns chances into goals.

The other point is that you can’t be unlucky in all your games. Sooner or later it’ll average out and over a season you’ll more or less end up where you deserve to be.

[where'stheslope]

Cold facts don’t lie. It proves that We are a poor side.

So.....all this nonsense from the manager about being unlucky has to stop. You make your own luck. It’s as if he believes the point of the game is to create chances and the rest is down to luck?

Totally soft excuse. Really obvious point but, there is a skill in keeping your composure and a technique in choosing the right option at the crucial moment. That turns chances into goals.

The other point is that you can’t be unlucky in all your games. Sooner or later it’ll average out and over a season you’ll more or less end up where you deserve to be.
The manager does not play on the park, so how can he be berated for saying bad luck?
Its the players who are not playing to their potential, they are the ones who can make the difference on the park.
When a manager sends out a team on the park, he expects if there is a problem area the team on the park will talk to each other and block the problem.
To many players just now are just treading water, they need to step up and be vocal and drive on their team mates!!!!