stats on penalties

[blade too long]

in league one last season , all 3 who went up got double figures

united got 4
shrewsbury got 0
http://www.statbunker.com/competitions/ForPenalty?comp_id=452
get the odd decision means getting more points

 

[LoughboroBlade]

in league one last season , all 3 who went up got double figures

united got 4
shrewsbury got 0
http://www.statbunker.com/competitions/ForPenalty?comp_id=452
get the odd decision means getting more points

Is it a case of getting the odd decision, or playing the type of football resulting in more decisions having to be made?

 

[Punk Blade]

I'm currently reading a fascinating book called Soccernomics that says the exact opposite. They reckon that getting more penalties doesn't necessarily mean you win more matches, more likely a by-product of winning more matches. To get a penalty you need to have the ball in the opposition's box, the teams at the top will be attacking more and therefore have a higher chance of winning penalties. These teams would very likely have won the same points with or without the penalties. We know how only the relegated teams could compete with our low goal tally, so that should explain why we only got four.

If you wanted to argue that we need 5-6 stonewallers to get one given, that I would agree with. Although that would mean an additional 16+ penalties which we would surely have won some more points from and would therefore disprove my first paragraph good book, though!

 

[Darren]

I'm currently reading a fascinating book called Soccernomics that says the exact opposite. They reckon that getting more penalties doesn't necessarily mean you win more matches, more likely a by-product of winning more matches. To get a penalty you need to have the ball in the opposition's box, the teams at the top will be attacking more and therefore have a higher chance of winning penalties. These teams would very likely have won the same points with or without the penalties. We know how only the relegated teams could compete with our low goal tally, so that should explain why we only got four.

If you wanted to argue that we need 5-6 stonewallers to get one given, that I would agree with. Although that would mean an additional 16+ penalties which we would surely have won some more points from and would therefore disprove my first paragraph good book, though!

Next! Breaking news that the Pope is Catholic!

It hardly takes any detailed analysis to tell you that the more time you spend in the other team's penalty area, the more likely you are to get penalties. Hence the more successful teams will obviously bee awarded more penalties.

 

[Bladepicker]

I still can't believe Freeman didn't get a penalty at Crawley. Probably the biggest 'stonewaller' I have ever seen not given, even worse than Luton at Old Trafford (the Jamaican, not the football team).

I may be biased but the worst penalty decision I have ever seen given was against us. Tom Cowan clearly headed the ball back to Tracey in injury time at upton park, his hands were no where near the ball and yet the ref gave the pen which they duly equilised with. Still makes me sick to this day.

 

[Darren]

I still can't believe Freeman didn't get a penalty at Crawley. Probably the biggest 'stonewaller' I have ever seen not given, even worse than Luton at Old Trafford (the Jamaican, not the football team).

I may be biased but the worst penalty decision I have ever seen given was against us. Tom Cowan clearly headed the ball back to Tracey in injury time at upton park, his hands were no where near the ball and yet the ref gave the pen which they duly equilised with. Still makes me sick to this day.

21/12/91. We had had Beesley sent off for swearing at the Ref, yet Deane put us 1-0 up with about 5 mins left. As you say, the dodgy pen was given in injury time whihc Julian Dicks scored for a 1-1 draw.

The most dodgy not given decision in our favour must be when Paddy grabbed the Hull player's ankle and pulled him over in that game on 8/4/06.

 

[Punk Blade]

Next! Breaking news that the Pope is Catholic!

It hardly takes any detailed analysis to tell you that the more time you spend in the other team's penalty area, the more likely you are to get penalties. Hence the more successful teams will obviously bee awarded more penalties.

Yeeees. That's the point. The more successful teams will be awarded more penalties because they are successful. Not that the more successful teams are more successful because they are awarded more penalties. The suggestion is that being awarded penalties doesn't give you any extra help, which is counter-intuitive (and quite interesting). It was a counter to the point in the first post.

 

[Darren]

Yeeees. That's the point. The more successful teams will be awarded more penalties because they are successful. Not that the more successful teams are more successful because they are awarded more penalties. The suggestion is that being awarded penalties doesn't give you any extra help, which is counter-intuitive (and quite interesting). It was a counter to the point in the first post.

I can't see that it's counter intuitive at all. If Shittown City spend 80% of their time in their own half, they will obviously get fewer penalties than Superduper United who spend 80% of their time in the opposition's half.

 

[Punk Blade]

I can't see that it's counter intuitive at all. If Shittown City spend 80% of their time in their own half, they will obviously get fewer penalties than Superduper United who spend 80% of their time in the opposition's half.

The counter-intuitive part is that having loads of penalties doesn't necessarily help you win, that's why it was in the same sentence.

Superduper United getting penalties is a by-product of them winning, not a cause of them winning (which I understood to be the point in the first post - these teams are at the top because they get more decisions).

 

[Darren]

The counter-intuitive part is that having loads of penalties doesn't necessarily help you win, that's why it was in the same sentence.

Superduper United getting penalties is a by-product of them winning, not a cause of them winning (which I understood to be the point in the first post - these teams are at the top because they get more decisions).

Yes, I agree with you. My point though is that this is not counter intuitive, it's bleedin' obvious

 

[Punk Blade]

Yes, I agree with you. My point though is that this is not counter intuitive, it's bleedin' obvious

Just to confirm, you think it's fairly intuitive that winning more penalties doesn't help put more points on the board?

 

[Darren]

Just to confirm, you think it's fairly intuitive that winning more penalties doesn't help put more points on the board?

I am saying that it's not counter intuitive that the better team you are the more penalities you will win; winning penalties is caused by you being a good team and good teams will get more points than bad teams.

 

[Punk Blade]

I am saying that it's not counter intuitive that the better team you are the more penalities you will win; winning penalties is caused by you being a good team and good teams will get more points than bad teams.

That's wonderful, but that isn't what I said is counter-intuitive

 

[Darren]

That's wonderful, but that isn't what I said is counter-intuitive

It kind of is

What you seem to be saying is that, if we take penalties out of the equation, it would make no difference. Given that we would be taking penalties out of the equation for all teams and given that the good teams would still be better than the poor teams, that seems to me obvious.

 

[Punk Blade]

It kind of is

What you seem to be saying is that, if we take penalties out of the equation, it would make no difference. Given that we would be taking penalties out of the equation for all teams and given that the good teams would still be better than the poor teams, that seems to me obvious.

Sort of.

Are they good teams because they won more matches, or did they win more matches because they are good? The suggestion in the original post was that some teams at the top may have been higher due to being awarded more penalties, and that some teams further down may have been lower due to being awarded fewer penalties. This is fairly intuitive and I wouldn't laugh at anyone for holding this view. I would probably have held that view a week ago. I thought that this being, statistically, untrue would be an interesting insight.

 

[Darren]

Sort of.

Are they good teams because they won more matches, or did they win more matches because they are good? The suggestion in the original post was that some teams at the top may have been higher due to being awarded more penalties, and that some teams further down may have been lower due to being awarded fewer penalties. This is fairly intuitive and I wouldn't laugh at anyone or holding this view. I would probably have held that view a week ago. I thought that this being, statistically, untrue would be an interesting insight.

The definition of being a "good" team is that you win more matches than teams that are less good, so your first sentence makes no sense

I am not sure how any of this fits in with United's performance in 1991-92 when they finished 9th in the top division and got no penalties

 

[Punk Blade]

The definition of being a "good" team is that you win more matches than teams that are less good, so your first sentence makes no sense

I am not sure how any of this fits in with United's performance in 1991-92 when they finished 9th in the top division and got no penalties

If the definition of a 'good' team is relative to 'less good' teams, how do you define the 'less good' teams?

 

[Darren]

If the definition of a 'good' team is relative to 'less good' teams, how do you define the 'less good' teams?

Via the league table.

I have had this discussion before and it rapidly slides in meta territory. My position is that a "good" team and a "bad" team in football is decided purely in the basis of the league table and it makes no sense to speak of teams being "good" or "bad" in any other way. Others believe there is some kind of Platonic form of "goodness" or "badness" independent of the league table.

 

[Punk Blade]

I am not sure how any of this fits in with United's performance in 1991-92 when they finished 9th in the top division and got no penalties

Oh, and I thought it was obvious that penalties have no bearing on wins/success/league position.

 

[Darren]

Oh, and I thought it was obvious that penalties have no bearing on wins/success/league position.

In the long run, of course....

 

[Punk Blade]

Via the league table.

I have had this discussion before and it rapidly slides in meta territory. My position is that a "good" team and a "bad" team in football is decided purely in the basis of the league table and it makes no sense to speak of teams being "good" or "bad" in any other way. Others believe there is some kind of Platonic form of "goodness" or "badness" independent of the league table.

A team finishes 11th out of 20. They beat the bottom 9 home and away and lose to the top 10 home and away. Good or bad (or 'less good')?

 

[Revolution]

in league one last season , all 3 who went up got double figures

united got 4
shrewsbury got 0
http://www.statbunker.com/competitions/ForPenalty?comp_id=452
get the odd decision means getting more points

Wolves got 7 pens, that's not double figures.

Of the promoted teams:

Wolves scored 89 goals, of which 5 were penalties (they failed to score 2 pens)
Brentford scored 72 goals, of which 7 were penalties (they failed to score 6 pens, which is very poor)
Rotherham scored 86 goals, of which 8 were penalties (they failed to score 2 pens)

We scored 48 goals, of which 4 were pens. We scored them all.

Lack of penalties was not our problem. Lack of goals generally was our problem. We need to score at least 25 more if we're going to go up.

 

[Darren]

A team finishes 11th out of 20. They beat the bottom 9 home and away and lose to the top 10 home and away. Good or bad (or 'less good')?

My point is that there is no independent definition of "good" or "bad" in football, it all depends how you define the rules. The way football operates in this country is that the team finishing higher up the league is deemed to be better than those finishing lower down whatever the results between the clubs.

A lot of it depends on what timescale you look at. Thus in 91-92 when Wednesday finished 3rd and United 9th, they were the better team over the season, despite us beating them twice. However over those two games United were the better team.

 

[Punk Blade]

My point is that there is no independent definition of "good" or "bad" in football, it all depends how you define the rules. The way football operates in this country is that the team finishing higher up the league is deemed to be better than those finishing lower down whatever the results between the clubs.

A lot of it depends on what timescale you look at. Thus in 91-92 when Wednesday finished 3rd and United 9th, they were the better team over the season, despite us beating them twice. However over those two games United were the better team.

If defining 'good' or 'bad' teams is a problem to the debate, why did you bring it up?

All I ever tried to say was that being awarded penalties isn't a cause of success, but a by-product of success. Most people would think that winning more penalties would help you win more matches, but that doesn't really prove to be the case. If that was already obvious to you then well done, gold star for you.

 

[Darren]

If defining 'good' or 'bad' teams is a problem to the debate, why did you bring it up?

All I ever tried to say was that being awarded penalties isn't a cause of success, but a by-product of success. Most people would think that winning more penalties would help you win more matches, but that doesn't really prove to be the case. If that was already obvious to you then well done, gold star for you.

My point was purely that, on the whole you get awarded more penalties if you are a better team (because you spend more time in the opposition penalty area), hence the awarding of penalties is an effect not a cause of being a better team (as defined by the league table).

I just picked you up on your presentation of that as a great insight, when to me it seems bleedin' obvious

 

[Zlatan]

I still can't believe Freeman didn't get a penalty at Crawley. Probably the biggest 'stonewaller' I have ever seen not given, even worse than Luton at Old Trafford (the Jamaican, not the football team).

Surely not as bad as Keith Gillespie away at Reading? That was outrageous.

 

[Bladepicker]

Surely not as bad as Keith Gillespie away at Reading? That was outrageous.

he was barged off the ball in a coming together - while it was a definite penalty - I have seen many similar not given.

While the freeman one, together with the one Darren mentioned Kenny got away with against Hull, where absolutely full on stanewallers with no room for interpretation otherwise by all officials.

 

[Bladepicker]

Wolves got 7 pens, that's not double figures.

Of the promoted teams:

Wolves scored 89 goals, of which 5 were penalties (they failed to score 2 pens)
Brentford scored 72 goals, of which 7 were penalties (they failed to score 6 pens, which is very poor)
Rotherham scored 86 goals, of which 8 were penalties (they failed to score 2 pens)

We scored 48 goals, of which 4 were pens. We scored them all.

Lack of penalties was not our problem. Lack of goals generally was our problem. We need to score at least 25 more if we're going to go up.

As well as missing 6, Brentford also got another penalty that they didn't even get to take!

 

[Silent Blade]

I may be biased but the worst penalty decision I have ever seen given was against us. Tom Cowan clearly headed the ball back to Tracey in injury time at upton park, his hands were no where near the ball and yet the ref gave the pen which they duly equilised with. Still makes me sick to this day.

I remember that. I was sat near Brian Moore (the football commentator) The ref was M.Pierce who always made bad decisions. He was the ref in our 2nd leg play off match at Sunderland in 1998.

 

[Silent Blade]

21/12/91. We had had Beesley sent off for swearing at the Ref, yet Deane put us 1-0 up with about 5 mins left. .

It was Brian Gayle, not Paul Beesley who got sent off