Who has the biggest impact on the team? (Attackers)

[PorterBoy]

I know there are a hell of a lot of variables and it doesn't mean anything substantial but I thought it'd be interesting to see how many we score and how many we concede when each player is on the pitch - it can't all be coincidental can it? This is just for this season (12/13) up to now, in all competitions.

I've only done this for the attackers of the squad so far but I may do it for midfielders and defenders too if people are interested. I understand that Blackman is used as a winger nowadays but I felt I should include him.

Not sure if anyone else is interested but here are my findings:

Nick Blackman
2565 Minutes Played, 46 Goals For, 24 Goals Against
Goal Differential = +22
Minutes per 'Goal For' = 55.76
Minutes per 'Goal Against' = 106.88


Shaun Miller
1048 Minutes Played, 24 Goals For, 13 Goals Against
Goal Differential = +11
Minutes per 'Goal For' = 43.67
Minutes per 'Goal Against' = 80.62


Chris Porter
1038 Minutes Played, 16 Goals For, 13 Goals Against
Goal Differential = +3
Minutes per 'Goal For' = 64.88
Minutes per 'Goal Against' = 79.85


Dave Kitson
976 Minutes Played, 16 Goals For, 8 Goals Against
Goal Differential = +8
Minutes per 'Goal For' = 61
Minutes per 'Goal Against' = 122


John Cofie (I know he doesn't play for us anymore but it's still interesting.)
778 Minutes Played, 15 Goals For, 9 Goals Against
Goal Differential = +6
Minutes per 'Goal For' = 51.87
Minutes per 'Goal Against' = 86.44


Richard Cresswell
430 Minutes Played, 8 Goals For, 3 Goals Against
Goal Differential = +5
Minutes per 'Goal For' = 53.75
Minutes per 'Goal Against' = 143.33


Joe Ironside
89 Minutes Played, 7 Goals For, 0 Goals Against
Goal Differential = +7
Minutes per 'Goal For' = 12.71
Minutes per 'Goal Against' = Undefined due to there being no goals against

And not forgetting...

Diego De Girolamo
18 Minutes Played, 1 Goal For, 0 Goals Against
Goal Differential = +1
Minutes per 'Goal For' = 18
Minutes per 'Goal Against' = Undefined due to there being no goals against

-----------------------------------

Make of all that what you will! If there are any mistakes, please let me know.

Oh and hi by the way. I'm gonna be looking to post more often now after being a 'reader' for quite a while.

Hope it's a good year to be a blade!

EDIT: I've shortened it down a little as I gathered that the post was too long and people couldn't be bothered wading through it all. Or maybe it's just not interesting at all to anyone else, aha!

 

[raul]

Dear SellyOak's employer,

Sorry, he's a bit busy for a bit.

Thanks

S24SU

 

[Grecian2000]

Not sure if it means anything at all but top marks for effort.

 

[PorterBoy]

Yeah I guess it isn't anything too significant but I know there's people out there that like to see statistics of any kind. I was thinking to myself that it was pointless as I was halfway through compiling the data but I hate not finishing things off.

Thanks for taking a look anyway!

 

[Kenilworth]

Yeah I guess it isn't anything too significant but I know there's people out there that like to see statistics of any kind. I was thinking to myself that it was pointless as I was halfway through compiling the data but I hate not finishing things off.

At least you probably have the OCD post of the week there Porters.
Nice stuff feller.

 

[SwissBlade]

Welcome PorterBoy

Not sure I understand it fully, first day back at work and not fully functioning and 17:44!

Is it better to have a higher or lower Minutes per goal for/ against?

Presumably:
Against it is the higher figure that we're looking for as its longest time between goals
For would be a lower figure then...

And for Ironside/Diego, surely there is a defined figure against, because we haven't conceded therefore the figures would be 89/18

 

[PorterBoy]

Welcome PorterBoy

Not sure I understand it fully, first day back at work and not fully functioning and 17:44!

Is it better to have a higher or lower Minutes per goal for/ against?

Presumably:
Against it is the higher figure that we're looking for as its longest time between goals
For would be a lower figure then...

And for Ironside/Diego, surely there is a defined figure against, because we haven't conceded therefore the figures would be 89/18

Hi SwissBlade

It's best to have a lower 'Minutes per goals for'. This stat basically indicates how many minutes on average it takes for the team to score whilst that specific player is on the pitch.

The 'Minutes per goals against' however is the opposite as it indicates how many minutes on average it takes for the team to concede whilst they're on the pitch.

Granted - it isn't worded perfectly - apologies for that!

There would be a defined figure for the two youngsters if the team had conceded only 1 goal whilst they'd been on the pitch, but not for 0.

Let's take Ironside as an example:

The team haven't conceded whilst he's been on the pitch.
He's been on the pitch for 89 minutes in total.
For all the others, I found out the minutes per goal conceded by doing the following formula:

Time on the pitch/Goals conceded whilst on pitch = Minutes per goal conceded

You can't divide a number by zero therefore it's undefined. If they had conceded 1 then it would be 89 minutes per goal conceded, like you said.

To put it simply: Ironside is a great sub to have on the bench! So far anyway...

 

[Robbie]

Well, the stats show we should have Diego and Ironside up front Guaranteed success.

It does show that Ironside has been used when we need to pull something out of the hat.
It also shows that we have gone a bit more attacking with Miller in the team, and when Cresswell has been in that we have been closing a game out.

Top marks for effort.

Do you include extra time minutes in these ratios?

 

[moDtheGod]

Flynn please!

 

[Pinchy]

Don't need statistics. Dave Kitson is having a crucial impact, on and off the pitch. A great Pro and still a class act.

 

[boo radley]

Don't need statistics. Dave Kitson is having a crucial impact, on and off the pitch. A great Pro and still a class act.

You used to say that about Monty.

 

[Bradford Blade]

Given the title of the lead post, I'd have to say it's us (i.e. the bread 'n' butter who sit there moaning each and every game )

Blades For Life!

 

[Geordie Blade]

Top effort! I'd like to see the average goals scored / conceded per game (i.e. per 90 minutes), so that they can be easily compared. Since I asked...

Blackman: 1.61 scored, 0.84 conceded (net = 0.77)
Miller: 2.06 scored, 1.12 conceded (net = 0.94)
Porter: 1.39 scored, 1.13 conceded (net = 0.26)
Kitson: 1.48 scored, 0.74 conceded (net = 0.74)
Cofie: 1.74 scored, 1.04 conceded (net = 0.69)
Cresswell: 1.67 scored, 0.63 conceded (net = 1.05)
Ironside: 7.08 scored, 0.00 conceded (net = 7.08)
De Girolamo: 5.00 scored, 0.00 conceded (net = 5.00)

So, science tells us that if Ironside played, we'd win every game 7-0

Obviously the stats for Ironside and De Girolamo are based on very brief appearances, so we can't read much into that. The others all looks fairly similar, with the exception of Porter. Perhaps Miller and Cresswell can claim to have an edge over the others.

The main drawbacks with this sort of analysis are:

1. It ignores the quality of opponents;
2. There are many confounding factors (i.e. two players might be more likely to play together, so we can't tell who the 'results' are attributable to);
3. Some players (arguably Porter, although I haven't looked at the stats) might be picked for the tough away games, where we play only one up front, which would bias their record;
4. They are all fairly small 'sample sizes' and subject to a lot of random (i.e. unexplainable) variation.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I've only done this for the attackers of the squad so far but I may do it for midfielders and defenders too if people are interested.

Good post! How about our record when McAllister, Williams or Cresswell was played in wide midfield?

 

[BrooklynBlade]

I wouldn't mind seeing the numbers for the defenders. Thanks for this PorterBoy!