While kinda subjective this is very disheartening at first glance, then again it also makes sense that the defenders who play LCB or CB on the left side would receive the most blame since their LWB or LB was, more often than not, playing out of position or not a left back of any time. I'm sure there are some metrics out there like an inverse of Goals Added but we don't have access to that (maybe reach out to ASA).
Outside of that, I suspect some further standardization would be in order for next year. For the love of all things holy, do not subject yourself to watching all 70 goals against again. Maybe try to do it for each game in 2025.
My suggestion would be to look at each involvement (I'd create a standardized table for each type of error, reaction, positioning, choice, player tracking, etc.) which would have a value of 'potential goal blame'. These involvements would also vary in weight by position (zones?) in the field and number of non-GK players behind the ball (I'd weight this exponentially higher at 0 and 1). After giving each player their dings for each goal involvement, then it would be normalized to a decimal out of 1.
But just I'm a lunatic that's been developing a spreadsheet for schedule toughness based for the past 3 years.
For 2025 I am thinking I will do it game by game in game reviews. That way anyone interested can debate the blame while it's topical.
I get what you're going for with the involvements suggestion, but I guess I'm trying to keep it simple. My original system was just "most to blame" and "second most to blame" but I switched to doing it in fifths since it seemed to work better.
More heavily numerical stuff makes sense to me when it can be applied to all events, not just goals. I believe G+ takes into account things like missed tackles and such, but as I mentioned in my preview I don't find the public defensive stats to be good enough, which may also be why I don't find the G+ numbers for defenders very convincing either.
While kinda subjective this is very disheartening at first glance, then again it also makes sense that the defenders who play LCB or CB on the left side would receive the most blame since their LWB or LB was, more often than not, playing out of position or not a left back of any time. I'm sure there are some metrics out there like an inverse of Goals Added but we don't have access to that (maybe reach out to ASA).
Outside of that, I suspect some further standardization would be in order for next year. For the love of all things holy, do not subject yourself to watching all 70 goals against again. Maybe try to do it for each game in 2025.
My suggestion would be to look at each involvement (I'd create a standardized table for each type of error, reaction, positioning, choice, player tracking, etc.) which would have a value of 'potential goal blame'. These involvements would also vary in weight by position (zones?) in the field and number of non-GK players behind the ball (I'd weight this exponentially higher at 0 and 1). After giving each player their dings for each goal involvement, then it would be normalized to a decimal out of 1.
But just I'm a lunatic that's been developing a spreadsheet for schedule toughness based for the past 3 years.
For 2025 I am thinking I will do it game by game in game reviews. That way anyone interested can debate the blame while it's topical.
I get what you're going for with the involvements suggestion, but I guess I'm trying to keep it simple. My original system was just "most to blame" and "second most to blame" but I switched to doing it in fifths since it seemed to work better.
More heavily numerical stuff makes sense to me when it can be applied to all events, not just goals. I believe G+ takes into account things like missed tackles and such, but as I mentioned in my preview I don't find the public defensive stats to be good enough, which may also be why I don't find the G+ numbers for defenders very convincing either.