This is an update of a previous post for the 2014/15 Conference season, but replacing the graphics with the new versions I’ve developed.

While I’m really happy that the scatter graphics I’ve been churning out for the past four years continue to be so well-received, I’ve long wished for them to look a bit prettier. During last season, @bootifulgame and I produced an experimental interactive version which looked much nicer and used striped “contours” to better distinguish which teams were performing better than others.

It’s taken me a while to get around to it, but I’ve adapted the code to produce a static version that I’m pretty happy with. You can click any of the graphics to bring up a full-sized version in a new tab.

Shot dominance

I’ll start by looking at how the number of shots taken by each club compares with those they face in return. In this graphic, the average number of shots taken per match by each club is on the horizontal and the average number of shots faced is on the vertical, so bottom right (take plenty, allow few in return) is good while top left (take few, allow plenty) is bad:

Before we look at the position of the clubs, I just wanted to flag what’s changed. The biggest structural difference between this and the old version is that rather than only shading the outlying areas of the graphic, the entire thing is now coloured in using the standard “green = good, red = bad” approach.

The diagonal lines are basically contours where, in this case, the ratio between shots taken and shots faced is the same. The axes are still centred on the average and one of the diagonal lines passes right through it – this is the line where shots taken = shots faced, so everything below it contains teams who take more shots than they face, with the stripes getting greener as they get more dominant, and everything above it contains teams who face more than they take.

• As you’d expect, the top two of Barnet and Bristol Rovers are in the bottom right and the four relegated sides all sit in the top left. Alfreton and Dartford in particular struggled, with each performing worst on one axis and second worst on the other.
• The most entertainment was to be found at Altrincham, who took the third most shots but allowed the fifth most in return. Their attack is particularly interesting, as we’ll see on the next graphic.
• Of the four clubs to make the play-offs, two aren’t in the “best” bottom right quadrant: Eastleigh kept things tight at the back but took a fairly average number of shots, while Forest Green took and faced a fairly average number of shots. As we’ll see below, both profited from taking their chances in front of goal this season.

Attacking

Now let’s look at attacking alone. The horizontal axis stays the same as in the graphic above, but now the vertical shows the average number of shots needed to score each league goal. Therefore bottom right is good (taking lots of shots and needing fewer efforts to convert) and top left is bad:

The contours now show sides who scored goals at the same rate, so clubs in a greener stripe have scored more goals per match and vice versa. For example, Macclesfield and Halifax are on the same line as they both scored 60 goals in 46 matches this season.

• Here we see that Eastleigh were a class apart up front, needing fewer than 5 shots to score each goal – more than 2 fewer than the divisional average – which more than made up for a relatively modest number of chances created. Fellow play-off contenders Forest Green also took their chances well: almost exactly as well as Barnet.
• Only Grimsby carved out more attempts at goal than the champions, but weren’t able to convert them as reliably.
• I mentioned Altrincham above and we can see their frustrating attacking performance here: despite firing in over 11 shots per match they needed more than 9 attempts to score each goal, making them the most wasteful side in the division. If only they – and Kidderminster who were similarly wasteful – had enjoyed better luck in front of goal, they’d have surely bettered their lower mid-table finish.
• Relegated Nuneaton‘s attack didn’t fare much better than those two which, combined with carving out the third fewest chances overall, saw them finish bottom of the pile.

Defending

Finally let’s look at the defensive situation – basically take the above chart and replace the word “taken” for “faced” on both axes. Now top left is good – facing fewer shots and able to soak up more per goal conceded – and bottom right is bad:

The stripes now pick out clubs who have conceded at the same rate, for example Chester and Nuneaton – both on the same line – each conceded 76 times.

• Bristol Rovers‘ impressive defensive performances really stand out here, with Grimsby and Macclesfield also worthy of a mention. All three soaked up plenty of chances for each goal conceded, with Rovers also facing the third fewest in a season that saw just 5 defeats and 34 goals conceded – if only they hadn’t drawn so many matches…
• Again we see Forest Green performing relatively well – albeit comfortably behind the aforementioned three – at keeping shots out, despite facing a relatively average number.
• Eastleigh are again interesting here – allowing opponents fewer attempts than anyone else in the division but also requiring the fewest shots to breach. It’ll be interesting to see if that strategy will work in the play-offs, given that they won just 2 of their 14 matches against clubs finishing in the top 8.
• Poor Alfreton are the outlier at the red end of the graphic – facing over a shot more per match than anyone else this season.