Should we have seen Martinelli's return to form coming? - Mailbag
Mailbag part 2, answering your questions on Martinelli's improvement, Rice's role change, Saka vs KdB, schedule adjusted points, and more.
There were so many good questions that I didn’t want to limit this post to only going through just some of them and leaving the rest unanswered. This is the second part of the mailbag that answers the questions that you asked me.
Part 1 is here if you missed it.
We're all in love with Martinelli again. Is there something in his numbers that predates his rich run of scoring two goals that would lead us to believe he has finally turned the corner? - Ongo Gablogian
I do think that the performances were solid from Martinelli to suggest that he had not turned into a pumpkin. He was not playing as well as he had the season before, but it was not nearly as bad as could have believed in some corners where opinion can shift really fast.
This isn’t to say that he was playing so well that Leandro Trossard should not have been starting because that was clearly not the case. Trossard was in a rich vein of form and deserved to finish last season as the starter and provided an impact to repay Mikel Arteta’s trust in him.
Both Adam and I looked at this and concluded that yeah, this isn’t perfect but it wasn’t rising to the level of panic yet.
Here is what Adam wrote at the time, on if he had dropped below the standard.
This is what I wrote, looking more specifically at his finishing and how it had dried up and if there were signs that Arsenal fans should be worried.
Overall, the answer is yes, there were hints in the numbers that he would turn the corner. It is never certain that it will happen, and the smaller chance was there that the bottom could have fallen out.
There are still some things in the numbers that I would like to see improve, most notably being the shot volume but overall he is in line with what he has done the last two seasons but has had the ball find the back of the net.
Are we getting any better at shooting from outside the area? - A is for Arsenal
This is what Arsenal’s open play long (18 yards and further) shot map looked like last season.
They converted 180 shots into 7 goals. It does look like perhaps this was a bit of running cold but not so much that it would suggest a problem. The big issue here is that Arsenal seemed to have too many of their long shots end up blocked with a bit over half (51%) going off a defender before they could even get to the goal frame. Last season Arsenal had just 21% of the long shots end up on target and that is well below average.
This is how things look so far this season for shots over 18 yards away from goal.
Arsenal have already scored more than half of the total they had last season with 4 goals from 18 yards or longer this season. The bigger and probably more important change is that the blocked numbers and on target numbers look much better. Blocked shots have gone from 51% to 26%, on target percentage has gone from just 21% to 37% this season.
The numbers have gone from well above average for shots blocked (35% last season for league average) to below average. While on target percentage has followed a similar but less extreme improvement compared to league average (31%).
The sample is too small to say with confidence right now, but the signs are positive that the team has done better with their selection of what long shots they are taking and have executed them better so far.
I am super curious about Declan Rice -- is he playing the same role he played West Ham? How does he compare statistically? Why isn't he used as a 6? Arsenal have been one of the stingiest defenses in the world since he came in, but what is it about him that allows that? - BuchMath
I do like this question and I will answer it in phases starting with the role. I think the answer this season is clearly no. He has played a significantly different role, playing further up the field as an advanced “8” but one that has defensive responsibility all over the field, especially in the defensive half of the field.
Last season looking just at the heat maps, it looks like what you would expect to see from a player that is a double pivot, and he shaded to the right slightly in possession but to the left out of possession. This makes sense, given that for a significant part of the season Arsenal would create their two in midfield with the left back inverting, pushing Rice to the right.
At West Ham his heat maps show that he did not have the same freedom to move from the left to the right, looking a lot more like a left midfielder here that you would expect to see a matching pivot for the right that partners this.
Next let’s take a look at how he compares statistically last season with Arsenal vs what he produced at West Ham.
Switching to Arsenal, he had to do less defensive work, and took on a bigger role advancing the ball. His efficiency, final third entries, progressive passing, creative numbers, and overall value added on the ball were all up.
This suggests he is still a very similar overall player, he just didn’t have to be, nor did he have the same opportunities, to do the be everywhere defender but was able to add a bit more on the ball. Looking at the two teams and how they played in these two seasons, this makes a lot of sense.
Why isn't he used as a 6?
We will find out more the answer to this as the season goes on and the rest of the midfield gets healthy but I think the answer is that because Arsenal have had injuries to the other options further up the field and because Rice is a very good player, he is capable of playing in those spots.
Looking at the midfielders that Arsenal have had healthy to start the season picking between putting Rice, Thomas Partey, or Jorginho higher up the field, picking Rice is the logical decision here.
When Mikel Merino and Martin Odegaard are healthy, and available Rice will return to playing deeper in the games where all three of them play together and this is the first choice three midfielders but with options for rotation.
Statistical comparison between Saka and KDB Eye test tells me they are operating at similar levels. - RamFtbl2024
I don’t know which seasons here so I will pick myself going with last season for KdB and this season for Saka.
This should come with obvious caveats for sample size and that they play different positions and roles. KdB is given more central touches while Saka is wider and that will lead to big differences.
KdB is certainly on the downside of his prime and it does look like the next generation of players are starting to overtake him.
Right now, a fun thing to do is go through and compare what Saka is doing to others and just see how special he is. It is no longer needed to say that he is great for his age, he is full stop great.
Saka is blooming into a true superstar and it is just a treat to be able to watch him week in and week out.
When talking about player transfers, we often adopt a viewpoint of a player moving “up” in terms of the career trajectory/size of club they are moving to. I wonder if the analysis of how a player will perform in a new environment is asymmetrical between moving up to a big club or moving down to a smaller club. Ie. Does being a failed star at Arsenal then moving to Brentford “work out” more than vice versa? - Ashton
This is an excellent question for a person interested in doing a research paper, either for a conference or a College/University course or project.
I think that you can make a hypothesis where the effect would be potentially ambiguous. There are two opposing forces happening here and which one wins out is not clearly obvious.
At a “big” club you will have the advantage of playing with better teammates, better coaching, maybe even better tactics. This will potentially lead to having more and better opportunities when a player is on the ball or needs to defend compared to what it might be like in a “smaller” club.
That can be a positive effect for a player joining that team or a negative effect for a player leaving that team.
The flipside is that at a “smaller” club this player might become a higher usage player, so getting a higher share of the total chances to try and do something compared to being just one of the options and maybe even a lesser of the options at a “bigger” club.
I would not be surprised if the results would be, it depends. The type of player probably matters, it would be dependent on the position/role, and how it fits within the way the new team plays.
Trying to figure this stuff out is one of the hardest problems in player trading.
We had a really tough fixture schedule to open the season; Liverpool easy & City mild. Is there a way to normalize the points returns such that we see a “true table” so far. Imagine 3pts away to Spurs is more valuable than 3pts away to Palace (with all respect). - moyolee
This is a great question and the type I love to try and think about.
I have adapted a new graphic from something similar done by Opta where it looks at how team’s have done earning points compared the schedule they have played so far.
Arsenal’s schedule after two easy games has moved from being very hard to slightly easier than average.
It is interesting now that we have 7 matches played, that the differences in the extremes have narrowed significantly and as we get further along it will only continue towards that (until teams start playing each other a second time and it will start again).
To the original question of what would it look like to adjust points won based on the opponent, I went about doing this using my team ratings and because they are already set to adjust for a team relative to average, I used that to normalize the points based on who has been played so far.
It ends up looking very kind to Arsenal here.
I haven’t done anything to say what this actually means, if it means anything at all. It doesn’t really matter though because it is provocative, it makes Arsenal look good and gets the people going.