<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Luis Usier</title>
    <link>/</link>
    <description>Recent content on Luis Usier</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    
	<atom:link href="/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    
    
    <item>
      <title>Many bad shots or one good shot?</title>
      <link>/2017/10/19/shot_variability/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>/2017/10/19/shot_variability/</guid>
      <description>Who would win in a fight: one horse-sized duck or a hundred duck-sized horses?
Mark Taylor says the former. Ok, that’s not quite what he says. Rather, he says that if two teams generate the same total expected goals, the team that generates loads of little shots does better than the team that generates very few shots, but with a much higher scoring percentage.
His simulations are mathematically correct, but his conclusion is wrong.</description>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Is parking the bus worth it?</title>
      <link>/2017/09/28/balance/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>/2017/09/28/balance/</guid>
      <description>There has been an ongoing discussion on Twitter on whether it is better for underdogs to play defensively or offensively.
Werder Bremen is ill advised to focus on defense. In relegation race you need to focus on scoring. The old 4:3-Werder would do better.
&amp;mdash; Goalimpact (@Goalimpact) September 27, 2017  Now, to me, it is a mathematical certainty that lower-scoring games are more random, and thus better for the underdog.</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>