4.6 Article

Machine Learning-Based Identification of the Strongest Predictive Variables of Winning and Losing in Belgian Professional Soccer

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app11052378

关键词

association football; performance; performance analysis; KPI; game result

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study utilized a machine learning model based on a broad range of variables to predict winning and losing in the highest Belgian soccer division. The model showed an accuracy of 89.6%, correctly classifying 516 out of 576 games, with shots on target being the best predictor. Physical indicators and contextual variables like ELO ratings were also identified as strong predictors.
This study aimed to identify the strongest predictive variables of winning and losing in the highest Belgian soccer division. A predictive machine learning model based on a broad range of variables (n = 100) was constructed, using a dataset consisting of 576 games. To avoid multicollinearity and reduce dimensionality, Variance Inflation Factor (threshold of 5) and BorutaShap were respectively applied. A total of 13 variables remained and were used to predict winning or losing using Extreme Gradient Boosting. TreeExplainer was applied to determine feature importance on a global and local level. The model showed an accuracy of 89.6% +/- 3.1% (precision: 88.9%; recall: 90.1%, f1-score: 89.5%), correctly classifying 516 out of 576 games. Shots on target from the attacking penalty box showed to be the best predictor. Several physical indicators are amongst the best predictors, as well as contextual variables such as ELO -ratings, added transfers value of the benched players and match location. The results show the added value of the inclusion of a broad spectrum of variables when predicting and evaluating game outcomes. Similar modelling approaches can be used by clubs to identify the strongest predictive variables for their leagues, and evaluate and improve their current quantitative analyses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据