Home/Soccer Analytics/Positional Value Maps vs. Location Heatmaps

Positional Value Maps vs. Location Heatmaps

Player EvaluationLevel 3 — Advanced

What It Is

A standard location heatmap shows where a player tends to be on the pitch — their frequency distribution across pitch zones. A positional value map shows where a player is when they are in positions of off-ball advantage — high field value, available to receive in good conditions. The two maps are almost always different. A player may frequently occupy low-value zones (center of a congested midfield) while their valuable moments come from less frequent incursions into high-value spaces. The location heatmap describes habit; the positional value map describes contribution.

Correct Execution

Build both maps for the same player and same match/season data. Location heatmap: kernel density estimate of all player positions while team has possession. Positional value map: kernel density estimate of player positions only during moments of positional advantage (field value above threshold). Compare the two — the gap between them reveals which zones the player inhabits frequently but creates little value from, and which zones they rarely reach but are highly productive when they do. The positional value map is the coaching-relevant one.

Progression Levels

Diagnostic Tree

Coaching Cues

  • "Top is where they are. Bottom is where they create value. The gap is the coaching point." — Javier Fernandez, 2019
  • "Heat doesn't mean value. Cold zones can have more value if the player is in the right place at the right time."

Common Errors

  1. Using location heatmaps as the primary player positioning analysis: Frequency of occupation and value of occupation are different things.
  2. Treating the positional value map as absolute: Value is context-dependent — the same zone has different value against different opponents and in different phases.

Edges

🔑 Hidden Causal Lever

A Player's Location Heatmap and Their Value Map Are Almost Always Different

Where a player spends time (location heatmap) and where they create value (positional value map — position filtered by off-ball advantage moments) are almost always different. A midfielder may inhabit low-value central congestion 80% of the time but create all their value during brief forays into half-spaces. The location heatmap describes habit; the positional value map describes contribution. Coaching interventions should target the gap between the two.

What most people do
Use location heatmaps as the primary positional analysis tool, concluding that a player who occupies the right zones is well-positioned.
What the best do
Build both maps and compare. The gap between "where they are" and "where they create value" is the coaching point. A player with a great location heatmap but poor value map is in the right areas at the wrong times. A player with a poor heatmap but concentrated value map knows when to make runs into valuable spaces.
Why it's an edge: Location heatmaps are the most common visualization in football analytics and they're misleading for positional evaluation. "Heat" (frequency) doesn't equal "value" (contribution). Cold zones can have more value if the player arrives at the right moments. Coaching from heatmaps alone often produces players who occupy correct zones passively rather than timing their movements to create value.
How to exploit: For every player you're evaluating or developing, generate both maps. When the location map and value map diverge, the coaching prescription is timing, not positioning. "You're in the right place — but not at the right time."
Javier Fernandez, FC Barcelona, StatsBomb Innovation in Football Conference 2019, 2019-10-22. Explicit side-by-side comparison shown as the primary coaching insight.

Sources

  • Javier Fernandez, FC Barcelona, StatsBomb Innovation in Football Conference 2019, YouTube, 2019-10-22 — explicitly showed the comparison between standard location heatmap (where player tends to be) and positional value map (where player is when creating off-ball advantage); described the gap as the primary coaching insight