• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

This xG nonsense

Lucky1985 said:
Aye that’s another point. If a striker has his penalty saved and the keeper parries it straight to his feet, but he hits it wide, then those two chances would add up to an Xg of more than 1, but you can only score one goal from the situation, he can’t score the pen and the rebound.
Click to expand...

I don't think it adds up to more than 1 - iirc they average out the two chances to create an overall xG for that particular move. But it's still skewed.
 

Lucky1985 said:
Aye that’s another point. If a striker has his penalty saved and the keeper parries it straight to his feet, but he hits it wide, then those two chances would add up to an Xg of more than 1, but you can only score one goal from the situation, he can’t score the pen and the rebound.
Click to expand...

Can if alan partridge is on commentary.
 
Undercover said:
This one has Overall, Home and Away. The overall one has Sunderland, Burnley and West Ham in the bottom three as does the home one, the away one has Sunderland, Burnley and Wolves in the bottom three. It is kind of strange how these tables keep putting you in the same bottom three as genuine bottom three teams, are you quite sure you have not been a bit lucky this season ?

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
you’re still 16th lad, that’s a fact
 
chunkyshanhawk53 said:
People get way too upset about it. It’s just another stat like corners, shots, possession.

It’s an indicator, and can be misleading sometimes. But I don’t get why people get so angry about it
Click to expand...

Inevitably, like a lot of other things people get irrationally angry about, it's because they don't really understand it.
 
Cuddles said:
Sorry should have clarified. Yes Xg is based on chance quality but the overall Xg number you see is just every chances Xg added together. A team could have have an Xg of 2 because they had 30 shots on goal but all of them from distance. Another team could have an Xg of 0.8 but create 2 really decent chances. Some people would say they team with the Xg of 2 deserved to win but it doesn't tell the whole story.

Typically yes better teams have higher Xg but you could look at us and say maybe we just have better finishers than the likes of Leeds and they don't need as many or as high quality a chance to score.

Equally, you could say we have a brilliant keeper who can make more stops and defenders who read the game better and make good blocks.
Click to expand...
Got ya, aye. It's individual chance. Think a penalty is about 0.8.

There was an earlier comment about us not taking a load of random shots, but trying to create more clear cut chances. That chance from the edge of the box yesterday for example, took the pass on instead.
 
Lucky1985 said:
Aye that’s another point. If a striker has his penalty saved and the keeper parries it straight to his feet, but he hits it wide, then those two chances would add up to an Xg of more than 1, but you can only score one goal from the situation, he can’t score the pen and the rebound.
Click to expand...
If you tally them up then all you’re saying is that you’d generally expect a goal to be scored from that scenario. Which you would after a penalty and a rebound
Biglicks said:
Stats don’t provide excitement.
Click to expand...
You can tell you’ve never breathlessly logged on to fbref after a match to check Sadiki’s progressive carries per 90
 
Last edited:
chunkyshanhawk53 said:
People get way too upset about it. It’s just another stat like corners, shots, possession.

It’s an indicator, and can be misleading sometimes. But I don’t get why people get so angry about it
Click to expand...
Do they have league positions for corners, shots & possession as well?
 
Teejay said:
Good Xg is like averaging 105 at darts but only 10% on the doubles . Or hitting 18 greens in regulation but taking 54 putts.
Click to expand...
It’s a measure of how good you are at creating chances. That’s all.

If you look at it in isolation it says nowt about conversion rates. You need to add the goal count if you want to do that.

So XG is closest to the first data point in each of your examples.

Is there a stat in darts about average number of throws taken to get to a double shot? That might be a closer analogy.
 
Tom said:
Do they have league positions for corners, shots & possession as well?
Click to expand...
don’t think they produce tables, but we’ve all seen the stats for Man City possession dominance for example

Even if someone did, it hardly matters.
Tom said:
Do they have league positions for corners, shots & possession as well?
Click to expand...
Actually yeah. Sky yesterday were showing Leeds “goals from corners” ranking
 
Last edited:
Undercover said:
This one has Overall, Home and Away. The overall one has Sunderland, Burnley and West Ham in the bottom three as does the home one, the away one has Sunderland, Burnley and Wolves in the bottom three. It is kind of strange how these tables keep putting you in the same bottom three as genuine bottom three teams, are you quite sure you have not been a bit lucky this season ?

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
Yep, all down to luck. That’s all it is. Luck.
 
fireballs said:
Got ya, aye. It's individual chance. Think a penalty is about 0.8.

There was an earlier comment about us not taking a load of random shots, but trying to create more clear cut chances. That chance from the edge of the box yesterday for example, took the pass on instead.
Click to expand...
I'm not the fan of players shooting from everywhere as more than likely they'll miss the target or the keeper has time to read it and get to it.

That Geertruijda one he needs to hit though. Nicely weighted ball and defenders backing away. Plenty time to get his timing right and pick his spot.
 
Undercover said:
This one has Overall, Home and Away. The overall one has Sunderland, Burnley and West Ham in the bottom three as does the home one, the away one has Sunderland, Burnley and Wolves in the bottom three. It is kind of strange how these tables keep putting you in the same bottom three as genuine bottom three teams, are you quite sure you have not been a bit lucky this season ?

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
I agree with you in one way, a lot of our wins have been tight games and could potentially have gone either way. I think that's where mentality comes into it though, something that xg can't measure.

We've scored important last minute goals on more than one occasion this season, whereas you have done the polar opposite and thrown points away by letting them in. We also have good stats in terms of points won from losing positions.

Tbf you do seem to have sorted out this early season weak mentality and are looking like you're getting used to the Premier League 👍
 
woodlebert said:
If you tally them up then all you’re saying is that you’d generally expect a goal to be scored from that scenario. Which you would after a penalty and a rebound

You can tell you’ve never breathlessly logged on to fbref after a match to check Sadiki’s progressive carries per 90
Click to expand...
I don’t need stats to tell me how much ground Sadiki covers. I can see it.
Conversely I don’t need to know how many touches Haaland needs before scoring constantly. The whole thing bores the shit out of me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top