• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

The xG nonsense

hank evans said:
Some truth in this post but Isidor missed loads of his own easier chances last season.

We have not got a perfect forward by any stretch but we do have in combination of what is available a decent forward on at all times. Isidor may well be a better finisher, but he doesn’t create the own goal/brobbey miss by holding the centre half off and playing Hume in like Brobbey did either. Swings and roundabouts at the minute.

But to concur I find xG of minimal use, no 2 chances are the same, not even a penalty
Click to expand...
My point is… there is no way that his chance is a 1 in 3.

these figures are put against chances and I’ve compared our chances in games vs others and ours as Keith has pointed out .. have been way less than reality.

Any decent finisher would score that 9/10. The goal is so open on the right. Wilson scored one against Villa although Martinez slipped. He would score that easily.
 

SuperKevsLeftBoot said:
Exactly and who is deciding that. Funny because some games I’ve seen other teams chances far greater than ours even tho it was much harder. It’s made up shite by people who probably have never played the game.. like VAR.
Click to expand...
Nobody is deciding it, it's literally the percentage of goals taken from shots taken in that position within the database.
 
It’s just another stat for analysing the game. I don’t think anyone who isn’t anti xG thinks it is the be all and end all, whereas people anti it seem to vocalise hatred of it at any opportunity, which i dont understand.

It tells you more than possession or shots / shots on target, which no one seems to have a problem with being reported, but only an idiot would suggest that xG is supposed to tell the story of a match, nor does anyone sensible who pays any regard to xG say that it does.

Worth noting that 2 PL clubs are owned by people who made multi-millions gambling based on xG and similar data to that.
 
Definitely Maybe said:
Nobody is deciding it, it's literally the percentage of goals taken from shots taken in that position within the database.
Click to expand...
What you’re saying is … of all the shots in the top division from that exact same position with the keeper in the same position has been put into a DB?

And only 1 in 3 times has it been scored by a striker?


I’d argue that brobbeys goal at Everton was a lot harder to score than the chance he missed against Chelsea .
boylie_mackem said:
It’s just another stat for analysing the game. I don’t think anyone who isn’t anti xG thinks it is the be all and end all, whereas people anti it seem to vocalise hatred of it at any opportunity, which i dont understand.

It tells you more than possession or shots / shots on target, which no one seems to have a problem with being reported, but only an idiot would suggest that xG is supposed to tell the story of a match, nor does anyone sensible who pays any regard to xG say that it does.

Worth noting that 2 PL clubs are owned by people who made multi-millions gambling based on xG and similar data to that.
Click to expand...
If a STAT is used, how it is derived should be accurate. I have massive issues with its accuracy. If it was accurate it would be superb to use.
 
Last edited:
SuperKevsLeftBoot said:
What you’re saying is … of all the shots in the top division from that exact same position with the keeper in the same position has been put into a DB?

And only 1 in 3 times has it been scored by a striker?


I’d argue that brobbeys goal at Everton was a lot harder to score than the chance he missed against Chelsea .

If a STAT is used, how it is derived should be accurate. I have massive issues with its accuracy. If it was accurate it would be superb to use.
Click to expand...

It is broadly accurate - lots of people make lots of money playing the markets based on xG. It is not perfect, nor is any statistic. What i dont understand is why people are so against it whereas no one questions possession / shots being used as stats when they do tell you more or less nothing, in isolation.
 
boylie_mackem said:
It is broadly accurate - lots of people make lots of money playing the markets based on xG. It is not perfect, nor is any statistic. What i dont understand is why people are so against it whereas no one questions possession / shots being used as stats when they do tell you more or less nothing, in isolation.
Click to expand...
Because a shot on goal is an accurate stat. Factual.

Xg is an opinion. That’s not a stat.

How on earth is brobbeys chance against Everton easier than his miss against Chelsea. That there sums it up. So it’s not accurate. There have been loads of examples this year like that.

If people want to use stats that’s fine but they should be accurate within a few percent. Not way off.
Same with VAR.. people’s opinions. Not what it was meant to be used for.
 
SuperKevsLeftBoot said:
What you’re saying is … of all the shots in the top division from that exact same position with the keeper in the same position has been put into a DB?

And only 1 in 3 times has it been scored by a striker?


I’d argue that brobbeys goal at Everton was a lot harder to score than the chance he missed against Chelsea .

If a STAT is used, how it is derived should be accurate. I have massive issues with its accuracy. If it was accurate it would be superb to use.
Click to expand...
Pretty much.

Not just all shots taken in the top division - there are different models derived from different datasets which is why you'll see different values on different sites. Some databases may include 500,000 shots. Some might contain 1m. But the premise is the same. It isn't just someone's opinion.

It also doesn't take into account whether the shot was taken by a striker or a midfielder or whatever but 1) the number of shots taken by defenders in that position will be minuscule compared to attacking players and won't make any significant difference, and 2) it's intended to reflect the overall quality of the chances created by the team, not the player. If a team is consistently taking shots from positions where goals are frequently scored they will score more goals in the long run than a team that only takes shots from positions where goals are rarely scored, regardless whether a small percentage of those were taken by defenders.
 
SuperKevsLeftBoot said:
Because a shot on goal is an accurate stat. Factual.

Xg is an opinion. That’s not a stat.

How on earth is brobbeys chance against Everton easier than his miss against Chelsea. That there sums it up. So it’s not accurate. There have been loads of examples this year like that.

If people want to use stats that’s fine but they should be accurate within a few percent. Not way off.
Same with VAR.. people’s opinions. Not what it was meant to be used for.
Click to expand...

But all of the above is simply your opinion, and i guarantee you that the Tony Blooms and Matthew Benhams have made a lot more money off xG than shots on target (which could be a shit effort from 30 yards that a keeper catches like a beach ball).

And none of the people in favour of xG or whatever stats go on forums telling people that they *must* pay attention to them - anyone is free to ignore or at least not be wound up by them. People against xG or whatever seem to be devoutly committed to convincing everyone to ignore it.
 
I’m not defending it but surely these things are the same for all clubs and are more a benchmarking exercise? The methodology is almost irrelevant and will get refined over time but it shouldn’t negatively impact any one club over another during the course of a 38 game season…
 
boylie_mackem said:
But all of the above is simply your opinion, and i guarantee you that the Tony Blooms and Matthew Benhams have made a lot more money off xG than shots on target (which could be a shit effort from 30 yards that a keeper catches like a beach ball).

And none of the people in favour of xG or whatever stats go on forums telling people that they *must* pay attention to them - anyone is free to ignore or at least not be wound up by them. People against xG or whatever seem to be devoutly committed to convincing everyone to ignore it.
Click to expand...
Im not saying ignore it 🙄 Im saying it’s not accurate. Even the response above just proves my point. Different people have different figures .. ffs
A corner is a corner .. factual. This isn’t.
Definitely Maybe said:
Pretty much.

Not just all shots taken in the top division - there are different models derived from different datasets which is why you'll see different values on different sites. Some databases may include 500,000 shots. Some might contain 1m. But the premise is the same. It isn't just someone's opinion.

It also doesn't take into account whether the shot was taken by a striker or a midfielder or whatever but 1) the number of shots taken by defenders in that position will be minuscule compared to attacking players and won't make any significant difference, and 2) it's intended to reflect the overall quality of the chances created by the team, not the player. If a team is consistently taking shots from positions where goals are frequently scored they will score more goals in the long run than a team that only takes shots from positions where goals are rarely scored, regardless whether a small percentage of those were taken by defenders.
Click to expand...
There you go.. different sites have different figures. Taken by different people different positions ffs.

As most people will think.. it’s something to go off but hardly of much use.

Or it’s very relevant.. it appears our players are fkn class and teams like Leeds are shite coz they can’t finish ? Meh
 
Last edited:
Ì dont understand why people think this proves XG is nonsense

XG suggests we struggled to create chances consistently and that we must have been very clinical

We all watched our season, that's exactly what happened.

We scored 42 goals in a 38 game season. That's insanely efficient.

Being at the bottom of the XG table is just another stat that helps to tell the story of our season.
 
DJ Doubt said:
Ì dont understand why people think this proves XG is nonsense

XG suggests we struggled to create chances consistently and that we must have been very clinical

We all watched our season, that's exactly what happened.

We scored 42 goals in a 38 game season. That's insanely efficient.

Being at the bottom of the XG table is just another stat that helps to tell the story of our season.
Click to expand...
That is telling the story. Not XG.

You can see with your own eyes that we didn’t create enough for some of the games. To then start putting figures on it to show we’re third bottom when it’s not accurate is my problem.

Another stat is we conceded the 4th least in a prem season. Villa and Man Utd conceded more.
 
SuperKevsLeftBoot said:
Im not saying ignore it 🙄 Im saying it’s not accurate. Even the response above just proves my point. Different people have different figures .. ffs
A corner is a corner .. factual. This isn’t.

There you go.. different sites have different figures. Taken by different people different positions ffs.

As most people will think.. it’s something to go off but hardly of much use.

Or it’s very relevant.. it appears our players are fkn class and teams like Leeds are shite coz they can’t finish ? Meh
Click to expand...
Different sites have different figures because, out of a database of 800k shots, 33% of shots taken from that position may have been scored compared to 35% from a different database of 700k shots. There may be a small difference here and there but it's unlikely to be anything significant, with data of that size you're not going to find one sample suggesting hundreds of thousands of players find it piss easy to score one chance and another where they find it difficult.

It seems like you'd already dismissed it despite not actually understanding it (not realising it was the percentage of shots scored from that position within the model and thinking someone was subjectively ranking each chance). Yet come to the same conclusion - that you can see with your eyes we don't create enough? It's nonsense but you agree with it?

xG league tables are nonsense for the record and it was never intended to be used like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top