The xG nonsense

[MadMackem7]

Are you comparing a database of player information to a formula that measures the quality of a shot?

It doesn’t measure the quality of a shot, it measures the quality of a chance

But either way, xG will and is usrd

Brentford spoke publicly how he likes strikers that have high xG as it shows they’re in the right positions to get chances

 

[Sallycinamon]

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.

Plenty of people question possession and shots - they mean very little.

I’m against xG because I just think it’s meaningless within football and meaningless stats are taking over the game.

I recognise its use for gambling though.

 

[A Visiting Villan]

Are you comparing a database of player information to a formula that measures the quality of a shot?

It's not even the quality of s shot, it's the quality of the chance of a shot.

 

[Far Tibetan Mountain]

To completely prove a point how bllx it is.

Brobbeys chance against Chelsea was a 0.33 which is outrageous.

He shoots from 8/9 yards out at a perfect angle and fluffs is completely. Vast majority of the strikers … way more than a 3rd would have scored that.

It was a terrible miss which didn’t cost us but the goal is so open and at the near post. Wilson would score that 99 times out of 100.

How on earth is that a 0.33. Pure made up bllx.

This has happened numerous times throughout the season. Which is why it’s probably made our “xg” worse than it is.

Someone should screenshot it just as he shoots. It’s a shocking miss.

I think it was a bad mission, esp3cially since it want even going towards goal, but to say more than a third of professional strikers would have scored it is pure conjecture.

Wilson wouldn't score it 99 times out if 100 either. He'd have hit it straight at the keeper at least 20 times!

 

[SuperKevsLeftBoot]

I think it was a bad mission, esp3cially since it want even going towards goal, but to say more than a third of professional strikers would have scored it is pure conjecture.

Wilson wouldn't score it 99 times out if 100 either. He'd have hit it straight at the keeper at least 20 times!

They would and that’s 80% then

 

[Frijj]

Are you comparing a database of player information to a formula that measures the quality of a shot?

No, I’m saying that xG, the drivers of xG and the derivatives of xG are all important metrics used when analysing player performance.

I put “excel sheets” in quotes not to suggest that they’re using Excel (they’ll be using Python and R) but as a reference to data science in general.

 

[smixsell]

Xg is a useful tool, but it doesn't tell anywhere near the whole story. It seems to me that one of the biggest flaws (there are certainly others) in Xg is that it doesn't take into account the quality of the defenders (including the keeper). One of the things our outperforming Xg so consistently shows is just how good our defenders were this past season. They not only block shots, but they do it properly so there's seldom a bad deflection. They also usually deny the shooter a portion of the net with their positioning, making the keeper's job a bit easier as he has a good idea of where the shooter will be targeting.

 

[Frijj]

They would and that’s 80% then

You are weirdly hung up on this.

Brobbey’s shot at 45 minutes, which Sanchez saved, was recorded as 0.33 expected goals, meaning that 33% of the time, that chance would be scored.

Watch it back, he is challenged by Fofana before he takes the shot.

I think 1 in 3 is a fair xG for that.

Brobbey’s shot that Gusto turned in was 0.46 xG.

 

[Ayrton]

We started the season defensively and didn’t create much, and when we led, we went to a more defensive playstyle. Feel like we’ve been a lot more attacking in the last few weeks and since ELF in the middle and created more. Hopefully we build on that going into next season.

Think I seem on a chart on twitter showing that In the second half of the season we’ve created more. We’re progressing.

 

[SuperKevsLeftBoot]

You are weirdly hung up on this.

Brobbey’s shot at 45 minutes, which Sanchez saved, was recorded as 0.33 expected goals, meaning that 33% of the time, that chance would be scored.

Watch it back, he is challenged by Fofana before he takes the shot.

I think 1 in 3 is a fair xG for that.

Brobbey’s shot that Gusto turned in was 0.46 xG.

You’ve not read any of the thread have you.

 

[Frijj]

You’ve not read any of the thread have you.

I have like, and I don’t understand what you don’t understand about it.

 

[SuperKevsLeftBoot]

I have like, and I don’t understand what you don’t understand about it.

Oh so you just repeat what people have already said then? Great contribution.

 

[columbo70]

They would and that’s 80% then

You are correct...if you watch Brobbey with his chances over the season , he just kicks the ball towards goal ... the previous week against Everton he did exactly the same, it's head down and hit the ball towards goal. Sometimes they go in and sometimes hit the keeper. Very rare does he look up , or place it, or side foot it in corner or dink it over keeper.......it's all head down and hit it....that's why he misses the Chelsea chance and will continue to miss these type of chances.

 

[Vicham]

You must be logged on to see media items

What does that even mean? When do you have enough xg for a goal?

 

[Darlo1973]

Heres a look at us with an explanation. its not shite its just not black and white. But common sense tells you we cant keep relying on such a high conversion % or Roefs and the defence keeping everything out. We need to change evolve so its not so "off" the norm.

You must be logged on to see media items

Adam Clery is good but he's a total Mag.

 

[SuperKevsLeftBoot]

You are correct...if you watch Brobbey with his chances over the season , he just kicks the ball towards goal ... the previous week against Everton he did exactly the same, it's head down and hit the ball towards goal. Sometimes they go in and sometimes hit the keeper. Very rare does he look up , or place it, or side foot it in corner or dink it over keeper.......it's all head down and hit it....that's why he misses the Chelsea chance and will continue to miss these type of chances.

100% but at least he can improve that part of his game. Wilson would have placed it into the bottom corner. Simple goal tbh. He’s that close.. Sanchez has hardly come out as well .. he should be have been further up..

 

[Dobbler]

It’s shite.. stop letting the nerds take over the world!

 

[Frijj]

Oh so you just repeat what people have already said then? Great contribution.

I see you have no interest in engaging with a reasonable discussion and probably no capacity to do so either.

What does that even mean? When do you have enough xg for a goal?

1.00 xG is one goal, so if you create four chances each with a 25% expectation of being converted you have 1 xG.

 

[LineTrash]

1.00 xG is one goal, so if you create four chances each with a 25% expectation of being converted you have 1 xG.

And what does it mean if you miss all 4 chances... that you had 4 shots on goal and probably should have scored at least 1? Fuck me running, I need a stat for that??

 

[connolly_31]

This thread man