The xG nonsense

[Alfies Hat]

A load of shite.
But it must be keeping somebody in a job.
As the poster said....... nonsense.

 

[SuperKevsLeftBoot]

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.

I’m struggling to believe that 1/3rd of strikers in the past ( I mean who are these shots taken by exactly?) have only scored that chance.

Have you got shares or involved in it like? I’ve just given you an example of why it’s bllx.. the two chances

 

[Bielsas Bucket Boy]

I’m struggling to believe that 1/3rd of strikers in the past ( I mean who are these shots taken by exactly?) have only scored that chance.

Have you got shares or involved in it like? I’ve just given you an example of why it’s bllx.. the two chances

But it’s not rating each individual chance - it’s simply shots taken from that position. The shot could be a tap in, it could have come back off the bar or it could have flashed across the 6 yard box. At least that’s how I always interpreted it anyway

 

[Definitely Maybe]

I’m struggling to believe that 1/3rd of strikers in the past ( I mean who are these shots taken by exactly?) have only scored that chance.

Have you got shares or involved in it like? I’ve just given you an example of why it’s bllx.. the two chances

I haven't got shares, it's just you're contradicting yourself throughout.

"xG is an opinion, not a stat". It's not an opinion, it's the statistical value of how many goals were scored from shots taken in that position. But you're arguing against it because IN YOUR OPINION you think Brobbey's chance was easier than that.

Your opinion. Subjective.

How you interpret the data is up to you - our 'xG conceded' has been high all season, you could think that to be a concern based on the overall number or could consider that we deliberately conceded a high volume of low quality shots by playing a deep defensive line and encouraging teams to shoot from long range knowing we had a really good shotstopper in goal. That's the subjective part. The 'high xG conceded' part isn't subjective, it's objective.

 

[LineTrash]

Totally agree, meaningless

I remember early in the season the xGers panicking…

 

[Thingymebob]

It's complete bollocks. If there was a xT (expected tackles) or xB (expected blocks) stat for defending, we'd be top 5 to balance it out, hence us being 7th.

 

[contrarian]

Xg should never be used alone it is a factor in part of the game but doesn’t mean everything.

It can give an insight to how wasteful players are etc. or how clinical they are.

An adult in the room, good post
Such metrics are now part and parcel of the game regardless of what jumpers for goal posts crew think
They need to be taken in conjunction with the myriad other stats that we are deluged with

 

[NGPost]

Don't know why people take notice of shit like this

 

[10 Trenches Deep]

 

[Vore]

I really enjoy seeing people rage over xG. It's just a stat. It's no different to BBC telling you how much your players walked vs jogged vs sprinted. No-one's claiming that it'll Gandalf certain outcomes. No-one's going to replace the real league table with xG table and take Europe away.
It's just an interesting bit of data analysis for nerds, chill out

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[Charmless Man]

Pep wouldn’t entertain xg at all, thought it was nonsense. Likewise wouldn’t have a set piece coach until Arteta convinced him to bring one in. Did ok with that City team though didn’t he?

We should have Xb on here for posters ( expected bollocks ).

Did he say that?

Intriguing if he did because the way City played very much suggested he did have time for it. So many of their goals were cut backs into the six yard box which would always produce a decent xG score on the chance.

 

[Binxy]

It's exactly has I've said all season.
A load of bollocks.

 

[Charmless Man]

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.

Shots on goal is accurate but not informative.

You could have loads of shots on goal in a match but all of them taken from outside the box with 3 or 4 defenders in your way.

xG gives a relative value of the quality of your shooting positions and situations.

As lots of people are saying it’s not the be all and end all but it’s a really useful comparative stat, especially for clubs themselves.

 

[42]

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.

But thats only half the story. We didnt conceded as much either. Only 3 other teams let in fewer goals than us

 

[SuperSunderland]

Used by Virgins and nobody else

 

[JL1985]

It’s as meaningless as possession stats.

 

[MiddleAgedMan]

The fact he missed (and missed a sitter later in the game) indicates the chance isn’t all that easy and explains why it’s a 1 in 3 chance

Get this all the time on here citing an example of an international footballer not scoring a chance and then lay people on the SMB saying it was a great chance that shows xG is rubbish .

 

[connolly_31]

Glad this is finally being discussed on here…

 

[AC Mack]

You used to have people saying things along the lines of 'they might have had 12 shots to our 6, but our 6 were much better chances.' xG is something to be used to reflect that, but now that we have it, I imagine it's the same people who used to use that quote who now complain about xG.

Football is a complex sport (despite what some try to claim), and unless you want to focus solely on goals scored in a single game or points accrued across an entire sesson, then measurements like this are useful. They're not the be all and end all, just a guide that can be used alongside other metrics.

My biggest issue with xG is when it isn't combined with xGa - how many goals you're expected to concede is just as important as how many you're expected to score.

I sometimes feel that those who claim the only thing that matters is the score or the points accrued, might as well not watch the match and just look at a table

 

[Useful_Idiot]

xG or xGa or xGd whatever the fuck you wanna use the simple fact is we do not create many chances. That had slightly been on the up towards the end of the season.

The beauty is we've now got all summer and the draw of European football to change that