• 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


AC Mack said:
If that's the case then it's changed and would seem strange. The book I read on xG is similar to how @Quillips outlined it in the post above yours.

Also as @King for a Day... later explains.
Click to expand...
I did some brief digging and different companies use different methods with Quillips maths being (obviously) the better or more advanced model. If you look at different providers they give different xg values.

I wasn’t expecting equations this morning but nice explanations!
 
Sallycinamon said:
Like I’ve said previously though, for every club who can point to xG as a benefit when recruiting, there’ll be a club who will say it’s been terrible for their recruiting. No doubt it’s down to how you interpret the data, pretty much the same as how a scout interprets someone’s ability.

Will the recruitment team not have used xG when looking at Will Grigg?
Click to expand...

Having watched the footage of Stewart Donald "negotiating" the transfer of Will Grigg, I think it is fairly obvious that the club at that point in time had still not heard of xG let alone any of the more advanced metrics.

End of the day, in life there are always people who refuse to move with the times. Often because they just don't want to learn something new.
King for a Day... said:
So actually, on FotMob there are:

- 5 shots within the 6 yard box which add up to 2.28 xG.

- 6 shots within the penalty box which add up to 0.55 xG

- 6 shots outside the box which ad up to 0.16 xG

Total = 2.99 xG (cumulative)
However the xG listed is 2.44xG

Looking at the 2 Brobbey chances, they add up to 1.5xG (0.69 + 0.81)

If you follow the correct maths to work out the probability over the 2 shots it would be 0.61 + (0.39 x 0.89) = 0.96xG

1.5xG - 0.96xG = 0.54xG (the difference between the cumulative total of the 2 chances and the probability of the 2 chances)

2.99xG - 0.54xG = 2.45xG

I think it is clear that actually they are using an advanced model to calculate xG, not simply cumulative.
Click to expand...

This is why it blows some people's mind and they refuse to try and understand it. Far easier to just say "its a load of shite".

Matthew Benham has his company doing even more advanced metrics than has been widely available. Its why Brentford have punched way above their level (same with Brighton also). His "edge" has been getting eroded over time, but they still have more advanced data by all accounts.

Game state obviously has a big impact on the xG scores in a game as well. If you take the lead in a game then defend for the rest of it and win 1-0, quite often the xG will be lower than your opponents.
 
Last edited:
Southern Monkey said:
XG per AI in terms of for and against has us at 34 points after 31 games. So fair play we are more clinical by 9 points stunning really. It’s not overly surprising I guess as we’re second bottom in the h league for goals scored.
Click to expand...
How are you after Sunday? Noticed you were very quiet for the entirety of the weekend ya gravy swalling ballsack.

FTM
 
WASTID said:
Having watched the footage of Stewart Donald "negotiating" the transfer of Will Grigg, I think it is fairly obvious that the club at that point in time had still not heard of xG let alone any of the more advanced metrics.

End of the day, in life there are always people who refuse to move with the times. Often because they just don't want to learn something new.
Click to expand...
You’re just guessing about the Will Grigg recruitment then? Stewart Donald negotiated, pretty badly, the transfer, but I’m talking about the initial recruitment and identification of Grigg. They could well have used xG as an indicator but because he was a flop the xG advocates simply ignore it!

As for your second sentence, is there really any need? A sensible conversation about the merits of something turned into a put down simply because someone has a differing view to yourself.
 
Sallycinamon said:
You’re just guessing about the Will Grigg recruitment then? Stewart Donald negotiated, pretty badly, the transfer, but I’m talking about the initial recruitment and identification of Grigg. They could well have used xG as an indicator but because he was a flop the xG advocates simply ignore it!

As for your second sentence, is there really any need? A sensible conversation about the merits of something turned into a put down simply because someone has a differing view to yourself.
Click to expand...

I’d take an educated guess that SD based his desire to sign Grigg on him having a catchy song and scored a few in L1 before.
 
Sallycinamon said:
You’re just guessing about the Will Grigg recruitment then? Stewart Donald negotiated, pretty badly, the transfer, but I’m talking about the initial recruitment and identification of Grigg. They could well have used xG as an indicator but because he was a flop the xG advocates simply ignore it!

As for your second sentence, is there really any need? A sensible conversation about the merits of something turned into a put down simply because someone has a differing view to yourself.
Click to expand...

Its an extremely well educated guess. Based on that footage in conjunction with any interviews / statements at the time from anyone at the club, which never referenced trying to use newer metrics to improve our recruitment processes and policies. The Netflix documentary showed that much from behind the scenes that it would have been impossible for the club to keep it secret if they were using more advanced metrics than "he scored a lot of goals at Wigan", especially given that Salmon Pants couldn't keep his mouth shut about anything that would potentially be a good sound bite.

Second sentence - apologies.
 
Sallycinamon said:
You’re just guessing about the Will Grigg recruitment then? Stewart Donald negotiated, pretty badly, the transfer, but I’m talking about the initial recruitment and identification of Grigg. They could well have used xG as an indicator but because he was a flop the xG advocates simply ignore it!

As for your second sentence, is there really any need? A sensible conversation about the merits of something turned into a put down simply because someone has a differing view to yourself.
Click to expand...
Is anybody claiming xG is a golden ticket to finding a superstar?

We may well have used xG to draw up an initial list of players which Grigg might have been on but - as we do now - you also need to look at other aspects of their play and the style of play of the team they're in

A good example is Neal Maupay. Regularly overperformed his xG, you might think "gosh if his finishing clicks he'll bag loads of goals" but...his finishing never clicked because he's not a good finisher and was playing in teams which made a lot of chances. But you'd have to look further than just his high xG to find that out

Quite obviously xG is looked at by clubs, along with tonnes of other things, when scouting players
 
woodlebert said:
Is anybody claiming xG is a golden ticket to finding a superstar?

We may well have used xG to draw up an initial list of players which Grigg might have been on but - as we do now - you also need to look at other aspects of their play and the style of play of the team they're in

A good example is Neal Maupay. Regularly overperformed his xG, you might think "gosh if his finishing clicks he'll bag loads of goals" but...his finishing never clicked because he's not a good finisher and was playing in teams which made a lot of chances. But you'd have to look further than just his high xG to find that out

Quite obviously xG is looked at by clubs, along with tonnes of other things, when scouting players
Click to expand...

There's a blast from the past :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top