fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I've been misquotedYour grammar is unforunate there FP![]()
I've been misquotedYour grammar is unforunate there FP![]()
Agreed! As soon as I see "xg" in a post, I just scroll past. Means fuck all to me and many others!XG blah blah blah - sooo dull
Agreed! As soon as I see "xg" in a post, I just scroll past. Means fuck all to me and many others!
I totally get what you're saying. But for us to fail the two sides below us suddenly need to find form and we suddenly lose it. Going from 7 wins in 8 to maximum 1 win in 7 when our home form is solid and we still have Sheffield Wednesday to play.As and when promotion is achieved I imagine you'll say "told you so", which would be completely missing the point
Edit: Opta's prediction implies less than a one in 700 chance of missing out. That's silly.
I’m the same with goals scored and conceded and league position. Boring!
What does this post mean?
Genuinely bemused by it.
Numbers mate. They’re for nerds. Boring.
But one is a set of immutable metrics the other is a statistical tool, that while very useful, isn't infallible.
You can argue all day about how good xg is, and I personally think its very good and don't get people being totally dismissive of it, but you can't argue about points gained and goals scored, they're set in stone (unless you get done for cheating like Leicester).
Possession which is probably the most useless as well as misleading of them all is still at the top of the stats section of any match report. Old habits die hardOr unless you get a dodgy VAR decision, or whatever. No model is infallible some are useful. xG is useful and the whiners generally just don’t understand it.
Or unless you get a dodgy VAR decision, or whatever. No model is infallible some are useful. xG is useful and the whiners generally just don’t understand it.
Nothing wrong with xg.
Gives one a sense of the story of a match.
A match you may not of watched but never the less had some interest in.
Or for example when judging strikers. Wright’s goals scored is nearly identical to his xG which shows he’s converting chances as you’d expect him to.Although xg doesn't really prove its worth when analysing a team when applied only to one game, it needs to be looked at over a number of games to really be of use.
It's why Hull are such an outlier, because they've massively outperformed theirs over nearly a whole season.
Genuine question, I've never found an answer to this. Is xG calculated per the league you are in, meaning you are using data for teams at your exact level and comparing to that or is it calculated far more widely than that and if so what is the scope? Prem to National League, Iceland Premier League to Azerbaijan Premier League?Or for example when judging strikers. Wright’s goals scored is nearly identical to his xG which shows he’s converting chances as you’d expect him to.
I assumed it was compared to all the available data.Genuine question, I've never found an answer to this. Is xG calculated per the league you are in, meaning you are using data for teams at your exact level and comparing to that or is it calculated far more widely than that and if so what is the scope? Prem to National League, Iceland Premier League to Azerbaijan Premier League?
Although xg doesn't really prove its worth when analysing a team when applied only to one game, it needs to be looked at over a number of games to really be of use.
It's why Hull are such an outlier, because they've massively outperformed theirs over nearly a whole season.
I assumed it was compared to all the available data.
I wonder how far that spreads though. If it goes as deep as I'd think it goes then you would think a Championship level striker would be able to outperform the 'average man' striker?I assumed it was compared to all the available data.
Sweet lord!Seen kids on Twitter saying Zidanes stats don't look all that, for example![]()
Yeh from what I can tell, different sites don't all calculate it the same way?Depends on the model I believe. If it were me I’d have some weighting but you’d assume that all things being equal (assume spherical footballers) a PL striker against PL defence averages out roughly the same as a L1 striker vs L1 defence.
As shmmeee says above, PL strikers against PL goalkeepers should be comparable for L1 strikers against Lee Burge.I wonder how far that spreads though. If it goes as deep as I'd think it goes then you would think a Championship level striker would be able to outperform the 'average man' striker?
Eh im thinking about it too much, I just need a game now. I'm not a hater, I think its a useful tool to know if you are creating chances with regularity over a prolonged period but I've always said football isn't as easily summed up in stats as shitey American sports. Seen kids on Twitter saying Zidanes stats don't look all that, for example![]()
So if you were searching for strikers from fairly shite leagues you'd be looking at the ones greatly outperforming their xG then wouldn't you rather than necessarily ones that have a lot of goals but about average xG conversion because their team creates a lot.As shmmeee says above, PL strikers against PL goalkeepers should be comparable for L1 strikers against Lee Burge.
Kids on Twitter don’t know they’re born, the best they’ll see is Declan Rice
Morgan Whittaker was massively outperforming his xG at Plymouth which is why Boro signed him, then his finishing went off a cliff. So there will be exceptions but that’s how I’ve interpreted it yes.So if you were searching for strikers from fairly shite leagues you'd be looking at the ones greatly outperforming their xG then wouldn't you rather than necessarily ones that have a lot of goals but about average xG conversion because their team creates a lot.
As shmmeee says above, PL strikers against PL goalkeepers should be comparable for L1 strikers against Lee Burge.
Kids on Twitter don’t know they’re born, the best they’ll see is Declan Rice
Norwich and ourselves I think are two teams who recruited heavily based on data and technical attributes but not so much on leadership qualities/personal attributes. Which is part of why they performed wildly differently under different managers who did and didn’t ‘get’ the players.And this is my issue with the stat zealots. Anyone trying to use them to make a case for Zidane not looking 'all that' really shouldn't be watching football.