The whole day did seem a little surreal.Does anyone else feel like yesterday was a fever dream? In the morning we announced we finally own our ground, then in the afternoon won 7-1. I had to check this morning if it was real, or if I dreamed it!
Most of us were half laughing/half cheering by the time the 6th and 7th went in due to the sheer absurdity of it all.Wasn't at the game, but watching YouTube vids it seemed that lots of our fans were too shocked to celebrate the goals eventually... Surely we don't score goals as good as Torp's second, do we?!
It was also further proof that xG and xA is a load of bollocks, 8 shots on target and 7 scored but an xG of just over 1.
until we repeat it next week !! XG only works if you take into account the quality of the player given the specific chanceAccording to the article yesterday in The Athletic, this was the 3rd largest discrepancy in xG to actual goals in over 18600 games across the major leagues where xG has been recorded. The odds of scoring from all of those 7 shots were calculated at 25000/1. Most of them had an individually very low xG.
In short, it was a freak outcome and doesn’t prove or disprove the concept of xG.
My brother said to me when I dropped him off.Does anyone else feel like yesterday was a fever dream? In the morning we announced we finally own our ground, then in the afternoon won 7-1. I had to check this morning if it was real, or if I dreamed it!
i don’t really understand it but it sounds quite subjective.until we repeat it next week !! XG only works if you take into account the quality of the player given the specific chance
Torp will score that 1 in 3 - but not many others would
3.26 XG v Derby 5 goals
1.11 XG v QPR 7 goals
until we repeat it next week !! XG only works if you take into account the quality of the player given the specific chance
Torp will score that 1 in 3 - but not many others would
3.26 XG v Derby 5 goals
1.11 XG v QPR 7 goals
If honest, id say 20,000 out of the 800 or so qpr fans that were still remaining cheered their goal.Wasn't at the game, but watching YouTube vids it seemed that lots of our fans were too shocked to celebrate the goals eventually... Surely we don't score goals as good as Torp's second, do we?!
It wasn't a freak outcome. we were all over QPR.According to the article yesterday in The Athletic, this was the 3rd largest discrepancy in xG to actual goals in over 18600 games across the major leagues where xG has been recorded. The odds of scoring from all of those 7 shots were calculated at 25000/1. Most of them had an individually very low xG.
In short, it was a freak outcome and doesn’t prove or disprove the concept of xG.
The cheer from our fans for their goal was that loud that QPR fans that were walking away thought we'd scored another goal.If honest, id say 20,000 out of the 800 or so qpr fans that were still remaining cheered their goal.
It's gotta hurt when you score away and the home fans are making the loudest cheer...
It wasn't a freak outcome. we were all over QPR.
Ok, if we’re being pedantic, it was a freak occurrence for 7 shots out of 8 to go in.
Have you ever seen that before, or anything like it?
Brazil 1 Germany 7?Ok, if we’re being pedantic, it was freak occurrence for 7 shots out of 8 to go in.
Have you ever seen that before, or anything like it?
Does anyone else feel like yesterday was a fever dream? In the morning we announced we finally own our ground, then in the afternoon won 7-1. I had to check this morning if it was real, or if I dreamed it!
Brazil 1 Germany 7?
No, it was just a guess. I remember watching it and in the 1st half especially everytime Germany attacked they seemed to score. Brazil also had plenty of decent chances to score more than 1.Try harder. Germany’s xG was 3.1 and they had 14 shots for 7 goals. Nowhere near comparable. Do you have a better example?
Try harder. Germany’s xG was 3.1 and they had 14 shots for 7 goals. Nowhere near comparable. Do you have a better example?
Apparently BTA's goal had an xG of 0.27, surely that is way too low. I wonder what the xG is for a penalty, surely above 0.5So I work a little bit with data and modelling (I'm more your plus size model, unfortunately), and I've got to say that I'm not convinced xG is particularly accurate.
Does xG account for things like player ability, surely a key predictive variable, or is it strictly based on pitch location and defensive set up.
Then you get to things like is it regularly re-validated and/or re-calibrated, or is it closer to a back of a fag packet metric than to a genuine model. It's not unfair to be sceptical.
Apparently BTA's goal had an xG of 0.27, surely that is way too low. I wonder what the xG is for a penalty, surely above 0.5
Similar to what I said in the QPR match thread and thought "the actual stats/data people are probably laughing at this because I've no idea how the actual metric works".So I work a little bit with data and modelling (I'm more your plus size model, unfortunately), and I've got to say that I'm not convinced xG is particularly accurate.
Does xG account for things like player ability, surely a key predictive variable, or is it strictly based on pitch location and defensive set up.
Then you get to things like is it regularly re-validated and/or re-calibrated, or is it closer to a back of a fag packet metric than to a genuine model. It's not unfair to be sceptical.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?