robbiekeane
Well-Known Member
3rd in the league on average xG it seems. For those saying we don’t or haven’t competed etc. We really have been creating chances we just need to be more clinical and we would be absolutely flying.
Just need to be more clinical (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter robbiekeane
- Start date
3rd in the league on average xG it seems. For those saying we don’t or haven’t competed etc. We really have been creating chances we just need to be more clinical and we would be absolutely flying.
Philosorapter
Well-Known Member
Just kick the ball into the goal...
PUSB-We_are_going_up
Well-Known Member
Not the one with Simon Moore between the sticks tho!
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It looks pretty accurate in relation to general positions in the table
Jamesimus
Well-Known Member
Do we think our high xG might be slightly inflated based on the opposition we've faced so far?
Would be interested to hear of stories where a team that had a really great xG at the start of the season without scoring too many, then turned that into loads of actual goals later on, mainly just to make me feel better about Saturday...
Would be interested to hear of stories where a team that had a really great xG at the start of the season without scoring too many, then turned that into loads of actual goals later on, mainly just to make me feel better about Saturday...
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Why?
lord_garrincha
Well-Known Member
I will never be in a pub talking about our xG, but will more likely cursing the chances we had & missed... I guess this kinda formalises this, which is fine.
I have a question for people who follow this...
If you are playing Man City & getting battered with no attacks or shots on target... But only for a CB bringing the ball out of defence & hitting a 35 yard worldie into the top corner. Would the xG be less than 1 (what they have scored)?
I suppose if a striker who scores 20+ goals in a season in a team with a low xG may be seen in a better light.
I have a question for people who follow this...
If you are playing Man City & getting battered with no attacks or shots on target... But only for a CB bringing the ball out of defence & hitting a 35 yard worldie into the top corner. Would the xG be less than 1 (what they have scored)?
I suppose if a striker who scores 20+ goals in a season in a team with a low xG may be seen in a better light.
SlowerThanPlatt
Well-Known Member
I think so, Reading got hammered 4-0 at Huddersfield on Saturday. Blackpool and Forest are still to win and make up the bottom 3
Winny the Bish
Well-Known Member
Yes your xG would still be less than 1, as it's based on expected outcomes out shots rather than what actually happened.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Just to wind you up mate.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yes. Because you don’t “expect” to score a worldie. Hamers xG was lower than his goals last season I think because he scored almost exclusively worldies. Whereas O’Hare misses sitters so his goals were lower than his xG.
It’s just another data point to identify areas on interest and give context to blunt tools like goals (and assists for xA).
Imagine a midfielder playing with awful strikers who keeps putting the ball on a plate only to watch the donkeys fail to hit a cows arse with a banjo. xA would be high even though assists are low, which might tell you he’s worth a punt in your team with decent strikers. Same the other way around, a striker with low goals but also low xG just isn’t having chances made for him.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
We had an xG of around 1.5 against the Loftus Road Galacticos
MAFF
Well-Known Member
because he doesn't understand it
Frostie
Well-Known Member
So much so that it is now used by almost every professional club in the world.
Philosorapter
Well-Known Member
I'll have a shot here.
You are relying on in-game statistics instead of in-game heuristics
It is a bad way to try to capture the uniqueness of position.
xG is the road to mediocracy.
Last edited:
Frostie
Well-Known Member
Imagine Brighton last season.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Who is relying on anything?
It’s just another data point. More data is always better.
Machine learning has proved the value of statistics with big enough data over heuristics.
Jamesimus
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't doubt that, we had a lot of good chances first half, I'm just wondering if in 10 games time our xG would continue to be as high? I hope so, but with also considerably more goals.
Philosorapter
Well-Known Member
That's not correct.
xG is like putting winning percentage together to find your best move instead of using engine evaluation to measure heuristics.
It really is bad sports science.
Evidence is below.
Chess Opening Explorer - 365Chess.com
With our Chess Opening Explorer you can browse our entire chess database move by move. The Opening Explorer is the best tool if you want to study chess openings.
www.365chess.com
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
That's not correct.
xG is like putting winning percentage together to find your best move instead of using engine evaluation to measure heuristics.
It really is bad sports science.
Evidence is below.
Chess Opening Explorer - 365Chess.com
With our Chess Opening Explorer you can browse our entire chess database move by move. The Opening Explorer is the best tool if you want to study chess openings.
Chess is a really poor analogy though, it’s got very limited set of states. Football is far messier and harder to model. Modern data science methods like ML are far more appropriate than heuristics which rely on an oversimplified model. This is why your player model based on team performance doesn’t work. It’s too low resolution.
Feature selection and refinement based on big data inputs is far more likely to lead to insights.
Evidence is below
AlphaGo: The story so far
You’re trying to run before you can walk, talking about “moves” rather than individual player actions.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Chess is a really poor analogy though, it’s got very limited set of states. Football is far messier and harder to model. Modern data science methods like ML are far more appropriate than heuristics which rely on an oversimplified model. This is why your player model based on team performance doesn’t work. It’s too low resolution.
Feature selection and refinement based on big data inputs is far more likely to lead to insights.
Evidence is below
AlphaGo: The story so far
You’re trying to run before you can walk, talking about “moves” rather than individual player actions.
The chess idea could perhaps work if you were able to define a footballer’s ‘move accuracy’ as you can for a chess player.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You can’t though. Chess is a very simple game to model with only relatively few game states.
People have tried and failed to solve more complex games through heuristic methods, it’s only when approaches like reinforcement learning and deep learning (which are statistics based) were applied that we’ve had any success.
Philosorapter
Well-Known Member
Schmmeee, you are wrong.
The difference between a standard engine and Alpha-go is how they approach measuring heuristics. One being top-down and the other bottom-up.
This is how they measure a position. They are not relying on previous positions if you take out the opening book and end game database.
xG relies on looking at previous positions which are built on game heuristics instead of looking and evaluating the heuristics in themselves which have built the positions.
You can see how a standard engine evaluates heuristics below.
www.bewitched.com
The difference between a standard engine and Alpha-go is how they approach measuring heuristics. One being top-down and the other bottom-up.
This is how they measure a position. They are not relying on previous positions if you take out the opening book and end game database.
xG relies on looking at previous positions which are built on game heuristics instead of looking and evaluating the heuristics in themselves which have built the positions.
You can see how a standard engine evaluates heuristics below.
Thinking Machine 6
www.bewitched.com
Last edited:
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone can deny our finishing is generally pretty poor. It has been for several seasons. Even when we won league 1, most of our games were done with a single goal and we could, and should, have scored more.
Shock!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Schmmeee, you are wrong.
The difference between a standard engine and Alpha-go is how they approach measuring heuristics. One being top-down and the other bottom-up.
This is how they measure a position. They are not relying on previous positions if you take out the opening book and end game database.
xG relies on looking at previous positions which are built on game heuristics instead of looking and evaluating the heuristics in themselves which have built the positions.
You can see how a standard engine evaluates heuristics below.
Thinking Machine 6
You’re missing my point. AlphaGo couldn’t rely on standard heuristic methods because the game space was too large to brute force like chess. Football has an even bigger game space. More akin to something like StarCraft (another game DeepMind are having more success than most at modelling).
Rules based engines like we use for chess will only get you so far, then you need statistical models.
