Gemmill

All I know is if Isak should score 75% of chances like last night's and Schar should be "shot with shit" for not scoring last night's header 3 out of 4 times, we can look forward to Isak breaking Shearer's NUFC goal record hopefully within the next season and a half, and Schar should be a comfortable second in all time NUFC scorers. We should probably win the league with a goal difference of about +300 next season as well, which will be canny. It's actually really weird that both of these haven't already happened using Toonpack's "Simple really, my eyes don't lie" model.

Depends on the model. Some just look at the position, others look at the relative positions of defenders, the keeper, etc.

"Simple really" You seem to be having an awful lot of trouble wrapping your head around it though. Read toonotl's post from a page or two back where he goes through Palace's chances and their xG score. Unless you're just here to pontificate and look daft.

"My eyes are the only thing I need for advanced statistical modelling." Alreet Alan Brazil.

75%. You're just ridiculous. Same as your patter about Schar's header. Begone.

Aye it was Schar.

I mean what are you even fucking talking about.

Toonpack's kinda people chatting Newcastle.

Simpleton, aye. They would also subscribe to my only fans if I had one though, so that works too.

As I've explained on multiple occasions, it's not about my expectations or anybody else's. It's not a matter of opinion. Nor is it about Isak specifically. I'm done talking about this with you. Either you're stupid or you're pretending to be, the experience for the person talking to you about it is the same.

Basically what MF is saying is I know what I'm talking about. If one of the fucking simps pipes up, they're gone. I support this.

Those probabilities are based on tens of thousands of actual real world shots/headers from actual real world games, from those exact same positions on the pitch. So you can disagree as much as you like, but you're wrong on the facts. This isn't about your opinion or the opinion of whoever came up with those xG scores.

To be clear, I'm not calling trans women "creepy blokes". Or suggesting they're rapists. I'm just saying that fear is irrational and women have been given ample reason to fear. As, by the way, have trans people. I'm sure there are other people, some of them women, a lot of them blokes, for whom this is just another battle to win. Like not wearing masks during covid, etc. And they can fuck off.

I can totally understand women fearing the idea of this being used by creepy rapists etc. And you can say it's irrational based on the evidence, I'm sure it is, but then fear is irrational. And it's not like women have nothing to fear from creepy blokes. I keep out of it cos it's not really my place to say how any sides in this argument should be feeling. I do wish, in the most shitty, simplistic way imaginable that everyone could just get to be who they want to be without people being a cunt about it. It's why I still think the likes of Rowling are fucking reprehensible cos that was just a very famous woman with a massive platform who at times seemed to genuinely be enjoying punching down and instigating pile-ons. I think she's a nasty piece of work.

I genuinely think the cup final has flipped a switch for the club. We went to Wembley and we battered the best team in the country and won comfortably, and now it looks like we're taking that into every game we play. Obviously you can't win every game, and we might even lose our next one, but I still think there's been a change somewhere. Last night was exactly the sort of game we usually either lose or win by 1 goal and it's nervy as fuck. We started like a train and were out of sight by half time. That's the sort of thing big, confident clubs do, and that isn't usually us.

I have no problem believing this.

Neither does anyone else at the match. Nor do I when I'm watching. Nor am I suggesting you should be totting up xG at the game. That doesn't prevent me from understanding that there are people paid to do exactly that because it's incredibly valuable to people that understand statistics. And those people are now employed by football clubs. You're basically proudly being Howard Wilkinson in this discussion. This is precisely what I'm talking about when I reference stupidity being worn as a badge of honour.

He scored from outside the D. It's the little blue star just in front of the D in the graphic below. Think of how many shots from there go in. It's a really low proportion man. Think of all that are blazed over, wide, are just terrible shots, or are saved. I have no problem believing that, on average, 4% of shots from there result in a goal. 1 in every 25 shots seems reasonable to me. It's why you don't see anywhere near as many long shots these days, and why Man City spend forever building up around the box. https://understat.com/match/26890 Visit that link and you can tap on all of our chances and all of Palace's and it'll tell you the xG for them. The two big circles are Isak chances.

I'm not sure whose model Sky use. I would guess Opta but I don't know. The one I posted, our full match xG was 2.33. I don't have any argument with their assessment of our four goals: Schar: 0.28 Barnes: 0.27 Murphy: 0.03 Isak: 0.04 OG: 0.00 So if our total combined xG from our 5 goals scored was 0.62xG, the idea that the remainder of our xG from which we got zero goals totalled 1.71 doesn't seem that ridiculous to me at all. It's not remotely uncommon for teams to score 5 goals from 2 or 3 xG. Usually in a top league, when one team beats another decent team by that many goals, it's cos they've had one of those days where stuff just flies into the net. As for Palace's chances, honestly I dismiss them from my memory as soon as they happen, which in itself tells you that as fans we have a tendency to weight our own chances higher than we weight the opposition. I couldn't describe a single one of Palace's missed chances to you from last jight I appreciate you trying to engage sensibly btw. Genuinely some of the patter on here about a statistic which is the cornerstone of how matches and players are assessed by the biggest clubs in the world, is embarrassing. Not often on here that you see stupidity worn as a badge of honour but it's paraded around proudly by some when it comes to xG.

I'm like a missionary trying to bring civilisation to a fucking backwards tribe of simps.

Wilful ignorance is still ignorance.

The idea that a header from where Schar headed his chance results in a goal 60% of the time btw.

It was 0.28 for Schar's. 0.27 for Barnes. 0.03 for Murphy, 0.04 for Isak.

It's all in there. Of course our missed chances count too. The goals we scored only add up to 0.62 xG on the Understat model I posted. But we got total xG of 2.33, so the remainder comprised our missed chances. So another 1.7 or so xG for our missed chances.

We're cewkin the bewks and then just not spending it. Howe, Tindall, Mitchell and Eales like diving into it like Scrooge McDuck too much. Eventually someone will find their money swimming pool.