Wor Eddie's Fuck The Draw Bastards v Eriks Schmoking the Pancake School Meal Wankers - AKA The League Cup Final + Gemmill Loves Excel

[Gemmill 34636]

Why are the xG and actual score often not the same? Because players can miss gilt edged chances and score worldies. 

 

I'm not here to convert you BTW. This isn't a "believing" issue. It's statistical probability. 

[Howay 12462]

I’m personally looking to the Wolves match as an indicator, Man City away is a horrendous fixture and we won’t set up like we will against the majority. If we see a team against wolves that plays with the aggression and powerful running as we’ve seen in the past, along with signs that Isak and Gordon are integrating (both should absolutely start imo) then I’ll be positive about our CL place chances. 
 

I agree missing top 4 this year would feel like a missed chance given we’ve been there most the season, it would help us accelerate the project as well, but if we do miss out I’m not too worried for our future chances as the points tally always seems to hover around the same mark each season and teams will always go on weird runs. I think we’re in a decent position and although I wanted us to bring a CM in in January I’m excited to see what Gordon and Isak bring to the side when Bruno is involved. 

[Ayatollah Hermione 12768]

1 hour ago, PaddockLad said:

Yeah we’ve no chance of winning but it’s the money the champions league brings in that would be the most significant thing for me, the standard of player we could attract etc. Am like you, more than happy with the progress we’ve made. But if we don’t finish top 4 I think its fair to say that it’s a missed opportunity that may be difficult to repeat, especially next season and f we’re in the Thursday/Sunday slot 👍

I’m not sure it’s so unattainable next season tbh. Our record against the teams around us is pretty good and I don’t see that changing anytime soon, if I’m honest considering we’re going to give everyone a good game. The signings in the summer will hopefully solve the biggest problems which is turning the frustrating draws against the shite into wins. I find it hard to believe that we’ll only lose a handful of games next season like this one but I bet we win more 

[ackas 304]

9 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Why are the xG and actual score often not the same? Because players can miss gilt edged chances and score worldies. 

 

I'm not here to convert you BTW. This isn't a "believing" issue. It's statistical probability. 

 

2 games from this season

 

https://understat.com/match/18382

 

https://understat.com/match/18348

 

The 0-0 Arsenal game was pretty even.

We had the bigger chance 

But they dominated possession and forced us to defend deep - xG wont give you that info

 

The 1-4 Saints game
Their xG was higher believe it or not

Our finishing was just better. Or to some degree the xG model is expecting their keeper to save Wood's and Bruno's efforts, or for them to be blocked more than 90% of the time

 

xG is just a model to possibly give some other insights into games, which may or may not be apparent to the naked eye

Its not a religion 🙂

[Toonpack 6892]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

Why are the xG and actual score often not the same? Because players can miss gilt edged chances and score worldies. 

 

I'm not here to convert you BTW. This isn't a "believing" issue. It's statistical probability. 

 

No, that wasn't the question, why does it seem a team with better xG lose/draw a game an inordinate amount of times.

 

What does it add to anything that can't be understood/observed already by watching the game.

 

"We were all over them, but we could have played until midnight and not scored" you can see it and giving it a number serves no purpose.

 

It's assigning a statistical probability to something which is way too variable.

 

I can see some value assigning it to players as a measure of how clinical in front of goal they are, even then though you've got "he scores that 9 times out of 10" or "he couldn't hit a barn door" which you can see for yourself.

[Gemmill 34636]

5 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

No, that wasn't the question, why does it seem a team with better xG lose/draw a game an inordinate amount of times.

 

 

That's the same question that I answered. Honestly the resistance to accept that this is a valid measure is ridiculous. 

[Howmanheyman 26982]

"Resistance is futile, guys!"

[Toonpack 6892]

3 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

That's the same question that I answered. Honestly the resistance to accept that this is a valid measure is ridiculous. 

 

So because of the many variables, easily viewed through one's own eyes. it's often incorrect - yes ?? (i.e. useless)

 

[Gemmill 34636]

Ffs. xG not equalling actual goals scored doesn't make it an inaccurate measure. 

 

I'm running out of ways to explain this to you. 

[The Fish 9017]

55 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

Explain the evidence which you suggested didn't exist. Why does it happen ?? go on, educate a non-believer.

 

 

 

Because xG records quality of chances, how many goals you'd 'expect' to see from the chances that occurred in the game. In those games you show, the xG adds so much more context than the Goals for and against figures do. 

 

The Man Utd - Newcastle game there. it shows that despite the 2-0 scoreline, the game was one of relatively few 'good' chances and that 2-0 flatters Man Utd. Their freekick was excellent, but in reality that chance is one that is missed more often than not. Rashford's 'goal' was, again, not a massive chance. 

 

It doesn't mean the team with the highest xG will always win, because football isn't like that. It simply records which team created the most high 'good' chances. 0.4 - 0.7 means there weren't any big chances and there was a huge difference between the two sides.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3212]

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

 

Because xG records quality of chances, how many goals you'd 'expect' to see from the chances that occurred in the game. In those games you show, the xG adds so much more context than the Goals for and against figures do. 

 

The Man Utd - Newcastle game there. it shows that despite the 2-0 scoreline, the game was one of relatively few 'good' chances and that 2-0 flatters Man Utd. Their freekick was excellent, but in reality that chance is one that is missed more often than not. Rashford's 'goal' was, again, not a massive chance. 

 

It doesn't mean the team with the highest xG will always win, because football isn't like that. It simply records which team created the most high 'good' chances. 0.4 - 0.7 means there weren't any big chances and there was a huge difference between the two sides.

But it’s not a well balanced evidentiary statistic https://www.apwin.com/blog/xg-accuracy/

[Dr Gloom 19841]

does anyone think we should have beaten man u based on the quality of the chances created by both teams on sunday? xG suggests we should have. 

 

using the "eye test" i think we controlled the game for large periods but that man u had the more clear cut chances and worked our goalkeeper more, while we didn't do enough in the final third given the amount we had the ball. 

[MrBass 2254]

1 hour ago, Toonpack said:

Explain the evidence which you suggested didn't exist. Why does it happen ?? go on, educate a non-believer.

 

 

 

I'd say it happens because teams get themselves in front then don't have the same urgency to score and are happy to sit back and hit on the counter.

[ackas 304]

16 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

does anyone think we should have beaten man u based on the quality of the chances created by both teams on sunday? xG suggests we should have. 

 

using the "eye test" i think we controlled the game for large periods but that man u had the more clear cut chances and worked our goalkeeper more, while we didn't do enough in the final third given the amount we had the ball. 

 

xG doesnt suggest that at all.

It merely adds up the quality of your chances to give a number.

Its not suggesting for one minute that we should have won

 

Using the "eye test", I agree, but xG isnt necessarily disagreeing

 

[Christmas Tree 3997]

[Dr Gloom 19841]

4 minutes ago, ackas said:

 

xG doesnt suggest that at all.

It merely adds up the quality of your chances to give a number.

Its not suggesting for one minute that we should have won

 

Using the "eye test", I agree, but xG isnt necessarily disagreeing

 

 

ok, forgive me if i'm getting this wrong.

 

xG implies we created the higher value goal scoring opportunities, no? and therefore we created the better chances?

 

because that wasn't my takeaway having watched the game. it looked to me like we had loads of the ball, but Man U created the better chances. 

 

however i confess 

 

 

 

[The Fish 9017]

51 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

No, that wasn't the question, why does it seem a team with better xG lose/draw a game an inordinate amount of times.

 

What does it add to anything that can't be understood/observed already by watching the game.

 

"We were all over them, but we could have played until midnight and not scored" you can see it and giving it a number serves no purpose.

 

It's assigning a statistical probability to something which is way too variable.

 

I can see some value assigning it to players as a measure of how clinical in front of goal they are, even then though you've got "he scores that 9 times out of 10" or "he couldn't hit a barn door" which you can see for yourself.

Of the 220 PL games played so far, 137 games have gone the way of xG. That's 62%.

51 of the remaining 83 have <0.7 variance. (In other words 186 results have been at least close to the 'expected' result)

 

So there've only been 32 results from the Premier League season that have gone differently than the xG suggested, by a significant measure.

 

Of those 32, 7 wins went to the team with the significantly lower xG. 

 

tl;dr I don't think you get it.

 

 

[The Fish 9017]

43 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

does anyone think we should have beaten man u based on the quality of the chances created by both teams on sunday? xG suggests we should have. 

 

using the "eye test" i think we controlled the game for large periods but that man u had the more clear cut chances and worked our goalkeeper more, while we didn't do enough in the final third given the amount we had the ball. 

 

 

No it doesn't.

[Dr Gloom 19841]

Just now, The Fish said:

 

 

No it doesn't.

 

xG suggests we created the higher value opportunities, no? 

[Toonpack 6892]

1 hour ago, Gemmill said:

Ffs. xG not equalling actual goals scored doesn't make it an inaccurate measure. 

 

I'm running out of ways to explain this to you. 

 FFS, I never said it did.

 

It is however, when compared to visual evidence, utterly unnecessary and adds nothing to the enjoyment of the game.

[ackas 304]

12 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

ok, forgive me if i'm getting this wrong.

 

xG implies we created the higher value goal scoring opportunities, no? and therefore we created the better chances?

 

because that wasn't my takeaway having watched the game. it looked to me like we had loads of the ball, but Man U created the better chances. 

 

however i confess 

 

 

 

 

We created chances that added up to a higher value

I think the best chance of the day was the one Fernandes had at the end

The chances that turned into goals weren't high xG, I think they were 0.12 and 0.11

So, for each one, 90% of the time they dont score those 

 

I share your takeaway. We had much more of the ball, but the game lacked many clear cut chances

 

 

[Dr Gloom 19841]

7 minutes ago, ackas said:

 

We created chances that added up to a higher value

I think the best chance of the day was the one Fernandes had at the end

The chances that turned into goals weren't high xG, I think they were 0.12 and 0.11

So, for each one, 90% of the time they dont score those 

 

I share your takeaway. We had much more of the ball, but the game lacked many clear cut chances

 

 

 

right, so according to whoever does the xG modelling, we created the chances that added to a higher value?

 

that doesn't marry with the game i watched

 

but again...

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by Dr Gloom

[PaddockLad 14638]

No one can agree on how to interpret xG?  What a completely unexpected surprise

[Kid Dynamite 5941]

We need a ban on Xg chat on here. It's so fucking tedious  

[Gemmill 34636]

4 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 FFS, I never said it did.

 

It is however, when compared to visual evidence, utterly unnecessary and adds nothing to the enjoyment of the game.

 

I mean it's not intended for you to tot it up and celebrate high xG chances during the game.

 

Flailing tbh.