Rumble's Slightly Positive Expected Goals Ramble

[RumbleFox]

Hi all

 

If this is better in another section of the forum or has been mentioned elsewhere then please move/merge.

 

First of all, two caveats:

1 - I am by no means an expert on stats or on betting so input very welcome and I may have completely misunderstood the whole concept so happy to be corrected.

2- I am by no means using any of these stats as any kind of “proof” we will do well or trying to be too positive I just thought they were interesting.

 

So…….. I have just been looking at “Expected Goal” (XG) stats for the first 4 games of the season.

 

In terms of XG Leicester are currently sitting in 8^th position whilst our “Expected Goals Against” (XGA) sees us in 17^th.  Basically, we have scored slightly fewer goals than “expected” based on goal scoring opportunities encountered and, if we scored all of our “expected goals” we would have scored the 8^th most in the league.

 

Conversely, we have conceded slightly more goals than “expected".  If we had let in as many goals as “expected” our goals against would be 17^th in the league.

 

Now these stats need to be taken with a huge pinch of salt and it is hard to attach “meaning” to them as we could have lower goals scored than expected because we have been unlucky, because our strikers are shite, because opponent goalies play a blinder, etc, etc.  There are far too many variables but at least we are creating viable goal scoring chances (indeed the 8^th most in the league so far) although we seem to be giving them away at the other end?

 

Anyway, I cannot explain it much better as I am a fvcking dullard simpleton so what am I trying to say?!?!

 

Basically……  as a tonic for the negativity, and especially as we have played a number of very good teams (Man U have the highest XG by a clear 2 goals so it makes sense that our XGA might be high) you can “expect” us to do better in the future should goals for and against regress to the mean.

 

Anyway, thought it might be an interesting start for a topic but if not I’ll gladly go do a sh1t in my hand and force it, slowly, into my own urethra.

 

Rumble.

 

X

[turtmcfly]

2 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

Hi all

 

If this is better in another section of the forum or has been mentioned elsewhere then please move/merge.

 

First of all, two caveats:

1 - I am by no means an expert on stats or on betting so input very welcome and I may have completely misunderstood the whole concept so happy to be corrected.

2- I am by no means using any of these stats as any kind of “proof” we will do well or trying to be too positive I just thought they were interesting.

 

So…….. I have just been looking at “Expected Goal” (XG) stats for the first 4 games of the season.

 

In terms of XG Leicester are currently sitting in 8^th position whilst our “Expected Goals Against” (XGA) sees us in 17^th.  Basically, we have scored slightly fewer goals than “expected” based on goal scoring opportunities encountered and, if we scored all of our “expected goals” we would have scored the 8^th most in the league.

 

Conversely, we have conceded slightly more goals than “expected, if we would have let in as many as “expected” our goals against would be 17^th in the league.

 

Now these stats need to be taken with a huge pinch of salt and it is hard to attach “meaning” to them as we could have lower goals scored than expected because we have been unlucky, because our strikers are shite, because opponent goalies play a blinder, etc, etc.  There are far too many variables but at least we are creating viable goal scoring chances (indeed the 8^th most in the league so far) although we seem to be giving them away at the other end?

 

Anyway, I cannot explain it much better as I am a fvcking dullard simpleton so what am I trying to say?!?!

 

Basically……  as a tonic for the negativity, and especially as we have played a number of very good teams (Man U have the highest XG by a clear 2 goals so it makes sense that our XGA might be high) you can “expect” us to do better in the future should goals for and against regress to the mean.

 

Anyway, thought it might be an interesting start for a topic but if not I’ll gladly go do a sh1t in my hand and force it, slowly, into my own urethra.

 

Rumble.

 

X

 

I'm more Interested to know your Expected Shit In Hand and Force Slowly into Urethra (XSHFSU) figure for this point in the season.

 

[RumbleFox]

1 minute ago, turtmcfly said:

 

I'm more Interested to know your Expected Shit In Hand and Force Slowly into Urethra (XSHFSU) figure for this point in the season.

 

It's a solid 17.46. X

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

Hi all

 

If this is better in another section of the forum or has been mentioned elsewhere then please move/merge.

 

First of all, two caveats:

1 - I am by no means an expert on stats or on betting so input very welcome and I may have completely misunderstood the whole concept so happy to be corrected.

2- I am by no means using any of these stats as any kind of “proof” we will do well or trying to be too positive I just thought they were interesting.

 

So…….. I have just been looking at “Expected Goal” (XG) stats for the first 4 games of the season.

 

In terms of XG Leicester are currently sitting in 8^th position whilst our “Expected Goals Against” (XGA) sees us in 17^th.  Basically, we have scored slightly fewer goals than “expected” based on goal scoring opportunities encountered and, if we scored all of our “expected goals” we would have scored the 8^th most in the league.

 

Conversely, we have conceded slightly more goals than “expected, if we would have let in as many as “expected” our goals against would be 17^th in the league.

 

Now these stats need to be taken with a huge pinch of salt and it is hard to attach “meaning” to them as we could have lower goals scored than expected because we have been unlucky, because our strikers are shite, because opponent goalies play a blinder, etc, etc.  There are far too many variables but at least we are creating viable goal scoring chances (indeed the 8^th most in the league so far) although we seem to be giving them away at the other end?

 

Anyway, I cannot explain it much better as I am a fvcking dullard simpleton so what am I trying to say?!?!

 

Basically……  as a tonic for the negativity, and especially as we have played a number of very good teams (Man U have the highest XG by a clear 2 goals so it makes sense that our XGA might be high) you can “expect” us to do better in the future should goals for and against regress to the mean.

 

Anyway, thought it might be an interesting start for a topic but if not I’ll gladly go do a sh1t in my hand and force it, slowly, into my own urethra.

 

Rumble.

 

X

Haha, I don't want you to do that mate.  I wouldnt speak for the others of course.....

 

Those stats do tell the story in some ways:  Against Chelsea we conceded goals that in most matches wouldn't have gone in and we had at least one chance that more often than not would go in, for example

 

I think we'd all agree we havent created as much as this team could when at full strength, which is our failing, but also you could argue luck hasnt gone our way in these big games.  Arsenal were lucky to come back.  Man U really did outplay us and we didnt do much, but then again we did alright and if we had the rub of the green could have scraped something.,..

 

But yeah, generally those stats are reasons not to be so negative, and when we get Nacho and Iborra and, testicles crossed, Silva, we should be more competitive and start to make our own luck more often

 

 

 

 

 

[Phube]

@RumbleFox if you're going to do this. ( The expected goals thing, not the shot in your urethra thing!) Then you need to tell us where we actually are in the Goals scored and conceded league to compare. 

 

I.e. are we just crap at scoring/defending or doing as we'd expect?

[RumbleFox]

54 minutes ago, Phube said:

@RumbleFox if you're going to do this. ( The expected goals thing, not the shot in your urethra thing!) Then you need to tell us where we actually are in the Goals scored and conceded league to compare. 

 

I.e. are we just crap at scoring/defending or doing as we'd expect?

I agree, sorry, I am at work and rushed!  Basically, we have scored 0.61 fewer goals than "expected" and conceded 1.63 more goals than "expected".  Though "position wise" I think it is still 8th and 17th?  Over a longer period would make more difference I suppose? X

[the fox]

22 minutes ago, Phube said:

@RumbleFox if you're going to do this. ( The expected goals thing, not the shot in your urethra thing!) Then you need to tell us where we actually are in the Goals scored and conceded league to compare. 

 

Here you go, phube!

Saw this on twitter the other day and I thought I would post it because the topic is a bit similar

[TiffToff88]

"Rumbles slightly long winded statistical ramble"

[RumbleFox]

3 minutes ago, TiffToff88 said:

"Rumbles slightly long winded statistical ramble"

"Rumble's Actually Quite A Lot Long Winded and, Let's Be fair, Pretty Darned Boring Faux Statistical Ramble" X

[Kitchandro]

Expected goals is a load of shit.

[waylander]

1 minute ago, Kitchandro said:

Expected goals is a load of shit.

Think that's what he said at the end . ??

[Max Wall]

1 hour ago, turtmcfly said:

 

I'm more Interested to know your Expected Shit In Hand and Force Slowly into Urethra (XSHFSU) figure for this point in the season.

 

 

1 hour ago, RumbleFox said:

It's a solid 17.46. X

 

23 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

Expected goals is a load of shit.

Solid or otherwise?

Luckily, I live close to Bristol where they are experts on the matter.

Especially relevant at Ashton Gate where they are all 'hard shits' apparently.

Did they really need to use the word skittish in their description of the BSFS?

 

What exactly are normal stools?

Researchers at the Bristol Royal Infirmary—a hospital in Bristol, England—developed a visual guide for stools. It is called the Bristol Stool Form Scale.

It is a self-diagnostic chart designed to help skittish patients discuss this delicate subject with their doctors without getting embarrassed.

 

Source - Gutsense.org

https://www.gutsense.org/constipation/normal_stools.html

[RumbleFox]

26 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

Expected goals is a load of shit.

Thanks for your valuable input. X

[The Horse's Mouth]

OP gave me a migraine. X 

[UPinCarolina]

1 hour ago, turtmcfly said:

 

I'm more Interested to know your Expected Shit In Hand and Force Slowly into Urethra (XSHFSU) figure for this point in the season.

 

It goes slowly, slowly.

[CosbehFox]

I was surprised when I seen the stat after the Chelsea game as we are notoriously low scorers on it

[RumbleFox]

7 minutes ago, Max Wall said:

 

 

Solid or otherwise?

Luckily, I live close to Bristol where they are experts on the matter.

Especially relevant at Ashton Gate where they are all 'hard shits' apparently.

Did they really need to use the word skittish in their description of the BSFS?

 

What exactly are normal stools?

Researchers at the Bristol Royal Infirmary—a hospital in Bristol, England—developed a visual guide for stools. It is called the Bristol Stool Form Scale.

It is a self-diagnostic chart designed to help skittish patients discuss this delicate subject with their doctors without getting embarrassed.

 

Source - Gutsense.org

https://www.gutsense.org/constipation/normal_stools.html

Wow, have been looking for something like this all my life.  I definitely fluctuate between Types 2 and 3. Damn it, even via the medium of poop I still don't quite "fit in". X

[Stadt]

22 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

Expected goals is a load of shit.

That's not particularly true, I'd say the analytics community place too much emphasis upon them but they are useful tool to assess the quality of chances scored and conceded. 

 

Because football is a relatively low scoring game (compared to say Basketball or Rugby) the side the creates the most chances doesn't win as often as they probably should but xG can identify concerning output or whether or not it was just one of those games. 

 

I know I'm not going to change your mind but it's certainly not a load of shit, overvalued probably but not a load of shit.

[Crinklyfox]

1 hour ago, RumbleFox said:

I agree, sorry, I am at work and rushed!  Basically, we have scored 0.61 fewer goals than "expected" and conceded 1.63 more goals than "expected".  Though "position wise" I think it is still 8th and 17th?  Over a longer period would make more difference I suppose? X

Where do the 'expectations' come from?  This is a serious question, as my thoughts are that the expectations are based on the perceived abilities of our squad or could be related to value in the transfer market.  Either way, these premises cannot be taken as reliable, otherwise I suspect we would have been relegated on paper in our championship season.

 

To quote Disraeli, 'there are lies, damn lies and statistics'.

[RumbleFox]

1 minute ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

OP gave me a migraine. X 

You should try writing it mate, I basically put myself into a coma. X

[Max Wall]

Just now, RumbleFox said:

Wow, have been looking for something like this all my life.  I definitely fluctuate between Types 2 and 3. Damn it, even via the medium of poop I still don't quite "fit in". X

Think nothing of it. Most Bristolians don't 'fit in' either.

[Stadt]

Just now, Cardiff_Fox said:

I was surprised when I seen the stat after the Chelsea game as we are notoriously low scorers on it

Slimani's chance would have had a high value (not sure if penalties are excluded) so probably because of that 

[Captain...]

49 minutes ago, the fox said:

Here you go, phube!

Saw this on twitter the other day and I thought I would post it because the topic is a bit similar

 

But that only tells us the expected goals, what I find interesting is  expected goals vs actual goals, https://talksport.com/football/expected-goals-stats-experts-reveal-how-premier-league-matchweek-four-games-should-have?p=4

Have a look at how the weekend's matches should have finished, the relevant fixture being Leicester city 1.4 Chelsea 0.83 rounding would mean 1-1, but it shows we created he better chances, although this is probably skewed by the penalty.

[Stadt]

5 minutes ago, Crinklyfox said:

Where do the 'expectations' come from?  This is a serious question, as my thoughts are that the expectations are based on the perceived abilities of our squad or could be related to value in the transfer market.  Either way, these premises cannot be taken as reliable, otherwise I suspect we would have been relegated on paper in our championship season.

 

To quote Disraeli, 'there are lies, damn lies and statistics'.

Based on historical data of how often shits* from certain positions with certain variables are scored.

 

Teams have xG and so do players, good players will consistently have more goals than expected.

 

 

*shots  

[RumbleFox]

1 minute ago, Crinklyfox said:

Where do the 'expectations' come from?  This is a serious question, as my thoughts are that the expectations are based on the perceived abilities of our squad or could be related to value in the transfer market.  Either way, these premises cannot be taken as reliable, otherwise I suspect we would have been relegated on paper in our championship season.

 

To quote Disraeli, 'there are lies, damn lies and statistics'.

I think it is a analytical rather than a predictive stat.  I believe it comes from actual goal scoring positions during the period (shots, passes, where shots are, etc) and then this is all assigned a number of how many goals you would normally be expected to score given the "chances/positions" you had in said period.  I fully agree, not putting any real weight into these, as you could have very few chances but be clinical and win the league (as we did).  However statistically, you do give yourself a better "chance" of scoring if you created more goal scoring opportunities.

 

X