Jump to content
Cardiff_Fox

The "do they mean us?" thread pt 2

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, KingsX said:

Again: xG is a simple statistical abstraction of the number and quality of chances.  What attacks have tried to maximize, and defenses to minimize, since the first Association Football match.  What fans have discussed since the first ale was raised five minutes after that.

 

It’s not a conspiracy, it’s not even an advanced stat.  It’s just an ever-evolving attempt to put numbers to the most basic and universally understood concept out there.  Granted:

 

-  It’s only the ones that actually go into the net that count.  No shit.

-  In any given match, chances do not necessarily correspond to ones that go into the net.  No shit.

-  Teams with elite finishers (like JV) convert a higher proportion of their chances.  No shit.

 

Those obvious facts do not invalidate what should be the equally obvious fact, in the long run, more and better chances result in more goals.

Perfectly put.  Some folk's almost delusional dislike of stats baffles me completely.  It seems humans are increasingly unable to see any form of grey in an argument.  There are not two choices:

 

1. Stats explain/predict everything.

2. Stats explain/predict nothing.

 

X

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Am I the only person that realises/thinks the Everton tweet was entirely self knowing?

Clearly self deprecating and if our fans cant see that then they need a course in self awareness !

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Football365 seem to change their minds daily on us. We are great, then shit at Old Trafford, then great again, then can't attack well now are good again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody tell me the formula which calculates xG? I'm particularly interested in the variables contributing to the "quality of chance" and how they are modelled? If you can't answer questions like this you can't say the stat is good because you're guessing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Foxymcoxy said:

Can somebody tell me the formula which calculates xG? I'm particularly interested in the variables contributing to the "quality of chance" and how they are modelled? If you can't answer questions like this you can't say the stat is good because you're guessing.

 

Exactly, a good chance for Vardy would be at his feet but to someone else might be a header because they aren’t a good finisher.

 

For example, if the ball isn’t fired 120mph at Okazaki, waist high while he’s facing the wrong way he’s never going to score is he.

Edited by Leeds Fox
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

 

Exactly, a good chance for Vardy would be at his feet but to someone else might be a header because they aren’t a good finisher.

 

For example, if the ball isn’t fired 120mph at Okazaki, waist high while he’s facing the wrong way he’s never going to score is he.

Of course he would. He'd fall over, it'd smash him in the face as he fell and would creep just over the line.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corky said:

Football365 seem to change their minds daily on us. We are great, then shit at Old Trafford, then great again, then can't attack well now are good again.

 

Different writers. Different opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Everton fans constantly got a chip on their shoulder, we are everything they wish they were. 

Hmm I think the cause of that chip on their shoulder is a lot closer to home for them. Liverpool are probs everything they wish they were to be fair. They are a bit odd everton fans, but I don’t half sympathise with them you know. 

Edited by Manini

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

Am I the only person that realises/thinks the Everton tweet was entirely self knowing?

Ahhhhh yeah. Now you’ve said it. My above point still stands though IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, turtmcfly said:

 

Different writers. Different opinions.

I know, just thinking about how it would look if they were all in a list and how odd it would appear.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raw Dykes said:

No, it's not speculation at all. It's really a more informative version of shots on goal and shots on target stats. It tells you how many goals a team 'should' have scored based on the number and quality of chances they created.

Mate, it's total speculation. It's all subjective.

 

Is a chance from three yards out the same as one one from five yards, or is further away easier? Is it raining? Is the goalie out of position? Has the chance fallen to the players stronger foot? It's all cobblers, just based on subjectiveness, not objectivity or real measurements which can be challenged. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BoyJones said:

Mate, it's total speculation. It's all subjective.

 

Is a chance from three yards out the same as one one from five yards, or is further away easier? Is it raining? Is the goalie out of position? Has the chance fallen to the players stronger foot? It's all cobblers, just based on subjectiveness, not objectivity or real measurements which can be challenged. 

A lot of those things are taken into account. It pretty much objectively says on average a shot taken from y position struck with a foot (as opposed to a head) yields a goal roughly 25% of the time. There's a post shot xG model which is more detailed and includes more factors.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BoyJones said:

Mate, it's total speculation. It's all subjective.

 

Is a chance from three yards out the same as one one from five yards, or is further away easier? Is it raining? Is the goalie out of position? Has the chance fallen to the players stronger foot? It's all cobblers, just based on subjectiveness, not objectivity or real measurements which can be challenged. 

It's something for the football hipsters with their top knots and borussia Dortmund shirts on to feel smug about while they're sniffing they're own farts. the sort of rubbish a "But he's good on FIFA" idiot would spout. 

 

It's just a pointless stat. At the end of the game player X either took the chance or he didn't. Does it really matter if he had a 30% chance of scoring while a pigeon is flying within a 100 mile radius. 

 

Yeah vardy for example may have a 75% chance of scoring a certain chance, based on similar chances, but de gea could have an 80% chance of making a save because he's saved 80% of similar chances. But nobody goes on about xS (expected saves) Or expected defensive recoveries etc etc

Edited by daventry_fox
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, daventry_fox said:

It's something for the football hipsters with their top knots and borussia Dortmund shirts on to feel smug about while they're sniffing they're own farts. the sort of rubbish a "But he's good on FIFA" idiot would spout. 

 

It's just a pointless stat. At the end of the game player X either took the chance or he didn't. Does it really matter if he had a 30% chance of scoring while a pigeon is flying within a 100 mile radius. 

 

Yeah vardy for example may have a 75% chance of scoring a certain chance, based on similar chances, but de gea could have an 80% chance of making a save because he's saved 80% of similar chances. 

 

I was reading the post above, saw the still of the video (assuming the guy has a patronising voice about to explain it all to us), and wanted to put something. 

 

Went down one comment and you'd already put it perfectly. 

 

It’s one stat that people take as a guideline to a teams success... ignoring 1000s of other variables that occur over the course of a game. 

 

I know it is purely a stat on how likely a chance is to be taken, but it’s being used as a measure of a teams likely success. It doesn’t take into account the risks taken to create these chances. 

 

The video says the sample was taken over 300,000 attempts, the quality of the striker and goalkeeper obviously play a huge part too. 

Edited by Leeds Fox
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raw Dykes said:

lol It's not pointless just because you don't get it.

 

We used to just look at shots taken and shots on target to get an idea of how a match went. However, these can be misleading. One team might have been taking long range potshots all match that the keeper was catching without having to move his feet, while the other team may have rattled the woodwork a few times from close range.

 

xG is just a more detailed version of shots stats to paint a better picture. It assigns a score for each type of chance created based on the probability of it resulting in a goal. Say, 0.8 for a penalty and 0.1 for a 30-yarder. Not all chances are equal, and xG is designed to account for that.

 

You can get an idea of how well a keeper played by looking at the opposition's xG and comparing it to the actual score.

 

It's not perfect, and can still be misleading, but it's better than what we had before, and is still in its infancy

All stats are pointless...except the goals scored stat. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, daventry_fox said:

All stats are pointless...except the goals scored stat. 

Ok, lets look at this a different way - what does goals scored tell you?

- how many goal you scored (no sh*t) - but what else?

- who your goal providers are

- but also who couldn`t hit a barn door

Then look a little deeper . Who puts this super chances on a plate for our goal scorer?

- And then who was sh*t at assist

Were these assist on the ground?

- yes they were through balls

- Did we get many assists from crosses?

- No cos Chilwell cannot cross for poo

 

This tyoe i]of info can guide training, recruitment, set pieces, etc, etc

 

Not sure how you can conclude stats are useless, unless you are being deliberately obtuse. :blink:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Wolfox said:

We better sack of that  £100k head of data that we just employed then…

 

our scouting team use a ton of stats to assess players and how far along they are in their development…

 

Stats are relevant and are part of modern football and just because we don’t like what they’re telling us

doesn’t make them any less relevant 

Yeah the difference being they all have input into match day squads etc etc etc. 

 

We don't so yeah it's pointless information to be debating 

Edited by daventry_fox
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

What a strange thing to get so bitter and weird about.

Someone's opinion differs from yours they must be bitter and weird right? 

 

Great input to the discussion there buddy

Edited by daventry_fox
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, daventry_fox said:

Someone's opinion differs from yours they must be bitter right? 

 

'It's something for the football hipsters with their top knots and borussia Dortmund shirts on to feel smug about while they're sniffing they're own farts. the sort of rubbish a "But he's good on FIFA" idiot would spout. '

 

It's hard to see why anyone would think you were bitter.

 

While some on here have manfully tried to explain the xG stat, and why it might be an interesting indicator of performance, all you've got is 'it's shit', and pearls like 'All stats are pointless...except the goals scored stat.' which manages to be both simple and incorrect.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...