xG

[Dahnsouff]

So having a half arsed grasp of what xG actually means and basing opinions on this ill formed opinion is fine then?

…

 

And believe you me, I speak from a position of some authority. 

 

[coolhandfox]

58 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Football analytics is probably on its way to becoming a multibillion pound industry (if it's not already), there's literal rocket scientists that have netted the field to help clubs find an edge, when clubs are spending £000s of millions each summer, having the right data and the analytics team to crunch is absolutely key. Liverpool are one of the most data driven clubs in the world, they're now one of the absolute best without having spent inordinate amounts. xG is plays a big part of that. It's basically just the shots stat with more context.

 

There doesn't seem to be too many in the pro-xG, pro-Rodgers camp though  

 

I think people understand that, I think people get fed up when it used as a tool to moan even when we win.

 

I think the posters who use it will to back up a valid point about style of play or a performance and use it with context is fine. 

[The Horse's Mouth]

xG is pointless, Brighton couldn't be a better example of why it means **** all 

[BKLFox]

I get the analytics market is huge & that xG might be good for a long term analysis of a player for club level perspective & for Sky to whitter on to fill their now 6hr program slots but surely means absolute jack to the average fan on how a game panned out.

To me those fans that look into all these stats to dissect every game are no better than those that a lot on here take the mickey out of for watching a game through their mobiles instead of getting their heads up & just watch the game for what it is...a game.

Do fans honestly go to the pub after & talk about xGs after just being in the ground & seeing the game with their own eyes, they would have seen the chances & saves made, well those that haven't got their phones out that is, & will have an understanding of how the game panned out at 'fan' level.
If they are this is what's robbing the enjoyment of going to a match we are losing the romance (in your face leicsmac :-) of the event by robotically investigating every passage of play, what was wrong with the 3 choice option of  Win, Lose or Draw & chuck another beer down ya neck?

[Le Renard]

I'm surprised it doesn't stand for ex girlfriends for texting.  On a serious note I am a bit of a stato, but the XG thing is just too vague for my liking, or am I just getting too old and the grey matter finds it harder to compute. 

[Dan]

4 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

You can look at my posts, I have said before it needs context when viewed solely as a way of scoring a singular game. 

 

However, when you notice the consistent pattern over the last five/six league games - it points out that we need to make more chances

This is correct. It's useful for measuring trends over a longer period of time.

 

The truth is this season we're lucky to even be as high as we are.

[ALC Fox]

2 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

xG is pointless, Brighton couldn't be a better example of why it means **** all 

Is it? Doesn't it just prove that they need a decent striker? All xG shows for Brighton is that they create a lot of high quality chances. If they can afford/attract/develop someone who can link up and stick the ball in the back of the net, they'll have an excellent season and probably net a fantastic profit when they sell that player on.

[Finnegan]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Quite.

 

Repeating what I said in the Unpop Opinions thread here:

 

Football analytics (including xG) is a vital part of the success of every single Premier League club that has success (and probably more lower league clubs besides) and those that dismiss it out of hand are overly romantic Luddites who hark for a rose tinted view of the past.

 

Unfortunately, though, because football is the national game and there's a perception that its a fairly simple sport, I think there's a certain arrogance from some quarters that assume that things relating to football are easy to do. 

 

We see this a little in billionaires that come in to the Premier League to buy football clubs, the likes of the Glazers who dismissively seem to have shrugged off the complexities of running a football club as an actual on field, successful sporting institution. 

 

Or in punditry when broadcast companies shrug off knowledge of football and assume any idiot understands the game and that's how the like of Michael Owen get hired off the back of their reputation regardless of the fact he's quite an unintelligent man who isn't really smart enough to even understand why teams he actually played in were successful let alone translate that to being able to be analytical about a team he's watching. 

 

And the logic is starting to follow through in to data analytics. Without wanting to be overly touchy, there's a skill in understanding and interpreting data. Quite clearly vast swathes of people quoting various football stats don't actually understand what they're really looking at but BECAUSE it's football they assume it's simple and they do get it. If it was that fvcking simple then Saffronbilly1984 would be working at the club doing data analytics instead of sat on his fat arse telling foxestalk that xG is a joke stat that doesn't count. 

 

And in any other field I'd be able to convince him that. Nobody would take Saffronbilly1984 seriously if he was talking about stock market trends or the business practices of a multi national investment firm but for some reason we're supposed to understand he knows his arse from his ear on football statistics just because they refer to a sport. 🤷

[Nalis]

Aah yes, the expected plethora of 'if you dont find it the be-all-and-end-all of football stats then its because you are obviously too thick to understand it' when most people do understand it but just think its been given waaaay too much weight.

[Finnegan]

8 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Aah yes, the expected plethora of 'if you dont find it the be-all-and-end-all of football stats then its because you are obviously too thick to understand it' when most people do understand it but just think its been given waaaay too much weight.

 

In fairness, I'm saying the opposite. 

 

I'm saying that both people that over use it AND the reactionary people dismissing it as shit BECAUSE of those people over using it are idiots. 

[Izzy]

Fortunately I don't understand xG therefore I don't have an opinion on it.

 

As you were...

[Stadt]

2 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

I think people understand that, I think people get fed up when it used as a tool to moan even when we win.

 

I think the posters who use it will to back up a valid point about style of play or a performance and use it with context is fine. 

Which I think most people do tbf regarding the latter point.
 

The problem is we’ve often won unconvincingly rather than the stats pointing it out - in my opinion.

[Heskey2011]

XG is very good.

[theessexfox]

Yeah the main objection to have with xG is that it doesn’t contextualise the state of the game very well (Burnley get an early goal from a low quality chance and sit back because they don’t need to create anything, could get battered on xG from a high volume of mediocre chances from the opposition and not looking to create anything themselves, but could be comfortable and well in control), and the fact that there are some models which count a sequence of shots in the same situation as multiple instances of xG occurring (it’s not worth more than the probability of a single goal if three people miss easy chances in quick succession). Not actually sure how many models account for the later, presuming the best ones do.

 

Just shouting that xG is a load of rubbish is clearly missing the point of it, though 

Edited 21 April 2022 by theessexfox

[Aus Fox]

9 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

This is correct. It's useful for measuring trends over a longer period of time.

 

The truth is this season we're lucky to even be as high as we are.

Okay, so if we are lucky to be as high as we are, who below us deserves to be above us?

[Dan]

1 hour ago, Aus Fox said:

Okay, so if we are lucky to be as high as we are, who below us deserves to be above us?

For me it's generally that we're bailed out by the quality of some of our attacking players such as Vardy, Iheanacho, Barnes, Maddison, even Lookman really. We score more of our half chances than virtually anybody in the league. We very seldom stop anybody creating chances against us - even with players back from injury which was often pointed as the reason for this.

 

To answer your question, if you actually went off the xG? Palace, Brighton, Brentford, Newcastle, Villa, Everton, Southampton and Leeds. I don't necessarily think they all 'deserve' to be above us but as others have pointed out, a metric that is heavily used by some of the most successful sides in todays game ranks us very, very poorly, and based on the football of ours I've watched? I'm surprised it's quite as extreme as that - but it's nearer to that than us to be looking up the table.

 

People who thought before that Newcastle game we were in any kind of European contention were at best, absurdly optimistic. Absolutely nothing we've done has suggested we'd go on a run like what was needed.

 

But yes, in my opinion, we're lucky to even be as high as 9th. Performance wise we deserve to be about 14th and it's because of individual quality that we aren't.

[Guest Col city fan]

19 hours ago, purpleronnie said:

I genuinely have no idea what xG is.

Same here! What is it? 🤔

[RumbleFox]

21 hours ago, StanSP said:

Stop using this as a barometer for what happens in a game. 

 

It's a load of shite! 

Such a strange thing to feel so strongly about. 

[RumbleFox]

It’s one of many tools to offer context to the game. No one’s saying we should base the league off xG results rather than actual points. It’s so weird to get so wound up by it. It’s just something that some people find interesting to look at. A quick look at the table based on nothing more than expected points when related to xG has the top three as Man City, Liverpool and Chelsea and the bottom three as Watford, Burnley and Norwich. So clearly it has some relevance to real life.

 

Interestingly though it was us as 17th which ain’t good.

[StanSP]

9 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

Such a strange thing to feel so strongly about. 

Started seeing it far too much around the place and the game and I don't see the value or use of it. At least not for a fan anyway. 

 

[Guest Col city fan]

6 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Started seeing it far too much around the place and the game and I don't see the value or use of it. At least not for a fan anyway. 

 

What is it Stan?

[RumbleFox]

7 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Started seeing it far too much around the place and the game and I don't see the value or use of it. At least not for a fan anyway. 

 

Probably just ignore it then. 

[Zear0]

I don't have a problem with it, but it's use is slightly flawed and requires context like all stats in games to.  Not long ago we used to have a w**kathon over possession stats saying "wow 80%" of the ball.  Anyone who has seen peak Brendan-ball knows how irrelevant that can be hence this being an improvement on that.

 

xG ,as a quick snapshot is far more useful than looking at shots/shots on target which can be misleading as these don't distinguish between a Kel 2-yard fluff or Charlie Adam shooting from the half way line.  As an example for xG, I think I read a penalty is about 0,97 as that's roughly the conversion rate (don't quote me on that).  Problem is I don't think it distinguishes between it being Matt Le Tissier or Zaha taking the penalty.

 

Quite useful to provide context to the game and nothing more.  Where it does get a bit irritating and infuriating is hearing people like "statman" Dave (I do like him but a useful example) waffle on about the "stats" (having an MSc. in Statistics I have a long standing gripe with the description of this being statistics) and ignoring what can be seen in plain sight by just watching the game.

 

But yeah, useful but don't waste more than 2 seconds reading it.

[Chelmofox]

5 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

For me it's generally that we're bailed out by the quality of some of our attacking players such as Vardy, Iheanacho, Barnes, Maddison, even Lookman really. We score more of our half chances than virtually anybody in the league. We very seldom stop anybody creating chances against us - even with players back from injury which was often pointed as the reason for this.

 

To answer your question, if you actually went off the xG? Palace, Brighton, Brentford, Newcastle, Villa, Everton, Southampton and Leeds. I don't necessarily think they all 'deserve' to be above us but as others have pointed out, a metric that is heavily used by some of the most successful sides in todays game ranks us very, very poorly, and based on the football of ours I've watched? I'm surprised it's quite as extreme as that - but it's nearer to that than us to be looking up the table.

 

People who thought before that Newcastle game we were in any kind of European contention were at best, absurdly optimistic. Absolutely nothing we've done has suggested we'd go on a run like what was needed.

 

But yes, in my opinion, we're lucky to even be as high as 9th. Performance wise we deserve to be about 14th and it's because of individual quality that we aren't.

In reality you highlight why the statistic isn't the be all and end all. Because of 5 non defensive players with quality, we are doing better than a statistic suggests we might do. Compare that to teams who don't have the same quality, and they do not have as many points as us. Losing those quality players suggests we might be worse off - nobody saw that coming!  If you take Brentford for example, chances get generated by long ball play, but they lack quality, excluding Eriksen of course, but he's not played for all of the season. Interesting to see how some quality  for Brentford had expecting impact.

 

Therefore, there is no place we 'deserve' to be beyond where we are.  The job of the performance metric is to highlight the importance of the quality, area's we could improve on and what might happen if we could improve those areas. However, just doing what Brentford do just to improve xG isn't the way to go about it. 

 

In reality, i wish they called the metric something else, like 'Expect Impact' or something vague. Expected goals sets the wrong message.

Edited 22 April 2022 by jamesp26

[Zear0]

7 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

What is it Stan?

https://theanalyst.com/eu/2021/07/what-are-expected-goals-xg/