ap04

Spot on, and just as important the standard ones we look at are not post-shot models so ignore a good part of the performance. The thing to remember though is that even a flawed xG will always outperform goals, these are quite interesting reads [1] [2] [3]

"Hypothetical" is not exactly right, all these are tallies of actual situations observed in previous games (only everything not just the goals) No but you might be ignoring that the keeper is just one player out of a few who did a good or bad job in this play and weren't duly punished or rewarded. But we are never going to convince each other so we can leave it at that 👍

And you posted the table to disprove what? The bit you quoted was referring to how good Bolton are, I never said they've been better than us this season.

I only said that we were poor on Saturday (and fortunate with some results as a side note), why are you showing me this? As for the points you made, "chances per game" are not "goals per game", they are goals + all missed chances; and yes the first team is more likely to be better, GD is a better predictor than points eg. see here or here.

The keeper making a big save is not "good performance", it is good individually by the keeper but poor defending overall by the team compared to no threat at all (and conversely for the attacking). But that's irrelevant, the point was that both systems are equally bad at judging who was better on the day by missing most aspects of a performance (boolean).

Only last week you produced a still as evidence -regardless of what happened at full speed and if it merited a foul- there might be contact with Hourihane's foot. You couldn't write it, man.

You mean because the ball sneaked past Waghorn's armpit the tactics and players were a small triumph, but had it not they would have been a mild letdown. Makes perfect sense.

You are underestimating the impact of luck and how slowly it evens out. Remember these events are independent, once one gets lucky they are not more likely to get unlucky in the future (gambler's fallacy). Last year we were hard done by in the region of 17 points, should have been third or fourth and didn't even make the playoffs. All I see is Wildsmith's hand 30cm to half a metre away from the bar with the ball virtually on the by-line, so unless his reflexes are something approaching the speed of light he ain't getting there. Have I read this right, the guy with the perfect view of Waghorn's lee arm was the one whose angle was blocked by not just every player in between but...Waghorn himself?

Of course you have to offset it but there have been only 3 of these. 8 to 9 points net, and bear in mind top sides like us are usually unlucky. That wasn't me although it would have been closer without man advantage for a third of the game - my gripe was with those who cry we are hard done by refs when we're in the plus last few years and we've benefited from 9 big calls recently.

Net chances per game against the league's average opponent on neutral ground. By xG, demonstrably the best metric to evaluate past performance in the public domain once you haven't followed a team's games. Ignore the result mate, Wilson heading it in is just one moment of the performance, it doesn't "cancel" the remaining 95'. This is simply not true, he was nowhere near it.

Which bit do you find hard to believe? 3 attacks of note at home all game is extraordinary in itself for an autos contender. Bolton are by all accounts a +1.5 side, maybe a +2. They created 2 chances aggregate more than us, making us a 0. That's mid-table, if you then take away home advantage -questionable for us this year- it's almost a relegation candidate type of performance.

My sincere apologies for not being precise enough, it registers it as a 0.0something. It should count as good as a goal for analysis purposes, it was a matter of inches and the kepper was beat. No unbalanced inaccurate assessments especially after unjust results.

xG is quite unreliable for one-off matches. For instance it doesn't register at all them hitting the bar from a corner (as close as you can get to a goal), or Wildsmith flapping at an earlier corner with the goal gaping.

Sounds like you only saw the stats, I'll sum it up for you but if you watched the game or the extended ignore it. We had one chance in the entire second half -you read that right- plus two half-chances in the first, nothing else of note; the other way keeper pulled two worldies, they hit the bar and came close at least a couple more times (50'-64'). Now I would agree the above against a tough opponent is "solid" if we were mid-table or lower, for an aspiring top 2/3 side at home I would call it "a stinker". So be humble, accept we got the rub of the green (as has been the case numerous times this season, I make it win #9 where we haven't been the better side - 18 points right there for those who like their points and ppgs), be grateful for the result and move on, no need to get all snidey. Spare the gloating and glorifying for when we are actually decent and worthy winners, not after smash-and-grabs on our own turf. My tuppence anyway.

Two students sit a set on exams on a subject, rule is the one with the most A+'s (goals) passes with all other efforts (chances) chucked away - equal both fail. Student A gets A+ B C D (and passes), student B gets A A B C (and fails). Was A clearly the better student, or lucky to have passed?

A couple of pages back you liked a post on Sibley being onside at Bristol without even seeing a replay never mind conclusive. Hmm so because the lad made a movement with his arm trying to reach him at best grazing him with his fingernails and having zero effect on his balance he's not so innocent, but when Curtis at Wednesday actively put hands on both striker's arms not only didn't have it coming but it was the great injustice and the player & ref heard god knows what. At least after Tuesday we know certain posters will never again call a player a dirty cheat for going down once there is contact, or even the slightest suspicion of contact (or perhaps without one as why would they be naive); OR ever grumble about decisions when the opposition are the better side (or every time we: set up to defend and spoil a game say next year; commit many fouls; complain to ref for giving many fouls; timewaste; or have keeper come off his line foul or not).

He tripped over his own feet after his heel accidentally touched the defender's knee (not a challenge by the defender). These are usually given as very hard to spot in real time but wouldn't have been fair.

That was precisely my point on what you did, you used a sample of less than a season to judge their lower goals to xG and correlate it with worse finishers. City and Liverpool with their world class finishers have the same conversion rate as Fulham and West Ham, you need several seasons for such things to even out. And you were picking the wrong fight anyway as it's more a case of other teams over-scoring or under-conceding. I never said that, what I said is that usually there isn't much of a difference over time maybe a 5%, the main thing being the creation or prevention of xG, and what you see is mainly fluctuations (of players/teams not hitting their true average over different chunks, eg. Haaland and Nunez's recent return is the same as Jade Jones's). xG providers themselves say this has been proven and its purpose is not really to judge finishing this way but some will still not accept it and answer "jog on".

Funny how the same "poor finishers" cause of their underachievement for some have hit almost 3x their xG last 4 games, just maybe it simply hadn't all evened itself out eh @Ghost of Clough? 😉

Nelson handball v Stevenage, pen not given to Cheltenham before that.

You did not post anything "humorous" pal, just put the offside line at a cr*p angle and called it onside.

Do you realise that 1.the players are not anywhere near the penalty area line, and the concept of 'perspective' 2.there is already a faint line on the turf close to where they are standing that looks nothing like yours and 3.incredibly a fair few have 'liked' the above var attempt?

Taking what you wrote at face value would mean that for instance Morecambe last year had way better finishers than Derby because they scored more than their xG. From the horse's mouth (Statsbomb) Given large enough sample sizes, it is possible to identify certain players who stand out for their finishing ability, but the large majority of players are close to average. In general terms, what differentiates good forwards isn't so much finishing chances at an above-average rate but generating shots from valuable locations.

You'll find it's points and goals you can't trust mate

Still best in the league on xG, write these off at your peril.