Jump to content

Andicis

Member
  • Posts

    9,264
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andicis

  1. Why should it remove excitement? The removal of bias is good after the event, shouldn't change anything in the moment?
  2. And we all have of our interpretation of the games, which is of course valid. But the exact reason I personally find xG interesting as it removes my personal bias away and provides more objectivity, which I find makes it very useful. Fair enough if it isn't your personal cup of tea.
  3. Yeah, I'm fighting a losing battle with many on here. Going to try keep fighting the good fight, purely because I think it's an interesting way to view our performances with biases removed, but I accept it'll always be dismissed by a lot of posters as it seems to make them irrationally angry or annoyed, not entirely sure why!
  4. It doesn't "predict" games. It does however show how games have gone. City and Spurs drew 3-3 at the weekend, Spurs had an xG of 0.5 and city had one of around 3. If you watched, that was because city dominated the game and missed several sitters, and spurs were massively clinical. You wouldn't just get that from the scoreline or shots on target. If you don't see it's use, you're willfully looking the wrong way.
  5. But that's exactly what I said - you can't use it as a predictor of a single game, plenty of games have weird and wonderful xGs. It's generally a way to view sustainability of a string of results though, and provides context to a performance. It's an interesting and useful statistic.
  6. A game in which the finishing broadly matches the data set that the xG model is based on. As stated though, it's better used on a macro scale.
  7. It means in the average game you'd expect them to have scored 1 and us to have scored 2. We had better than average finishing, and they had worse than average finishing. Indicates that it was a closer game than the score line would suggest. As I'll say yet again, xG is an overview that is more accurately used in the long run, nothing is without flaws but it's a stat that provides more useful context.
  8. Infinitesimally small. You are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose. There will always be instances of amazing goals scored that will defy the model, you can't account for anomalys. 999/1000 Garnacho either doesn't connect with the ball or misses by miles. It's about the long run, generally teams in the long run finish close to their xG position. Premier League teams all have data scientists working in them. It isn't necessarily the coaches, but the recruitment teams, the analysts, the scouts. It's in everything in elite football, whether you see that or not. The variables depends on the model, there are different ones. The variables themselves are subjective sure, but we don't have a better metric to view a game without just watching the full 90. No other stat provides as useful of an insight. Nobody pretends it's perfect, but hey it's better than nothing.
  9. It doesn't rely on stats, but it's a good way to judge performance, which makes it a useful way to build a discussion. It's about the performances on the field, if we get that right then the data will reflect. It's what we all want!
  10. Scoff at data all you want, that's what all the top clubs operate with. You were the one to mention shots on target as an accurate barometer of chance creation, xG is a far superior metric, you just don't like the answer it gives.
  11. They're all half chances, none of those are chances I would usually expect to go in. I think that's an area we need to improve. We're pretty good at defending at present.
  12. It's more valuable than the shots on target statistic. It provides some amount of context. It's not infallible, but it's the only statistic that actually provides more insight. I'm purely discussing with contrast to shots on target. The fornah deflected shot wasn't that good of a chance, it was very almost a goal, but more often than not in that position it comes to nothing. That's the basis for the statistic.
  13. Yes, but using it as a barometer of chances created isn't really all that valid. A 40 yard punt counts the same as a 2 yard sitter. That's the whole crux of the point. The eye test tells me that we weren't that productive up front. Telling me we had 7 shots on target really doesn't change my mind or inform opinion further. FotMob has the XG for Derby at 0.7, which is about where I would have it. A far more valuable statistic. https://www.fotmob.com/en-GB/matches/port-vale-vs-derby/3apu88#4203034
  14. I think the 7 shots on target statistic is fairly unimportant and that particular statistic can be pretty misleading. I can only name two chances of note in the game, the goal and the save from Fornah. I don't think we were particularly productive. Can you name any other serious chances that we created?
  15. Because drinking and driving is clearly reckless. Going in for a body check is common practice in ice hockey, which is what it appears he went to do. The skate to skate contact as well as the hip check knocked him off balance. It's just one of those tragic accidents, nobody is to blame.
  16. I think the concern is really that we haven't clicked. We're doing just enough, but I worry that it isn't sustainable in the long run.
  17. Meh performance, good win. Can't gripe too much, but we didn't create a huge amount.
  18. Really well played by Mendez-Laing in the build up.
  19. Hourihane is absolutely crap. I'm sorry, he's just not at the required level any more.
  20. @Caerphilly Ramalready made that joke!
  21. Team from Stoke behaving like thugs, who'd have thunk it.
  22. Spurs loanee Alfie Devine looks a threat, I'd like to see us get a bit closer to him.
  23. You're blindly criticizing Pearce, isn't it just as valid, if not more so, to trust Clowes who is in possession of actual facts unlike either of us.
  24. Football isn't a normal industry. We were totally reliant on Mel's funding, and therefore we weren't really in a position to argue about direction were we? It's so simplistic to just blame Pearce, call him weak etc, but if we're honest none of us knows what went on behind the scenes. The fact that Clowes trusts him leads to be believe that he is not "weak or incompetent".
  25. You have no idea what discussions took place. Clowes clearly trusts Pearce, are you questioning Clowes?
×
×
  • Create New...