Carl Sagan Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 We debated Opta's weird stat, expected goals (known as XG) last year. Well, Sky have gone through the Championship to date looking at expected goals versus real goals to see whi, in thie mind, in playing best and not getting the rewards. Here's their table: There's a lot of spiel at https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11546482/who-deserves-to-be-top-of-the-sky-bet-championship Obviously there are things to like in it, in that they say the team in the most obvious false position are the gumps, who should be down near the bottom of the league but have got lucky so far. However, I'm surprised they drop us any places, but they do, down to 9th place. I thought we were creating a lot of chances and not taking tehm all, but the claim from this is that we've been pretty cinical. A bit of fun. Given it does have the top 3 in the top 3 places there's probably some slight usefulness to it, but if so, shoud we all curb our enthusiasm? Discuss! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRam Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 We average 15 shots per game, and 1.5 goals per game. That doesn't sound particularly clinical to me. Think that xG table is erroneous tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nottingram Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 If I’m not wrong, is that table ranking purely on xG difference and nothing else? Thus an xG 4-0 win and an xG 1-0 loss would create an xG difference of 3, and rank higher than two xG 1-0 wins? Seems an odd way to look at things to me personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexydadbod Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 I don’t want to get into THAT debate again but all I can say is don’t be quick to dismiss it. Carl made a similar post last year when Rowett was in charge when we were around second in the league before the collapse. Just enjoy the ride and see where it takes us because it’s a lot more enjoyable than last year. What I will say though is that we are conceding too many goals which could cost us long term. There’s only so many times that we can come from behind to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 You know where you can stick that table. This is the table that matters. I expect this post to get many likes. XL I call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angieram Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 They've forgotten to add in the XF factor. Only Derby have got that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Sagan Posted November 7, 2018 Author Share Posted November 7, 2018 16 minutes ago, SaintRam said: We average 15 shots per game, and 1.5 goals per game. That doesn't sound particularly clinical to me. Think that xG table is erroneous tbh. I do think we've recently become more accurate, in that we've been having a lot of shots on target of late. I guess it would be possible to go through all the timelines of the Expermental361 guy but I'm not going to do it. He says nice things about us against Brum "Derby recovered well from conceding early at home to Birmingham by dominating the match thereafter; the visitors weren’t able to muster a single shot after the interval" and here's his graph of the game: I see @nottingramis probably right that they've been lazy in terms of how they constructed the table, not based on overall goal difference rather than expected results. Link is https://experimental361.com/2018/11/04/championship-timelines-2-4-nov-2018/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 the table ignoring differential is somewhat different showing we are the most efficient at converting chances to goals, not sure any of this is conclusive though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 15 minutes ago, SaintRam said: We average 15 shots per game, and 1.5 goals per game. That doesn't sound particularly clinical to me. Think that xG table is erroneous tbh. Deciding that is the point of xG though - separating good chances from bad ones, rather than just counting shots. If we have 13 shots from distance and 2 sitters a game, and score 1.5 of them on average, then that is pretty clinical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexydadbod Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 If we collapse again like we did last year, blame @Carl Sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 5 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said: We debated Opta's weird stat, expected goals (known as XG) last year. Well, Sky have gone through the Championship to date looking at expected goals versus real goals to see whi, in thie mind, in playing best and not getting the rewards. Here's their table: There's a lot of spiel at https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11546482/who-deserves-to-be-top-of-the-sky-bet-championship Obviously there are things to like in it, in that they say the team in the most obvious false position are the gumps, who should be down near the bottom of the league but have got lucky so far. However, I'm surprised they drop us any places, but they do, down to 9th place. I thought we were creating a lot of chances and not taking tehm all, but the claim from this is that we've been pretty cinical. A bit of fun. Given it does have the top 3 in the top 3 places there's probably some slight usefulness to it, but if so, shoud we all curb our enthusiasm? Discuss! A bit of fun maybe but also a load of nonsense. XG is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is ACTUAL goals scored/conceded. Well, actually it's points gained. It still amazes me that people (must be an entire army) are employed to count and "assess" every shot a team has and then calculate these meaningless stats. Regarding our enthusiasm (I assume you meant to say confidence), if for some bizarre reason these stats could be relied upon as any sort of useful indicator then why should we change or view. Is it any worse to be creating relatively few chances but scoring from a good number of them than creating lots of chances? Also, isn't it the net difference of goal expected to score v goals expected to concede? Which means we might be creating lots of chances but also allowing the opposition plenty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 7 minutes ago, David said: You know where you can stick that table. This is the table that matters. I expect this post to get many likes. XL I call it. Derby there the only team in the top 20 to have not lost a game in the past 5 matches. Consistency is key Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 I'm not sure what to take away from that - is our midfield crap?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 24 minutes ago, Tamworthram said: A bit of fun maybe but also a load of nonsense. XG is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is ACTUAL goals scored/conceded. Well, actually it's points gained. It still amazes me that people (must be an entire army) are employed to count and "assess" every shot a team has and then calculate these meaningless stats. It’s a statistical way of measuring performance, hardly nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, cannable said: It’s a statistical way of measuring performance, hardly nonsense *You say that but 95% of this forum believe it's nonsense. *I made that up. Just what I expect this forum to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Sheriff Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 It is also over the course of this season- I would expect it to be different based on the last 3 weeks as I feel we are now playing how Frank wants us to- better Team chemistry then at the start of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Shouldn’t it be ‘expected goals not scored’ ☺️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 47 minutes ago, David said: *You say that but 95% of this forum believe it's nonsense. *I made that up. Just what I expect this forum to believe. We need an Xt= Expected truth stat, and of course, an Xb= Expected believer stat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 minute ago, RadioactiveWaste said: We need an Xt= Expected truth stat, and of course, an Xb= Expected believer stat thought the b meant something else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 minute ago, RadioactiveWaste said: We need an Xt= Expected truth stat, and of course, an Xb= Expected believer stat The Aussies have it right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.