Comrade 86 Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, LB_DCFC said: Bigger club was probably the wrong phrase to use. Clubs with more established reputation in terms of facilities and coaching would be better. Good to see not every internet discussion has to end with both people hurling abuse at each other. Quite nice actually, I don't quite know what to do ? No worries on that score mate. You offered a polite and compelling argument a deal of which I agree with. No need for any feisty stuff ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 3 hours ago, Dean (hick) Saunders said: God this thread is boring. Zzzz Made all the more interesting by your incisive input though, so there's that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimbeard Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 Expected goals stats are cobblers. Yes, yes, I know I'm a fool and probably an idiot too, but it's still all cobblers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FindernRam Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 last season I sat beside a guy who spent whole game putting stuff into a laptop, thought he might be a scout but he said at half time he was inputting data for a statistics company. He was like greased lightening on the screen tapping this and that but how he kept up with the game was beyond me and I did see him hit wrong name a couple of times. How he, on the fly, from way up in the stand decided what was a shot or a pass seemed ridiculous to me and people believe this stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dethorn Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 I think that Statistically this is either 66% or 100% correct Derby will score 1 - probably be Waghorn and Preston will score two So number of Derby goals correct Derby Scorer Correct Number of Preston Goals incorrect 2 out of 3 = 66% OR If you round the player xG to the nearest whole number - there are no Preston players and Waghorn is at 1 so in this case it is perfect 100% Should have bet 1 - 0 win with Waghorn to score (after the team was announced based on this !!) That is remarkably accurate fro statistics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB SPORTS Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 13 hours ago, rammieib said: So he wasn't actually offside then? Out of interest with XG, if a cross comes in and a player from one yard out miskicks at an open goal, would that count asan opportunity within XG? I'm also surprised because the Waghorn goal must have had an XG of close to one being basically on the goal line? Pretty sure that the asst. ref, gave Davies offside as he struck the follow up was inconsequential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JfR Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 11 minutes ago, WHAT DO I GET said: Pretty sure that the asst. ref, gave Davies offside as he struck the follow up was inconsequential. I think he probably gave it because Barkhuizen used his hand to control it before scoring it. It's obscured a bit by the camera angle in the highlights, but Martin and Waghorn both go to the ref tapping their arms after the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB SPORTS Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 4 hours ago, JfR said: I think he probably gave it because Barkhuizen used his hand to control it before scoring it. It's obscured a bit by the camera angle in the highlights, but Martin and Waghorn both go to the ref tapping their arms after the goal. Didn't notice that but he was very quick with the flag, and although I wasn't quite in line with it, Davies looked offside also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbles Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 xG is a load of baloney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuff264 Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 2 hours ago, Squid said: xG is a load of baloney I dunno, I think theres something in this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbles Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 40 minutes ago, Shuff264 said: I dunno, I think theres something in this... just looks like a league table predicted by Adrian Durham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinspain Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 2 hours ago, Shuff264 said: I dunno, I think theres something in this... Yep, pretty much confirms @Squid opinion I think. There are three clubs that are 15 or more places away from their true positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 On 24/11/2019 at 16:26, tomonred said: Your eyes/my eyes/anyone's eyes are not better judges of a quality of chance than 100,000's of previous real life factual examples. We're all too emotionally invested in it to make an accurate conclusion, because we are passionate fans. In reality a chance where someone goes through on goal at a slight angle with a bit of pressure for a defender - we'd be screaming "he's got to score" etc - but in reality the quality of chance that it was, it might have historically only been scored 15-20% of the time (and as such is allocated a 0.15-0.2 xG rating) Is the mythical xG modelling into which these 100,000s of actual events valid at all? how was the model constructed, how was it validated, how has it been improved, is it statistically robust (does it predict the right score with 95% confidence interval)? Most of these questions I do not know the answer to, but I would take a chance most people who think xG is a thing are basically taking it off the sales people for the package that their model is yes, very good at that, better than the eyes of those watching could ever be. accepting modelling on the basis of the person selling it really really believes in it, isn't particularly convincing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimmu Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 5 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said: Is the mythical xG modelling into which these 100,000s of actual events valid at all? how was the model constructed, how was it validated, how has it been improved, is it statistically robust (does it predict the right score with 95% confidence interval)? Most of these questions I do not know the answer to, but I would take a chance most people who think xG is a thing are basically taking it off the sales people for the package that their model is yes, very good at that, better than the eyes of those watching could ever be. accepting modelling on the basis of the person selling it really really believes in it, isn't particularly convincing to me. Good post! Indeed, there is lot we don't know yet. But also, I think you forgot the reason why this extremely robust model even exists: Predicting the future results. Surely it is lacking multiple factors, but at the moment there is not much more good data available (I personally use 7 more factors and none of them is related to players personal skills... goes to show how complex the great model might be) Certainly, the clubs have lots of usable data, but public will never get access to those. I don't know why everyone is so against xG if they are not pro or semi-pro gamblers as simply they don't need to care about it all...Sky might make some useless article, but don't kmow why anyone would read those either. Maybe it's just safe bet to be annoyed or butthurt about something one saw in internet. And I guess those who might actually use it, certainly knows it is not sufficient enough to base your decision to bet on it. IMO with the Poisson distribution it usually gives quite a nice probability and after adding over half a dozen other factors, you most likely will decide not the bet anyway as the odds are too poor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 30 minutes ago, Dimmu said: Good post! Indeed, there is lot we don't know yet. But also, I think you forgot the reason why this extremely robust model even exists: Predicting the future results. Surely it is lacking multiple factors, but at the moment there is not much more good data available (I personally use 7 more factors and none of them is related to players personal skills... goes to show how complex the great model might be) Certainly, the clubs have lots of usable data, but public will never get access to those. I don't know why everyone is so against xG if they are not pro or semi-pro gamblers as simply they don't need to care about it all...Sky might make some useless article, but don't kmow why anyone would read those either. Maybe it's just safe bet to be annoyed or butthurt about something one saw in internet. And I guess those who might actually use it, certainly knows it is not sufficient enough to base your decision to bet on it. IMO with the Poisson distribution it usually gives quite a nice probability and after adding over half a dozen other factors, you most likely will decide not the bet anyway as the odds are too poor... I don't think anyone is particularly against xG, I think it's the presentation of it as some sort of "better truth" that irritates a lot of people, the reality being a lot more dull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRBee Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 2 hours ago, Dimmu said: I don't know why everyone is so against xG if they are not pro or semi-pro gamblers as simply they don't need to care about it all...Sky might make some useless article, but don't kmow why anyone would read those either. We are against it because of the tripe it generates, including on this forum. I would be interested to know what the predictive success of this statistic actually is now - need somebody to do the legwork here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomonred Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 On 24/11/2019 at 21:59, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said: So in effect, what you've actually shown is how pointless the system really is. A wealth of data, squashed, washed and regurgitated to offer an estimate for Vardy's goal output that's not even in the same ballpark as the amount of goals he's actually scored. Other than to say he will score 'some goals', which we all know, you seem to be stating that the xG stats are useful because they show he is performing at a level above standard, but I could tell you that without watching a single game, let alone any statistical analysis. It’s backing up and confirming your thoughts to be true, so wouldn’t say that’s pointless! It’s an extra level of insight that’s useful as an indicator on both a player/team level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomonred Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 3 hours ago, DRBee said: We are against it because of the tripe it generates, including on this forum. I would be interested to know what the predictive success of this statistic actually is now - need somebody to do the legwork here. It’s not successful as a predictive model in isolation, but can be used to spot value where odds are out of line based on the stats. People making money (gambling/trading syndicates) will be using a multitude of different models, then aggregate to highlight potential entry points or value bets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinspain Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 Out of interest, what was our xG tonight? If it's anything over 0.00000000000001, then it's a load of bow locks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomonred Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.