xG

[Day]

Thought I would create a separate topic on this to discuss the latest trend that is xG.

Do you like the stat, believe it's a great indicator of performances, or do you not like it, believe it's a load of old nonsense?

Let's hear your for and against arguments....

[Gaspode]

Hate it - because it's horse ?

[Srg]

Not quite sure I’d call it the latest trend. The likes of Brentford have been lauding it for about 5 years at this point. 

A stat is stat, and it’s the context and interpretation which is the most important thing. 

[BondJovi]

What these stats can never take into consideration is the human nature of it all. Has that chance fallen to an inform or out of form striker? Does this chance go up if playing against a former club? If you miss many chances, the pressure can build as the game goes on. Does that chance later on get the same rating, even though it is more pressured?

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

4 minutes ago, Srg said:

Not quite sure I’d call it the latest trend. The likes of Brentford have been lauding it for about 5 years at this point. 

A stat is stat, and it’s the context and interpretation which is the most important thing. 

Got it in one SRG.

I quite like xG as a concept, but I very much would not hang very much importance on it. Is it realistic, or a good measure of threat? I don't think it's great but I see it as a "nice to have" attampt for "a statistic of a chance that's worrying" for want of a better description. The problerm is when you start having blind belief in the modelling behind it which spits out a number "xG" - we've all watched enough football to know a team playing well and team not and when a chance is dangerous.

[Day]

9 minutes ago, Srg said:

Not quite sure I’d call it the latest trend. The likes of Brentford have been lauding it for about 5 years at this point. 

A stat is stat, and it’s the context and interpretation which is the most important thing. 

It's more visible now though and becoming a mainstream stat. Shown on Sky Sports, even saw RamsTV using it yesterday pre match.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

If you've looked into xG and you don't think it's at least moderately useful for analysing a team's performance trends, you're either thick or being deliberately obtuse.

?

[Day]

5 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

If you've looked into xG and you don't think it's at least moderately useful for analysing a team's performance trends, you're either thick or being deliberately obtuse.

?

That's the weakest argument I've heard yet.

[sage]

7 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

If you've looked into xG and you don't think it's at least moderately useful for analysing a team's performance trends, you're either thick or being deliberately obtuse.

?

Can you set up another poll @David to see which one you are

[Day]

Just now, sage said:

Can you set up another poll @David to see which one you are

I'm thiccccc, wanna see me twerk?

[sage]

1 minute ago, David said:

I'm thiccccc, wanna see me twerk?

I once saw @Kokosnuss twerk about 8 years ago. With extensive counselling I've been able to sleep well for the last 6 months,

Here we go again you Bar Steward

[Comrade 86]

34 minutes ago, David said:

wanna see me twerk?

[Day]

6 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

[RoyMac5]

For me I think that at a general level then it's a fairly useless stat. Maybe when scouting a player it could be useful...

But when you get statements like this, it just makes you laugh.

"The Benefits of Expected Goals

The fact that most of the world's sports data experts and tactical masterminds have embraced the power of xG shows that it can be extremely useful. Here are a few of the key benefits that Expected Goals can provide for a coach, analyst, player and team as a whole.

xG shows us the importance of shot quality by emphasising the low chance of scoring from disadvantaged positions.

It allows coaches and their backroom staff to identify particularly good finishers. Most players will generally convert chances at an average rate, but xG helps shine a light on players who are operating at a higher level.

Expected Goals also highlights the fact that crosses aren't the most effective way of scoring. Generally speaking, not many goals are scored from this type of chance.

...."

So the paragraph in bold says one thing but then doesn't actually use stats/xG to prove it. What? Bloody useless. ?

Edited January 22, 2023 by RoyMac5

[Day]

19 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

It allows coaches and their backroom staff to identify particularly good finishers.

Do you know what also helps with this?

Eyes.

I can tell you without looking at any stat that Dobbin is not a great finisher.

[Mr Tibbs]

I don't mind it although it's not a stat I purposely search for or use in arguments. 

I like it when used in the controversial sense of a smash and grab result, I think it adds a bit more context than black and white shot statistics. 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Mr Tibbs

[RoyMac5]

5 minutes ago, David said:

Do you know what also helps with this?

Eyes.

I can tell you without looking at any stat that Dobbin is not a great finisher.

But do you know what his xG is? 

[nottingram]

Not sure how people can moan about it and then happily go about quoting shots and shots on target - if anything it can just add a little more context to those two particular stats.

In a one off game if doesn’t mean a huge amount (newsflash: neither do most stats) but over a longer period it’s a useful statistic. 

[Andicis]

People who don't think it is useful are looking at it the wrong way. It should be used on a more macro level, not to judge individual matches. When looking at a whole league over the course of the season, it's rare for it to be too far off the money. 

[RoyMac5]

13 minutes ago, Andicis said:

People who don't think it is useful are looking at it the wrong way. It should be used on a more macro level, not to judge individual matches. When looking at a whole league over the course of the season, it's rare for it to be too far off the money. 

Again, vague. How far statistically is not too far off the money?!