Ha! Sorry mate I didn’t even bother to read the name but to be honest I’m surprised you’re giving it any credence whatsoever.
You more than anyone else on this forum understand the importance of data quality. As you say this is just primitive stuff and really can’t be taken seriously imo. We’re talking about a handful of scenarios taken into account, each with a relatively small number of permutations and 2 decimal place weight applied based on supposed difficulty.
The number of real permutations that aren’t taken into account make it completely pointless. Velocity of the ball, x,y,z of delievery, spin on ball and subsequent arc or swerve, goalkeeper’s starting position, goalkeeper’s momentum, numerous distraction possibilities, softness under foot, lumps on field, position of striker’s standing foot to name just a few.
It’s just far too simplistic to take seriously. As you know all about training NN’s I thought you’d find the idea of humans manually and crudely slicing a pitch up and coming up with statistics to reinforce their ideas laughable at best. Especially considering the complexities and variables involved.
I agree the principle of it is reasonable but right now we can’t and shouldn’t take anything from it.
That's a pretty shallow way of dismissing xG models. Idealisations, simplifications, abstractions are part and parcel of any successful modelling, no matter whether involving mental processes or artificial ones ("deep learning"). It's not like, "Shit, the model does not take into account x, y, z, it must be useless then!". That's naive at best.
The most serious limitations of statistical modelling are related to the inadequacy of its tools when it comes to identifying and tracking causal influences: what causes what. But there is already a breakthrough in this direction - Pearl, for instance, has created a mathematical language for causal reasoning ("The Book of Why"). It will take time before the new tools are successfully implemented but there is little doubt that modelling of complex pthenomena gets better and better.
Interestingly, the Understat xG picture of the top teams converges with what most fans see. It says that Liverpool are fortunate to be only a point behind City and this seems true. It says that Spurs were utterly fortunate to be only 2pts off City prior to the 27th game and this seems absolutely true. It says that Ole's United is winning at a better rate than the performances suggest and this seems true too. Sure, Ole's United seems revitalised, confident, willing to fight, capable of grinding out results. But it doesn't look yet like a team capable of winning 2,67 pts per game over the course of a whole season. Fergie's best achievement was 91pts, whereas Ole would win 102 pts if the current level of getting results continues throughout the next season. It might well happen, and it will probably happen, that we play better than now but the results are not so good.