Strikers & Forwards and xG - which players outperform their xG.

[Grande]

The average player should by definition score exactly as much as his xG says.

Second part is hard to answer, because there’s a difference between Rashford who performs close to his xG due to inflating xG with low-percentage shots and Sterling who I imagine performs close to his xG because he scores many tap-ins created by his teammates. His total xG is probably higher than Rashford’s due to getting into good scoring positions but I would guess the goal to xG ratio would be somewhat similar (or Sterling being a bit higher since he’s scoring one goal from a 0.85xG tap-in while not inflating his xG with 30 yard shots).

A player can after four games have an xG of 8 but only score 4 goals and another can have an xG of 2 and score 5. I think your top ten would probaby (this far into the season) consist of players with high goals to xG ratios but later on would be players with high xG totals with good/decent ratios (pretty much form in the early parts of the season vs quality of chance creation later on, and some outliers like Aguero who will have lots of chances and still outperform his xG)

Thanks for thorough answer! My impression following top scorers over the years, is that they tend to be somewhat more clinical than most other players, but that the biggest difference usually is their extreme ability to use proactive intelligence or instinct, and activity in making constant initiatives, to create, find and exploit space getting into good positions a lot more often than others.

Messi is to me an anomaly, being maybe the best finisher in history, extremely football intelligent, and with a brilliant team set up to get him into finishing positions as often as possible. Ronaldo is a more typical high scorer to me, exemplified how he doubled his scoring numbers at United after working intensely with Meulensteen, Ferguson and Solskjær to improve his ability to getting in position for more ‘ugly’ goals. He is a very good finisher, but it’s the ability to get into the right positions at the right moments that makes gives him most of the percentage of extra goals compared to more mediocre attackers.

Similarly Ian Rush, Ian Wright, Pippo Inzaghi, Andy Cole, Ruud van Nistelrooij, etc.

I feel at United now, we have Martial who is an exceptional finisher, but his ability to get into the right spots at the right times is so underdevelopped that his scoring rates are similar to the much more erratic Rashford.

They say Greenwood is our most natural finisher since Solskjær, but what has impressed me most in his very few minutes in the striker role so far, is his ability to get into scoring positions.

 

[bosnian_red]

How does Danny James look this season?

Or more seriously, how does the average player relate to XG?

And, who scores the most: The ten players with highest xG stats, or the ten players with highest goals to xG ratio?

Players tend to almost always even out to their xG over a long enough period. Very, very few outperform it considerably over a big period of time. The players who score the most are those with the highest xG stats, as they get the most real chances consistently and with average finishing that turns into goals. Cant score much if you dont get chances.

 

[jus2nang]

What's with the fixation with xG?
Actual goals is what I care about...not xG. Or is this a way of trying to make out that we actually won the league, because our xG was the highest?

Love a bit of xG me, xA even more.

For me xA is a great way of determining how creative a player is, without him being penalised for useless teammates that continue to miss the chances that he creates.

A player with high xA is creating great chances but if he has low assist numbers you need to start to look at the players on the end of those chances.

 

[bosnian_red]

Does that mean he's doing well or that he's maybe over performed in his first few games?

Just means that 4 games is nothing and that there will be high variance for a while. James so far scored 2 really good finishes rather than clear chances in the last 2 games. Obviously that won't sustain and he won't score in every game.

Basically this:

• Scoring every chance you get is ALWAYS unsustainable
• Repeating your xG through games can very well be sustained, as it's a result of yourself and your team creating solid chances.

James might have 3 goals, but his xG is 1.05, an average of .2625 per game, which for a winger like him isnt bad (and should get better anyway). That's repeatable. Scoring 3 goals from those chances every week isn't.

 

[bosnian_red]

It actually shows we have been clinical...

No, as a team we've both conceded more than our xG and scored fewer than our xG over the first 4 games.

 

[bosnian_red]

What's with the fixation with xG?
Actual goals is what I care about...not xG. Or is this a way of trying to make out that we actually won the league, because our xG was the highest?

The fixation is it's a far more accurate stat than any other in terms of being a long term predictor. If you consistently create more quality chances than the opposition, and limit the opposition chances, then in general you will score more and concede more. Might not translate into immediate results, but long term it does. You'll find pretty often that teams go through great runs and bad runs, but the xG through the overall period will vary far less than the actual goals that happen. Its statistics and essentially a very useful way of quantifying performances over time, and taking luck out of the equation of evaluating teams (which there is a lot of in football, but it goes both ways and is unpredictable).

 

[Cassidy]

No, as a team we've both conceded more than our xG and scored fewer than our xG over the first 4 games.

We haven't scored fewer: 7 goals scored vs 7.6xGs

From open play we are slightly outperforming xGs 6 goals vs 4.5xGs if I remember correctly

Yes you are correct with respect to conceding

https://understat.com/team/Manchester_United/2019

 

[bosnian_red]

We haven't scored fewer: 7 goals scored vs 7.6xGs

From open play we are slightly outperforming xGs 6 goals vs 4.5xGs if I remember correctly

Yes you are correct with respect to conceding

https://understat.com/team/Manchester_United/2019

7.65 would generally round to 8 and not 7, so yeah slight underperformance. And you dont look at it from open play/set pieces as a split. It's all together. We missed 2 pens that would've both been clear chances had they not resulted in pens. So yeah, slightly underperforming xG (and .65 over 4 games isn't that small tbh).

 

[Mick1]

What's with the fixation with xG?
Actual goals is what I care about...not xG. Or is this a way of trying to make out that we actually won the league, because our xG was the highest?

It's a statistical construct that gives relative quantitative weight to chances created, mostly useful for people with interest in data analytics, especially professional bettors. If you have to ask, you don't need to know.

 

[Cassidy]

7.65 would generally round to 8 and not 7, so yeah slight underperformance. And you dont look at it from open play/set pieces as a split. It's all together. We missed 2 pens that would've both been clear chances had they not resulted in pens. So yeah, slightly underperforming xG (and .65 over 4 games isn't that small tbh).

You can if you want an idea about how we do with creating chances vs converting those chances in open play

 

[bosnian_red]

You can if you want an idea about how we do with creating chances vs converting those chances in open play

It completely ignores that there would be a clear chance if there was no penalty. So it doesn't work well to do that. Penalties are given as they are because often times, it's a foul that denied the team from having a big chance at scoring.

 

[Cassidy]

It completely ignores that there would be a clear chance if there was no penalty. So it doesn't work well to do that. Penalties are given as they are because often times, it's a foul that denied the team from having a big chance at scoring.

No it removes those from that statistic as outliers. Looking at stats is never a perfect science, but it still gives you an indication.
Given that most penalties are scored due to it being a completely different setting to open play then it makes sense to remove them if you are looking at chance conversion. 4 games is a small data set however over a 38 game season it makes sense.