Ban
New Member
It's still idiotic.Maybe just maybe, xG isn't an idiotic thing to look on, and if it is screaming that a team is overperforming and is lucky, it means that soon also the drop in results will follow.
Who would have thought it?
It's still idiotic.Maybe just maybe, xG isn't an idiotic thing to look on, and if it is screaming that a team is overperforming and is lucky, it means that soon also the drop in results will follow.
Who would have thought it?
It never was. It is just people being cavemen. It is by far the best indicator of long term trends.It's still idiotic.
Yep. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to look at. The trouble is you try and point anything negative out after a win and you get hammered even if it's perfectly valid to have concerns. People were trying to pretend it was all great when we finished 2nd under Jose but we were shit most weeks and massively flattered by it as xg suggested. Arsenal were massively outperforming their xg earlier in the season during that flukey unbeaten run and shock horror the results soon tanked. It's a concern.Maybe just maybe, xG isn't an idiotic thing to look on, and if it is screaming that a team is overperforming and is lucky, it means that soon also the drop in results will follow.
Who would have thought it?
Cavemen? The best indicator is to actually watch the games without worrying about some made up stuff. I'm not saying you're not watching, just that xG is a thing made up from people who dont watch games.It never was. It is just people being cavemen. It is by far the best indicator of long term trends.
Please explain to me why 8/10 of the top half of the PL are overperforming vs this "xG" bollocks and 8/10 of the bottom half are underperforming.Maybe just maybe, xG isn't an idiotic thing to look on, and if it is screaming that a team is overperforming and is lucky, it means that soon also the drop in results will follow.
Who would have thought it?
Nope, 'feelings' are nowhere as accurate as stats.Cavemen? The best indicator is to actually watch the games without worrying about some made up stuff. I'm not saying you're not watching, just that xG is a thing made up from people who dont watch games.
Good teams overperform their xG cause they have good players, bad teams underperform it cause they have bad players, best teams like Barca and City were overperforming it by 10% or so, while United was overperforming it by 30%+, which was a very strong indicator that we were quite lucky and soon a return to ("in direction towards") the mean was going to happen.
Made up stats.Nope, 'feelings' are nowhere as accurate as stats.
Overperforming a little is expected when you have good players, but it isn’t sustainable to be over performing by a lot.
All statistical models are made up. If you go to get a loan, it is a model that will likely decide if you'll get it or not. Soon enough, a model will drive you.Made up stats.
At best, you can draw the conclusion that it means a team are taking their chances. You can't possibly look at it and conclude that "xG says they're being lucky". Having a look at a few previous seasons, I can see that, for example, Chelsea outperfomed it by 37% when they won the league in 16/17 - I suppose they were just lucky all season long?Good teams overperform their xG cause they have good players, bad teams underperform it cause they have bad players, best teams like Barca and City were overperforming it by 10% or so, while United was overperforming it by 30%+, which was a very strong indicator that we were quite lucky and soon a return to ("in direction towards") the mean was going to happen.
2017/2018 :Does anyone has average xG under ole compared to average xG under Mourinho this season, and average xG under him last season? Add to that Liverpool's and City's xG for the season.
It would probably be the best indicator on how much we have improved and how do we stand compared to last season. We are winning Ole's table, but I still think that City and Liverpool are better and wouldn't be surprised if xG gives that conclusion too.
I think this is true but it's more that we need a RW and an RB. Lingard-Young or Lingard-Dalot or whatever else we throw out there looks more like a relegation threatened team than a top 6 one.Maybe just maybe, xG isn't an idiotic thing to look on, and if it is screaming that a team is overperforming and is lucky, it means that soon also the drop in results will follow.
Who would have thought it?
Nope. Still idiotic to me tbh. Football has more factors affecting it to be counted by a stats like xG and luck is an integral part of the sport whether we like it or not.Maybe just maybe, xG isn't an idiotic thing to look on, and if it is screaming that a team is overperforming and is lucky, it means that soon also the drop in results will follow.
Who would have thought it?
But then you're admitting it could be down to luck rather than what a lot of people seem think (united magically performing 30% better in front of goal than your average player/team). I think if you speak to any stats people they will be the first to admit that luck plays a MASSIVE part in football. If anything they will admit it more than your average fan who puts everything down to passion or feelings.Nope. Still idiotic to me tbh. Football has more factors affecting it to be counted by a stats like xG and luck is an integral part of the sport whether we like it or not.
Why making it one way or another? Why should it be tactics 100% or luck 100%?But then you're admitting it could be down to luck rather than what a lot of people seem think (united magically performing 30% better in front of goal than your average player/team). I think if you speak to any stats people they will be the first to admit that luck plays a MASSIVE part in football. If anything they will admit it more than your average fan who puts everything down to passion or feelings.
Luck is a part of sport, but that's why it's called expected goals. For a given series of inputs(positions, plays, area from which shot was taken, defenders around, ability of goalkeeper), on average, how often does it lead to a output(goal)? This factors in the luck in instances where both a goal is scored and it is not. Reduce it to a simple penalty kick - if Ronaldo was taking a penalty against Romero, you'd expect him to 95 times out of 100(I made this stat up). If Ronaldo suddenly starts missing penalties against Romero every single time 10 times in a row, it means something is off. xG simply does the same thing, but expands it to multiple factors and averaged out over hundreds of thousands of footballers resulting in an average prediction. Luck gets implicitly factored.Nope. Still idiotic to me tbh. Football has more factors affecting it to be counted by a stats like xG and luck is an integral part of the sport whether we like it or not.
xG doesn't make predictions, all it does is add up events in the past.Looking at Jose's 2nd season, one could make the following observations:
xG does reflect what we witnessed on the pitch to a fair degree: DDG saved our arses frequently and we were generally pretty shoddy attacking wise. However, the model completely fails to predict what is actually a common scenario in football, i.e. that a team maintain their "unsustainable" form over a full season, finishing higher than they "deserve" based on the sheer numbers. This isn't an anomaly - it happens all the time.
According to the numbers in mid-December (halfway through the season), we should've finished 6th. But that's nowhere near as bad as the model's predictions with regard to Burnley: they should've escaped relegation by the narrowest of margins - but finished 7th. The model also predicts Bournemouth to finish dead last - in reality they ended up very respectably in 12th.
On the plus side, the model does predict the winner and 3/4 of the top 4. It also predicts, specifically, that Tottenham are significantly better than 7th, their actual position in mid-December. And while it misses completely with regard to Bournemouth, it correctly predicts 2/3 of the teams that ended up going down.
It doesn't tell you much about future form though. If you just go with xG and ignore goals scored, wins, domination, fixtures etc then you might not know what to expect.Luck is a part of sport, but that's why it's called expected goals. For a given series of inputs(positions, plays, area from which shot was taken, defenders around, ability of goalkeeper), on average, how often does it lead to a output(goal)? This factors in the luck in instances where both a goal is scored and it is not. Reduce it to a simple penalty kick - if Ronaldo was taking a penalty against Romero, you'd expect him to 95 times out of 100(I made this stat up). If Ronaldo suddenly starts missing penalties against Romero every single time 10 times in a row, it means something is off. xG simply does the same thing, but expands it to multiple factors and averaged out over hundreds of thousands of footballers resulting in an average prediction. Luck gets implicitly factored.
It's not right to refute it as being idiotic. The idea is sound - probabilistic predictions power a lot of the technology you use.
There's a possibility that the actual model built for determining xG sucks, but I have no way of knowing that. If it's consistently a leading indicator of upcoming form, it probably means the model is pretty damn good.
Yeah and people use it to suit agendas.xG doesn't make predictions, all it does is add up events in the past.
Which people use to make predictions about the future.xG doesn't make predictions, all it does is add up events in the past.
If used within context it can be a great stat no doubt. Just like shoot stats in general. Although I would not put too much weight on it.Which people use to make predictions about the future.
Luck is kind of integrated in xG. If you take a shoot from a position, xG is just the ratio between goals and all shots from that position (I simplified it a lot). Luck played a part in all those shots taken.Nope. Still idiotic to me tbh. Football has more factors affecting it to be counted by a stats like xG and luck is an integral part of the sport whether we like it or not.
Yes, fair enough - these models weren't made as prediction tools. But as others have remarked, they're clearly being used for that purpose by both journalists (increasingly so) and fans.xG doesn't make predictions, all it does is add up events in the past.
No, it was 1.98 - 1.35 in United’s favour. I felt that watching the match. Watford didn’t really create many good chances. Martial scored from about 2 yards out too.So today was another game where we massively reversed the xG result, right?
Long may it last...
Huh. Well there you go. The fallibility of xG in a nutshell. Watford were by far the better team today.No, it was 1.98 - 1.35 in United’s favour. I felt that watching the match. Watford didn’t really create many good chances. Martial scored from about 2 yards out too.
But they only played it good until our box. They didn't finish their attacks, only one, and that was a brilliant goal. While we had 3 very clear chances (Rashford goal, Martial goal, Martial after the corner).Huh. Well there you go. The fallibility of xG in a nutshell. Watford were by far the better team today.
It's all based on position in the box for shots vs goals.
Yeah. I don’t think we played well and didn’t enjoy the game much, but we did have the majority of the clear chances on reflection after rewatching the highlightsBut they only played it good until our box. They didn't finish their attacks, only one, and that was a brilliant goal. While we had 3 very clear chances (Rashford goal, Martial goal, Martial after the corner).
For what it's worth, this model (which is more sophisticated than Understat's) has Watford ahead. 1.52 vs 1.39. Just keep in mind that while expected goals have a higher correlation to performance than actual goals (because goals are such an infrequent event) a 90-minute sample is often not going to tell you much. Not having seen yesterday's match I wouldn't want to draw any conclusions from the numbers below. The larger your sample gets, the higher their significance and predictive power become, though.Huh. Well there you go. The fallibility of xG in a nutshell. Watford were by far the better team today.
No xG model should have Watford ahead of United. They had pot shots and half chances at best apart from Doucoure. We had Martial with an open net, Martials miss off the corner which was bigger then even Doucoures goal, and then Rashford one on one. That alone is all we need to have a higher xG on every single model. Based on quality of chances, we had better chances by a distance.For what it's worth, this model (which is more sophisticated than Understat's) has Watford ahead. 1.52 vs 1.39. Just keep in mind that while expected goals have a higher correlation to performance than actual goals (because goals are such an infrequent event) a 90-minute sample is often not going to tell you much. The larger your sample gets, the higher its significance and predictive power becomes, though.
XG shows simply quality of chances. Watford had loads of shots - but apart from Doucoure what did they have? Pot shots and half chances at best. We had 3 sitters, which gives us the "xG win" easily.Huh. Well there you go. The fallibility of xG in a nutshell. Watford were by far the better team today.
Where's that from?For what it's worth, this model (which is more sophisticated than Understat's) has Watford ahead. 1.52 vs 1.39. Just keep in mind that while expected goals have a higher correlation to performance than actual goals (because goals are such an infrequent event) a 90-minute sample is often not going to tell you much. Not having seen yesterday's match I wouldn't want to draw any conclusions from the numbers below. The larger your sample gets, the higher their significance and predictive power become, though.
0.05-0.15 only I believe. Hardly significantLots of low value pot shots will add up though?
WyscoutWhere's that from?
ThanksWyscout