xG and finishing under ETH

[Abraxas]

Why only the season where the manager lost the dressing room matters? We have seen top squads being shit when the manager loses the dressing room, to only instantly return to top squads when the manager changes. Chelsea does that every 3 years.

Why you do not compare with the season before that when we finished second and reached Europa's final? What signs of progress we showed last season compared to 20-21 season, while spending around 400m, half of which from ten Hag?

I didn't say it's all that matters. The question is whether it matters to the broad statement that there has been no quantifiable progress as that's what I picked up on. In fact you went so far as to describe it as "invisible" and the only reason I picked up on it instead of some of the more interesting stuff you raised is you threw out something so ludicrously broad and difficult to substantiate.

Progress: movement towards an improved condition. Quantifiable, I guess in football there is a lot of ways to quantify things. You chose xG because it suited your argument even though in truth there isn't an xG trophy. However I should add that you then try to get around the quantifiable examples I gave you with some spurious stuff about your opinion on other clubs (as if other clubs don't always have ups and downs and it isn't a fairly natural order of things for them to do so). In other words totally unquantifiable criteria based on your gut feeling.

The point remains, from the manager's entrance until now we moved from a condition of being in 6th to 3rd. I think, in the view of most reasonable observers that would be considered an improved condition in comparison to what preceded. It is also most definitely quantifiable, the number attached is 3rd and the progress is not only quantifiable but tangible, and anybody with any difficulty around that can go and view our trophy cabinet.

That's not to say we can't get into granular detail and nitpick xG, or look at our performance levels, or bring in all this other context, of course we can - but it still doesn't sustain this argument that there hasn't been quantifiable progress so that's where your argument lacked precision. It would be a much more balanced and convincing starting point to acknowledge that there has been quantifiable progress, but you are not happy with the rate or detail of the progress because of X reasons.

 

[Red4Ever]

Depends what. We were one penalty away out of 11 in Europa, which IMO is a far better sign than winning Mickey Mouse Cup. Arsenal last season did not win anything but had a better season than us. Same for Inter.

I agree that he should be a better manager than Ole, and that spending 400m should result with a better team. But until we show it in the pitch, it is all hypothetical.

NEARLY winning a pen shoot out in a b list euro comp is better than winning a trophy?

hypothetically

and that’s before he left us in the bottom half months later getting dunked by Watford & Leicester…

 

[saivet]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[the_cliff]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

xG is a load of bollocks.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

xG is a load of bollocks.

We scored an own goal and missed an absolute sitter. That’s enough to switch those stats to that degree.

 

[Skills]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So far across the 2 games, xPts has us pretty much in-line with our actual points.

2.89 xPts vs 3 actual points.

 

[the_cliff]

We scored an own goal and missed an absolute sitter. That’s enough to switch those stats to that degree.

You misunderstood me. xG is bollocks because it only calculates the likelihood of a chance becoming a goal not taking players ability into account...

If you grab a 5 year old child of the street and give him a penalty then give a penalty to Ivan Toney it's not exactly the same 'xG' is it ?

 

[Skills]

You misunderstood me. xG is bollocks because it only calculates the likelihood of a chance becoming a goal not taking players ability into account...

If you grab a 5 year old child of the street and give him a penalty then give a penalty to Ivan Toney it's not exactly the same 'xG' is it ?

5 year olds aren't part of the dataset that generates XG probabilities.

 

[Chief123]

xG is a load of bollocks.

To be fair that’s about right. We had the bigger chances that we messed up. Bruno header should be a goal 99/100. The Antony shot that came off the post should have been in. Rashford shot in first half where keeper made a good save. Casemiro header should be scoring.

 

[Chief123]

You misunderstood me. xG is bollocks because it only calculates the likelihood of a chance becoming a goal not taking players ability into account...

If you grab a 5 year old child of the street and give him a penalty then give a penalty to Ivan Toney it's not exactly the same 'xG' is it ?

xG isn’t perfect but it’s very useful information. xG is based on how the average player would perform in that situation. A 5 year old off the street wouldn’t be regarded as the average player.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I said it in another thread, accumulating xG without scoring isn't really a trend for us anymore, it is an inherent characteristic of this team. We will continue to see minimal goals and "but at least we are creating chances, look at the xG!" should no longer be accepted as an excuse.

 

[Chief123]

I said it in another thread, accumulating xG without scoring isn't really a trend for us anymore, it is an inherent characteristic of this team. We will continue to see minimal goals and "but at least we are creating chances, look at the xG!" should no longer be accepted as an excuse.

The positive spin is we are creating chances that should be winning games. If we can get Hojlund settled in, hopefully he can take a lot of more of these chances than we’re currently doing.

 

[the_cliff]

5 year olds aren't part of the dataset that generates XG probabilities.

Maybe there should be a data set for 5 year olds, since our attackers finish like them...

Just out of curiosity, what was our total xG compared to actual goals scored last season.

Because right now we're on 3.5 and only scored 1.

xG isn’t perfect but it’s very useful information. xG is based on how the average player would perform in that situation. A 5 year old off the street wouldn’t be regarded as the average player.

I understand the reason behind it. I should've been more specific. xG is bollocks when it comes to us.
We've been underperforming xG for a while now, hoping and praying that we'll suddenly start hitting our xG number is insanity...

 

[Chief123]

I understand the reason behind it. I should've been more specific. xG is bollocks when it comes to us.
We've been underperforming xG for a while now, hoping and praying that we'll suddenly start hitting our xG number is insanity...

But that’s where it’s value is. It highlights our biggest issue. We are creating plenty of key chances but aren’t taking them. A big part of why we have been under performing the xG is because of the likes of Weghorst, Antony, Rashford being so wasteful. We’ve missed so many big chances since last season. We’re crying out for someone who’s got the killer instinct.

 

[Skills]

xG isn’t perfect but it’s very useful information. xG is based on how the average player would perform in that situation. A 5 year old off the street wouldn’t be regarded as the average player.

I don't think that's quite true.

The best players score more goals- so XG probabilities are inherently more skewed by them. If you were to create an XG model purely based on last seasons data - Erling Haaland would have 3x the effect on that models probabilities than for example Gabriel Jesus (who scored 11 goals vs Haalands 32).

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

You misunderstood me. xG is bollocks because it only calculates the likelihood of a chance becoming a goal not taking players ability into account...

If you grab a 5 year old child of the street and give him a penalty then give a penalty to Ivan Toney it's not exactly the same 'xG' is it ?

It aggregates for that. xG has validity if understood properly. Not suggesting that you don’t.

The xG calcs are good additive data. Not factual data. We probably feel the same way about it.

 

[Chief123]

I don't think that's quite true.

The best players score more goals- so XG probabilities are inherently more skewed by them. If you were to create an XG model purely based on last seasons data - Erling Haaland would have 3x the effect on that models probabilities than for example Gabriel Jesus (who scored 11 goals vs Haalands 32).

“xG does not take into account the quality of player(s) involved in a particular play. It is an estimate of how the average player or team would perform in a similar situation.”

https://fbref.com/en/expected-goals-model-explained/

 

[Dominos]

You misunderstood me. xG is bollocks because it only calculates the likelihood of a chance becoming a goal not taking players ability into account...

If you grab a 5 year old child of the street and give him a penalty then give a penalty to Ivan Toney it's not exactly the same 'xG' is it ?

Taking into account the player's ability would defeat the whole purpose of xG.

The point is you compile the data of everyone to get an average expected value, the average of professional footballers at the top level, not the average of a 5 year old. Then you can see who is over/under-performing xG to decipher who is better than average when it comes to finishing, and who is worse than average, both on an individual level and a team level.

 

[the_cliff]

But that’s where it’s value is. It highlights our biggest issue. We are creating plenty of key chances but aren’t taking them. A big part of why we have been under performing the xG is because of the likes of Weghorst, Antony, Rashford being so wasteful. We’ve missed so many big chances since last season. We’re crying out for someone who’s got the killer instinct.

Taking into account the player's ability would defeat the whole purpose of xG.

The point is you compile the data of everyone to get an average expected value, the average of professional footballers at the top level, not the average of a 5 year old. Then you can see who is over/under-performing xG to decipher who is better than average when it comes to finishing, and who is worse than average, both on an individual level and a team level.

I get your points.
Considering we were in negative GD till the last 3 weeks of the season should've been proof enough but I get it.

I'm just annoyed that we haven't added any goal scoring players, It was evident to everyone xG or no xG that it's a problem and we've only added a 20 year old who's had 1 season playing in a top 5 league and scored no goals.

Now I'm not jumping on him and saying he's a bad player or as bad a finisher as the rest, but we best hope that all of our chances fall to him, as the others are all useless.

 

[DWelbz19]

Ramsus save our souls?

 

[Teja]

Ramsus save our souls?

The sample size is too small but yeah I'm hopeful if this continues. Focus on the xGD/90 trend and ignore the noise.

 

[Ace of Spades]

We don't even need xG to see we are creating chances, our finishing is awful.

Also, we seem especially awful at finishing with the head.

 

[IrishRedDevil]

We are creating chances that’s the positive.

 

[Rozay]

Just glanced at the table and an all to familiar goal difference already. We are the lowest in the top half as usual.

 

[NZT-One]

Just glanced at the table and an all to familiar goal difference already. We are the lowest in the top half as usual.

Even the nice-looking graph above is without Liverpool, Newcastle and City having played their matches...

 

[tomaldinho1]

Even the nice-looking graph above is without Liverpool, Newcastle and City having played their matches...

We’ve also played three very average teams - I know some people are on the Spurs love train but they were so open against us it won’t be long until they start dropping points left and right in my opinion.

 

[ROFLUTION]

https://fbref.com/en/expected-goals-model-explained/

Is xG the average of Premier League players or the average of every league in Europe? Or something else?

 

[Chief123]

Is xG the average of Premier League players or the average of every league in Europe? Or something else?

The opta xG isn’t just based on premier league. It’s based on various leagues and players.

The key to note is it doesn’t take into account the quality of the player. The xG for any particular shot will be exactly the same for Haaland as it would be for Weghorst.

 

[CM]

We're desperate for another striker and a couple of competent midfielders

 

[The Irish Connection]

Ramsus save our souls?

Nice positive stat.
People on about ten Hag are wrong. It’s the squad that is still lacking.
Better owners would have sorted that.

 

[dubplate warrior]

I remember one moment today where Rashford put a first time ball into the box and Martial was caught on his heels instead of making a darting run into the middle.

Hoping Hojlund will give us that, he's also an absolute pressing monster.

 

[Overhaul FC]

Hopefully Hojlund can do better with the xg conversion and become a cult hero like RVN was.

Bit of a stretch but you never know. He has the opportunity and an improving squad.

 

[Dominos]

The key to note is it doesn’t take into account the quality of the player. The xG for any particular shot will be exactly the same for Haaland as it would be for Weghorst.

That's the whole point of it though? The xG of a particular shot should be based on data compiled from all players so you have the average chance of a goal being scored. From there, you can tell who's outperforming and underperforming their xG to judge who's finishing is above average and who's finishing is below average.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

Understat's xG model also has us 2nd in the league. 4th in xPts so far.

We need to smash some teams here and there for a much better GD. It was far too low last season.

 

[ROFLUTION]

The opta xG isn’t just based on premier league. It’s based on various leagues and players.

The key to note is it doesn’t take into account the quality of the player. The xG for any particular shot will be exactly the same for Haaland as it would be for Weghorst.

Cheers. Yeah I was asking for the same reason as I’d imagine lower leagues or crap leagues would lower that average making the xG for Premier League a bit unjust (way better players, bigger offset in xG)

I’d have guessed you’d want an xG that on average fits the league you’re in but I guess you cant compare players from different leagues with each other that way then if its not a universal same average.

 

[Strelok]

To be fair that’s about right. We had the bigger chances that we messed up. Bruno header should be a goal 99/100. The Antony shot that came off the post should have been in. Rashford shot in first half where keeper made a good save. Casemiro header should be scoring.

We battered them in the first half. If one of those went in the result would have been very different imo. Then the blatant handball. I'm still so gutted. Feck Michael Oliver what a cnut.

 

[Chief123]

That's the whole point of it though? The xG of a particular shot should be based on data compiled from all players so you have the average chance of a goal being scored. From there, you can tell who's outperforming and underperforming their xG to judge who's finishing is above average and who's finishing is below average.

I completely agree. I’m not saying it is wrong?

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

That’s an absurd way of looking at it though. It makes no sense to look at it that way. How can you possibly compare how a striker is performing if it’s just purely based on how good or how crap he is. It should always be compared against what happens on average in those situations.

It's not, though. The proof is that, throughout a player's career, it all evens out. A player may be over performing for a particular period, but it becomes pretty balanced in the end. Yes, this applies even to the likes of Ronaldo and Lewandowski. Believe it or not, they aren't outperforming their xG. What makes them, and the likes of Haaland, so special is that they accumulate insane numbers of xG with their movement and understanding of the game.

 

[M Bison]

Aside from the goals and Casemiro misjudging the open goal, did we have any other chances we should have scored yesterday? It didn’t seem as though we were missing chance after chance.

 

[Utd heap]

Aside from the goals and Casemiro misjudging the open goal, did we have any other chances we should have scored yesterday? It didn’t seem as though we were missing chance after chance.

Thought the same, we were getting into great areas but didn't test the keeper that much other than Antony and Bruno a couple of times from range.