Expected League Position Based On XG

[stirred]

Would someone mind explaining the concept of this xg thing please. Ta.

Can't help you Pap. I am not a stat man. Prefer my own eyes.

EXPECTED GOALS (XG) MEASURES THE QUALITY OF A SHOT BASED ON SEVERAL VARIABLES SUCH AS ASSIST TYPE, SHOT ANGLE AND DISTANCE FROM GOAL, WHETHER IT WAS A HEADED SHOT AND WHETHER IT WAS DEFINED AS A BIG CHANCE.

ADDING UP A PLAYER OR TEAM’S EXPECTED GOALS CAN GIVE US AN INDICATION OF HOW MANY GOALS A PLAYER OR TEAM SHOULD HAVE SCORED ON AVERAGE, GIVEN THE SHOTS THEY HAVE TAKEN.

Apologies for the caps, that was how it was written on the opta site. It gives an idea of about how many goals you should've scored during a game. Obviously not a great stat on its own but taken over a number of games should give an indicator of performance as in general youd expect teams with a positive net xG (ie more goals expected to score than concede) to be winning most of their games

In other words it measures the quantity and quality of chances you create and concede, and puts a number on them.

Instead of a manager going "We was unlucky to be honest. Jack missed a sitter, we should have come away with a point." And their fans buying it cos they're biased, and opposition manager going "He was watching a different match to me. We had 2 or 3 great chances, we should of (sic) put it to bed by half time." And then his fans supporting him, cos they're also biased.

Someone / computers (I don't know) looks at all the chances and the quality of them, and quantifies it, and you can see which manager is a gobshite, if you assume they get the numbers right.

[Tricky]

Would someone mind explaining the concept of this xg thing please. Ta.

Can't help you Pap. I am not a stat man. Prefer my own eyes.

EXPECTED GOALS (XG) MEASURES THE QUALITY OF A SHOT BASED ON SEVERAL VARIABLES SUCH AS ASSIST TYPE, SHOT ANGLE AND DISTANCE FROM GOAL, WHETHER IT WAS A HEADED SHOT AND WHETHER IT WAS DEFINED AS A BIG CHANCE.

ADDING UP A PLAYER OR TEAM’S EXPECTED GOALS CAN GIVE US AN INDICATION OF HOW MANY GOALS A PLAYER OR TEAM SHOULD HAVE SCORED ON AVERAGE, GIVEN THE SHOTS THEY HAVE TAKEN.

Apologies for the caps, that was how it was written on the opta site. It gives an idea of about how many goals you should've scored during a game. Obviously not a great stat on its own but taken over a number of games should give an indicator of performance as in general youd expect teams with a positive net xG (ie more goals expected to score than concede) to be winning most of their games

In other words it measures the quantity and quality of chances you create and concede, and puts a number on them.

Instead of a manager going "We was unlucky to be honest. Jack missed a sitter, we should have come away with a point." And their fans buying it cos they're biased, and opposition manager going "He was watching a different match to me. We had 2 or 3 great chances, we should of (sic) put it to bed by half time." And then his fans supporting him, cos they're also biased.

Someone / computers (I don't know) looks at all the chances and the quality of them, and quantifies it, and you can see which manager is a gobshite, if you assume they get the numbers right.

So to summarise Stirreds take on them, they get cobbled together by someone on their computer to prove which clubs manager is more of a Gobshite than the other and to prove to sets of biased supporters if their Manager has been watching the game or is a pathological liar!  :cool:  :D

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

I know what Cloughie would have said about bloody XG!

Why is the game getting so complicated nowadays?

Football is a simple game made complicated by idiots - BC.

[stirred]

Gotta run but for fun and to compare with how you remember it I just looked up the last few matches on xG:
We drew 1.1 vs 1.1 against Barnsley
Beat Wycombe 1.2 vs 0.8
And beat Coventry 2.1 vs 1.3 (we were drawing 1.3 each, then got 0.8 xG for the last minute pen).

[wassy04]

Gotta run but for fun and to compare with how you remember it I just looked up the last few matches on xG:
We drew 1.1 vs 1.1 against Barnsley
Beat Wycombe 1.2 vs 0.8
And beat Coventry 2.1 vs 1.3 (we were drawing 1.3 each, then got 0.8 xG for the last minute pen).

Pretty much exactly how I remember each game

[stirred]

Bournemouth 1.77 v 1.11 Forest

[wassy04]

Bournemouth 1.77 v 1.11 Forest

Seems about right, not quite the embarrassing performance its being billed as. Also, their score will be inflated by the penalty (outside the box) that's worth about 0.8 right?

[Paplane]

So are we now judging success in the game by a metric other than the amount of times the actual ball crosses the actual line?

I must be getting too old.

[stirred]

Bournemouth 1.77 v 1.11 Forest

Seems about right, not quite the embarrassing performance its being billed as. Also, their score will be inflated by the penalty (outside the box) that's worth about 0.8 right?

I took the above xG from Sky Sports after the match. The other place I took them ( experimental 3-6-1 website) from has it at 2.0 vs 0.7. The good thing with that is it shows how it went as the match went on.  After an hour it was about 1.9 vs 0.25. 

My take ignoring xG was that they won the match then sat back, it was comfortable for them. And the xG tallies with that. Us accruing some xG when they’ve taken their foot off the pedal then trying to subtract their penalty isn’t representative of what happened.

[Plymouth red]

So are we now judging success in the game by a metric other than the amount of times the actual ball crosses the actual line?

I must be getting too old.

I'm reading this as clutching at straws. 

Doesn't really matter what our expected goals is when our actual goals is 0. 

No one has won a game based on there expected goals. Would we all be excited if our xg was 7 but we lost 3-0.

[Widdow]

IFS, BUTS and MAYBES!

[stirred]

So are we now judging success in the game by a metric other than the amount of times the actual ball crosses the actual line?

I must be getting too old.

I'm reading this as clutching at straws. 

Doesn't really matter what our expected goals is when our actual goals is 0. 

No one has won a game based on there expected goals. Would we all be excited if our xg was 7 but we lost 3-0.

It gives a measure of chances created (& conceded). So if you're consistently doing well on xG, you don't need fundamental change. If you were consistently underscoring your xG, high xG but not scoring, it would probably tell you your striker needs replacing or some shooting practice and you'd start winning.

After Thomas Frank took over at Brentford they lost 8 of their first 10 matches, only won 2 out of their first 14. But so the story goes, they could see from their xG that their general play was good, and it would come right.

Similarly Reading were extraordinarily clinical in their start to this season, putting almost every chance they had away. That isn't sustainable. The xG told you that, showing them doing worse in xG than their actual results, suggesting they'd likely drop down the table as they revert to a more average level of chance conversion.