Kid Icarus Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 (edited) 32 minutes ago, leffe186 said: Yeah was just considering xG there. How do they assign xPts? Like, by how much do you have to win the xG in a game to get 3xPts instead of 1? I kinda feel like the bigger picture has some significant margins, so like the top three are grouped together then there’s a whole load of us in a group where the variance doesn’t really matter. Then the key factor ends up being how good your keeper or CF are. Like, our keeper is shit hot at saving shots and our CF is historically good vs xG, so we’re always going to outperform it. I suspect Chelsea’s CF is historically bad at xG and you’ve had a backup keeper for months so that gives an immediate underperformance. Think it's as simple as win on xG = 3 xPts. It's fairly crude, but useful with context. Eg Man United are indeed lucky and are relying on individual moments, Chelsea would be better with a goalscorer, we'd be better without relying on back ups etc. For Spurs it's context again innit? One season you might over-perform xG because you're class, another season (like last season) xG is over-performed because you're playing shit and over-relying on Kane/Son to bale you out. Agree with the xG for your match today btw You were obv the better team and the devil's in the details (ie you were much more threatening and had tons of balls fired across the 6 yard box), but in terms of the actual shots taken they felt pretty even. Edited April 7 by Kid Icarus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cf Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said: Think it's as simple as win on xG = 3 xPts. It's fairly crude, but useful with context. Eg Man United are indeed lucky and are relying on individual moments, Chelsea would be better with a goalscorer, we'd be better without relying on back ups etc. For Spurs it's context again innit? One season you might over-perform xG because you're class, another season (like last season) xG is over-performed because you're playing shit and over-relying on Kane/Son to bale you out. Agree with the xG for your match today btw You were obv the better team and the devil's in the details (ie you were much more threatening and had tons of balls fired across the 6 yard box), but in terms of the actual shots taken they felt pretty even. Understat have fractional xPts so whatever they do isn't as simple as higher xG = 3pts. 4th again for us on there. https://understat.com/league/EPL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 In fairness to XG, Chris Wood did miss that chance at 1-1 which probably accounts for nearly 1xg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said: Think it's as simple as win on xG = 3 xPts. It's fairly crude, but useful with context. Eg Man United are indeed lucky and are relying on individual moments, Chelsea would be better with a goalscorer, we'd be better without relying on back ups etc. For Spurs it's context again innit? One season you might over-perform xG because you're class, another season (like last season) xG is over-performed because you're playing shit and over-relying on Kane/Son to bale you out. Agree with the xG for your match today btw You were obv the better team and the devil's in the details (ie you were much more threatening and had tons of balls fired across the 6 yard box), but in terms of the actual shots taken they felt pretty even. Yeah, although their keeper made four or five terrific saves . Maybe they gave Wood one whole xG for that miss (which incidentally Vicario did quite brilliantly to spread himself for). Like all stats, you still have to think a bit. I still have no idea what our game next week is going to be like. Much will depend upon whether we get the midfield right. Again, I feel like a ton of goals are inevitable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pata Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 45 minutes ago, leffe186 said: How do they assign xPts? Like, by how much do you have to win the xG in a game to get 3xPts instead of 1? Looking at a recent example, Liverpool were given 2.92 points today so it's really tough to get the full three. Variance can be fun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pata Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said: Think it's as simple as win on xG = 3 xPts. There are fractions on Understat and it's tough to get the full 3. This is all my own thinking but I think they take the xG data and simulate the outcome thousands or hundreds of thousands times and see how the points would divide in a really long run. Like the Liverpool match today, it should be close to full 3 on expected points (and eyetest) but somehow Man Utd are really fucking lucky and got a point for that battering so they gave Liverpool 2.92 and Man United 0.05 (?). Edited April 7 by Pata Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 Posters crying about xG not being real despite no one claiming it is, in 5..4..3..2... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBG Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 xg isn't real. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pata Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 (edited) 19 minutes ago, leffe186 said: Yeah, although their keeper made four or five terrific saves . Maybe they gave Wood one whole xG for that miss (which incidentally Vicario did quite brilliantly to spread himself for). Like all stats, you still have to think a bit. I didn't watch your match but just by looking at the shot chart, Johnson missed a 0.84 chance early on but after that you only have two shots above 0.10 (and they were only 0.11xG both). So lots of shots but only one had significant xG. And obviously not getting anything for the own goal. Nottingham had Wood's three big chances (0.65xG, 0.64xG and 0.39xG which he scored) and some long range efforts with low xG. Edited April 7 by Pata Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty66 Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 Turkish Super Cup final Gala v Fener. Fener send out a full team of under 19's. Gala score in the first 30 seconds (Icardi) Fener kids walk of the pitch and match is abandoned, Gala win the cup. Sounds like the perfect place to send dicky masters to get things under control tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 Wtf are the BBC doing giving that awful dickhead Troy Deeney the MOTD2 gig? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maybe_next_year Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 21 minutes ago, Scotty66 said: Turkish Super Cup final Gala v Fener. Fener send out a full team of under 19's. Gala score in the first 30 seconds (Icardi) Fener kids walk of the pitch and match is abandoned, Gala win the cup. Sounds like the perfect place to send dicky masters to get things under control tbh. They actually only played 9 players from the start too. It was being held somewhere effected by the earthquakes to raise money for the victims which just makes there timing of the protest seem really insensitive. Looks like Gala had a kick about against their own reserves for the fans who were there, which is a nice touch I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pata Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 2 hours ago, leffe186 said: That site has us losing on xG to Forest btw https://x.com/markstatsbot/status/1777048776420851848?s=46 I can’t remember how the expected threat is calculated but you are up on that a lot. Possession, crosses, touches in the box etc. most likely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 1 hour ago, Pata said: I didn't watch your match but just by looking at the shot chart, Johnson missed a 0.84 chance early on but after that you only have two shots above 0.10 (and they were only 0.11xG both). So lots of shots but only one had significant xG. And obviously not getting anything for the own goal. Nottingham had Wood's three big chances (0.65xG, 0.64xG and 0.39xG which he scored) and some long range efforts with low xG. Three big chances? The back header? Forgot you get nowt for own goals . I think we’ve actually scored a ton this year, six or seven, which isn’t entirely surprising because of the way we attack. That’s another key bit of context. I’m amazed VDV’s goal counted for so little. This isn’t helping my opinion of xG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pata Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 7 minutes ago, leffe186 said: Three big chances? The back header? Header from couple of yards out on the 50th minute was 0.64. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toon25 Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 Pochettino has some fucking nerve, like. Chelsea 'not mature enough' to compete every three days apparently. Despite spending a billion fucking quid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pata Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 14 minutes ago, leffe186 said: Three big chances? The back header? Forgot you get nowt for own goals . I think we’ve actually scored a ton this year, six or seven, which isn’t entirely surprising because of the way we attack. That’s another key bit of context. I’m amazed VDV’s goal counted for so little. This isn’t helping my opinion of xG I watched the highlights now and that header definitely shouldn't be that high as it was impossible for Wood to get any power on it. That's sometimes the problem with free xG models, algorithms struggle to handle data like that correctly. VDV's goal being so low is because there are three Forest players trying to block the shot and still the goalie to beat too. Was a perfect shot but honestly don't see him scoring from there more than once out of ten. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 9 minutes ago, Pata said: Header from couple of yards out on the 50th minute was 0.64. Oof. It’s apparently more flawed than I realized. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 Just now, Pata said: I watched the highlights now and that header definitely shouldn't be that high as it was impossible for Wood to get any power on it. That's sometimes the problem with free xG models, algorithms struggle to handle data like that correctly. VDV's goal being so low is because there are three Forest players trying to block the shot and still the goalie to beat too. Was a perfect shot but honestly don't see him scoring from there more than once out of ten. I definitely see him scoring that chance more than once out of ten. I see me scoring that chance more than once out of ten (I’m a lefty), and I’m not even kidding. There’s actually a decent area of goal to aim for. No biggie. I never really look at xG in any detail but have used it in the past in discussions. I’ll probably going to use it less in future tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 3 hours ago, nemtizz said: That Robinson challenge on Palmer is a red all day long. It’s actually bizarre that it wasn’t. I guess at least it’s an argument for general incompetence rather than directed bias. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pata Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 (edited) 16 minutes ago, leffe186 said: Oof. It’s apparently more flawed than I realized. I don't know where flashscore get their data from but Forest's total was a lot lower on their app so some human must have fixed that header. It's still really good and it's staggering how much data is available freely and the bots are really good. You'll have to pay for data where a human goes through every shot and the differences wouldn't be that big outside of rare instances like that header. Completely disagree with that VDV shot, front post top corner is the only real sure fire way to score and you nor VDV would never hit that top corner regularly while missing all the Forest players trying to block the shot. Edited April 7 by Pata Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 1 minute ago, Pata said: I don't know where flashscore get their data from but Forest's total was a lot lower on their app so some human must have fixed that header. It's still really good and it's staggering how much data is available freely and the bots are really good. You'll have to pay for data where a human goes through every shot and the differences wouldn't be that big outside of rare instances like that header. Completely disagree with that VDV shot, front post top corner is the only real sure fire way to to score and you nor VDV would never hit that top corner regularly while missing all the Forest players trying to block the shot. Fair enough. For the record I’d hit it two out of ten . Seems a pity those own goals can’t get an xG either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 13 minutes ago, Pata said: I don't know where flashscore get their data from but Forest's total was a lot lower on their app so some human must have fixed that header. It's still really good and it's staggering how much data is available freely and the bots are really good. You'll have to pay for data where a human goes through every shot and the differences wouldn't be that big outside of rare instances like that header. Completely disagree with that VDV shot, front post top corner is the only real sure fire way to score and you nor VDV would never hit that top corner regularly while missing all the Forest players trying to block the shot. It’s funny that someone has to go in and “fix” that data too. Do they go through it systematically and objectively or just think “that looks a bit off, let’s massage it a bit”? Rhetorical question, it’s too late for this nonsense Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 What's up at Porto this season? Struggling to guarantee a top 3 finish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now