| xG: a measure of luck or quality? 13:13 - Dec 15 with 1757 views | bellomatic |
If this season's results had followed what's predicted by xG we would have won 6 and drawn 8 - giving us a much more healthy 26 points. (Stats from: https://www.infogol.net/en/team/queens-park-rangers/31)
If we are consistently scoring below our xG, does that mean we are bad at finishing? Or does xG take the quality of finishing into account: in which case is consistently lagging our xG a measure of how unlucky we've been?
Also, Clive sometimes mentions 'stats twitter' - any recommendations of good accounts to follow to learn more about this stuff?
|  | | |  |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 13:46 - Dec 15 with 1690 views | Watford_Ranger |
I’m a fan of xG but appreciate not everyone is and it certainly has its limitations.
We’re generally not getting what we deserve which I think this helps demonstrate. As Clive says, it always feels like a monstrous effort for us to scrape a win and we find ways to lose with consummate ease. I’m struggling to remember the last time we got something we totally didn’t deserve.
Isn’t this what gave rise to Brentford’s ‘justice league’ (under Warburton?)? | | | |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 14:06 - Dec 15 with 1650 views | Dixie_CT |
Can’t stand xG. Think it’s trying to ‘MoneyBall’ the game and measure things by pure data. Can’t be done.
Football is more than stats; environment, refs decisions, players mentality, players heart, momentum, response to situations (injuries/red cards/near misses).
It really wound me up when I saw it on MOTD as some sort of swanky empirical evidence. f u xG to hell and back. |  | | |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 14:47 - Dec 15 with 1622 views | daveB |
OK I'll ask as I can't be the only one, what's xG? |  | | |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 14:58 - Dec 15 with 1601 views | TheChef |
Agreed, it's about time they did away with this outmoded method of measuring results by goals scored and conceded.
Get with the times, maaaaaaaaan. |  |
| |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 15:15 - Dec 15 with 1575 views | Addinall |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 14:47 - Dec 15 by daveB |
OK I'll ask as I can't be the only one, what's xG? |
Ditto. | | | |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 15:19 - Dec 15 with 1568 views | TheChef |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 15:15 - Dec 15 by Addinall |
Ditto. |
Expected goals.
Yeah, me neither. | |
| |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 15:27 - Dec 15 with 1550 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 14:47 - Dec 15 by daveB |
OK I'll ask as I can't be the only one, what's xG? |
It’s a way of quantifying ‘we were robbed’ or ‘we battered them’ basically. The higher the xG the higher likelyhood of you scoring. |  | | |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 15:34 - Dec 15 with 1540 views | Match82 |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 14:47 - Dec 15 by daveB |
OK I'll ask as I can't be the only one, what's xG? |
Expected goals
Think about it like this: if you have a 25% chance of scoring from the edge of the box and you take 4 shots from there, you might score 4, you might score none. But on average, you'd be expected to score 1.
Personally I think it's a good idea but doesn't really work in footba. Works great in baseball where it's a totally controlled environment. Works pretty well in basketball where there are 200 chances to score in every game and things work themselves out over a big enough sample. But football I think there are a ton of nuances which are what makes the game so great and stats can't capture
The one thing it is good for is the extremes. So if you end up with 0.2 xG then fair to say you created fck all the entire game. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 15:35 - Dec 15 with 1536 views | daveB |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 15:19 - Dec 15 by TheChef |
Expected goals.
Yeah, me neither. |
Thanks, so guessing based on number of chances etc. Bit like possession stats it's impossible to try and make sense of football results, too many fandom factors involved but sounds like someone has come up with this and will make a few quid out of it. God i sound old | | | |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 16:21 - Dec 15 with 1462 views | joe90 |
xG is interesting up to a point. Unfortunately in the league QPR currently play in the only thing that counts is goals actually scored.
I can't help but think of the famous quote Einstein apparently never said:
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” [Post edited 15 Dec 2020 16:26]
|  | | |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 16:48 - Dec 15 with 1412 views | TheChef |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 16:21 - Dec 15 by joe90 |
xG is interesting up to a point. Unfortunately in the league QPR currently play in the only thing that counts is goals actually scored.
I can't help but think of the famous quote Einstein apparently never said:
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” [Post edited 15 Dec 2020 16:26]
|
Yes it seems pointless for football, other than saying 'we're really good except we can't put the ball in the net'. | |
| |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 17:07 - Dec 15 with 1394 views | daveB |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 16:48 - Dec 15 by TheChef |
Yes it seems pointless for football, other than saying 'we're really good except we can't put the ball in the net'. |
I'd imagine any team who plays an effective counter attack game are deemed lucky in most games such as Spurs when you look at xG | | | |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 20:20 - Dec 15 with 1350 views | Spaghetti_Hoops |
xG and its associated stats has it limitations but all things considered it is a better guide to how we are playing than reading this website. So it's well worth looking at and thinking about. For example compare the stats with last season. Last season 1.43 xG for, 1.47 xG against. This season 1.23 for, 1.28 against so far. Both have a small negative. Is this the loss of goal scorers but a tighter defence, and are we playing more defensively? Anyway they are the figures of a mid-table team, rather than a bottom six team. | | | |
| xG: a measure of luck or quality? on 20:44 - Dec 15 with 1323 views | swisscottage |
Personally I think its a lack of confidence in the final third married to a front five who haven't really played together much combined with bad decision making.
The quality of our final ball is shocking. Kane the biggest culprit today, but its not just him.
Bad decision making on when to try diagonals. Play them when your wide men can run into space, not much point when their being man marked, with another centre half close by. Again Kane the biggest culprit, but not the only one, Dickie also. Barbet didn't seem to bother with them today, probably because BOS was phoning it in. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
