|
Post by tachyon on Dec 11, 2019 9:23:58 GMT
The biggest value expected goals or xG brings to the table is in analysing longer term trends. If you're continually creating more chances than the opposition, even if you're not always converting those chances, it's very likely that over time your outcomes (results) will adhere more closely to your process (xG differential). After six games Stoke had one whole point from a possible 18 (results dire), but a fairly equal share of the xG (process not great, but not terrible) in their matches to go with a similar trend from the previous season. At that season low in September, Infogol simulated the remainder of the season using the xG ratings of all 24 teams to see when it would be more likely than not that Stoke would claw their way out of the bottom three and posted it on Twitter. Attachment DeletedWe estimated Stoke would start to be slightly more likely than not to escape from the drop zone by game week 22. That's next week and with favourable results we could hit the scheduled recovery at the earliest predicted time.....or we could take until week 30 or we might not manage it at all. That's what projections are, they come with an uncertainty, grouped around the most likely outcome. XG from the start of September has done a pretty good job of projecting where Stoke would be half way through December and currently it thinks our median final points total will be 54, our final median finishing position will be 18th and we currently have a 21% chance of relegation.
|
|
|
Post by Alvechurch Assassin on Dec 11, 2019 9:26:43 GMT
Breathe easy chaps, we’re gonna be okay.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 11, 2019 9:42:43 GMT
The biggest value expected goals or xG brings to the table is in analysing longer term trends. If you're continually creating more chances than the opposition, even if you're not always converting those chances, it's very likely that over time your outcomes (results) will adhere more closely to your process (xG differential). After six games Stoke had one whole point from a possible 18 (results dire), but a fairly equal share of the xG (process not great, but not terrible) in their matches to go with a similar trend from the previous season. At that season low in September, Infogol simulated the remainder of the season using the xG ratings of all 24 teams to see when it would be more likely than not that Stoke would claw their way out of the bottom three and posted it on Twitter. View AttachmentWe estimated Stoke would start to be slightly more likely than not to escape from the drop zone by game week 22. That's next week and with favourable results we could hit the scheduled recovery at the earliest predicted time.....or we could take until week 30 or we might not manage it at all. That's what projections are, they come with an uncertainty, grouped around the most likely outcome. XG from the start of September has done a pretty good job of projecting where Stoke would be half way through December and currently it thinks our median final points total will be 54, our final median finishing position will be 18th and we currently have a 21% chance of relegation. We certainly had a shocking conversion rate early in the season. That seemed, for a while, to make us reluctant to shoot. Last night's stats for goals to chances was more encouraging - as a few games under MON have been. Of course, the weird way we tend to concede more than our fair share of goals down to our own mistakes, has not helped matters. Hopefully a rare clean sheet last night will mark some sort of turning point for the defence.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Dec 11, 2019 11:07:22 GMT
The biggest value expected goals or xG brings to the table is in analysing longer term trends. If you're continually creating more chances than the opposition, even if you're not always converting those chances, it's very likely that over time your outcomes (results) will adhere more closely to your process (xG differential). After six games Stoke had one whole point from a possible 18 (results dire), but a fairly equal share of the xG (process not great, but not terrible) in their matches to go with a similar trend from the previous season. At that season low in September, Infogol simulated the remainder of the season using the xG ratings of all 24 teams to see when it would be more likely than not that Stoke would claw their way out of the bottom three and posted it on Twitter. View AttachmentWe estimated Stoke would start to be slightly more likely than not to escape from the drop zone by game week 22. That's next week and with favourable results we could hit the scheduled recovery at the earliest predicted time.....or we could take until week 30 or we might not manage it at all. That's what projections are, they come with an uncertainty, grouped around the most likely outcome. XG from the start of September has done a pretty good job of projecting where Stoke would be half way through December and currently it thinks our median final points total will be 54, our final median finishing position will be 18th and we currently have a 21% chance of relegation. Thank you for continually keeping us informed on 'this sort of thing' and presenting it in an understandable format, interesting stuff and it's good to look at things from a different angle. Have some virtual karma
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Dec 11, 2019 11:09:38 GMT
Swansea and Charlton have started regressing to where you would expect them to as well based on xG.
It's a misunderstood stat in common parlance, but there's a reason everyone from scouts to gamblers use it to inform decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 22:32:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Dec 12, 2019 0:15:58 GMT
I'm an 'expected goals' believer.
It's as close as you'll get to a scientific explanation of 'unlucky' and we all know luck changes.
|
|
|
Post by Somebody_Told_Me on Dec 12, 2019 8:18:23 GMT
Just reafirms our forwards are useless for me.
I dislike how it was used as an excuse though. A blind man can see our frailties under NJ
|
|
|
Post by mamasgloves on Dec 12, 2019 9:36:38 GMT
I'm an 'expected goals' believer. It's as close as you'll get to a scientific explanation of 'unlucky' and we all know luck changes. It's not though, is it? Example - Under Jones, the ball comes in to a single striker who is not reknowned for his goalscoring - misses - Under MON, the ball comes in to a Premier League player and he scores, or it is picked up by the other 3 players in the box who weren't there previously
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Dec 12, 2019 9:55:10 GMT
I'm an 'expected goals' believer. It's as close as you'll get to a scientific explanation of 'unlucky' and we all know luck changes. It's not though, is it? Example - Under Jones, the ball comes in to a single striker who is not reknowned for his goalscoring - misses - Under MON, the ball comes in to a Premier League player and he scores, or it is picked up by the other 3 players in the box who weren't there previously Yes I get all that. But it's not without substance. Sure I saw somewhere it is on average a better indicator of how you will do for example in the second half of a season than your points tally in the first half.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 12, 2019 10:17:53 GMT
I'm an 'expected goals' believer. It's as close as you'll get to a scientific explanation of 'unlucky' and we all know luck changes. We haven't been unlucky though. The mistakes the keeper and defence keep making aren't bad luck. Gregory missing sitters isn't bad luck. It's XS, expected shiteness.
|
|
|
Post by Cast no shadow on Dec 12, 2019 11:03:43 GMT
I prefer the actual goals. Crazy I know in 2019.
For example the 1st expected goal is in the 1st 5 mins and makes it 1-0 it changes the complexity of the game. Load of bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Dec 12, 2019 13:19:17 GMT
I'm an 'expected goals' believer. It's as close as you'll get to a scientific explanation of 'unlucky' and we all know luck changes. We haven't been unlucky though. The mistakes the keeper and defence keep making aren't bad luck. Gregory missing sitters isn't bad luck. It's XS, expected shiteness. Laughed out loud to that Bayern 😁👍👏
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Dec 12, 2019 13:24:26 GMT
That's why this stat will eventually be driven out of football and looked back it with hilarity. Even the heaviest dose of weapons grade acid couldn't convince anyone that we should be 6th this season. It's idiotic.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Dec 12, 2019 14:03:35 GMT
I cant believe folks can't see that if you are at the bottom of the table but creating as many chances as say a mid table team you have a chance of turning things around.
If you are at the bottom of the table but barely getting a kick you're probably fucked.
That's all it's saying really.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 12, 2019 14:09:12 GMT
I cant believe folks can't see that if you are at the bottom of the table but creating as many chances as say a mid table team you have a chance of turning things around. If you are at the bottom of the table but barely getting a kick you're probably fucked. That's all it's saying really. We weren't creating fuck all though. Hence why the missing of the sitters was so bloody vital and why playing Lee Gregory so damn stupid.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Dec 12, 2019 14:09:18 GMT
I cant believe folks can't see that if you are at the bottom of the table but creating as many chances as say a mid table team you have a chance of turning things around. If you are at the bottom of the table but barely getting a kick you're probably fucked. That's all it's saying really. For the sheer positivity I am going with you on this. We need every ounce of positivity going right now. We do have a chance of turning this around but a lot of things need to go our way, and that includes a bit of luck!!
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Dec 12, 2019 14:11:12 GMT
I know why EFL Stats present xG as a table, it’s to breed familiarity & make it accessible. But it simply replaces one unique set of outcomes (the actual results) with another unique set based on xG. xDraws are assigned if the XG differential lies between a narrow xG band & xWins or xLosses are decided when the match expected goals differential lies outside these bounds. Average points and average final positions also trade brevity for loss of insight. The aim of xG is to illustrate the uncertainty & randomness that exists is a low scoring sport, such as soccer. You can do that by simulation every game played so far using each individual xG chance that was created, repeating 10,000 times and plotting the range of current league positions played out in those simualtions. For Stoke it is the most wide ranging in the division. We’re as likely to be 2nd as we are to be 19th, but from a performance viewpoint, there are 16 teams who are more likely to be in the bottom 3 than us, given the chance creation performance of all 24 teams to week 21. Overall, we’re currently most likely to be in the “not going up, not going down” group of 15 Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Dec 12, 2019 14:15:07 GMT
I'm an 'expected goals' believer. It's as close as you'll get to a scientific explanation of 'unlucky' and we all know luck changes. We haven't been unlucky though. The mistakes the keeper and defence keep making aren't bad luck. Gregory missing sitters isn't bad luck. It's XS, expected shiteness. Chance creation or chance prevention is a more repeatable trait than either chance conversion or save percentage. The latter two are much more prone to random variation (or bad luck) especially in small samples. Neither Gregory nor Butland would have been professional players for 6 & 9 seasons respectively without possessing adequate Championship standard finishing and shot stopping ability. Having a player who can get himself on the end of 0.3 non penalty xG per 90, as Gregory has is the important number. Also, a side that has conceded 1.25 xG per 90 but allowed 1.67 actual goals isn’t going to continue trading at such a deficit. Results trend to the process.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 12, 2019 14:34:18 GMT
We haven't been unlucky though. The mistakes the keeper and defence keep making aren't bad luck. Gregory missing sitters isn't bad luck. It's XS, expected shiteness. Chance creation or chance prevention is a more repeatable trait than either chance conversion or save percentage. The latter two are much more prone to random variation (or bad luck) especially in small samples. Neither Gregory nor Butland would have been professional players for 6 & 9 seasons respectively without possessing adequate Championship standard finishing and shot stopping ability. Having a player who can get himself on the end of 0.3 non penalty xG per 90, as Gregory has is the important number. Also, a side that has conceded 1.25 xG per 90 but allowed 1.67 actual goals isn’t going to continue trading at such a deficit. Results trend to the process. Gregory is terrible at finishing. Xg is made up nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 14:34:28 GMT
I know why EFL Stats present xG as a table, it’s to breed familiarity & make it accessible. But it simply replaces one unique set of outcomes (the actual results) with another unique set based on xG. xDraws are assigned if the XG differential lies between a narrow xG band & xWins or xLosses are decided when the match expected goals differential lies outside these bounds. Average points and average final positions also trade brevity for loss of insight. The aim of xG is to illustrate the uncertainty & randomness that exists is a low scoring sport, such as soccer. You can do that by simulation every game played so far using each individual xG chance that was created, repeating 10,000 times and plotting the range of current league positions played out in those simualtions. For Stoke it is the most wide ranging in the division. We’re as likely to be 2nd as we are to be 19th, but from a performance viewpoint, there are 16 teams who are more likely to be in the bottom 3 than us, given the chance creation performance of all 24 teams to week 21. Overall, we’re currently most likely to be in the “not going up, not going down” group of 15 What the fucking hell is soccer?
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Dec 12, 2019 14:47:13 GMT
[/quote]What the fucking hell is soccer?[/quote]
It's what ATV, Billy Wright, Gary Newbon, Nick Owen, Peter Brackley and Peter Lorenzo used to show on Sunday afternoons.
Usually featured a hugely entertaining Stoke City team from the 1970's and the occaional mudfest from the Baseball Ground.
You're probably too young :-)
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Dec 12, 2019 14:48:31 GMT
What the fucking hell is soccer?[/quote] It's what ATV, Billy Wright, Gary Newbon, Nick Owen, Peter Brackley and Peter Lorenzo used to show on Sunday afternoons. Usually featured a hugely entertaining Stoke City team from the 1970's and the occaional mudfest from the Baseball Ground. You're probably too young :-) [/quote] They called it Star SOCCER
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Dec 12, 2019 14:52:44 GMT
[/quote] Gregory is terrible at finishing.
Xg is made up nonsense. [/quote]
I love evidence based argument.....
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 12, 2019 14:55:26 GMT
Gregory is terrible at finishing. Xg is made up nonsense. I love evidence based argument..... It doesn't need to be evidenced. Xg is made up. That's what it is.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Dec 12, 2019 14:56:59 GMT
Gregory is terrible at finishing. Xg is made up nonsense. I love evidence based argument..... It doesn't need to be evidenced. Xg is made up. That's what it is. How so?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 12, 2019 15:03:59 GMT
It doesn't need to be evidenced. Xg is made up. That's what it is. How so? Because a person gives a chance a rating based on a range of things. Different people have different ways of measuring xg. It's not this bee all and end all stat, it's subjective and people don't treat it as such.
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Dec 12, 2019 15:12:11 GMT
Because a person gives a chance a rating based on a range of things. Different people have different ways of measuring xg. It's not this bee all and end all stat, it's subjective and people don't treat it as such. Be , corrected for you.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Dec 12, 2019 15:18:18 GMT
Because a person gives a chance a rating based on a range of things. Different people have different ways of measuring xg. It's not this bee all and end all stat, it's subjective and people don't treat it as such. I can see you're really buzzing about this bayern.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Dec 12, 2019 15:27:51 GMT
Because a person gives a chance a rating based on a range of things. Different people have different ways of measuring xg. It's not this bee all and end all stat, it's subjective and people don't treat it as such. No-one has ever claimed it is the be all and end all. But it is demonstrably a better indicator of future perfromance than actual goals and isn't prone to the numerous congitive biases that go into purely opinion based assessment (now that is subjective). It is the mainstay of every analytically run football (just for Bojansstalker :-)) from Liverpool downwards and appeared to project three and a half months ago that table topping Swansea were just a bog standard mid table team & Stoke would be on the verge of climbing out of the bottom three by this coming weekend. I prefer it to "Gregory is terrible at finishing", but each to his own :-)
|
|