|
Post by tachyon on Aug 18, 2022 17:39:39 GMT
Easily the most reliable Championship xG values available :-) With these numbers, you win the match 60% of the time (if you're Middlesbro). On average M'b take 2 points from the game and Stoke take 0.8 points.
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Aug 18, 2022 17:44:31 GMT
Easily the most reliable Championship xG values available :-) With these numbers, you win the match 60% of the time (if you're Middlesbro). On average M'b take 2 points from the game and Stoke take 0.8 points. Does this just not prove what a waste if time the stats are?
|
|
|
Post by walrus on Aug 18, 2022 17:49:37 GMT
Easily the most reliable Championship xG values available :-) With these numbers, you win the match 60% of the time (if you're Middlesbro). On average M'b take 2 points from the game and Stoke take 0.8 points. Does this just not prove what a waste if time the stats are? Not really. Two points for Middlesbrough and 0.8 for Stoke would have been a much fairer representation of last night’s game than a point apiece, which shows the value of these stats for assessing teams’ performance beyond the scoreline.
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Aug 18, 2022 18:31:52 GMT
Does this just not prove what a waste if time the stats are? Not really. Two points for Middlesbrough and 0.8 for Stoke would have been a much fairer representation of last night’s game than a point apiece, which shows the value of these stats for assessing teams’ performance beyond the scoreline. You don't need stats for that. Watch the game. Boro should have won, but they didn't. It's the same thing
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Aug 18, 2022 18:34:43 GMT
Not really. Two points for Middlesbrough and 0.8 for Stoke would have been a much fairer representation of last night’s game than a point apiece, which shows the value of these stats for assessing teams’ performance beyond the scoreline. You don't need stats for that. Watch the game. Boro should have won, but they didn't. It's the same thing But collect the same data from 10/20/50/100 games and “just watching the game” becomes very wishy washy…..
|
|
|
Post by svengaliinplatforms on Aug 18, 2022 18:46:22 GMT
We need Neil Cutler back 😉
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Aug 18, 2022 19:11:44 GMT
You don't need stats for that. Watch the game. Boro should have won, but they didn't. It's the same thing But collect the same data from 10/20/50/100 games and “just watching the game” becomes very wishy washy….. But it doesn't help does it. Player A may not play well in a certain game because his wife left him that morning. How are you factoring that in? There are so many imponderables I just don't see the point
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 18, 2022 19:30:39 GMT
But collect the same data from 10/20/50/100 games and “just watching the game” becomes very wishy washy….. But it doesn't help does it. Player A may not play well in a certain game because his wife left him that morning. How are you factoring that in? There are so many imponderables I just don't see the point Well that's why you look at a larger sample size like he said. Unless said player has 46 wives of course.
|
|
|
Post by walrus on Aug 18, 2022 19:36:58 GMT
Not really. Two points for Middlesbrough and 0.8 for Stoke would have been a much fairer representation of last night’s game than a point apiece, which shows the value of these stats for assessing teams’ performance beyond the scoreline. You don't need stats for that. Watch the game. Boro should have won, but they didn't. It's the same thing But we can’t realistically just watch the game for all 24 teams in the league for 46 matchweeks a season. That’s where these stats come in. They make the intangible tangible and condense thousands of variables into an easy to understand format. The big clubs are investing enormous amounts of money into the data science. They’ll be gutted when you tell them it’s all a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 18, 2022 19:38:26 GMT
But collect the same data from 10/20/50/100 games and “just watching the game” becomes very wishy washy….. But it doesn't help does it. Player A may not play well in a certain game because his wife left him that morning. How are you factoring that in? There are so many imponderables I just don't see the point Why would you factor that in?
|
|
|
Post by walrus on Aug 27, 2022 21:40:02 GMT
Liverpool’s today was 3.23 according to Match of the Day.
Some finishing then to score nine!
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Aug 30, 2022 1:14:16 GMT
It always seems to be wildly different on various sites I look at as well. Do they calculate it in different ways?
It's a guide of course but it annoyed me how Nathan Jones always used to refer to it as gospel.
|
|
|
Post by StoKeith on Aug 30, 2022 4:14:14 GMT
It always seems to be wildly different on various sites I look at as well. Do they calculate it in different ways? It's a guide of course but it annoyed me how Nathan Jones always used to refer to it as gospel. I don’t really know the ins and outs like tachyon, but other than just calculating a different value for each chance, some providers may take into account two chances in the same phase of play. For example, if a player has a really good chance through on goal (e.g. xG = 0.5), the keeper might save it and the rebound falls to another player who has an open goal (e.g. xG = 0.8). There’s no way the team could have scored 1.3 goals from that phase of play. I think some providers might take that into account and others just give the raw values summed up.
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Aug 30, 2022 10:02:02 GMT
It always seems to be wildly different on various sites I look at as well. Do they calculate it in different ways? It's a guide of course but it annoyed me how Nathan Jones always used to refer to it as gospel. According to stats provided by Gawa he was lying most of the time. I like the xg stats because they seem to align with my view of the game far more closely than actual outcomes which some say are all that matter I don't agree.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 30, 2022 10:43:05 GMT
It always seems to be wildly different on various sites I look at as well. Do they calculate it in different ways? It's a guide of course but it annoyed me how Nathan Jones always used to refer to it as gospel. According to stats provided by Gawa he was lying most of the time. I like the xg stats because they seem to align with my view of the game far more closely than actual outcomes which some say are all that matter I don't agree. I wouldn't say he was lying. I imagine the times he mentioned it that we probably should have won on expected goals. But it certainly wasn't consistent. I've noticed similar differences between different sites but they always tend to be marginal in my experience. I agree with you that I find the xG tallys allign better with my view of the game too. I quite like this website which shows it in a timeline experimental361.com/category/divisions/championship/The Blackburn game is pretty much spot on with how it played out.
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Aug 31, 2022 19:52:34 GMT
Yes we expected goals from Campbell Brown and Gayle. And we still are🥹
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Sept 1, 2022 10:51:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Sept 1, 2022 10:54:30 GMT
..and only bettered by 1 game the season before (20-21)
Luton H
So it was the 6th best in the past nearly 100 games.
|
|
|
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Sept 1, 2022 10:56:21 GMT
Weird game, we didn't play well but made 5 very clear cut chances and really should have scored 3-4
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2022 11:03:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 1, 2022 12:52:26 GMT
Was also the first time that Alex Neil has eclipsed the xG of the opposition this season. So good progress from a managerial pov. Pretty sure it was also a much lower expected difference between xG and xGA in games versus Swansea in the last 18 months. So our worst performance against them since 2020/21
|
|