And that's why kids, xG is the shittest, most useless metric ever created.
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Main
139 readers
1 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
... except when it makes us look good
I guess, if what you think it's telling you is which teams should be in first, second, etc.
If you understand that it's telling you how good a team is at creating quality chances, then it's not useless. Then, combine it with actual goals scored and it tells you how good a team's finishing is. This image shows, among other things, that Chelsea have been very poor at converting quality chances, which helps explain their place in the table.
So you believe every organisation that has actual skin in the game (clubs, bookmakers, football consultants like StatsBomb) uses models based on the shittiest, most useless metric ever created?
No, I don't believe any of these stakeholders are using xG to determine their next course of action. Absolutely naive to think that.
It is the best predictor how a team will perform over the whole season. Better than actual goals scored. You can bet every single one of those stakeholders uses it.
I like how ignorant redditors get angry over data.
I disagree with you here, and but I can agree that this XGD statistic is awful.
I imagine it's constructed from XG and XGA (which will have different distributions), and not presenting it with these figures really makes it's value very limited indeed.
Depends whether it puts a positive picture of your club or not... Just take a stat for what it is no stat is entirely useless it just shows what it wants to show you don't need to deep it
Isn't this 23-24 season
It features the teams promoted this season, so it presumable is and is just mislabeled.
It's kind of weird but Tottenham literally always overperform xG basically since it became a stat. Part of it was Kane, but Son is actually statistically a better finisher.
It's an interesting counter for people who say that xG tells you who 'should' win a game, because this is more than a trend it's almost an inevitability. In theory it's no different to a team that has great creativity and crap finishing, but one will show up as a great team on xG and one won't.
It's still probably the best, simple metric for assessing a team's quality at a glance. At the end of the day it shows you how well a team creates goal scoring opportunities and how it prevents goal conceding opportunities, everything else is down to shot stopping and finishing (in theory).
I think it'd be mostly fair to say it shows who 'plays the best football', less whether a team is actually effective at playing football.
It’s not just down to shot stopping and shooting. It’s also about the quality of the assists and the position of the defence.
I still agree it is the best simple metric to predict how teams will perform over a season. VfB Stuttgart in the Bundesliga for example will probably finish really high. I would bet top 6.
Absolutely, though aren't assist quality and defensive positioning both factors that influence xG and xGA? That's kind of my thinking when saying why it's a good metric.
Is there a difference between playing good football and playing effective football? Is a team that creates a lot of chances and can barely finish any of them any better than a team that creates few chances but can normally finish them?
Son is a massive outlier when it comes to xG, most other players eventually regress to the mean.
Not saying this as a biased spurs fan but considering he’s been with us 8 years and I could probably count on 1 hand the amount of “sitters” he’s missed, he’s an extremely clinical finisher. He just always scores when he gets a chance that you would expect him to score. There’s no other player I’d feel more comfortable running through on goal in a 1 on 1 situation
Son is now overperforming his xG for the 8th season in a row, safe to say that he's just that great.
I put all my hopes and dreams and faith into the being something that means something
Palace at 12 lol
The balance has been restored
Does this mean we are very wasteful with our chances? Not sure if that could be spun positively because if we become more clinical then the signs are there, or if we’re just fucked.
It’s the difference between xG and xA, it means you’re conceding far more chances than you’re creating
I think there was a graphic for xG/G posted here recently, which is more what you’re looking for
Everton 😂😂😂😂😂😂. God it’s so funny