seriously, the bloke has scored zero goals. zero assists (the only stat that matterz).
have heard he hasnt even been assed to come to training.
cant have such a lazy player in our squad.
seriously, the bloke has scored zero goals. zero assists (the only stat that matterz).
have heard he hasnt even been assed to come to training.
cant have such a lazy player in our squad.
His Dad Milton speaks for him... get off him sir.....
Dare to Zlatan
Originally Posted by Grimario
He won't make that mistake at Newcastle since our team is full of number 2's.
Patito patato. Let's call the whole thing off.
He doesn't even have multi on the Foz ffs. Totally unprofessional.
I've been listening to pods refer to xG, or expected goals. Seriously...
The Championship Chronicles - The Jetstream's review of the 2007/08 season. www.newcastlefootball.net/chronicles
Come on stats man, get on board, xG is a great stat.
Read a Guardian half-season A-League review article yesterday though that completely misinterpreted the stat (actually a derivative of it, xGD) and drew opposite conclusions from it which was fairly humorous to read.
Don't Hoff lovers credit him with the pass before the pass all the time?
OK
Since this day I have only cared for one stat (the top one funnily enough):
Fair point and you are not alone. But if the end score is all that matters why watch the game? Look up the final score and you should get the same experience as watching, right?
Soccer is a pretty hard game to try and quantify but even the simple stats lower down in that image paint a rudimentary picture of how the game went. They should be considered as some colouring in of the outline that the score tells you.
The other stats and contexts are important because you get to attempt to judge how successful it would be to maintain in the short and long term, and how reproducible results are based on how you achieved them.
Spira once singlehandedly shut Messi out of a game in the 08 Olympics. Does that make Spira a better player than Messi? I still argue yes..... ops:
OK
Expected goals? My understanding...
Different people have built their own models of it which give slightly different end results. But the concept of it is to quantify a team's performance in a way that provides long term "on average" relevance. A team can win 3-0 but get battered all game and nick a few scrappy goal mouth goals off set pieces - in cases such as this, the scoreline is not a good reflection of performance, merely the result. Expected goals tackles the problem by looking at each of the "chances" that a team had during a game, but assessing the quality of them not just quantity. How each model determines the quality of each chance is where the difficulty lies but its a great concept. Quality is usually analysed by things like position on the field from where the chance was taken, proximity to goal, was it a one on one or was it from a corner, header etc
An example of how it can be useful - hypothetical game where each team has 10 shots, 3 shots on target, game finishes 1-1. According to these stats, the game seems fairly even.
However - team A had a penalty and two one-on-one's saved, with a couple of tap-ins butchered. Based on how good their chances where, Brainiac's (tm) model predicts they could (on average, over a season) have expected to have scored 4 goals if that game was played out identically time and again.
team B had a scrappy goal and a couple of nothing shots on target from 30m and were largely ineffective in attack - their xG for the game is 0.6.
Comparing these stats we see that team A's finishing was well below par - they created enough good chances to wrap the game up easily but were unable to do so. While team B were not able to create a lot of good chances, but were able to get a goal anyhow.
You can also look at the stat for a player (ie striker) to look at how good a finisher they are. I remember reading that Harry Kane is well outperforming his expected goals - meaning he's able to score tough chances etc above what would be expected. You would think that a lot of top strikers would manage to exceed their xG, although an exception might be Cavani who is notorious for spurning a heap of chances. So while he might score the same amount of goals, he would have a lot higher expected goals amount than others.
Last edited by Macca; 05-01-2018 at 12:39 PM.
cheers, and my following smart ass response is not directed at you.
but
so what youre saying is that someone watches a game and determines whether a team is essentially 'lucky' or 'unlucky' in front of goal. they then write that answer down in a fancy numeric term for someone else to decipher that number back out to mean 'lucky' or 'unlucky'.
so who benefits from knowing this stat? fans who cant be assed watching the game? to be honest they are better just saying 'lucky' or 'unlucky' to the average fan as it would make more sense.
opposition coaches only reading stats deserve to get the ass whopping that would follow not actually watching the other team play.
maybe gamblers? i could see it being a quick way to gloss over games to get a better idea on who to include in a fruitless 5 leg multi.
but man, it just continually amazes me the effort and trust people place in these type of stats as some way to seem more 'sockah woke' than the next guy.
and yeah im talking about americans, they love this shit. but they are mostly overweight and stupid people.
Is the data normalised for bookmaker influence upon players performances? Jokes aside is their an algorithm for these calculations or is it like Time-form with horse racing where they essentially make it up as they go along - then market the crap out of it to make it sound scientific?
Last edited by The Dunster; 05-01-2018 at 12:58 PM.
I'm just substituting 'Nabbout' for Cavani as I read that...
Life isn't the same without Con... but it can only improve without Tinks...