xG

[colne-claret]

Anyone know what best website is to find out what our xG is per game?

[bumba]

uptheclarets.com

[ISpeds00]

Key is to not expect

[Swizzlestick]

FotMob app

[longsidetrumpet]

Go to modernfootballbollockspeak.com. You can also read about false nines, number sixes, high presses and inverted Connors

[colne-claret]

Go to modernfootballbollockspeak.com. You can also read about false nines, number sixes, high presses and inverted Connors

Oh dear, seemed to have touched a nerve.

[longsidetrumpet]

Yes, but I quite like my funny play on words at the end

[BurnleyFC]

I don’t know, but I’d hazard a guess it begins with a zero.

[colne-claret]

I don’t know, but I’d hazard a guess it begins with a zero.

0.93 on average per game this season.

[JohnMac]

Genuine question given the actual game is judged on solid results, do these Metrics matter? Jimmy Greaves didn't need telling how many shots he was supposed to take in order to score a goal.

Statistics are for Statisticians and Footballers should stick to Football.

[Rowls]

0.93 on average per game this season.

Including the first two games?

What's it been since then?

[JohnMac]

To add, nobody needed a computer at Hull in the dying minute to work out where the ball should have ended up!

[burnley007]

Parker has just been a bit unlucky, probably.

[colne-claret]

Including the first two games?

What's it been since then?

They weren’t as inflated as you’d expect. Quite low actually.

Luton - 1.46
Cardiff - 0.81
Sunderland - 0.13
Wolves - 0.16
Blackburn - 0.85
Leeds - 0.66
Pompey - 1.04
Oxford - 1.54
Plymouth - 1.38
Preston - 0.48
Sheff Wed - 1.71
Hull - 0.65
QPR - 1.2
Millwall - 0.17

[Rowls]

Genuine question given the actual game is judged on solid results, do these Metrics matter? Jimmy Greaves didn't need telling how many shots he was supposed to take in order to score a goal.

Statistics are for Statisticians and Footballers should stick to Football.

Do these metrics matter? That's for us to decide.

Stats on their own are implacable. They can only be accurate or inaccurate. Whether they're useful depends on us.

[Vegas Claret]

dreadful

[ervi34]

dreadful

What does joint lowest goalscorers means? Because plenty of teams scored less than we did.

[Vegas Claret]

What does joint lowest goalscorers means? Because plenty of teams scored less than we did.

did you actually read what it said ?

[Stonehouse]

What does joint lowest goalscorers means? Because plenty of teams scored less than we did.

How can you score less than none.

[ervi34]

What does joint lowest goalscorers means? Because plenty of teams scored less than we did.

I'm sorry, I didn't see the last 5 games part.

[colne-claret]

They weren’t as inflated as you’d expect. Quite low actually.

Luton - 1.46
Cardiff - 0.81
Sunderland - 0.13
Wolves - 0.16
Blackburn - 0.85
Leeds - 0.66
Pompey - 1.04
Oxford - 1.54
Plymouth - 1.38
Preston - 0.48
Sheff Wed - 1.71
Hull - 0.65
QPR - 1.2
Millwall - 0.17

Update:

WBA - 0.98
Swansea - 1.85
Bristol City - 1.47
Coventry - 0.97
Stoke - 2.51

Looking better and showing in the results.

[hoosier-daddy]

Statistics show that 99% of people don't understand putting together stats and common sense.

[hoosier-daddy]

Genuine question given the actual game is judged on solid results, do these Metrics matter?

It's surprising how many people don't understand what they mean. But at the same time, it isn't surprising.

[Roosterbooster]

Genuine question given the actual game is judged on solid results, do these Metrics matter?

Might as well just look at the table after 46 games rather than going to games I suppose then

[JohnMac]

It's surprising how many people don't understand what they mean. But at the same time, it isn't surprising.

I sort of get what they mean but unless you are a data analyst they mean very little during a game.

[hoosier-daddy]

I sort of get what they mean but unless you are a data analyst they mean very little during a game.

It seems a lot of people don't understand it after the game, not during it. They just don't get it at all.

[JohnMac]

Might as well just look at the table after 46 games rather than going to games I suppose then

That is among the daftest things I have ever read on here to be honest. Perhaps the table should be based on (xG) rather than reality?

[JohnMac]

It seems a lot of people don't understand it after the game, not during it. They just don't get it at all.

I have never had a conversation about (xG) or (xGA) with anyone before, during or after a game. I'm confident this applies to me and hundreds of thousands of football watching people in the UK.

As a metric it may be useful but I can't think of what it brings to the game in any shape or form for the fans.

[hoosier-daddy]

As a metric it may be useful but I can't think of what it brings to the game in any shape or form for the fans.

If it didn't bring anything to the fans, we wouldn't be discussing it. The fact we're discussing it speaks for itself and it's only going to get more popular as more people understand it. We're talking human beings though, so might be a few years

[JohnMac]

I have been watching Burnley playing professional football since early 1966 and only then because it wasn't on TV as a kid and neither did they have pundits waffling when it did become a thing.

The game hasn't changed in principle, score more than your opponent and you win the game.

[taio]

Just because some people don't value xG too much, it doesn't mean they don't understand it.

[hoosier-daddy]

Of course, I agree. It's something people can look at if they want to. What tends to happen with xG is normalisation and so you get an idea of whether something is above normal or not. It's harmless. It's like cricket, if you don't like it, just don't talk about it and let others talk about it.

[JohnMac]

If it didn't bring anything to the fans, we wouldn't be discussing it. The fact we're discussing it speaks for itself and it's only going to get more popular as more people understand it. We're talking human beings though, so might be a few years

Like anything in life, if it interests you and you enjoy it it's a positive!

[bfcmik]

Lat Wednesday, Swansea won 2-1 at Derby with an xG of 0.24 against Derby's 3.58. xG matters not, it is all subjective anyway.

[Rileybobs]

I noticed on MOTD last night that Arsenal recorded an xG of 2.98. So going off that model they would in most circumstances have scored 2 goals. This was despite them being awarded 2 penalties (they had scored their last 12), having a tap into an open goal from 1 yard and a very simple 1v1 chance - not to mention their other 12 attempts at goal.

[hoosier-daddy]

Lat Wednesday, Swansea won 2-1 at Derby with an xG of 0.24 against Derby's 3.58. xG matters not, it is all subjective anyway.

I'd say more objective than subjective. It's useful for people who are really into their football. If somebody isn't into their football, then it's not really of any use.

[Rowls]

Statistics on their own are implacable and useless.

It's how you interpret them and what you do with them that can make the difference.

[RVclaret]

I noticed on MOTD last night that Arsenal recorded an xG of 2.98. So going off that model they would in most circumstances have scored 2 goals. This was despite them being awarded 2 penalties (they had scored their last 12), having a tap into an open goal from 1 yard and a very simple 1v1 chance - not to mention their other 12 attempts at goal.

Not sure where MOTD get their model from but FbRef (Opta) have it at 3.7 and Understat have 4.0. MOTD’s seems very low compared to the others.

[Rileybobs]

Not sure where MOTD get their model from but FbRef (Opta) have it at 3.7 and Understat have 4.0. MOTD’s seems very low compared to the others.

Yes, v strange.

[hoosier-daddy]

Not sure why people don't like it.

[fidelcastro]

Not sure why people don't like it.

Probably because it's pointless, Muchacho.

[Tricky Trevor]

It’s a garbage stat. Late on in the Liverpool game it gave their xG as 2.46 when we all saw them miss 3 or 4 easy chances + the goal in the first half alone.
One man’s opinion.

[hoosier-daddy]

Probably because it's pointless, Muchacho.

That's because you're as thick as they come

[fidelcastro]

That's because you're as thick as they come

Not as thick as to get banned from here numerous times, but then come back with yet another username and hope no one will notice!

[Anonymous Claret]

I must admit I am not too knowledgeable around xg. Besides expected goals, is there a way of estimating expected points each game using xg?

[kentonclaret]

I must admit I am not too knowledgeable around xg. Besides expected goals, is there a way of estimating expected points each game using xg?

Be useful wouldn’t it? Armed with the information as to whether a game would be a Home Win, an Away Win or a draw before popping down to the local bookie to place a 10 match ACCA. But sadly it can’t.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I find xG and xGA useful but I also find the difference to reality useful too.

The big contrast is we have a xGA of about 13 on fbRef but actual GA of 6 - suggesting excellent goalkeeping, because poor finishing would surely even out by now?

Also of interest is that Leeds look exceptional on both xG and xGA and have actual numbers similar to those. Our xG is only a couple lower than the Blades and many other sides, so isn’t critical - as we all know, goals win viewers but defences win titles.

[RVclaret]

I find xG and xGA useful but I also find the difference to reality useful too.

The big contrast is we have a xGA of about 13 on fbRef but actual GA of 6 - suggesting excellent goalkeeping, because poor finishing would surely even out by now?

Also of interest is that Leeds look exceptional on both xG and xGA and have actual numbers similar to those. Our xG is only a couple lower than the Blades and many other sides, so isn’t critical - as we all know, goals win viewers but defences win titles.

You can check if it’s been ‘exceptional goalkeeping’ by checking Trafford’s PsxG which is in the 63rd percentile vs his peers, so nothing amazing. And just because the xGA - GC is around 7, doesn’t mean there’s a ‘great’ deal of bad finishing. Yes there’s been a few big chances missed but on the whole we don’t give away many of them. Teams are often needing to take their 1 big chance (if there is one, against Cov/QPR lately there wasn’t) or that’s their lot. Obviously xG will accumulate in every game with any shot conceded so even when you keep a clean sheet, there’s still going to be xGA for that match.

[Roosterbooster]

That is among the daftest things I have ever read on here to be honest. Perhaps the table should be based on (xG) rather than reality?

Unsurprisingly, you've completely missed the point

[JohnMac]

Unsurprisingly, you've completely missed the point

Mr Moral Superiority