xG and proof it’s nonsense

Following on from Parekh’s statement about Max and his impressive xG. Apparently Bolton’s xG today was 2.57 and ours was 1.37. As I thought….a load of cobblers.

 

They've scored 63 in 42 games...1.5 goals per game, experience shows expecting anymore is a fantasy.

 

Their xg will be that high because their goal was an easy chance and the chance they missed what flavell tried catching and went through his hands was another huge chance, infact that chance was harder to miss than to score.

We could have 20 shots and Bolton 3, but if their 3 chances are one on one's or penalties, they will have a higher xg. Its got nothing to do with amount, just the quality of chance

 

Nevertheless, the op has a point. When one watches players over a period of time one knows whether the xg is genuine or the xg is a load of kak. I know what I think of Watters now after watching him for over 2 seasons..

 

I agree mate. But Watters should have had a hattrick, probably 4, against Bristol rovers a few month ago. Thats my point - the quality of chance were ridiculously good and he should have buried them all. I said last week its like nareev himself doesn't seem to fully understand it, yes, it has its uses as a team statistic because it means we are creating quality chances, as for individuals, the only positive thing is that he's getting in good positions

 

Look at the map of where all the shots were taken from and you’ll see why.

11 of Bolton’s 12 shots were inside the penalty box, all towards the centre. They’re going to be high xG shots.

9 of our 18 were inside the box, all but one of them to the left hand side. More difficult shots and as such lower xG.

 

Having said that, i can’t remember exactly what context Neerav used it in, but a striker having high xG but not many goals is a good sign for the team but a bad sign for the striker generally.

Means the team is making chances for him but he’s not putting them away.

 

xG is misunderstood. But in the Neerav/Watters case it was just plain wrong. Watters does not have a high xG. He was talking complete codswallop.

Not only is it a meaningless figure with regard to how a player is performing, Watters didn't even have the value Neerav claimed. All it highlighted was just how little our majority share holder knows about the game as a whole and our players specifically.

Nothing wrong with that, I'd argue most fans are full of opinion but not a lot of understanding, but we're not dictating how the team should play

 

Do you believe that Nareev and Mladen dictate our we play on a Saturday?

 

The whole point of xG is to be taken from a large sample size of games. All that can be taken from an individual game is the shot quality without taking into account the game state.

 

EDIT

Post removed this emojis instead of the numbers I’ve written thing is bloody annoying

 

I’m one who doesn’t really understand xg - but by that explanation does that mean if a players xg is high but he doesn’t score goals - it actually means he’s not that good? Ie he’s getting plenty of ‘easy’ chances but not scoring?

 

Are you still using the broken BBS app? The regular Tapatalk app works fine if it’s updated.

 

Pretty much yeah.

You want strikers that over-perform in relation to their xG. High xG is a good sign for a team though, because it means lots of good chances are being made.

 

So in reality - you’re better off looking at the ‘assists’ column for supporting players and ‘goals’ for strikers? Who’d have thought?

I guess looking at a teams xg and then strikers goals could help if xg is low and striker still scoring as might point to a good striker still, But just seems over complicated when other stats are there to point to answers anyway?

 

xA is also a stat that's looked at. How many good chances a player creates.

A player having a high ratio of goals to xG tells you a lot more than just having a high numbeer of goals.

None of it is an exact science and translating this data into useful information for player scouting is where the skill comes in. It's what Cryne Jr assisted with for years before seemingly being hounded out by our fanbase.

We signed far better players when he was involved though.

 

Tonight Newcastle 5 Palace 0. Newcastle xG 1.39. Palace xG 2.00.

 

I rest my case. What a load of b******s! Newcastle absolutely slaughter Palace with 5 goals and their xG is 1.39

 

Toon also had some very good chances as well as the goals that they should/could have scored from. I'm really not sure how they've come to those xG stats.

 

Didn't someone post recently that we're pretty much bang on for our xG over the whole season?

As with most stats when you apply them to the real world, in small amounts here and there they can look silly. You need to compare them with other things (preferably a whole lot of other things), and over as long a period as possible.