Watters XG ratio

So, according to the board, Watters has the highest expected goals ratio in this league, whilst failing to convert that into actual goals.... But they see that as a good thing? If he's getting into the positions where he's expected to score, but then doesn't, to me that means he's lacking the quality to convert the chances created for him and is therefore a negative.
It's not like he's creating the chances purely by himself, but just not finishing them.

 

XG is a metric that measures the quality of a shot, representing the probability of that shot resulting in a goal, based on factors like location, angle, and the type of shot. If he does have a high XG it doesn’t mean he’s missing good chances it means he’s having shots which based on probability should be resulting in goals. Essentially it’s numerical evidence he’s been incredibly unlucky in front of goal.

That still doesn’t mean we didn’t need another striker though if you ask me.

 

I'm not sure. One man's unlucky is another man's poor finisher.

Haaland/Salah/Son/Kane/Messi etc constantly outperform their XG. This isn't luck. It's down to being a good finisher.

Conversely, Darwin Nunez/Dominic Calvert-Lewin etc always under perform their XG - this just means they're poor finishers.

Chris Wood has wildly over performed this year, that's probably down to luck.

 

Imho...the very fact he quoted this stat.....tells me more about our recruitment and philosophy than actually looking at what is staring at him in the face.
The similar can be stated for our defence and midfield who may have the stats to produce a nice CV (whatever spreadsheet metric is used) but actually on the field it isn't working. We can see it.....and it would be remiss of us, as fans not to put our feelings out on this forum.
The players assembled in this squad does NOT work but their spreadsheet tells us they are better than they are and I'm afraid the people with the cheque book will carry on using this method. Can't wait for the summer and our new signings.

 

XG is a load of shıte. Sign me a striker who can score.

 

Thank goodness. Thought it was just me who thought XG was a load of made up b0ll3cks.

 

Completely agree with this. One reason why data does not tell the whole story and where the use of one's own eyes is useful and, indeed, crucial. Seems like Neerav is not using his own eyes properly to me.

 

It's not a load of *****. Used correctly, it can be very useful. If you spot a striker who is constantly outperforming his XG, then there's a fair chance that he's a very good finisher.

 

I like Watters. But he hasn't been one of the best strikers in the division. For a start he's been out injured or recovering from injury most of the time.
I think he has bags of potential, and we've seen glimpses, but that's all so far.

 

I can only assume that Neerav meant Watters’ xG was the best in the league when the club signed him?

It certainly isn’t the case at present. It’s not even the best at the club. Phillips has the best xG at BFC, and he’s 18th overall in the division, with most of those above being strikers.

Kone, Stansfield and Kelman (strikers) the top three.

DKD is 23rd.

Watters is 50th.

Stansfield is actually hitting his ‘expected goals’. Expected to score 16 goals, and has done. Kone slightly outperforming by a couple.

DKD - based on xG - should have 4 goals. He has 13. Which means he’s scored 9 shots that he ought not to have.

Sam Cosgrove - according to xG - should have two goals. He’s got one. So he’s -0.9 in xGDiff.

Watters has 6.05 xG. And 5 goals. So he’s underperforming his xG. An xGDiff of -1.05. He ranks 288th of 365 League One players using that metric.

Best in that metric is Poku at +4.76, just ahead of Barry and DKD.

Watters does rate highly in terms of xG per 90. 13th in the division.

It’s all very interesting if you’re into that kind of thing. I don’t mind it. It’s very helpful I reckon, a useful guide/tool.

But as I’ve said elsewhere, it feels like BFC is running the whole football product based only on that. On data. Which doesn’t account for variables or other factors such as personality, emotion, decision making, blah blah blah.

 

So on paper we’ve a team of top 4 quality and a top strikeforce . If only we played on paper and not out on grass

 

I can tell you when someone is a very good finisher without XG. The easy way to tell is that he scores lots of goals.

How did we manage in the olden days?

 

Darwin Nunez actually has 5 goals and 5 xG

 

From only 900 mins, if you'd combine the stats with last season its 14 goals from 22 xG

 

But it's a subjective way of recording it though isn't it. You can't just say Joe Bloggs is a good finisher because I say so.

Stats and data aren't things to be scared of. They just need to be used correctly and sensibly.

 

More stats now in football than in your average American football or baseball game.

 

According to Opta stats who provide the data for xg ... It's worked out as to the probability that a player should have scored. So that takes it back to my point.

 

I've no idea what it means, my son and grandson spent 10 mins before the match trying to explain it. I've still no idea what it's about,If any of our players (DKD apart) has a good xg then obviously it's a load of made up pretentious crap.

 

I just don't get how any goalscoring scenario can be ranked as to how expected a goal it is other than someone studying every chance and rating it subjectively, which then can't be a reliable stat. There are so many variables - proximity of defenders/keeper, quality of defenders/keeper, fatigue, in front of away or home end, scoreline and how important a goal would be to the outcome, quality of the assist, was it on their stronger foot, did they think they were offside etc etc etc.

So in conclusion, I don't see how it can be that useful compared to just bloody well seeing how good a finisher someone is.

 

I really don’t know how people struggle so much with XG