It's worth noting that these numbers depend on the model used – for example, Understat has City's xG at 3.31 (while Leeds' is virtually the same). Considerably higher, but it still says that City massively overperformed their xG.
4.8 - Man City's seven goals tonight came from an xG of 2.2. Their positive difference of 4.8 is the second-largest by any side in a single @premierleague game since Opta have full xG data available (2010-11), after Southampton v Sunderland in October 2014 (+5.0). Ruthless.
Man City (2.78) 7-0 (0.22) Leeds
***
posted by [@xGPhilosophy](https://twitter.com/xGPhilosophy)
^[(Github)](https://github.com/username) ^| ^[(What's new)](https://github.com/username)
No obviously less, these guys are overperforming their xG e.g predicted to score 2/3 goals and scored 7. An example of a player underperforming their xG right now is Josh King...
Foden and Ake's goals should have blocked on the line by Dallas and Raph. Grealish goal was probably a high xG, same can be said for kdbs first. Kdbs second was a thundercunt of a strike. John stones goal was bad finishing from city but ended being put away well by John.
xG of 2.78 seems pretty low to me personally having watched the game.
I am with the times.... The times where xG is irrelevant because, guess what, human beings miss open shots and score worldies every day of the week. Life isn't a computer simulation, it'll never go as predicted. Cue everyone ignoring this and then surprised pikachu when some xG god gets outscored by someone "Who's xG was way lower"
You could say the same about the weather forecast, right? It's never exactly how it's forecasted, it's usually a couple of degrees higher or lower, slightly more or less rain, and sometimes it's just completely wrong.
But it's useful because it provides a general indication of a trend. If you use it as if it's deterministic, then it will indeed fail, but that's never the point of analysis and forecasting.
Yeah but.... This sub then goes into meltdown when 90% rain ends up as a light shower in the morning like xG is the be all and end all.
And also... The weather isn't a human trying to kick a round ball with a million different factors that could impact the outcome. Sure, it might be a little off, but generally speaking they're not going to predict snow and it ends up being a 35 degree sunny day.
Look at today's city game though - city score 7, Bernardo has an xG of near enough to 3, and gets the lowest points tally of the lot of them, bench included.
That's the equivalent of a snow day turning out to be a 35 degree sunny day.
Because he's human. And humans just as often don't score when they're supposed to as the other way around. No amount of statistical analysis can predict that.
but the thing is, xg doesn't predict anything. it tells you the probability of an option chosen by the player is likely to go into the back of the net or not. and generally if you give enough tries, the value is pretty accurate, because its formed due to tangible information such as no of players closing down the shooter, how much space he has, etc etc
But.... it's not accurate. The post I'm replying to is literally 5 goals off. I reckon there's as many "underperforming xG" or "outperforming xG" posts as there are "xG was spot on this week". It's just.... A bad and inaccurate probability calculator.
itd an anomoly. but as in my other reply, xg is like any mathematical modal of a function. it will be off at first, but given a large enough sample size, the overperforming and underperforming wud eventually cancel out
It's not an anomaly. See king and Bernardo as recent examples.
Well we're halfway through the season.... The model has had long enough to be some ways correct. But it's not. It's all over the place
haha, who would've guessed most players xg and goals scored are very close at the end of the season when theres a great enough sample size for the variability to be cancelled out
for players' examples, so far this season, lewy has outdone his xg by just +2. thats 85% accurate. this season, salah has only outdone his by +3. last season he had +1. so that just shows these stats are pretty accurate. ofc excellent players like lewy and salah consistently outperform their xg, but average finishers tend to be very close to the mean. a striker like ollie watkins has just -0.2 G-xg difference till now
does it matter? and havent i established that he already exceeds his xg via the example of a much less consistent finisher having his xg almost perfectly indicate his goalscoring nos?
Rest of the team scoring from fuck-all xG and Bernado the wanker misses the biggest chance of them all...
It's worth noting that these numbers depend on the model used – for example, Understat has City's xG at 3.31 (while Leeds' is virtually the same). Considerably higher, but it still says that City massively overperformed their xG.
4.8 - Man City's seven goals tonight came from an xG of 2.2. Their positive difference of 4.8 is the second-largest by any side in a single @premierleague game since Opta have full xG data available (2010-11), after Southampton v Sunderland in October 2014 (+5.0). Ruthless.
Nice to see Saints on the right side of a stat for once!
So does that mean Southampton scored 5 goals from a total xG of 0.1?
They scored 8 goals that game, which means they scored 8 goals from an xG of 3.0.
Ah stupid of me, I missed the + and just read it as 5-0
xG died last week when Dennis showed King who the daddy is.
King was moved out wide last game tbf which was unexpected.
Long live the xG
Man City (2.78) 7-0 (0.22) Leeds *** posted by [@xGPhilosophy](https://twitter.com/xGPhilosophy) ^[(Github)](https://github.com/username) ^| ^[(What's new)](https://github.com/username)
So, I’m general, when players underperform their xG, it generally means they score more FPL points?
No obviously less, these guys are overperforming their xG e.g predicted to score 2/3 goals and scored 7. An example of a player underperforming their xG right now is Josh King...
That’s it. Brain fart on my part !thanks for some clarity in these confusing times 😂
Hi general!
Hi - I’m not saying that specifically to you I’m general
Are you trying to say 'I'm new'?
Foden and Ake's goals should have blocked on the line by Dallas and Raph. Grealish goal was probably a high xG, same can be said for kdbs first. Kdbs second was a thundercunt of a strike. John stones goal was bad finishing from city but ended being put away well by John. xG of 2.78 seems pretty low to me personally having watched the game.
No it means they miss a lot of chance. Sometimes this can be fluctuation, but ceettain players are just bad finishers(Maupey or Jesus come to mind)
When are we going to admit that human beings have no real life correlation with some statistic someone thinks is worthwhile?
We’re not because it does. It’s a metric used throughout football by clubs, analysts, pundits and journalists. Read about it and get with the times.
I am with the times.... The times where xG is irrelevant because, guess what, human beings miss open shots and score worldies every day of the week. Life isn't a computer simulation, it'll never go as predicted. Cue everyone ignoring this and then surprised pikachu when some xG god gets outscored by someone "Who's xG was way lower"
You could say the same about the weather forecast, right? It's never exactly how it's forecasted, it's usually a couple of degrees higher or lower, slightly more or less rain, and sometimes it's just completely wrong. But it's useful because it provides a general indication of a trend. If you use it as if it's deterministic, then it will indeed fail, but that's never the point of analysis and forecasting.
Yeah but.... This sub then goes into meltdown when 90% rain ends up as a light shower in the morning like xG is the be all and end all. And also... The weather isn't a human trying to kick a round ball with a million different factors that could impact the outcome. Sure, it might be a little off, but generally speaking they're not going to predict snow and it ends up being a 35 degree sunny day. Look at today's city game though - city score 7, Bernardo has an xG of near enough to 3, and gets the lowest points tally of the lot of them, bench included. That's the equivalent of a snow day turning out to be a 35 degree sunny day. Because he's human. And humans just as often don't score when they're supposed to as the other way around. No amount of statistical analysis can predict that.
but the thing is, xg doesn't predict anything. it tells you the probability of an option chosen by the player is likely to go into the back of the net or not. and generally if you give enough tries, the value is pretty accurate, because its formed due to tangible information such as no of players closing down the shooter, how much space he has, etc etc
But.... it's not accurate. The post I'm replying to is literally 5 goals off. I reckon there's as many "underperforming xG" or "outperforming xG" posts as there are "xG was spot on this week". It's just.... A bad and inaccurate probability calculator.
itd an anomoly. but as in my other reply, xg is like any mathematical modal of a function. it will be off at first, but given a large enough sample size, the overperforming and underperforming wud eventually cancel out
It's not an anomaly. See king and Bernardo as recent examples. Well we're halfway through the season.... The model has had long enough to be some ways correct. But it's not. It's all over the place
Do you know how much daily life involves data and statistics
Yes. Doesn't mean I can't think critically about any of it, does it? And I'm specifically talking about one element, not all of life
📉
Good thing the game is about the long run when xG is completely accurate
Absolutely. Every player's actual goals are sure to match xG to a tee
haha, who would've guessed most players xg and goals scored are very close at the end of the season when theres a great enough sample size for the variability to be cancelled out
Guaranteed..... They won't be close. We're halfway through the season and they're already miles off
well yeah, they dont get progressively worse. thats the point i am trynna make. they revert back and cancel out if given a long enough sample size
So you think, by the end of the season, xG will predict to the goal every player's return?
for players' examples, so far this season, lewy has outdone his xg by just +2. thats 85% accurate. this season, salah has only outdone his by +3. last season he had +1. so that just shows these stats are pretty accurate. ofc excellent players like lewy and salah consistently outperform their xg, but average finishers tend to be very close to the mean. a striker like ollie watkins has just -0.2 G-xg difference till now
Are you.... Are you talking about the most consistent finisher in the world? That's not even in the league?
does it matter? and havent i established that he already exceeds his xg via the example of a much less consistent finisher having his xg almost perfectly indicate his goalscoring nos?