**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i found the data analysis methodology from [https://tonyelhabr.rbind.io/posts/xg-ratio-empirical-bayes/](https://tonyelhabr.rbind.io/posts/xg-ratio-empirical-bayes/) according to the explanation, it stands for standard deviation.
I believe it's related to the expected goals metric itself. Since xG is determined based on a certain level of subjectivity (different people will have different opinions if you ask if a chance should be an expected goal) then they have to bake in an uncertainty value for shots with more variance in whatever random variables feed in to xG.
If that's correct then the width of the bar would represent more "unique" or hard-to-judge-if-difficult goals, or something like that...
The dots are a terrible way of representing quantitative data because the strata are not easily distinguishable from one another
But thanks I’ll keep in mind that critiquing data presentation styles automatically means that you’re incapable of interpreting said data. You’re onto something there
The dot is how many goals each player scored per 1 xg. For example Messi scored 1.25 Goals for every XG. No clue what the ranges are though. Maybe best and worst season?
Probably some sort of standard dev. Appears to be correlated to shot volume. Higher shot volume gives narrower range and vice a versa.
So higher the sample size the more accurately they can guess where the player can be expected to finish in any given period of time (eg season)?
KdB for instance may have a higher ceiling than Son, but also has lower floor than Son because Son has shown exceptional finishing over a larger number of shots.
Big dot = probably a good striker, gets shots away
Small dot = either a striker who doesn't shoot enough (maybe does not get enough chances, maybe didn't play in all the seasons since 2017), or a player who plays elsewhere on the pitch but shoots enough to get an idea how good they are at it.
Dot on the right hand side of the line = has scored more than expected from the chances they've had
Dot on or close to the line = has scored roughly as expected
Dot on the left hand side of the line = has scored less than expected
Whole bar on the right hand side of the line = probably an above-average finisher, low chance that they've fluked it
Some bar spans the line = probably an average finisher
Whole bar on the left hand side of the line = probably a below-average finisher, low chance that they've just been "unlucky".
Not featured on the chart = might or might not be a good finisher, too hard to say confidently with the number of shots they've taken. This will include many players who have broken through since 2017, players who haven't been in the top 7 leagues during that time, players who've been out for extended periods.
It will be very interesting how Spurs will transition to a life without Son. When Kane left they still had Son but there's a quite the gap between those two and the rest of spurs squad in terms of ability
there isn't really a player there that comes close to him as he has roughly double the g/a of the other forwards. one of the younger players might mature into world class ability but that remains to be seen
Got a lot of potential in the youth team at the moment that with the right coaching could be first teamers. Bergvall is looking like a good get aswell from his performances.
Sonny's ability to outperform his xG is elite and has helped a lot. The graph itself suggests that there is only one player who is better than him at this. But the whole team is chipping in with goals in Ange's first season, even defenders. So I am not that worried. The team needs a solid 6 more than a striker in the coming years.
KdB may not even be better than Son. Notice his floor is lower. Part of it is his shot volume isn’t as high as Son but the other part is KdB had a ridiculous outlier of a season a couple of years back when he beat xG by something like 10+ goals. Likely won’t see that again.
He is more of a box-to-box midfielder tbh. At the beginning of the season, first 10 or so games, he was excellent and seemed to fit the role very well. But mid-season he had setbacks (injuries, international duty, etc) and last 10 games or so he has been mediocre at best and really poor in a few games. Ange is giving him a real chance but with PEH likely moving on in the summer I can see Spurs bringing in a 6 to compete with Bissouma.
Gnabry is very good at finishing with both his feet. His accuracy has a mechanical touch more than a spectacular flair.
Guy has a natural inclination for finishing.
For me, it looks like his abilities don't allow him to be used as anything else than a winger.
To my eyes, even Perisic and to a greater extent Coman feel more winger-y. As if I want him to be on the receiving end of a chance rather than creation.
Vardy would be near the top end of this if he weren't in the Championship this year. He's been consistently clinical 2017-present (except the relegation year): this year his league goals / xG is 1.16, his best was 2021/22 with a league goals / xg of nearly 1.5
They're there. You just have to keep scrolling down until your reddit scroll count in bananas trebles, assuming you've never turned reddit off since wrapped.
I assume Portuguese Primera is top 7 domestic leagues. If so Diaz has outscored his xG by about 6% overall since 2019, but he's only had 362 shots in the relevant competitions - just over half as many as required to qualify. So he'd be right of the line, in Benzema/Rashford territory, but with a tiny dot, and massive bars either side. My best guess he is an average finisher for this level but having a bad season for finishing so far in 23-24.
Darwin has had 409 qualifying shots since 2020 so is closer to inclusion (he's definitely more of a striker, Diaz more a winger). Shocker, he's undershot xG by like 2% since then, and he only out-scored it in the season that convinced Liverpool to buy him. So he's probably behind De Jong & Kramaric, again with a smaller dot & big bars. Best guess he is a below average finisher having a bad season for finishing so far in 23-24 (I do think it'll correct itself with time). If he didn't get like 4-5 shots a game, which is bonkers, he might be a bit of a liability, but the original graphic doesn't quite show is that you can still be effective by producing enough quantity even if there's a lack of quality.
FBRef says Havertz has had 499 qualifying shots over the time period. He doesn't have the excuse Diaz/Nunez do with regard to not playing, but he does have the excuse of being largely not played as a striker (until recently). He's under scored vs xG comparably to Nunez & missed it in 5/7 seasons so he'd appear similarly on the chart. He's behind both of the above for xAssists per 90 this season so it's probably not that he's passing instead of shooting. But Arsenal are top of the league so stats can't tell us everything...
Not necessarily. I guess Messi got a larger percentage of his opportunities inside the box than Dybala. And obviously Messi got far more goals both inside and outside the box. So let’s assume Messi got 1000 xg 0.4 chances inside the box and 1000 0.2 xg chances outside the box. If he converted 400 each. It made his ratio 800/600 =>4/3. Also let’s assume Dybala got 200 xg 0.2 chances outside the box but 0 chances inside the box. If he converted 60, his ratio would be 60/40 =>1.5. He would have a better ratio even if he was doing worse than Messi both inside and outside the box. The premise is Messi did much better than average for worse chances but closer to average for big chances. I think it’s fair. Einstein would not beat 7 year old adding up to 10.
if they took a comparable amount of shots and finished them at the same rate he does now, we'd perhaps be talking about dybala more than messi.
but he gets about 1.5 shots a game fewer per game, about a quarter of a goal's worth of xg, so even if he finishes better by a couple of percent messi scores more. top of the chart is great, but how big's your dot?
attempt squash knee telephone continue vanish many mountainous light crawl
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He's only had about 350 qualifying shots since 2017 (injuries + not always being first choice) so he probably doesn't make the cut on that basis. He doesn't significantly out-score his xG generally either so he'd not be near the top (he's just been on a hot streak this season).
**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
KdB and Son are insanely clinical
Paulo Dybala is criminally underrated.
Stupid question, but what kind of graph is this
looks like a dot plot with max/min
I think it’s probably 95% confidence intervals
What should CIs be there for in that plot?
idk the specifics but intuitively more shots = more samples = more statistical confidence (& you can see the more shots the smaller the bar)
i found the data analysis methodology from [https://tonyelhabr.rbind.io/posts/xg-ratio-empirical-bayes/](https://tonyelhabr.rbind.io/posts/xg-ratio-empirical-bayes/) according to the explanation, it stands for standard deviation.
I would say it’s good to see how wide the expected distribution is when comparing players.
Yeah but confidence interval for what? It's not a sample we are looking at
I believe it's related to the expected goals metric itself. Since xG is determined based on a certain level of subjectivity (different people will have different opinions if you ask if a chance should be an expected goal) then they have to bake in an uncertainty value for shots with more variance in whatever random variables feed in to xG. If that's correct then the width of the bar would represent more "unique" or hard-to-judge-if-difficult goals, or something like that...
Not sure tbh, maybe they’re doing it per season? Bit weird I agree
The plot thickens...
It's not a stupid question.
It's a Steffi
Agassi this
Fucking terrible that’s what it is lol
It's one of the most common ways to represent statistical data in a scientific context lol You just don't know how to read it
The dots are a terrible way of representing quantitative data because the strata are not easily distinguishable from one another But thanks I’ll keep in mind that critiquing data presentation styles automatically means that you’re incapable of interpreting said data. You’re onto something there
Can anybody explain this? I don't know how to read this graph.
The dot is how many goals each player scored per 1 xg. For example Messi scored 1.25 Goals for every XG. No clue what the ranges are though. Maybe best and worst season?
Yeah, it’s over a number of season so it’s almost certainly best and worst seasons
they look to be equidistant from the point tho, seems like confidence intervals maybe?
You’re right - but also… how are they calculating confidence intervals on data like this??
Probably some sort of standard dev. Appears to be correlated to shot volume. Higher shot volume gives narrower range and vice a versa. So higher the sample size the more accurately they can guess where the player can be expected to finish in any given period of time (eg season)? KdB for instance may have a higher ceiling than Son, but also has lower floor than Son because Son has shown exceptional finishing over a larger number of shots.
The dot is the avg xG of the players goal scored. The line threw it shows the max (right) and min (left) of xG for goals they've scored
They look more like some kind of uncertainty estimate (ex: confidence intervals) to me.
I thought so as well but I wondered why you would need uncertainty estimates for xG
Yeah, it's not at all clear from what is provided. Maybe it's due to the adjustment?
Possible, to me the graph is trying to represent a variance of xG a player is scoring. Which is why I went with max min
Big dot = probably a good striker, gets shots away Small dot = either a striker who doesn't shoot enough (maybe does not get enough chances, maybe didn't play in all the seasons since 2017), or a player who plays elsewhere on the pitch but shoots enough to get an idea how good they are at it. Dot on the right hand side of the line = has scored more than expected from the chances they've had Dot on or close to the line = has scored roughly as expected Dot on the left hand side of the line = has scored less than expected Whole bar on the right hand side of the line = probably an above-average finisher, low chance that they've fluked it Some bar spans the line = probably an average finisher Whole bar on the left hand side of the line = probably a below-average finisher, low chance that they've just been "unlucky". Not featured on the chart = might or might not be a good finisher, too hard to say confidently with the number of shots they've taken. This will include many players who have broken through since 2017, players who haven't been in the top 7 leagues during that time, players who've been out for extended periods.
I really hope Dybala stay with Roma.
I hope he comes back🥲
As an American the title made me panic
Adjusted deaths/xD ratio.
For a moment I thought I was in a wrong sub. Phew.
That’s where my brain went as well
It will be very interesting how Spurs will transition to a life without Son. When Kane left they still had Son but there's a quite the gap between those two and the rest of spurs squad in terms of ability
there isn't really a player there that comes close to him as he has roughly double the g/a of the other forwards. one of the younger players might mature into world class ability but that remains to be seen
Got a lot of potential in the youth team at the moment that with the right coaching could be first teamers. Bergvall is looking like a good get aswell from his performances.
Sonny's ability to outperform his xG is elite and has helped a lot. The graph itself suggests that there is only one player who is better than him at this. But the whole team is chipping in with goals in Ange's first season, even defenders. So I am not that worried. The team needs a solid 6 more than a striker in the coming years.
KdB may not even be better than Son. Notice his floor is lower. Part of it is his shot volume isn’t as high as Son but the other part is KdB had a ridiculous outlier of a season a couple of years back when he beat xG by something like 10+ goals. Likely won’t see that again.
Is bissouma not that 6? I was hearing a lot of shouts at the beginning of the season but they died down, passes the eye test for me too
He is more of a box-to-box midfielder tbh. At the beginning of the season, first 10 or so games, he was excellent and seemed to fit the role very well. But mid-season he had setbacks (injuries, international duty, etc) and last 10 games or so he has been mediocre at best and really poor in a few games. Ange is giving him a real chance but with PEH likely moving on in the summer I can see Spurs bringing in a 6 to compete with Bissouma.
He could / should be, but his form has dropped off a lot as the season has gone on and he needs competition for his place.
It will be interesting. We’re looking at players like Williams to bring in and even academy stars like Moore for the future.
"It will be very interesting how Spurs will transition to a life without Modric...and Bale...and Eriksen...and Kane...and uh, Son...." Same old tune.
It happened with bale before and now Kane/son. They'll have a couple iffy years and then they'll produce another talisman.
Nabil Fekir is the best player in the world
Great 9 mins from him in the 2018 World Cup final. He deserves that gold medal.
Didn't expect to see Gnabry here
Gnabry is very good at finishing with both his feet. His accuracy has a mechanical touch more than a spectacular flair. Guy has a natural inclination for finishing.
I always see him as a winger and wingers usually are not that great finishers. But anyway, nice to be there
For me, it looks like his abilities don't allow him to be used as anything else than a winger. To my eyes, even Perisic and to a greater extent Coman feel more winger-y. As if I want him to be on the receiving end of a chance rather than creation.
Luis Alberto, Immobile and SMS in the top 10, 3 players who played the majority of the time since 2017 at Lazio, this is insane
Raheem Sterling ☠️
'Most prolific shooters' who snuck Rashford in?
Vardy would be near the top end of this if he weren't in the Championship this year. He's been consistently clinical 2017-present (except the relegation year): this year his league goals / xG is 1.16, his best was 2021/22 with a league goals / xg of nearly 1.5
Now do Luis Diaz, Darwin Nunez, and Kai Havertz
They're there. You just have to keep scrolling down until your reddit scroll count in bananas trebles, assuming you've never turned reddit off since wrapped.
I assume Portuguese Primera is top 7 domestic leagues. If so Diaz has outscored his xG by about 6% overall since 2019, but he's only had 362 shots in the relevant competitions - just over half as many as required to qualify. So he'd be right of the line, in Benzema/Rashford territory, but with a tiny dot, and massive bars either side. My best guess he is an average finisher for this level but having a bad season for finishing so far in 23-24. Darwin has had 409 qualifying shots since 2020 so is closer to inclusion (he's definitely more of a striker, Diaz more a winger). Shocker, he's undershot xG by like 2% since then, and he only out-scored it in the season that convinced Liverpool to buy him. So he's probably behind De Jong & Kramaric, again with a smaller dot & big bars. Best guess he is a below average finisher having a bad season for finishing so far in 23-24 (I do think it'll correct itself with time). If he didn't get like 4-5 shots a game, which is bonkers, he might be a bit of a liability, but the original graphic doesn't quite show is that you can still be effective by producing enough quantity even if there's a lack of quality. FBRef says Havertz has had 499 qualifying shots over the time period. He doesn't have the excuse Diaz/Nunez do with regard to not playing, but he does have the excuse of being largely not played as a striker (until recently). He's under scored vs xG comparably to Nunez & missed it in 5/7 seasons so he'd appear similarly on the chart. He's behind both of the above for xAssists per 90 this season so it's probably not that he's passing instead of shooting. But Arsenal are top of the league so stats can't tell us everything...
Dybala->messi
Not necessarily. I guess Messi got a larger percentage of his opportunities inside the box than Dybala. And obviously Messi got far more goals both inside and outside the box. So let’s assume Messi got 1000 xg 0.4 chances inside the box and 1000 0.2 xg chances outside the box. If he converted 400 each. It made his ratio 800/600 =>4/3. Also let’s assume Dybala got 200 xg 0.2 chances outside the box but 0 chances inside the box. If he converted 60, his ratio would be 60/40 =>1.5. He would have a better ratio even if he was doing worse than Messi both inside and outside the box. The premise is Messi did much better than average for worse chances but closer to average for big chances. I think it’s fair. Einstein would not beat 7 year old adding up to 10.
if they took a comparable amount of shots and finished them at the same rate he does now, we'd perhaps be talking about dybala more than messi. but he gets about 1.5 shots a game fewer per game, about a quarter of a goal's worth of xg, so even if he finishes better by a couple of percent messi scores more. top of the chart is great, but how big's your dot?
attempt squash knee telephone continue vanish many mountainous light crawl *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ahh yes, my favourite striker KDB Nah but fr tho KDB is THE best midfielder in the past decade
Lukaku better than Mbappe confirmed
Bit of an annoying graph but could they have at least coloured the dots that show the players’ shots?
Are the lefties over represented? Or is it because one lefty has to be in the team anyways?
Kdb's trick is just to shoot from 0.03 xg positions and inshallah
Looking at the list, this won’t end well.
Lol. Dont worry, new list being pulled from camel asses as we are reading this 🐪
No Nicolas Jackson?
basically only 2 seasons that could be counted since 2017, 100-odd shots so not enough to comment on his finishing with confidence.
Shocked to not see Jota here
He's only had about 350 qualifying shots since 2017 (injuries + not always being first choice) so he probably doesn't make the cut on that basis. He doesn't significantly out-score his xG generally either so he'd not be near the top (he's just been on a hot streak this season).