Good post Paul.
The problem with xG isn't the stat itself, it's that …… xG, at it's best, should reflect what fans could tell you about specific players already, it's not trying to do anything more than that and most of the complaints are caused by people trying to flip the stat to give themselves a moral victory of sorts.
Quote from: Bad English on April 23, 2024, 11:21:33 AMTo me, the great thing about Xg or xG, whatever it is, is that you can be poring over it like a 13 year-old who has found some hedge porn or you can, understably, completely ignore it and simply enjoy/suffer the football. ;-)And besides, all the really cool kids have moved on from XG now and onto the world of pornhub and babestation.
To me, the great thing about Xg or xG, whatever it is, is that you can be poring over it like a 13 year-old who has found some hedge porn or you can, understably, completely ignore it and simply enjoy/suffer the football. ;-)
Quote from: pauliewalnuts on April 23, 2024, 11:24:16 AMQuote from: Bad English on April 23, 2024, 11:21:33 AMTo me, the great thing about Xg or xG, whatever it is, is that you can be poring over it like a 13 year-old who has found some hedge porn or you can, understably, completely ignore it and simply enjoy/suffer the football. ;-)And besides, all the really cool kids have moved on from XG now and onto the world of pornhub and babestation.Not quite FTFY, but
This is unwarranted , unhealthy promoting and unnecessary!
The problem with xG isn't the stat itself, it's that so many people don't really understand what it's designed for so they use it to make points that they shouldn't.That graphic for example will be them rescoring every game in line with xG and creating a new table.The purpose of the stat is nothing more than to add a little additional qualitative data on top of the shots and shots on target stats. It should be used for things like asking if we making the most of the chances we are creating or if we're giving away too many good scoring chances. Both of those are questions that are difficult to answer (statistically) with the more traditional stats. It shouldn't be used to say 'we should have won today, look at the chances we created' or 'player x is better than player y because of xG/xA' and it absolutely does not gve you a 'real' table as some people try to suggest.It is not 'completely subjective' though, it's based on fairly simple probabilities. What it represents is: across thousands of games players shooting from that position, using that foot and with a ball that is bouncing/on the floor/whatever they have scored 14% of the time. Is doesn't care about ability, footedness, the quality of the keeper, etc because that's not how it was ever designed to work. Which leads to the most important part of the whole thing that people get wrong far too often, being above xG doesn't mean that you're lucky, it means that you're above average.On this season it shows that, despite scoring a lot Haaland has had a very poor season, and I reckon most people who've watched them regularly would acknowledge that, whereas Watkins and Palmer have both been exceptional both in terms of outperforming on xG and xA and just by eye for anyone who's watched them play. This is what really matters, xG, at it's best, should reflect what fans could tell you about specific players already, it's not trying to do anything more than that and most of the complaints are caused by people trying to flip the stat to give themselves a moral victory of sorts.
Must we encourage such filth? I do wonder what is happening with the site promoting such sordid things. I said before that if people want to do such, then a thread should be made in other areas to keep promotion of filth off the main service board!!
Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.
Author
Topic: Emi Martinez (Read 919313 times)
