Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

wuhan originally

properly over it or just semi-skimmed ?

Look at you all. Brewster's Minions.

Posted Images

Just now, Hightown Phil said:

Anyone who wants to be really. Used to work with a lad who did it for a company. A genuinely tedious practice. 

I can imagine

seems a bit pointless to me but there u go

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PaulMcC186 said:

Different companies/websites have different xG values for the same chances too.

Rendering it all a bit moot?

 

bloke I know wrote an/the algorithm to determine Xcorners. Used to watch matches through the night from Aus/China/Korea at his home on a bank of tv screens whilst placing bets for a series of clients in the Far East. Now that’s crazy s***.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hightown Phil said:

0.82. Everton managed to have a 0.9, a 0.94 and a 0.99 in the same game which was impressive. 

Wowsers! Does that not just mean they are really good as opposed to it being a freak?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PaulMcC186 said:

Different companies/websites have different xG values for the same chances too.

Is there an xG comparison site so we can measure the xpected accuracy (xA) of their xG rating? 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sammy & a said:

Wowsers! Does that not just mean they are really good as opposed to it being a freak?

It’s one area where it isn’t great cos they’re bad shots that are tapped in one the line and it doesn’t fully work cos it counts both shots, but people are refining it more and more as time goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Hightown Phil said:

0.82. Everton managed to have a 0.9, a 0.94 and a 0.99 in the same game which was impressive. 

So does that mean they are saying he misses that 2 out of 10?

I mean, I know he hasn't been playing well, but seriously?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cobs said:

Rendering it all a bit moot?

 

bloke I know wrote an/the algorithm to determine Xcorners. Used to watch matches through the night from Aus/China/Korea at his home on a bank of tv screens whilst placing bets for a series of clients in the Far East. Now that’s crazy s***.

He must've been making good money cos that sounds really, really boring

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kop205 said:

So does that mean they are saying he misses that 2 out of 10?

I mean, I know he hasn't been playing well, but seriously?

The identity of the player is irrelevant but yeah. Not necessarily just miss, could miscontrol it or fall over or whatever. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kop205 said:

So does that mean they are saying he misses that 2 out of 10?

I mean, I know he hasn't been playing well, but seriously?

It means all chances from there result in goals 8 out of 10 times. They don't change xG for each player which I think is a bit of a flaw. Some players have good xG but can't finish, and some outperform their xG most seasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PaulMcC186 said:

He must've been making good money cos that sounds really, really boring

 

Yep. Sounds incredibly tedious doesn’t it? Was all he advised/bet on. Massive money going on it and very stressful- so he gave it up

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PaulMcC186 said:

It means all chances from there result in goals 8 out of 10 times. They don't change xG for each player which I think is a bit of a flaw. Some players have good xG but can't finish, and some outperform their xG most seasons.

It presumes average finishing, so if someone consistently outperforms it you can say they’re good at finishing and vice versa. So last season Gabriel Jesus was s*** and Danny Ings really good. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PaulMcC186 said:

It means all chances from there result in goals 8 out of 10 times. They don't change xG for each player which I think is a bit of a flaw. Some players have good xG but can't finish, and some outperform their xG most seasons.

I don’t know if kop 205 should be offended that you think he is that thick or touched that you would be so patient with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sammy & a said:

I don’t know if kop 205 should be offended that you think he is that thick or touched that you would be so patient with him.

PaulMc is smashing it generally.

If he says I'm thick, I'm thick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hightown Phil said:

It presumes average finishing, so if someone consistently outperforms it you can say they’re good at finishing and vice versa. So last season Gabriel Jesus was s*** and Danny Ings really good. 

I think the clubs who are best using data have a different xG, and stats model in general, than what we can see publically. It would explain why someone players who are seen as not great on stats always start and players who stats love can't get regular starts.

Is Gabriel Jesus's goals compared to his xG really bad?

Edited by PaulMcC186
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hightown Phil said:

His xG was 21 and he scored 14. Pretty, pretty, pretty bad. To change Larry David’s words.

That is bad. I thought he'd be a bit under cos he doesn't seem like a bad finisher. Wasn't McGoldrick on nearly 10 xG but didn't score a goal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...