[Football] Newcastle 0.05 xG v Leicester

[Bozza]

Stat / xG fans - have you ever seen lower in a Premier League game?

I can't believe even a Hiughton team provided so little thread in any game.



Source: https://understat.com/match/11710

 

[LVGull]

Stat / xG fans - have you ever seen lower in a Premier League game?

I can't believe even a Hiughton team provided so little thread in any game.

View attachment 115761

Source: https://understat.com/match/11710

What does this stat mean?

 

[AmexRuislip]

Up to 11 seconds is obvious for the poor feckers

 

[dazzer6666]

We had our lowest of the season so far on Saturday too......and our xG in the first half was in fact zero I think (can't find it now but there was a tweet at HT stating it)

Edit - here it is

[tweet]1177958744988295168[/tweet]

 

[hans kraay fan club]

We had our lowest of the season so far on Saturday too......and our xG in the first half was in fact zero I think (can't find it now but there was a tweet at HT stating it)

Surely even a gentle back pass to the keeper's feet, carries a goal threat (just) above zero?



(Just ask Hugo Loris)

 

[Bozza]

What does this stat mean?

Essentially each chance a side creates is given a score from 0.00 (won't score) to 1.00 (absolute certainty of scoring) in terms of likelihood of scoring from that chance so, for example, a chance with an xG of 0.5 would mean you'd expect it to be scored 1 in 2 times. Various factors are used to assess xG, such as where the player is relative to the goal, whether he's shooitng or heading etc. Chances are cross-referenced against a very large dataset of prior games, chances and whether a goal was scored or not.

I think a penalty is given an xG of around 0.8 as around 80% of penalties are scored.

There's a good intro here: https://www.infogol.net/en/blog/education/an-introduction-to-expected-goals-11112016

In the above Leicester v Newcastle illustration the sum of all chances created by each side in the game are summed to give a team total. Essentially, it's saying that on average Newcastle created another chances to score 1/20th of a goal.

Some think it's a load of bollocks, others less so. I suspect Tony Bloom is a big advocate of xG. Looking back at the Hyypia era and the club persevering with him, was because they thought we were being unlucky ard our luck would turn. I would think xG was part of their assessment of our perceived luck.

 

[dazzer6666]

Surely even a gentle back pass to the keeper's feet, carries a goal threat (just) above zero?



(Just ask Hugo Loris)

Not for us.........have found and linked tweet above now. Literally 0.00 xG at HT

 

[Bozza]

Here's our xG from Saturday. I've highlighted the Burn header that hit the bar, as it has been determined as being our best chance with an xG of 0.38 - so roughly 1 time in 3 we should be scoring from that.

View attachment 115765

 

[Gazwag]

Surely even a gentle back pass to the keeper's feet, carries a goal threat (just) above zero?



(Just ask Hugo Loris)

Well the through ball to Maupay which their keeper got to with his chest just outside the area a few inches before Maupay did could have easily rebounded kindly and presented us with a goal

 

[zefarelly]

What does this stat mean?

nothing to me.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Essentially each chance a side creates is given a score from 0.00 (won't score) to 1.00 (absolute certainty of scoring) in terms of likelihood of scoring from that chance so, for example, a chance with an xG of 0.5 would mean you'd expect it to be scored 1 in 2 times. Various factors are used to assess xG, such as where the player is relative to the goal, whether he's shooitng or heading etc. Chances are cross-referenced against a very large dataset of prior games, chances and whether a goal was scored or not.
as part of their assessment of our perceived luck.

Out of interest, do you happen to know whether they factor in WHO the chance falls to?

It is all very well, the dataset decreeing that an unmarked header for 6 yards out, gives you n% chance of scoring a goal, but in reality the genuine % likelihood of that specific chance being converted, by Glenn Murray, or by Jurgen Locadia, is very different

 

[zefarelly]

Out of interest, do you happen to know whether they factor in WHO the chance falls to?

It is all very well, the dataset decreeing that an unmarked header for 6 yards out, gives you n% chance of scoring a goal, but in reality the genuine % likelihood of that specific chance being converted, by Glenn Murray, or by Jurgen Locadia, is very different

yes . . .30% or 0.00000147%

 

[dazzer6666]

Out of interest, do you happen to know whether they factor in WHO the chance falls to?

It is all very well, the dataset decreeing that an unmarked header for 6 yards out, gives you n% chance of scoring a goal, but in reality the genuine % likelihood of that specific chance being converted, by Glenn Murray, or by Jurgen Locadia, is very different

No, the player it falls to isn't considered when calculating xG, but it's a useful measure of a player's ability in front of goal as you can compare their no. of goals with their xG ratio. It's a measure of the quality of the chances created rather than whether they were put away.

Here you go :

https://www.sportskeeda.com/footbal...re-they-a-good-measure-of-player-performances

 

[Yoda]

Our worst from last season:

0.14 Vs Tottenham (away)
0.13 Vs Palace (away)
0.12 Vs Wolves (away)

Edit:
Oh! Crap!
Liverpool 4-0 Brighton (May 13 2018)
xG
Liverpool 3.51 - 0.04 Brighton

 

[hans kraay fan club]

No, the player it falls to isn't considered when calculating xG, but it's a useful measure of a player's ability in front of goal as you can compare their no. of goals with their xG ratio. It's a measure of the quality of the chances created rather than whether they were put away.

Here you go :

https://www.sportskeeda.com/footbal...re-they-a-good-measure-of-player-performances

I'd argue that this is a bit wrong. Let's say you are a player out wide, with the ball at your feet - there's two defenders in the middle, with your striker about to run between them. If that striker is Andy Carroll, or Glenn Murray, there is a type of ball you can put in that creates a genuine goal threat, that simply isn't the same, if your striker is a nippy little chap, who has no chance of getting up high enough to win the battle, or if he does, to head that ball down and into the goal.

 

[dazzer6666]

I'd argue that this is a bit wrong. Let's say you are a player out wide, with the ball at your feet - there's two defenders in the middle, with your striker about to run between them. If that striker is Andy Carroll, or Glenn Murray, there is a type of ball you can put in that creates a genuine goal threat, that simply isn't the same, if your striker is a nippy little chap, who has no chance of getting up high enough to win the battle, or if he does, to head that ball down and into the goal.

Not necessarily wrong, but just a factor that's (possibly ?) not taken into account.............sure the way the data is calculated will continue to get refined.

 

[Stat Brother]

Our worst from last season:

0.14 Vs Tottenham (away)
0.13 Vs Palace (away)
0.12 Vs Wolves (away)

Edit:
Oh! Crap!
Liverpool 4-0 Brighton (May 13 2018)
xG
Liverpool 3.51 - 0.04 Brighton

The game we won 2-1? (Oh crisis of confidence was it 2-1 or 2-0?)

 

[blue-shifted]

The game we won 2-1? (Oh crisis of confidence was it 2-1 or 2-0?)

Oh to have a player who can smash one in the top corner from outside the box to grab three points in a vital relegation game against bitter rivals.

 

[Bozza]

The game we won 2-1? (Oh crisis of confidence was it 2-1 or 2-0?)

Yep. Murray's chance had an xG of 0.05 and Knockaert's 0.03.

The only other chances registered were Stephens (0.02) and your boy Ali J who seems to have shot from somewhere near the half-way line for an xG of 0.01.

 

[Stat Brother]

Oh to have a player who can smash one in the top corner from outside the box to grab three points in a vital relegation game

Once every 100 attempts.