MotD inexplicably had:
Albion: 1.26
Watford 1.47
That just doesn't make sense given the chances had by Goldson, Dunk and Hemed to name three.
I'd have thought even this doesn't reflect our superiority either:
944698657290498048
Were we UNlucky against Liverpool?
"Against Liverpool, Brighton’s total xG was 1.67, while the Reds’ was 1.96. This shows that Klopp’s side were highly efficient in their finishing, while Brighton created – if not scored – enough high-quality chances to roughly keep pace with the Merseysiders."...
The xG for our game with West Brom was:
WBA: 1.03
BHA: 0.44
That 0.44 seems very low to me and must mean that our chances were deemed not very good chances at all...
Gross #1: low because of the number of defenders between him and the goal?
Gross #2: low because of the distance from goal and...
Nope, I didn't ignore them. As I said, I'm taking more interest this season, probably because of xG popping up at the end of MotD highlights for each game.
I like the theory.
For example: penalties. Between 2011/12 and 2015/16 there were 443 penalties in the Premier League and of those 347 were scored - meaning that on average 78.3% of penalties resulted in a goal. A penalty is therefore assigned an expected goal value of 0.783.
We need more...
I've been getting more interested in the xG (eXpected Goals) stat that I've never really noticed until this season - maybe another feature of Premier League life.
Expected Goals is the number of goals a team (or teams) would expect to score in a match. This is determined by assigning a value to...