ringmerseagulltoo
Active member
- Feb 16, 2012
- 439
No doubt this has been explained before but can someone use simple language to tell me what on earth this is. Apparently there was a significant difference between us and our respected opponents.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Expected goals
- Thread starter ringmerseagulltoo
- Start date
Dick Swiveller
Well-known member
- Sep 9, 2011
- 9,155
Some no mark rates a chance on likelihood to score. Sky wet themselves over it - no-one else cares.
Juan Albion
Chicken Sniffer 3rd Class
As I put elsewhere, here's the Guardian's post-game take on it:
Today’s expected goals result: Crystal Palace 1.52, Brighton & Hove Albion 0.16. Commiserations to the Seagulls on an extremely disappointing afternoon. Can Chris Hughton survive this calamity?
Brightonfan1983
Tiny member
Yes please. I read an article recently which talked about xG applying before the game is played as well as after? So, 'expected' and 'actual' goal chances?
I really have no idea either.
oldboyroy
Well-known member
It's expected goals for the chances you make apparently make 1 chance in a match expected goals would be very low make say 15 then expected goals would be quite high...(I think)
brightn'ove
cringe
it's a better indicator across a season of how good a team are in front of goal, not really a thing in and of itself.
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
Expected goals is the biggest 'flat earth' in football.
They have something seriously wrong with their science.
They have something seriously wrong with their science.
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
Sports writers are for the most part completely clueless if it doesn’t involve the top six or a well known player. The darling that is old man Hodgson will get lots of sympathy from them. Something along the lines of the players letting him down no doubt.
Juan Albion
Chicken Sniffer 3rd Class
Nah, this was spot on. They wrote it AFTER we beat the Scum. Nice, sticking the knife in and TWIST.
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
Oops I missed that
Did [MENTION=10202]Not Andy Naylor[/MENTION] write that? Can’t think of another sports writer who would have done?
Isn't the quality of the chance also included when working out the XG? One of Bissouma's wide shots would be a very low score but that Zaha shot at close range that was blocked by Dunk would be scored much higher as you'd expect someone to score from there.
Brightonfan1983
Tiny member
Apparently so. Also, it does feel a bit Sky-ish to me, all these numerics and decimal points, has a feel of invention for not much reason.
On the statistics point, I was interested in as much of this article about us as I could understand. Moneyball and Champ Manager have a lot to answer for!
https://statsbomb.com/2019/03/are-brighton-too-conservative/
B-right-on
Living the dream
Jesus. What a load of b0llocks that article is. Trying to bring the game of football down to stats. Today per ghs stats, we should have lost (XG, possession, shots etc) but we didn't.
Can't bring football down to stats.
GT49er
Well-known member
I haven't a clue what it's all about and I don't give a monkey's - it's one of those things about modern football that I just choose to ignore, and will continue to do so.
It’s reasonably useful over a period of time at indicating whether a team’s fortunes might turn. So if you keep losing, but with a decent expected goals figure, you’re probably not playing too bad as you’re creating good quality chances. Likewise, if you’re winning but with low expected goals, then you’re getting away with it a bit and might be due a downturn.
It gives a bit of context to those short highlights edits on MOTD as it’s a better indicator of a team’s threat than the more or less pointless “possession” figure.
It’s also, like 99% of football stats, extraordinarily tedious compared to just watching the game and making your own mind up.
It gives a bit of context to those short highlights edits on MOTD as it’s a better indicator of a team’s threat than the more or less pointless “possession” figure.
It’s also, like 99% of football stats, extraordinarily tedious compared to just watching the game and making your own mind up.
Actually pretty sure all that is driven by the betting industry as their need to make statistical analysis of everything needs it. When most people bet on horse racing bookie's jobs were pretty straight forward. 10 horses running and punters would pick 1 to win. Then there was a gradual transition to most betting being on football and the trouble is 2 teams playing so punters betting on team 1 or
team 2 to win isn't great odds for bookies. Meant they had to introduce all the player X to score first stuff as it put odds back in their favour. Trouble is they need to know the likelihood of players X scoring first. So every aspect of the game is now quantified.
team 2 to win isn't great odds for bookies. Meant they had to introduce all the player X to score first stuff as it put odds back in their favour. Trouble is they need to know the likelihood of players X scoring first. So every aspect of the game is now quantified.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 10,675
EDIT: ^^ what he said
It's probably got a huge usage by bookies in creating their odds. It's probably one of the algorithms that Tony knows how to exploit in his day job.
It's probably got a huge usage by bookies in creating their odds. It's probably one of the algorithms that Tony knows how to exploit in his day job.
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 14,847
It's a load of old bobbins. IMO, like...
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
It doesn't make any sense. It's like it's the "if my granny had bollocks" stat.
Are they saying palace would've scored more of their strikers weren't so shit
Are they saying palace would've scored more of their strikers weren't so shit
Are they saying palace would've scored more of their strikers weren't so shit
That's *EXACTLY* what they are saying!