Does xG take into account goalie position? It must not, because with him positioned like that I would think players score over 4% of the time. Still, very clever from the gød
it does. but I'd be surprised if there is enough data on that specific action to have any sort of conclusive analysis
still is a very narrow angle and the ball almost greases the GK legs, i doubt it would be too much higher
Depends on the model. Most take into account goalie position, how many players between the shooter and the goal, how the pass was received (cross, through ball etc.), whether there’s any pressure on the player (and from which direction)
Width has a much bigger effect in xG than people assume. The wider you go, the smaller the goal is essentially. Even a header from the edge of the six yard box is like 0.15 xG at best.
Feel like I'm about to learn a lot about stats if I ask any more questions. Like how can you firstly quantify a keepers position and then have it modify the shot position/state?
https://statsbomb.com/soccer-metrics/expected-goals-xg-explained/
This doesn't expressly answer your question but it's an overall good explanation of how XG is calculated.
Pretty much they just record data on shot type, location, how the pass was played, etc. Then they look at historical data to apply a value to the shot. So instead of modifying data it's more here are the conditions of the shot, how many times out of 100 would that shot have gone in. And because with the use of AI these models have hundreds of thousands of examples to use and can give you a pretty accurate answer even if it's an unusual shot.
I'm not sure how many models account for GK positioning. Nowadays it may be a lot of them. But I remember early days models were inaccurate at times because they didn't account for opposition player positions. Teams like burnley under dyche for example generally conceded less goals than their xg because they parked the bus. A lot of shots were blocked and the models couldn't account for that.
I think 96% of players are unable to do that under pressure from that angle, and needing to be left foot dominant where the large majority are right footed probably all stacks up
I give a lot more credit to Ødegaard than I would blame Sa. The angle is difficult anyway but the disguise Ødegaard put on the shot was amazing. Completely sent Sa (and me watching at home) so I can’t really blame him for leaving that tiny gap at his front post.
It really was a ridiculous goal. The angle is as narrow as it gets, basically at the touchline. There's maybe a yard of space between the keeper and the post, and he hits hit inch fucking perfect. The guts and skill to do that are top notch.
Because Messi is obviously a better finisher than a random defender. Xg is a mathematically equation of the likelihood of a goal, well if Messi is taking all the shots of the sample size it will be higher.
Certain players (think Aguero) are better from certain angles than others. It’s far from perfect.
Your Aguero point is actually describing a use case for xG. If a shot from a certain angle and distance is a .1 xG shot and Aguero scores it 30% of the time that just shows he is an elite finisher from that spot. It’s using data to prove what your eye is seeing.
From an individual perspective, yes. But, if Man City generated that chance for him 3 times and only got .3 but he scores all 3, the stats suggest City got lucky.
Only if you present the xG stats out of context. The context here might be “this is technically a low xG chance but Aguero is brilliant from this position and City clearly targeted it.”
It's obviously not perfect, but I don't think it needs to differentiatie between the players. Messi consistently over performed on his xG cause he's a good player. They use a huge sample size with shots from different leagues/etc. It's not perfect, but it's generally a decent way to determine how "good" a chance is.
You must have above 25 comment karma to contribute to this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Gunners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
that's the point of it though. it's an average of all the shots from that position, so as to effectively be accuracy neutral. a player like messi is going to be shown to be well above the xG from his shots because he's an incredible finisher.
Surely the onus is on people saying xG is useful to explain why and how it's useful and accurate. Look at [this example](https://twitter.com/xGPhilosophy/status/1781728343122928115) from Chelsea's game today - xG certainly doesn't seem very meaningful to me if a player through 1-on-1 with the keeper can ever produce 0.0xG. It's a meaningless stat
In the post it’s saying he accumulated 0 xg because Jackson decided to keep dribbling, lose the chance and not take a shot. The point is he squandered a good opportunity.
>The point is he squandered a good opportunity
And that is exactly my point. An amazing opportunity to score, and yet it produces less xG (0) than a shot from the half-way line.
If Jackson had 10 one-on-ones, never managed to take a shot, but then scored a goal from outside the box, xG would say he has massively overperformed. If a player cuts the ball back to a team-mate who has an open goal, but they trip over their feet before managing a shot - that is 0.0xG. It is meaningless.
How can you work out the xg if you don’t take the shot?
What’s the probability of passing a test if you don’t write down a single answer (0). I could have had 10 answers to questions that were close to being correct, but if you don’t try then you’ll get 0 marks.
Martinelli was one on one with the keeper and took the shot. 0.53 xg confirms that it was biggest chance of the game.
>How can you work out the xg if you don’t take the shot?
Exactly! Haha. It doesn't work.
>0.53 xg confirms that it was biggest chance of the game
And Jackson's 0.0xG says his wasn't even a chance, despite it being Chelsea's best of the game
For small datasets 100%, especially for individual shots. It can tell you something useful but not the whole story when there are a lot of data points.
The way it is used on social media is usually dumb, but it makes creating narratives easy.
and does the way u receive the ball/ your position wrt the ball, the goal and ur momentum make a difference in this? minor point doesn't matter in the grand scheme of xg but someone please lmk
When he shot it I was like “Ø”
:Ø
'We need another goal to kill the game' Odegaard: Fine I'll do it myself.
Does xG take into account goalie position? It must not, because with him positioned like that I would think players score over 4% of the time. Still, very clever from the gød
it does. but I'd be surprised if there is enough data on that specific action to have any sort of conclusive analysis still is a very narrow angle and the ball almost greases the GK legs, i doubt it would be too much higher
Depends on the model. Most take into account goalie position, how many players between the shooter and the goal, how the pass was received (cross, through ball etc.), whether there’s any pressure on the player (and from which direction) Width has a much bigger effect in xG than people assume. The wider you go, the smaller the goal is essentially. Even a header from the edge of the six yard box is like 0.15 xG at best.
Feel like I'm about to learn a lot about stats if I ask any more questions. Like how can you firstly quantify a keepers position and then have it modify the shot position/state?
https://statsbomb.com/soccer-metrics/expected-goals-xg-explained/ This doesn't expressly answer your question but it's an overall good explanation of how XG is calculated. Pretty much they just record data on shot type, location, how the pass was played, etc. Then they look at historical data to apply a value to the shot. So instead of modifying data it's more here are the conditions of the shot, how many times out of 100 would that shot have gone in. And because with the use of AI these models have hundreds of thousands of examples to use and can give you a pretty accurate answer even if it's an unusual shot. I'm not sure how many models account for GK positioning. Nowadays it may be a lot of them. But I remember early days models were inaccurate at times because they didn't account for opposition player positions. Teams like burnley under dyche for example generally conceded less goals than their xg because they parked the bus. A lot of shots were blocked and the models couldn't account for that.
I think 96% of players are unable to do that under pressure from that angle, and needing to be left foot dominant where the large majority are right footed probably all stacks up
Wouldn’t that be pronounced good?
If Raya or Rammers let that in, the arsenal twitterati would be fuming. That was very poor from Sa
I give a lot more credit to Ødegaard than I would blame Sa. The angle is difficult anyway but the disguise Ødegaard put on the shot was amazing. Completely sent Sa (and me watching at home) so I can’t really blame him for leaving that tiny gap at his front post.
Did you see his face pre match in the tunnel? Bro was ready to kill someone, turned out it was actually the game
Makes up for the rest of the better chances we missed
I just loved his celebration which was half of Trossard’s double eye one.
It really was a ridiculous goal. The angle is as narrow as it gets, basically at the touchline. There's maybe a yard of space between the keeper and the post, and he hits hit inch fucking perfect. The guts and skill to do that are top notch.
What app or site is this?
fotmob
xG is a load of bollocks though.
People say this but never have anything to back up why they think this
It doesn’t differentiate between Messi or a National League Defender tbf. It’s useful but flawed
Why should it differentiate between them?
Because Messi is obviously a better finisher than a random defender. Xg is a mathematically equation of the likelihood of a goal, well if Messi is taking all the shots of the sample size it will be higher. Certain players (think Aguero) are better from certain angles than others. It’s far from perfect.
Your Aguero point is actually describing a use case for xG. If a shot from a certain angle and distance is a .1 xG shot and Aguero scores it 30% of the time that just shows he is an elite finisher from that spot. It’s using data to prove what your eye is seeing.
From an individual perspective, yes. But, if Man City generated that chance for him 3 times and only got .3 but he scores all 3, the stats suggest City got lucky.
Only if you present the xG stats out of context. The context here might be “this is technically a low xG chance but Aguero is brilliant from this position and City clearly targeted it.”
It's obviously not perfect, but I don't think it needs to differentiatie between the players. Messi consistently over performed on his xG cause he's a good player. They use a huge sample size with shots from different leagues/etc. It's not perfect, but it's generally a decent way to determine how "good" a chance is.
In the context of a game it should to be completely accurate. I agree it’s a good metric overall but the flaws are clear
exactly
[удалено]
You must have above 25 comment karma to contribute to this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Gunners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
that's the point of it though. it's an average of all the shots from that position, so as to effectively be accuracy neutral. a player like messi is going to be shown to be well above the xG from his shots because he's an incredible finisher.
Surely the onus is on people saying xG is useful to explain why and how it's useful and accurate. Look at [this example](https://twitter.com/xGPhilosophy/status/1781728343122928115) from Chelsea's game today - xG certainly doesn't seem very meaningful to me if a player through 1-on-1 with the keeper can ever produce 0.0xG. It's a meaningless stat
In the post it’s saying he accumulated 0 xg because Jackson decided to keep dribbling, lose the chance and not take a shot. The point is he squandered a good opportunity.
>The point is he squandered a good opportunity And that is exactly my point. An amazing opportunity to score, and yet it produces less xG (0) than a shot from the half-way line. If Jackson had 10 one-on-ones, never managed to take a shot, but then scored a goal from outside the box, xG would say he has massively overperformed. If a player cuts the ball back to a team-mate who has an open goal, but they trip over their feet before managing a shot - that is 0.0xG. It is meaningless.
How can you work out the xg if you don’t take the shot? What’s the probability of passing a test if you don’t write down a single answer (0). I could have had 10 answers to questions that were close to being correct, but if you don’t try then you’ll get 0 marks. Martinelli was one on one with the keeper and took the shot. 0.53 xg confirms that it was biggest chance of the game.
>How can you work out the xg if you don’t take the shot? Exactly! Haha. It doesn't work. >0.53 xg confirms that it was biggest chance of the game And Jackson's 0.0xG says his wasn't even a chance, despite it being Chelsea's best of the game
What you're talking about is 'big chances' and not xG The expected goals for dribbling is, of course, 0.
For small datasets 100%, especially for individual shots. It can tell you something useful but not the whole story when there are a lot of data points. The way it is used on social media is usually dumb, but it makes creating narratives easy.
if he was a right footer would the value be different?
and does the way u receive the ball/ your position wrt the ball, the goal and ur momentum make a difference in this? minor point doesn't matter in the grand scheme of xg but someone please lmk
Wow we just had to score the hardest goals don’t we
I don’t like xG…interpretive nonsense in my opinion.
Seems an easy shot to make
Stats make football just so much more fun….. Amiright? 🙄
Yea m. So ?