everything that makes giroud special(elite link-up/one touch passes etc) would be completely wasted for a lower quality team.
giroud excels in tight spaces(a quality which is necessary for top teams) while worse teams are much better off with pacey bullies instead(lukaku) who are better isolated alone and with space to run into

Then how do you measure CLUTCH!?

My point was that equity wise your team will score more if you get better xG chances to a striker that excels in better xG chances and the other way around.
Something like this. 0.8*0.8+0.2*0.2>0.8*0.2+0.2*0.8


There is a chance I didn't quite get xG yet

Suarez wasn't on either list meaning he isn't over or under performing xG largely I imagine.

on this day

Too true

Just had the most bizarre discovery moment of my life. It turns out Mila Kounis does the voice of Meg in Family Guy! I've watched hundreds of episodes and have literally only just noticed her name in the credits, and Google filled in the rest of the blanks. No doubt I'm the only person on the planet who was not aware of this!

So the xg model doesn't rate Suarez? The 3rd best player in the world?

I think you may well be!



Mmmmm. Mila...

You've misunderstood. He just hasn't performed significantly well or badly enough to have been listed on those best/worse performers list, it doesn't mean the data isn't out there.

Company runs 7 days a week, 360 days a year. Weekend shifts are mostly super easy. Work week was Saturday - Wednesday.

it reckons that if you put suarez and carlos vela in identical scoring positions, vela is more likely to score

however, replace suarez with vela and your team's total xG will fall. in other words, vela takes his chances but he gets himself in far fewer scoring positions and creates fewer chances for his team mates

in even fewer words, model says suarez is less efficient but more productive

The same Carlos vela who fluffed like 8 legit sitters in the gold cup?

And what part of the model exactly states Suarez is more productive? Does productivity or efficiency determine better player. You can use goat Suarez v lol vela as an example

orlyments?



I still couldn't find any figures for this - is it just twitter poasts?

What is the mean and variance of the xG/50 figures?

Different q: What story are we being sold here?

XGoals is here to stay Im afraid.

Am I the only one who thinks the West Ham game is much more important for Liverpool than the Arsenal one? The West Ham game will give us a much better picture where we are.

which players have been most & least efficient on a per shot basis?

It meant per 50 shot attempts. So the very best players in the world out perform their xG by about 1 goal for every 50 shots.

It's rating this :

A player takes a shot. Based on a bunch of different data said shot has an average chance of being scored based on every time a similar chance has occurred. We compare the rate said player has scored all their chances vs the average that each of those chances is scored.

assume an idealised world in which every shot is taken in identical circumstances

team x with suarez up front will have 9 shots and score 2 goals

same team with vela up front will have 4 shots and score 1 goal

which is more efficient

as a fan of team x, which would you prefer

this is expressed in the form of suarez producing more xG than vela (ie your team will have more chances to score, or the chances you create will be of higher quality because suarez has dribbled past the entire defense and got himself 1 on 1 with the keeper, or some combo of the two factors)

this is not shown in the data aofrantic posted because it's per x rather than absolute #s

sorry - my internets are absolutely rooney-striker level the last few days. Right - but we need to know how many xG/50 each striker should be making. Obviously it varies depending on the average ev of each shot the players take

lol no - this is kinda the point, it doesn't tell you that - according to what is posted itt (at least if it doesn't tell you a lot more that what is posted in the thread).

meaningless without context of shots, but the headline is Messi-goat afaics

Sure, ldo. But it's clearly not a (particularly) useful measure.

----


Obv BAIDS is fighting the good fight here as well - apols for the slowhorsenessing

just 1 year of data but he way outperformed xG last year

So does xg tell me Ronaldo and Messi are tbitw at least? With honorable mentions to suarez neymar bale agüero hazard bayern etc ? I'll take eye test > xg nonsense all day if carlos vela is in the mix

its not per shot,

if a player took 10 shots from the half way line and failed to score on all of them he'd be something like a mere 0.05 goals below xG, because xG doesn't expect you to score very often from the half way line. you aren't punished for missing those 'chances'

if a different bloke missed an open goal from 6 yards out he'd be something like 0.99 goals below xG, because stevie wonder could've put it away

the first bloke has missed on 10 shots but is not doing as badly as the second bloke according to xG, despite the fact that the second bloke has only missed one shot.