Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinarocket
This is just my opinion but from what I've noticed there's been a weird tendency itt where xG becomes the truth and the only truth. Such metric is there to help understanding results, everybody knows it has value everybody (should) knows it has flaws but analytics is all about context, you use the stats to help formulating hypothesis and opinions, the stats ARE NOT the opinion by themselves. Just my 2 cents I suspect most people are aware of this but i dunno i sometimes I read stuff and I wonder if people haven't been brainwashed by Ducksauce thinking that xG will give you 100% of the answer to your questions.
I agree there is far too much of this thinking ITT, and perhaps in football generally. If you're taking a decent critical approach, you consider both inductive and deductive approaches, so sometimes the question is data driven, and sometimes theory driven.
So a good example of using data to drive a theory was Comoli purportedly signing Henderson and Downing because they had good recovery stats in the final third. That information is useful, but it doesn't make them good players.
If you're judging players it's far better to use the the deductive approach, use the eye test first up, and then when you think you've identified a good player, see if the stats agree. If you take the inductive approach and check the stats first, then you will have already formed an opinion about that player and the conclusions of your eye-test will probably be biased - as well as possibly ignoring other decent players on show.