Xg from WBA game

[Ipad1977]

Ah chill your beans, we should still be top of the xG table I'd have thought, it's a marathon not a sprint, etc. etc.

 

[BoroPhil]

But we had..
Azazs saved shot and McGreees openish goal miss.
ELLs header that the keeper made an excellent save from.
Doaks 1 on 1 that their keeper pulled off another good save from.
ELLs header that he headed just wide from the subsequent corner.
Burgzorgs clear cut chance that he hit wide from Borges pass.
And an actual Goal.
How they get an xg of less than 1 from that I’m not sure!

Apparently
Azaz 0.05
McGree 0.3
Lath 0.05
Doak 0.16
Lath 0.07
Hackney 0.07
Burgzorg 0.09

Whereas Maja's was 0.89!

 

[TeaCider]

Apparently
Azaz 0.05
McGree 0.3
Lath 0.05
Doak 0.16
Lath 0.07
Hackney 0.07
Burgzorg 0.09

Whereas Maja's was 0.89!

That's b***ks then.

Maja was lucky to even get near the ball with his foot from where he was.

In no world was it a virtually guaranteed goal.

Assuming you mean the cross from Mowatt.

A penalty is only 0.75.

 

[Boro4life]

Dam the first xg defeat the season must improve on Saturday

 

[BoroPhil]

That's b***ks then.

Maja was lucky to even get near the ball with his foot from where he was.

In no world was it a virtually guaranteed goal.

Assuming you mean the cross from Mowatt.

A penalty is only 0.75.

Yep - certainly seems high

 

[Muttley]

Reinforces my opinion that xg is made up bollox. Maja was at full stretch and couldn't reach the ball. How is that an almost certain goal?

 

[speckyget]

Apparently
Azaz 0.05
McGree 0.3
Lath 0.05
Doak 0.16
Lath 0.07
Hackney 0.07
Burgzorg 0.09

Whereas Maja's was 0.89!

Well that's bòllocks for a start because it excludes xOG. Even though I've just made that up.

 

[Redwurzel]

BBC show we had 15 chances to their 11 - of those chances 4 of ours were on goal and only 1 of theirs.

 

[Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret]

We did get more xxg tho.

 

[RavsFan]

Not sure how I will recover from this

For a minute there I thought you must have been to V Edge already

 

[Corcaigh_the_Cat]

Apparently
Azaz 0.05
McGree 0.3
Lath 0.05
Doak 0.16
Lath 0.07
Hackney 0.07
Burgzorg 0.09

Whereas Maja's was 0.89!

It was an open goal to be fair, thankfully he didn't attempt to head it in.

 

[B_G]

xG doesn't take into account balance of player etc does it. I'm not even sure height of the ball comes into account either.

Lath's miss against Sunderland registered pretty high xG. 0.48. But he was off balance and the height of the ball as awkward. I understand how it would have been 0.48 from the same place but the ball.was grounded and he was balanced.

 

[Frozen Horse]

Regarding xG, how does it handle something like McGree's miss?

The miss came immediately after a decent chance and a good save from Azaz. I assume xG is smart enough not to count that as 2 separate Goal scoring opportunities.

McGree's chance doesn't happen if Azaz scores?

 

[Ravshoutsatbeck]

It was an open goal to be fair, thankfully he didn't attempt to head it in.

I think Maja has an open goal from 5 yards out. If you make contact you score 9 out of 10 times.

That seems reasonable to me.

It was relatively even on chances, but we played well and it is time a borderline one went our way.

 

[Laughing]

It's a load of rubbish, invented by youtubers and podcasters to give them some extra filler for added 'content'.

It really wasn't it was invented by Opta the biggest sports stats provider in the industry.

 

[Laughing]

The goal wouldn't have been in amongst the chances, otherwise just about every time someone received a ball around the box would count as one. It was a beautiful finish.

Every strike towards goal had an xg attached to it. If it's on target it had an xgot attached to it

 

[Laughing]

Regarding xG, how does it handle something like McGree's miss?

The miss came immediately after a decent chance and a good save from Azaz. I assume xG is smart enough not to count that as 2 separate Goal scoring opportunities.

McGree's chance doesn't happen if Azaz scores?

Both chances have an xg.

 

[Ravshoutsatbeck]

Both chances have an xg.

Both chances put together 0.35

One time out of 3 results in a goal.

Seems reasonable

 

[Frozen Horse]

Both chances have an xg.

Ok, but is the second adjusted for the first?

If the first chance is rated 0.5 xG (for sake of argument), is the xG for the second reduced proportionately? Surely it doesn't assume there was potential for us to score 2 goals from that passage of play?

Maybe not in the example we saw tonight, but if 2 sitters are missed, one after the other in the same passage of play, the xG on the chances combined cannot total more than 1?

 

[Ravshoutsatbeck]

Ok, but is the second adjusted for the first?

If the first chance is rated 0.5 xG (for sake of argument), is the xG for the second reduced proportionately? Surely it doesn't assume there was potential for us to score 2 goals from that passage of play?

Maybe not in the example we saw tonight, but if 2 sitters are missed, one after the other in the same passage of play, the xG on the chances combined cannot total more than 1?

The concept is that with those 2 chances most teams would have scored.

Very rarely do 2 chances equal above 1 - so it should read - with those 2 chances the majority of the time you would expect 1 goal