[Albion] Interesting Expected Points (based on XG) graph

[Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ]

Apologies if fixtures, but found this graph plotting Expected Points* against Actual Points.

You can look it it with a glass half empty or glass half full approach I suppose. It does underline the fact that we create very few chances in games which you'd think, in terms of points, would even over itself out over the course of the season - slightly concerning! We're overachieving now - how long can we sustain it?


https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...overachieving-the-data-suggests-they-could-be

*Expected points are calculated through expected goals, another advanced metric that’s made its way around the game in recent years, and has been the centre of much contentious debate over its use.Expected goals — or xG — assigns a quantitative value to every shot on goal, based on the quality of the assist, angle of the shot and distance to the goal. Every shot’s xG in a game is totalled and compared against the opponent’s xG, and an “expected winner” is then established and the expected points distributed.

 

[CaptainDaveUK]

So I take it from that graph that the Guardian expected Brighton to currently be bottom and Burnley second from bottom, well that doesn't seem right.

 

[Machiavelli]

It is interesting, but it just goes to show that unilke several sides we've faced of late (Newcastle and Wolves particularly spring to mind), we're very incisive.

 

[Machiavelli]

So I take it from that graph that the Guardian expected Brighton to currently be bottom and Burnley second from bottom, well that doesn't seem right.

Yeah. Lefty fake news peddling Guardian. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

 

[dazzer6666]

We’ve got Murray. Shove your stats up yer arse.

 

[Surrey Phil]

I guess that it takes into account the fixtures so far, as otherwise would you really expect Wolves to be 4th?

 

[knocky1]

1-0 to the Albion.

 

[Taybha]

 

[Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ]

So I take it from that graph that the Guardian expected Brighton to currently be bottom and Burnley second from bottom, well that doesn't seem right.

I guess that it takes into account the fixtures so far, as otherwise would you really expect Wolves to be 4th?

Nope, this graph is not based on opinion or fixtures but on statistical analysis based on xG. This was posted above, but incase you missed the explanation:

Expected points are calculated through expected goals, another advanced metric that’s made its way around the game in recent years, and has been the centre of much contentious debate over its use.Expected goals — or xG — assigns a quantitative value to every shot on goal, based on the quality of the assist, angle of the shot and distance to the goal. Every shot’s xG in a game is totalled and compared against the opponent’s xG, and an “expected winner” is then established and the expected points distributed.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Hughton out

 

[SussexSeahawk]

Expected goals and points are very useful tools, but I think most of the commonly quoted models are not very good at certain key aspects of modelling how good a chance really is.

One of the key ones I think is that they are bad at determining blocks, which is basically our whole defensive game-plan. Pretty much every game there will be a shot from inside the penalty area that one of Duffy or Dunk blocks and then we never think about again, but the various xG models count as a not insignificant chances for the opposition. The other team who (at least last season) defend in a similar way is Burnley and they had a very low expected points last season.

At the other end, Murray is obviously an excellent finisher and is primarily in the team for that role, so in the long run you would expect him to be scoring more goals than the average striker from the same set of chances.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

We’ve got Murray. Shove your stats up yer arse.

Which is also slightly concerning, if he was ruled out, or loses form, for any length of time.

 

[sydney]

View attachment 101927

 

[dadams2k11]

Couldn't give a toss about xG. All I care about are the points on the board and league position.

 

[dazzer6666]

Expected goals and points are very useful tools, but I think most of the commonly quoted models are not very good at certain key aspects of modelling how good a chance really is.

One of the key ones I think is that they are bad at determining blocks, which is basically our whole defensive game-plan. Pretty much every game there will be a shot from inside the penalty area that one of Duffy or Dunk blocks and then we never think about again, but the various xG models count as a not insignificant chances for the opposition. The other team who (at least last season) defend in a similar way is Burnley and they had a very low expected points last season.

At the other end, Murray is obviously an excellent finisher and is primarily in the team for that role, so in the long run you would expect him to be scoring more goals than the average striker from the same set of chances.

Think Murray is scoring more (per shot) than any other striker....not just the average. I did see a stat somewhere a couple of weeks ago but can’t find it now. He had a ridiculous conversion rate

 

[Napper]

Wolves below what they expected . Not having that . . .. unless its what their fans expected , in which case they wouldn't of expected to lose a point.

 

[nickbrighton]

Nope, this graph is not based on opinion or fixtures but on statistical analysis based on xG. This was posted above, but incase you missed the explanation:

Expected points are calculated through expected goals, another advanced metric that’s made its way around the game in recent years, and has been the centre of much contentious debate over its use.Expected goals — or xG — assigns a quantitative value to every shot on goal, based on the quality of the assist, angle of the shot and distance to the goal. Every shot’s xG in a game is totalled and compared against the opponent’s xG, and an “expected winner” is then established and the expected points distributed.

this just further goes to show what a complete load of tosh all these XG and other stats really are. Its a case of emperors new clothes. Its on TV , its on some video game, some pundit mentioned it so it must be important. Its primarily used to give commentatots more crap to espouse on TV and betting. companies some reason to give odds. Its actually completely meaningless in the real world

 

[Mellotron]

Nowhere does this take into account that we have the best striker and the best GK-CB combo outside the top 6. Pretty vital to results really.

 

[Wilko]

I think it is useful to learn something from this. We got away with three 1-0 wins in a row against teams that just could not put chances away (plus some resolute defending). What we learnt on Saturday though was that if you keep these tactics against a better side you will get your butt kicked whilst creating very little (one shot on target. Letting a profligate Newcastle take 25 shots at you in a game is one thing, do that against better teams then it is game over.

Whilst I love CH I think he does have a default away performance which is bore the utter 5h1t out of the came and hope you get a chance. My worry is that because that worked at Newcastle we will now set up exactly the same away for the entire season. Same happened last season, we got a 1-0 at Swansea then proceeded to follow this set up for the next 6 months achieving no away wins whatsoever.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Think Murray is scoring more (per shot) than any other striker....not just the average. I did see a stat somewhere a couple of weeks ago but can’t find it now. He had a ridiculous conversion rate

According to the Premier League website Murray conversion rate is around 43% by comparison Sergio Aguero is just 14%, Salah is 12%, Kane 16%, Aubameyang 32% and Hazard 26%.

He's got to be one of, if not the most clinical strikers in the PL based on that stat.