Untitled

.

Attached: oh no no no.jpg (610x784, 143K)

xg is such a broken stat, espcially for individual games
it's just not right ever

why does this always happen with Luckerpool?

god wills it

Attached: 1544105241168.webm (480x270, 569K)

>muh xg
>muh stats

Attached: 1557822064064.png (888x539, 615K)

This, it average out over the season but dont look at it for one off games lmao

>it average out over the season
It really doesn't though. There are managers well known for consistently outdoing xG. Sometimes this is down to them being expert hoofball merchants, but sometimes it's just the tactics relying on creating few, but high quality chances. Basically xG is a stat that seems to deny clutch is a thing that exists

it doesn't average out for liverpool tho

oy vey

Attached: 5845454484897.jpg (1617x838, 289K)

>>muh stats
it's technically not a stat, it just shows the quality of the chances the teams got

pep's style is too strong it mostly put his players in the same conditions to score goals and not all players are good at scoring in those conditions. klopp exploits the talent of his players so often as they are above average players they outperform the average xG

>team with strong keeper and forwards over perform on xG models

I for one am shocked

It means they have bad finishers (Salah)

Ignore me, I misread the graph

A low cross into the box that *just* misses the tip of a strikers boot from 0.5 yards out counts as 0.00 xG

It's stupid.

indeed it doesn't take into account chances

How is that stupid?

It's a decent guideline though. If the xG values from these matches continue for City and Liverpool, City will have a much better chance of having more points at the end of the season

Because of you replay the chance over and over again the expected number of goals resulting from it will not be zero

Liverpool defied xG all of last season

Not by THAT much though. If it just happened so that City "win" every game 3-0 in xG and Liverpool "lose" 1.9-1.5, City will still win the title with ease even if Liverpool defy xG by getting an extra point every 3 games.

>There are managers well known for consistently outdoing xG.
No there aren't

Favre is well known for outperforming xG to the tune of 20%, going back to his BMG days and likely even further back if they'd already been recording it back then

>the measurement used to assess quality of shots on goal doesn't take into account events that aren't shots on goal so it's stupid

backwards country

kek

>the one shot by Spurs that didn't go in was from the halfway line

>This, it average out over the season but dont look at it for one off games lmao
Why not? It gives a good indicator for which teams were better than the other in a match you fucking spaz

yeh, obviously it's limited in that respect. i'd like to see a "situational" xg which accounts for good positional chances that don't turn into shots. not sure how it would be done though