| Expected goals 23:28 - Aug 12 with 2522 views | stowmarketrange |
They just showed a stat at the end of the Palace v Huddersfield game on motd that Palace had an expected goals ratio of 1.09?The Huddersfield figure was 0.49,but they won 3-0.
Wtf is expected goals (xg) and how do they work this rubbish out?
It looks like it's at the end of every game. [Post edited 12 Aug 2017 23:35]
|  | | |  |
| Expected goals on 03:37 - Aug 13 with 2418 views | PlanetHonneywood |
First off, I rarely, if at all, watch the BBC's coverage of football. The inane rubbish talked, dull people delivering it etc. I think they've forgotten that when push comes to shove; it's the goals, saves and incidents that matter most, not ex-pro chummy pundit's view/analysis!!
Just shut up and show the bloody football. |  |
| |
| Expected goals on 06:48 - Aug 13 with 2338 views | Watford_Ranger |
I don't know the exact calculation but it's commonly used in the betting industry in some form or other to essentially work out which team 'deserved' to win a game based on time spent attacking, shots etc. so in theory if a team wins a few games but lost on expected goals, the bookies might be willing to take them on while the punter might see it as a great price. |  | | |
| Expected goals on 06:58 - Aug 13 with 2321 views | stowmarketrange |
| Expected goals on 06:48 - Aug 13 by Watford_Ranger |
I don't know the exact calculation but it's commonly used in the betting industry in some form or other to essentially work out which team 'deserved' to win a game based on time spent attacking, shots etc. so in theory if a team wins a few games but lost on expected goals, the bookies might be willing to take them on while the punter might see it as a great price. |
Thanks.That almost clears it up. | | | |
| Expected goals on 08:30 - Aug 13 with 2188 views | rsonist |
Here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40699431
http://statsbomb.com/2013/08/goal-expectation-and-efficiency/
http://statsbomb.com/2017/08/xg-is-on-tv-now-what/
xG is a cornerstone in the nascent field of football analytics (not a "betting thing" per se, although Matthew Benham did make his money that way through SmartOdds and has applied the same processes to Brentford). In Benham's words:
"The key thing to understand about analytics is we are talking about a model. It is not reality. It is a model of reality. Too many think models are the truth. You absolutely a hundred per cent still need the old school input from scouts, just not on its own. There is room for subjective judgement, as long as it is part of a bigger picture."
Like any statistics they can be illuminating or inane depending on how they are being interpreted. It's just as much a "game of opinions" as Shearer and co's brain-dead drivel - the third link there explains how xG is not a single magic number that is meant to immediately clarify everything.
Unfortunately it seems the Beeb have done little more than bung it on screen without explanation to leave people scratching their heads and feeling resentful most probably. |  | | |
| Expected goals on 08:31 - Aug 13 with 2186 views | colinallcars |
How about the "colouful" graphics used throughout Final Score yesterday - a sickly yellow and blue that had me reaching for the sunglasses. A couple of years back they started playing pop music in the background while reading the results. They seem to think football is just for little children and imbeciles. |  | | |
| Expected goals on 08:51 - Aug 13 with 2124 views | stowmarketrange |
I googled it this morning and read the daily mirror version and they seemed to imply that it's mainly to do with the quality of chances by a team or player.Surely that means that it's more open to subjective opinion than any other stats because how do you define different chances that a team or a player has? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
