| XG stats 08:39 - Apr 10 with 1215 views | Sawtrich |
XG is only a rough guide but I thought this was interesting, we're the only team in League One with an XG average above 2 per game and also the only team with an XGA average of less than 1 per game. If an impartial, unbiased metric has you as the best attack and best defence you're probably doing something right.
https://footystats.org/england/efl-league-one/xg |  | | |  |
| XG stats on 09:08 - Apr 10 with 1095 views | SheffordBlue |
The fact that our xG difference is nearly double that of the next team (Sheff Weds) is quite something and shows how we were underperforming our xG in the 'bad patch' around Christmas. |  |
| |
| XG stats on 09:14 - Apr 10 with 1052 views | NthQldITFC |
What's also noticeable is that we are major outliers in that data (both for xG and xGA) as well. There's something very different about ITFC compared to the rest of the third division. Over the next seven games, game by game we can prove it. |  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| XG stats on 09:36 - Apr 10 with 942 views | homer_123 |
At -.19 though....we aren't scoring as many as expected. |  |
| |
| XG stats on 10:46 - Apr 10 with 791 views | HighgateBlue |
| XG stats on 09:08 - Apr 10 by SheffordBlue |
The fact that our xG difference is nearly double that of the next team (Sheff Weds) is quite something and shows how we were underperforming our xG in the 'bad patch' around Christmas. |
I think this fact illustrates that having the best xG does not constitute having the best attack.
One could make a case that the team with the highest goals scored has the best attack. But I don't think that any single metric really proves that.
xG demonstrates it far less effectively. Imagine a team with an amazing midfield that sets up no end of chances such that the xG us very high, but they have a terrible strikeforce that doesn't convert them. That team doesn't have the best attack.
Having an xG figure that is off the scale, but a goals scored figure that is less in absolute terms, and is only a little ahead of other teams shows that you were expected to score lots of goals, but didn't manage to score as many as were expected. I don't see how that speaks terribly highly of the xG metric.
Also, the fact that xG is unbiased doesn't make it accurate, helpful or correct. It's like with the Duckworth Lewis method in cricket. It was terrible when it was first released, and then got refined over the years. I don't think we can have complete faith that xG accurately predicts the likelihood of particular chances being taken.
None of this is a criticism of Town or any of their players. We're doing marvellously and I'm very confident for today and beyond. I just think xG has its limitations inherently, and also when it's used to try to support a particular conclusion. |  | | |
| XG stats on 11:07 - Apr 10 with 721 views | NthQldITFC |
| XG stats on 10:46 - Apr 10 by HighgateBlue |
I think this fact illustrates that having the best xG does not constitute having the best attack.
One could make a case that the team with the highest goals scored has the best attack. But I don't think that any single metric really proves that.
xG demonstrates it far less effectively. Imagine a team with an amazing midfield that sets up no end of chances such that the xG us very high, but they have a terrible strikeforce that doesn't convert them. That team doesn't have the best attack.
Having an xG figure that is off the scale, but a goals scored figure that is less in absolute terms, and is only a little ahead of other teams shows that you were expected to score lots of goals, but didn't manage to score as many as were expected. I don't see how that speaks terribly highly of the xG metric.
Also, the fact that xG is unbiased doesn't make it accurate, helpful or correct. It's like with the Duckworth Lewis method in cricket. It was terrible when it was first released, and then got refined over the years. I don't think we can have complete faith that xG accurately predicts the likelihood of particular chances being taken.
None of this is a criticism of Town or any of their players. We're doing marvellously and I'm very confident for today and beyond. I just think xG has its limitations inherently, and also when it's used to try to support a particular conclusion. |
Unless xG has a team-specific conversion feedback loop, what it specifically doesn't do is predict the likelihood of chances being taken.
What it does do is predict the likelihood of chances being created (or prevented for xGA), which I think is pretty useful in giving you a clear idea of how close you are to being a very good team, as opposed to being certain of it. GD and promotion will be the best evidence of the latter. | |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| XG stats on 12:30 - Apr 10 with 586 views | Garv |
Considering we've scored the most and conceded the fewest that make perfect sense doesn't it? |  |
| |
| XG stats on 12:31 - Apr 10 with 579 views | bournemouthblue |
| XG stats on 11:07 - Apr 10 by NthQldITFC |
Unless xG has a team-specific conversion feedback loop, what it specifically doesn't do is predict the likelihood of chances being taken.
What it does do is predict the likelihood of chances being created (or prevented for xGA), which I think is pretty useful in giving you a clear idea of how close you are to being a very good team, as opposed to being certain of it. GD and promotion will be the best evidence of the latter. |
It's a good indicator of how potentially dangerous a side is
What it misses is the conversion rate, the impression I get is Plymouth have generally been a bit more clinical throughout the season
Which in itself a quality that good teams, always have to have to be a good team, it's as simple as that
It does feel that we spurned an awful a lot of chances earlier in the season without killing teams off
We now seem to have a more ruthless streak at both ends of the field, which is very encouraging |  |
| |
| XG stats on 12:41 - Apr 10 with 557 views | SheffordBlue |
| XG stats on 12:31 - Apr 10 by bournemouthblue |
It's a good indicator of how potentially dangerous a side is
What it misses is the conversion rate, the impression I get is Plymouth have generally been a bit more clinical throughout the season
Which in itself a quality that good teams, always have to have to be a good team, it's as simple as that
It does feel that we spurned an awful a lot of chances earlier in the season without killing teams off
We now seem to have a more ruthless streak at both ends of the field, which is very encouraging |
Plymouth only marginally more clinical from a shot conversion rate perspective. Earlier in the season they were scoring from a lot of very low quality chances though.
Shot Conversion Rate:
Barnsley 10.8%
Plymouth 10.6%
Ipswich 10.3%
Sheff Weds 9.1% | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| XG stats on 12:50 - Apr 10 with 544 views | PioneerBlue |
All this is for the end of the season.
They are all awesome but backward looking metrics, now we are only looking forwards at the next game.
One. Game. At. A. Time. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
