Howe's Half Arsed Wank Pots v Nuno's Affable Scab Bastards

[toonotl 3394]

4 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

2.11 v 0.69 expected points from this one. Forest got what they deserved from the game, despite what happened in the second half. 

 

[Holden McGroin 7471]

How can an XG be 0.69 when they had two absolute tap ins? 😂

Edited 23 hours ago by Holden McGroin

[Gemmill 49415]

Just now, Holden McGroin said:

How can an XG be 0.69 when they had two absolute tap ins? 😂

 

Expected POINTS. 

[Holden McGroin 7471]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

 

Expected POINTS. 

Ah, my mistake.

[Gemmill 49415]

3.46 v 2.39 xG. 

[PaddockLad 18881]

So, rolling back the years here….does anyone want to explain Xpoints?   how are we measuring that particular parcel of imaginary made up fuckin bollocks? 😀

[Holden McGroin 7471]

1 minute ago, PaddockLad said:

So, rolling back the years here….does anyone want to explain Xpoints?   how are we measuring that particular parcel of imaginary made up fuckin bollocks? 😀

Surely it’s just a derivative of xG? 

[Gemmill 49415]

2 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

So, rolling back the years here….does anyone want to explain Xpoints?   how are we measuring that particular parcel of imaginary made up fuckin bollocks? 😀

 

For probably the 7th time.... 

 

Take each shot or header with an XG value for both teams. Each shot/header is considered standalone, so a 0.10xg shot, would result in a goal in 10% if the simulations. 

 

Run that through a model 10,000 times. 

 

Each time you do it, that simulation has a specific match result. 

 

Then you multiply out the percentages of the results. 

 

So if Newcastle win 60%, draw 30%, and lose 10%, it's:

 

60% x 3 points = 1.80

30% x 1 point = 0.30

10% x 0 points = 0.00

 

Total xP = 2.10

 

It's a good system cos it takes into account quality of chances. If you have a team that has 10 shots on target, all with 0.10xG, you'd expect no goal from those 90% of the time (for each shot). So running that through the model vs a team that had 4 shots each with 0.25xG.

 

Total xG for each team is 1xG. But the model will spit out different results because it considers the probabilities on a chance by chance basis, rather than just adding them up. 

[thebrokendoll 10172]

 

what the fuck is this shite?

[Holden McGroin 7471]

Stats porn.

[Gemmill 49415]

It's just the thing that Matthew Benham and Tony Bloom have made their fortunes from, and the basis upon which major decisions are made at successful football clubs. 

 

Nothing for you plebs to worry about.

 

Continue with your "if there'd been another five minutes OMG" disaster scenarios. I'll stick with the stats that don't trouble themselves with minutes that weren't played. 

[ewerk 32896]

1 hour ago, Gemmill said:

2.11 v 0.69 expected points from this one. Forest got what they deserved from the game, despite what happened in the second half. 

 

What really matters is that we took all 2.8 points home.

 

Fucking statistics.

[Holden McGroin 7471]

The Stats war of 2025 begins. It's been a while. 

Edited 22 hours ago by Holden McGroin

[Holden McGroin 7471]

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

What really matters is that we took all 2.8 points home.

 

Fucking statistics.

 

If we don't get to the magical 3 XP do we not deserve it? Therefore it's an official draw and we both take home 1 point each.

Edited 22 hours ago by Holden McGroin

[ewerk 32896]

2 minutes ago, Holden McGroin said:

The Stats war of 2025 begins. It's been a while. 

 

[Howmanheyman 36250]

Forest have put an official appeal in to the premier league as Andy Hinchcliffe wasn't sure about a free kick on Anthony Gordon about two phases before our equaliser. 

[thebrokendoll 10172]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

 

What really matters is that we took all 2.8 points home.

 

Fucking statistics.

 

using the protracted formula above it would appear we desperately unlucky not to have finished the game a record winning 13.7 points.

[Holden McGroin 7471]

Don't worry, we'll start using the xP total as the real table in the 2025-2026 season. Its the only way to be fair.

[Meenzer 16329]

7 minutes ago, Holden McGroin said:

 

If we don't get to the magical 3 XP do we not deserve it? Therefore it's an official draw and we both take home 1 point each.

 

Unfortunately Forest win on the away xG rule.

[thebrokendoll 10172]

49 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

For probably the 7th time.... 

 

Take each shot or header with an XG value for both teams. Each shot/header is considered standalone, so a 0.10xg shot, would result in a goal in 10% if the simulations. 

 

Run that through a model 10,000 times. 

 

Each time you do it, that simulation has a specific match result. 

 

Then you multiply out the percentages of the results. 

 

So if Newcastle win 60%, draw 30%, and lose 10%, it's:

 

60% x 3 points = 1.80

30% x 1 point = 0.30

10% x 0 points = 0.00

 

Total xP = 2.10

 

It's a good system cos it takes into account quality of chances. If you have a team that has 10 shots on target, all with 0.10xG, you'd expect no goal from those 90% of the time (for each shot). So running that through the model vs a team that had 4 shots each with 0.25xG.

 

Total xG for each team is 1xG. But the model will spit out different results because it considers the probabilities on a chance by chance basis, rather than just adding them up. 

 

I'm starting to buy in to this.

do you do it while the game is in play or mull it over on the journey home?

[Gemmill 49415]

Nice that I went to the trouble of explaining it to you fucking neckends though, eh. Despite knowing it would be too much for you. 

[Monkeys Fist 44901]

21 minutes ago, Holden McGroin said:

The Stats war of 2025 begins. It's been a while. 

I don’t fancy the Stats lads chances- if only there was a way to show that…

[PaddockLad 18881]

22 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Then you multiply out the percentages of the results. 

I hate to spoil your moment but that’s all you needed tbh  

 

 

[Gemmill 49415]

2 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

I hate to spoil your moment but that’s all you needed tbh  

 

 

 

Well I've explained the cunt to you multiple times, and you can never remember, so I doubt it.

 

[PaddockLad 18881]

6 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

Well I've explained the cunt to you multiple times, and you can never remember, so I doubt it.

 

I asked specifically about expected points; there was no need to delve far into the ancient history of whether someone who may or may not be qualified to take a subjective view of a goal scoring opportunity based on the subjective criteria laid down by someone else who may or may not be qualified to do so