Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

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

wykikitoon

By wykikitoon,
in Newcastle Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 484
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ewerk
ewerk

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

Howmanheyman
Howmanheyman

"Welcome to the Etihad for Manchester City versus Liverpool and we'd just like to apologise to any viewers who may have heard or seen another game earlier on. Again, we can only apologise for interrup

PaddockLad
PaddockLad

Ha! Didn’t go!   

Posted Images

Gemmill

Gemmill 51519

Posted
Posted
  On 24/02/2025 at 08:14, PaddockLad said:

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

Expand  

 

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. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemmill

Gemmill 51519

Posted
Posted

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. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ewerk

ewerk 33686

Posted
Posted
  On 24/02/2025 at 07:59, 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. 

Expand  

 

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

 

Fucking statistics.

  • Haha 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Holden McGroin

Holden McGroin 7787

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 24/02/2025 at 09:00, ewerk said:

 

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

 

Fucking statistics.

Expand  

 

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 by Holden McGroin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Howmanheyman

Howmanheyman 37387

Posted
Posted

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. 

  • Haha 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
thebrokendoll

thebrokendoll 10585

Posted
Posted
  On 24/02/2025 at 08:24, 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. 

Expand  

 

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?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaddockLad

PaddockLad 19408

Posted
Posted
  On 24/02/2025 at 09:41, Gemmill said:

 

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

 

Expand  


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 :cuppa: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

  I accept