Sir Eddie’s majestic mags v that prat Parish’s Palace - On him be pleased to pour

[MrBass 3139]

9 hours ago, Dr Gloom said:

I don’t mind xg in principle but it isn’t infallible. We fucking battered them. There’s no way they should have a higher xg than us. Isak shoukd have scored four. The one he scored was the hardest of his many chances.  What did Palace create other than the penalty? It was mostly potshots from outside the box, which surely should have created less xg than the chances we created. It was one way traffic for 90 minutes 

 

This.

 

How come Palace's missed chances count for their xG yet ours don't. I could get my head around it if the 5 we scored were our only chances of the game but we had loads, where's the xG for the ones we missed?

[Gemmill 52071]

It's all in there. Of course our missed chances count too. The goals we scored only add up to 0.62 xG on the Understat model I posted. But we got total xG of 2.33, so the remainder comprised our missed chances. 

 

So another 1.7 or so xG for our missed chances. 

[Holden McGroin 7860]

0.62 xG for 5 goals 😁

 

Murphy’s was an unexpected thunderbastard. Schars header was probably worth 0.6 on its own. 

[Gemmill 52071]

It was 0.28 for Schar's. 0.27 for Barnes. 0.03 for Murphy, 0.04 for Isak. 

[Gemmill 52071]

The idea that a header from where Schar headed his chance results in a goal 60% of the time btw.

 

[Toonpack 12035]

4 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

The idea that a header from where Schar headed his chance results in a goal 60% of the time btw.

 

 

True, given the relative positions of all the players and the quality of delivery, it should be nearer 80%

[Gemmill 52071]

Wilful ignorance is still ignorance. 

[Alex 37633]

24 minutes ago, Holden McGroin said:

0.62 xG for 5 goals 😁

 

Murphy’s was an unexpected thunderbastard. Schars header was probably worth 0.6 on its own. 

I’d expect all the goals we scored to have an xG of 1.0

[toonotl 3567]

Clearly we won because our players don't believe in xG. Only works if you believe in it.

[Toonpack 12035]

1 minute ago, toonotl said:

Clearly we won because our players don't believe in xG. Only works if you believe in it.

Even god doesn't do that.

 

🎶

I can't remember if I sighed

When Sky put up their xG slide

But something told me that it lied

The day the xG died

🎶

[thebrokendoll 10787]

imagine (™rtg) waking up in the morning and the first thing you do is carry on with this ludicrous xg crusade. 

[Gemmill 52071]

I'm like a missionary trying to bring civilisation to a fucking backwards tribe of simps. 

[MrBass 3139]

1 hour ago, Gemmill said:

It's all in there. Of course our missed chances count too. The goals we scored only add up to 0.62 xG on the Understat model I posted. But we got total xG of 2.33, so the remainder comprised our missed chances. 

 

So another 1.7 or so xG for our missed chances. 

 

The stuff you posted makes more sense than the nonsense Sky were peddling last night.

[Toonpack 12035]

4 minutes ago, MrBass said:

 

The stuff you posted makes more sense than the nonsense Sky were peddling last night.

 

A fucking chimpanzee with crayons would make more sense than what Sky put up last night.

Edited Thursday at 07:58 by Toonpack

[wykikitoon 23654]

People going on like lsak hasn't scored in months. He scored v Brentford 😂 that wasn't that long ago!

[Craig 7241]

17 minutes ago, MrBass said:

 

The stuff you posted makes more sense than the nonsense Sky were peddling last night.

As much as I don't get it, or like it, I appreciate the Gemmill & Fish both know what they're talking about with xG and therefore when you analyse what they post, it makes sense. 

I don't think Sky actually know any more about it than those of us taking the piss / asking questions in here do hence it comes across as nonsense.

[Monkeys Fist 46116]

3 hours ago, RobinRobin said:

Not sure you'd be welcome  

Reported. 

[Monkeys Fist 46116]

47 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

A fucking chimpanzee with crayons would make more sense than what Sky put up last night.

I love a bit of colouring in, cheeky fucker. 

[Rayvin 6401]

47 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

People going on like lsak hasn't scored in months. He scored v Brentford 😂 that wasn't that long ago!

 

For me it's not so much my feelings that he hasn't scored, more his visible frustration at himself or his teammates. There's even been a couple of times when someone else has scored and he almost seems annoyed. Barnes in particular tbh.

 

That's why I wanted him to score, not because I think he needs to but because he seems to think it.

[Dr Gloom 24198]

1 hour ago, Gemmill said:

I'm like a missionary trying to bring civilisation to a fucking backwards tribe of simps. 

what did you make of the xG modelling for yesterday’s game? I’m struggling to comprehend how Palace’s xG was 2 and ours was less than 2.
 

Okay, I get that Murphy’s goal was a screamer from an angle with a low xG probability and that their missed penalty inflated their figures but did they have any other big chances apart from that? Maybe I’m guilty of  looking at the game through black and white spectacles but I don’t remember being overly concerned by many of their chances and thinking we wasted at least 3-4 good opportunities on top of the 5 goals scored. 

[Toonpack 12035]

33 minutes ago, Craig said:

As much as I don't get it, or like it, I appreciate the Gemmill & Fish both know what they're talking about with xG and therefore when you analyse what they post, it makes sense. 

I don't think Sky actually know any more about it than those of us taking the piss / asking questions in here do hence it comes across as nonsense.

 

We saw a game that was incredibly one sided, ended up 5-0 and could/should have been more yet there's a statistic that indicates it was a close run thing. Given that evidence I would suggest that statistic is fundamentally flawed to the point of irrelevance.

[Dr Gloom 24198]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

For me it's not so much my feelings that he hasn't scored, more his visible frustration at himself or his teammates. There's even been a couple of times when someone else has scored and he almost seems annoyed. Barnes in particular tbh.

 

That's why I wanted him to score, not because I think he needs to but because he seems to think it.

I noticed that too. I think he’s like all the best strikers: hungry for goals and he still fancies the golden boot 

[David Kelly 1380]

31 minutes ago, Craig said:

As much as I don't get it, or like it, I appreciate the Gemmill & Fish both know what they're talking about with xG and therefore when you analyse what they post, it makes sense. 

I don't think Sky actually know any more about it than those of us taking the piss / asking questions in here do hence it comes across as nonsense.

Most of the presenters and pundits certainly know very little about it.  With a bit of investigation (or even Gemmill's explanations) it's not difficult to understand but games like last night make it more difficult to take seriously.  Even if the penalty had been given an XG of 1, I can't see how the rest of their chances add up to another 1.  I mean I can't even remember any other chances they had and certainly whoever put together the highlight packages of the match didn't consider any of them worth showing.  0 for the own goal also makes no sense.  I get the explanation but it's definitely a situation that provides us a good chance of scoring.  Again it just invalidates the usefulness of the stat.

 

Anyway I was glad all over at the performance and result.  Murphy keeps making me look a fool with the sheer amount of goal involvements he has (and most of his assists are proper assists not just one yard taps to someone who then scores a worldy) and I couldn't be happier for someone who genuinely loves being here and seems a thoroughly nice bloke.  And Tonali just gets more insanely superb every game.  I do feel we must be getting near the point where we should start giving him a rest at the end of games we're comfortable in.  Surely he can't keep making the runs he makes in the last ten minutes of games without eventually harming himself.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4334]

1 hour ago, Gemmill said:

I'm like a missionary trying to bring civilisation to a fucking backwards tribe of simps. 

You mean you’re infecting everyone with syphilis?

[Toonpack 12035]

3 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

You mean you’re infecting everyone with syphilis?

 

Toontastic's very own Jim Jones