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

[Gemmill 52027]

46 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

I do, sorry.

 

Schar - the stat would suggest he'd score one time out of four. He was 8 yards out centre of goal in front of any defender, under little pressure, and meeting a perfectly pacey, flighted ball at perfect height. If he missed that 3 times out of four he wants shot with shit.

 

Isak, His little blue star may be outside the D but he was under no pressure, no defender within 6 foot of him and the keeper was out of position/on his heels because ball was given away. The replay angle from behind Isak perfectly shows how much goal he had to aim at, to suggest Isak (or even Shola) would miss that 96 times out of a hundred is just not realistic.

 

Those probabilities are based on tens of thousands of actual real world shots/headers from actual real world games, from those exact same positions on the pitch. So you can disagree as much as you like, but you're wrong on the facts. This isn't about your opinion or the opinion of whoever came up with those xG scores. 

[Toonpack 12019]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

 

Those probabilities are based on tens of thousands of actual real world shots/headers from actual real world games, from those exact same positions on the pitch. So you can disagree as much as you like, but you're wrong on the facts. This isn't about your opinion or the opinion of whoever came up with those xG scores. 

@Monkeys Fist 

[Monkeys Fist 46063]

Since it’s Gemmill, who’s a bit “special”, I’ll go round his and wipe my hoop STANDING  in front of his living room window instead. 
 

 

 

But, anyone else, Quiffed. 
 

 

No quibbles, no skinchies , no takesy backsies 

 

 

 

[Gemmill 52027]

Basically what MF is saying is I know what I'm talking about. If one of the fucking simps pipes up, they're gone. 

 

I support this. 

[Toonpack 12019]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

Basically what MF is saying is I know what I'm talking about. If one of the fucking simps pipes up, they're gone. 

 

I support this. 

 

So you expect Alexander Isak to miss that chance 96 times out of a hundred, aye ?

[ewerk 33965]

16 minutes ago, Renton said:

So then my take from thus is that xG only take account the final touch of the ball, is that right? If that's the case I think it's a canny useless stat and it explains the anomalous score last night. Surely the whole attacking build up needs to be considered? 

 

Don't worry, of course there's a stat for that.

 

https://www.statsperform.com/opta-event-definitions/#:~:text=Expected assists (xA) measures the,point and length of pass.

[Gemmill 52027]

2 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

So you expect Alexander Isak to miss that chance 96 times out of a hundred, aye ?

 

As I've explained on multiple occasions, it's not about my expectations or anybody else's. It's not a matter of opinion. Nor is it about Isak specifically. I'm done talking about this with you. Either you're stupid or you're pretending to be, the experience for the person talking to you about it is the same. 

[Monkeys Fist 46063]

Shall I knock on all the neighbours doors before I snip one off on the path? 

[Rayvin 6382]

10 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Basically what MF is saying is I know what I'm talking about. If one of the fucking simps pipes up, they're gone. 

 

I support this. 

 

Are you using simp as short for simpleton? Because it has a changed meaning these days, and it sounds like you're calling them out for subscribing to your only fans...

[Gemmill 52027]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

Are you using simp as short for simpleton? Because it has a changed meaning these days, and it sounds like you're calling them out for subscribing to your only fans...

 

Simpleton, aye. They would also subscribe to my only fans if I had one though, so that works too. 

[Gemmill 52027]

 

Toonpack's kinda people chatting Newcastle. 

 

 

[Monkeys Fist 46063]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

 

Simpleton, aye. They would also subscribe to my only fans if I had one though, so that works too. 

Before I sign up, what level of magnification is on your camera lens? 

[Ayatollah Hermione 15022]

Some of you lot need busier jobs 

[The Fish 11392]

1 hour ago, Renton said:

So then my take from thus is that xG only take account the final touch of the ball, is that right? If that's the case I think it's a canny useless stat and it explains the anomalous score last night. Surely the whole attacking build up needs to be considered? 

 

That's xGChain

[Billy Whitehurst 1064]

I don't know if it has been mentioned on here (as I couldn't be arsed trawling through the xG drivel) but Pope did very well on the penalty. Feigned to go to his right just as Eze went to strike the ball which made Eze's mind up to go to Pope's left.

 

Murphy also, what a transformation. That's what investing time into coaching players gets you rather than being a lazy thin skinned, fat bodied, snide who relies on his son to stick up for him on social media. 

 

Anyway, I'll let you get back to the xG now, apologies for derailing the thread with an observation about the actual fucking match.

Edited Thursday at 14:42 by Billy Whitehurst

[The Fish 11392]

4 hours ago, David Kelly said:

This is well put.  I think real question is not whether XG is useful, it's how useful it is for supporters.  In analysis of how your team is doing and how players (particularly strikers) are doing, I'm sure it's very useful.  But showing it to the masses on a quick rundown alongside more traditional stats like possession and shots on target on MOTD or after the match on Sky doesn't really offer that much especially when it's clearly not even understood by the people who are using it.  And of course when it comes up with results like last night, it is more likely to confuse than enlighten.

 

I think that's more an indictment of the mouth breathers they drag in front of tv cameras for the match.

[The Fish 11392]

2 minutes ago, Billy Whitehurst said:

I don't know if it has been mentioned on here (as I couldn't be arsed trawling through the xG drivel) but Pope did very well on the penalty. Feigned to go to his right just as Eze went to strike the ball which made Eze's mind up to go to Pope's left.

 

Murphy also, what a transformation. That's what investing time into coaching players gets you rather than be a proper thin skinned, fat bodied, snide who relies on his son to stick up for him on social media. 

 

Anyway, I'll let you get back to the xG now, apologies for derailing the thread with an observation about the actual fucking match.

[Toonpack 12019]

1 hour ago, Gemmill said:

 

As I've explained on multiple occasions, it's not about my expectations or anybody else's. It's not a matter of opinion. Nor is it about Isak specifically. I'm done talking about this with you. Either you're stupid or you're pretending to be, the experience for the person talking to you about it is the same. 

 

So you agreed with Isak's xG (from the distillation of tens of thousands of games) but it's not about Isak specifically in the context of last nights game. Aye ok.

 

It enhances my enjoyment of watching (or understanding) a game not one iota, it can also at the individual game level be thoroughly misleading for someone who didn't see it.

 

(We weren't particularly clinical and certainly not lucky)

 

[Gemmill 52027]

1 minute ago, Toonpack said:

 

So you agreed with Isak's xG (from the distillation of tens of thousands of games) but it's not about Isak specifically in the context of last nights game. Aye OK. 

 

I mean what are you even fucking talking about.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4330]

13 minutes ago, Billy Whitehurst said:

I don't know if it has been mentioned on here (as I couldn't be arsed trawling through the xG drivel) but Pope did very well on the penalty. Feigned to go to his right just as Eze went to strike the ball which made Eze's mind up to go to Pope's left.

 

Murphy also, what a transformation. That's what investing time into coaching players gets you rather than being a lazy thin skinned, fat bodied, snide who relies on his son to stick up for him on social media. 

 

Anyway, I'll let you get back to the xG now, apologies for derailing the thread with an observation about the actual fucking match.

It makes you wonder what Murphy could hav achieved by being under a Howe like manager at a younger age.

[Dr Gloom 24171]

4 hours ago, Gemmill said:

 

He scored from outside the D. It's the little blue star just in front of the D in the graphic below. Think of how many shots from there go in. It's a really low proportion man. Think of all that are blazed over, wide, are just terrible shots, or are saved. I have no problem believing that, on average, 4% of shots from there result in a goal. 1 in every 25 shots seems reasonable to me.

 

It's why you don't see anywhere near as many long shots these days, and why Man City spend forever building up around the box. 

 

 

 

https://understat.com/match/26890

 

Visit that link and you can tap on all of our chances and all of Palace's and it'll tell you the xG for them. The two big circles are Isak chances. 

sort of explains the modern obsession with creating the perfect high value opportunity. The stats can be helpful but it’s also made the game more boring at times. When you’ve got players who can strike the ball as well as ours it can be infuriating watching them recycle the ball around the box, a’la Man City, instead of hitting it when a shooting chance opens up. I’m glad our lads have started taking more risks and having a pop. The Murphy one is a great example. If you’re feeling juicy, why not have a go? The first only one on that graphic which looks ridiculously low on the xG is the one from miles out which I presume was Schar’s effort 

[Gemmill 52027]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

sort of explains the modern obsession with creating the perfect high value opportunity. The stats can be helpful but it’s also made the game more boring at times. When you’ve got players who can strike the ball as well as ours it can be infuriating watching them recycle the ball around the box, a’la Man City, instead of hitting it when a shooting chance opens up. I’m glad our lads have started taking more risks and having a pop. The Murphy one is a great example. If you’re feeling juicy, why not have a go? The first only one on that graphic which looks ridiculously low on the xG is the one from miles out which I presume was Schar’s effort 

 

 

Aye it was Schar. 

 

[Toonpack 12019]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

 

I mean what are you even fucking talking about.

 

 

Christ, how hard can it be 🙄

 

You stated you had no issue with the xG attributed to Isak's chance/goal, that stat was 0.04 i.e. he only had a four hundredth of a chance to score - preposterous.

 

Now, the position he was on the pitch may produce goals four times out of a hundred, but the circumstances surrounding his chance (defenders nowhere, keeper in no mans land) mean his xG should have been 75% at least.

[Gemmill 52027]

1 minute ago, Toonpack said:

 

Christ, how hard can it be 🙄

 

You stated you had no issue with the xG attributed to Isak's chance/goal, that stat was 0.04 i.e. he only had a four hundredth of a chance to score - preposterous.

 

Now, the position he was on the pitch may produce goals four times out of a hundred, but the circumstances surrounding his chance (defenders nowhere, keeper in no mans land) mean his xG should have been 75% at least.

 

75%.

 

You're just ridiculous. Same as your patter about Schar's header. 

 

Begone. 

[Toonpack 12019]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

 

75%.

 

You're just ridiculous. Same as your patter about Schar's header. 

 

Begone. 

 

 

75% is a damn sight more realistic than four hundredths, if you actually watched the game.