Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Championship XG
Comments
-
I would suggest that’s probably unsustainable and we’ll see a mid season dip in form where the pack catches them as we saw last season...PolzeathNick said:
Crazy how far ahead Leeds arestackitsteve said:
2 -
But unless you're a bit thick, any attending Charlton fan will tell you that up to this point, we are very clinical.Callumcafc said:
I think both those suggestions are wrong. The data shows that we are, up to this point, very clinical.Dazzler21 said:
So it was wrong... And continues to be wrong.PolzeathNick said:As most would have spotted regardless of any stats, we were lucky on Saturday. XG had us losing 0.5-2.3.
The updated table sees that we should be sitting 10th, so still seemingly overachieving at this stage. But as alluded to above we seem to be finding something extra in terms of being very clinical, and reaching very strong positions in play.
Leeds still way out ahead on top. Should be 5 from 5, and 4 points clear. That 9/4 for the title is now long gone a best priced 5/4 and as short as 5/6 in a place!
Are we overachieving? Or just underrated?
Not a fan and not sure if it tells you anything accurately...
xG cannot predict every score every time but over a long period, it will get it right.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It seems to me the stats just confirm what has happened and anyone with a modicum of common sense will already know.
A bit similar to attendance stats, when the stats say we've had 14,000+ attendances this season in the league.
Well, if you were there and had a bit of common sense, you already know.2 -
As Ander Herrera said when he was at Bilbao, they were usually done by February because that's when they were physically spent. So I'd agree.Callumcafc said:
I would suggest that’s probably unsustainable and we’ll see a mid season dip in form where the pack catches them as we saw last season...PolzeathNick said:
Crazy how far ahead Leeds arestackitsteve said:0 -
What we don’t know is how we compare to the rest of the Championship, stats like this give us an idea.Covered End said:
But unless you're a bit thick, any attending Charlton fan will tell you that up to this point, we are very clinical.Callumcafc said:
I think both those suggestions are wrong. The data shows that we are, up to this point, very clinical.Dazzler21 said:
So it was wrong... And continues to be wrong.PolzeathNick said:As most would have spotted regardless of any stats, we were lucky on Saturday. XG had us losing 0.5-2.3.
The updated table sees that we should be sitting 10th, so still seemingly overachieving at this stage. But as alluded to above we seem to be finding something extra in terms of being very clinical, and reaching very strong positions in play.
Leeds still way out ahead on top. Should be 5 from 5, and 4 points clear. That 9/4 for the title is now long gone a best priced 5/4 and as short as 5/6 in a place!
Are we overachieving? Or just underrated?
Not a fan and not sure if it tells you anything accurately...
xG cannot predict every score every time but over a long period, it will get it right.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It seems to me the stats just confirm what has happened and anyone with a modicum of common sense will already know.
A bit similar to attendance stats, when the stats say we've had 14,000+ attendances this season in the league.
Well, if you were there and had a bit of common sense, you already know.
5 -
I feel like a lot of people are still missing the point of xG. The idea is that it rates chance quality and therefore gives another indication of how a team is playing. If a team nicks a couple of 1-0 wins, you might assume they’re hitting some good form; but if they’re winning because they’re fluking 30-yard strikes and the opposition are missing chances that most teams would score, that form is going to be unsustainable. Similarly, if a team is creating a lot of chances but not putting them away it could show that, despite results, they are playing well and on the right track (or it could show they need better finishers at the club!)
The point is that it rates how good the chances to score are, not just how many there were (e.g. if the basic stats show that the losing team had 30 shots at goal, you might think they should have won. If every one of those shots came from 40 yards out, you’d think they probably deserved not to.)
“But we know that from watching the game/highlights”
- Unless you have the time to watch every single game in the division every week, stats like these give a helpful indication, at a glance, of how many quality chances teams are creating. The alternative is reading post-match threads from every team and seeing how many people say “We missed a load of sitters, we should have won that.”
xG is that, just with a numerical value and without any supporter bias.
10 -
Is that the chart for televised appearances?PolzeathNick said:
Crazy how far ahead Leeds arestackitsteve said:4 -
It's there to put a number on it, it's nothing about common sense. xG isn't gospel, it's a stat to be used in context to what you are saying.Covered End said:
But unless you're a bit thick, any attending Charlton fan will tell you that up to this point, we are very clinical.Callumcafc said:
I think both those suggestions are wrong. The data shows that we are, up to this point, very clinical.Dazzler21 said:
So it was wrong... And continues to be wrong.PolzeathNick said:As most would have spotted regardless of any stats, we were lucky on Saturday. XG had us losing 0.5-2.3.
The updated table sees that we should be sitting 10th, so still seemingly overachieving at this stage. But as alluded to above we seem to be finding something extra in terms of being very clinical, and reaching very strong positions in play.
Leeds still way out ahead on top. Should be 5 from 5, and 4 points clear. That 9/4 for the title is now long gone a best priced 5/4 and as short as 5/6 in a place!
Are we overachieving? Or just underrated?
Not a fan and not sure if it tells you anything accurately...
xG cannot predict every score every time but over a long period, it will get it right.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It seems to me the stats just confirm what has happened and anyone with a modicum of common sense will already know.
A bit similar to attendance stats, when the stats say we've had 14,000+ attendances this season in the league.
Well, if you were there and had a bit of common sense, you already know.0 -
Is that an outlier, or was XG just utterly wrong? I’ll admit I don’t fully understand XG, but I do find it very irritating when a team is measured against it as it seems to me that’s more about the prediction being wrong than a team over or under performing.PolzeathNick said:Over the season their accuracy tends to get borne out. You do get exceptions though...Reading were a massive outlier a few seasons back when they got beat in the Playoff final by Huddersfield, and they should've been flirting with relegation!1 -
The following season Reading went from 3rd to 20th0
-
Which proves what?PolzeathNick said:The following season Reading went from 3rd to 20th
You are suggesting that XG was correct without factoring in changes in players, management, injuries, etc etc
Also where does XG factor in the goalkeeper? "Good" chances aren't always missed, often a keeper saves them.1 - Sponsored links:
-
As I recall their team didn't change that much, and as a consequence they reverted to the norm. I got a degree of abuse on here for backing them to go down that season (they stayed up by 3pts).
It does somewhat baffle me why people are so adverse to seeing hard data that can back up or be contrary to an opinion. Tony Bloom has bought a football club and become a billionaire with an army of people building this sort of data in a building in Camden. Matt Benham the Brentford owner is another one. Think I'd rather be on their side!1 -
I’ve no idea how many others have tried and failed. If they’re the only people to try it, and it worked, then great. But I’d still need more evidence for an experiment to draw a conclusion. I learnt that much in my science GCSE.PolzeathNick said:As I recall their team didn't change that much, and as a consequence they reverted to the norm. I got a degree of abuse on here for backing them to go down that season (they stayed up by 3pts).
It does somewhat baffle me why people are so adverse to seeing hard data that can back up or be contrary to an opinion. Tony Bloom has bought a football club and become a billionaire with an army of people building this sort of data in a building in Camden. Matt Benham the Brentford owner is another one. Think I'd rather be on their side!
I think the the main reason I don’t like it is, it sounds like hipster stuff that American Reddit pseudo-intellectuals spout. People who have never watched a live game, let alone played in one! Football is much harder to turn into an exact science than baseball.1 -
The stat quantifies our performance rather than just saying 'we are very clinical'Covered End said:
But unless you're a bit thick, any attending Charlton fan will tell you that up to this point, we are very clinical.Callumcafc said:
I think both those suggestions are wrong. The data shows that we are, up to this point, very clinical.Dazzler21 said:
So it was wrong... And continues to be wrong.PolzeathNick said:As most would have spotted regardless of any stats, we were lucky on Saturday. XG had us losing 0.5-2.3.
The updated table sees that we should be sitting 10th, so still seemingly overachieving at this stage. But as alluded to above we seem to be finding something extra in terms of being very clinical, and reaching very strong positions in play.
Leeds still way out ahead on top. Should be 5 from 5, and 4 points clear. That 9/4 for the title is now long gone a best priced 5/4 and as short as 5/6 in a place!
Are we overachieving? Or just underrated?
Not a fan and not sure if it tells you anything accurately...
xG cannot predict every score every time but over a long period, it will get it right.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It seems to me the stats just confirm what has happened and anyone with a modicum of common sense will already know.
A bit similar to attendance stats, when the stats say we've had 14,000+ attendances this season in the league.
Well, if you were there and had a bit of common sense, you already know.0 -
Got the syndicates in Asia doing the same thing too. If anything xG and its variants success is so well proven now that the market is too saturated (these have been around for 20+ years) and any edge now is so minute you have to bet in the sizes of Blooms, Benhams etc... to make it pay. I certainly can't find a significant edge in football these days to make it worth my while.JiMMy 85 said:
I’ve no idea how many others have tried and failed. If they’re the only people to try it, and it worked, then great. But I’d still need more evidence for an experiment to draw a conclusion. I learnt that much in my science GCSE.PolzeathNick said:As I recall their team didn't change that much, and as a consequence they reverted to the norm. I got a degree of abuse on here for backing them to go down that season (they stayed up by 3pts).
It does somewhat baffle me why people are so adverse to seeing hard data that can back up or be contrary to an opinion. Tony Bloom has bought a football club and become a billionaire with an army of people building this sort of data in a building in Camden. Matt Benham the Brentford owner is another one. Think I'd rather be on their side!
I think the the main reason I don’t like it is, it sounds like hipster stuff that American Reddit pseudo-intellectuals spout. People who have never watched a live game, let alone played in one! Football is much harder to turn into an exact science than baseball.0 -
Is that the Brentford owner who sacked his manager when they were near the top of the division only to then see them flop?
Reading did well and then did badly. XG doesn't prove or disprove that, it was already a proven fact.
Stats are fine but they just stats, it's the almost religious faith placed in them by somevthat is illogical.
Not everything, or even most things, in life fit neatly in statistical or other boxes.
People seek order in a chaotic world hence religion, conspiracy theories and over reliance on statistical models.
Football, far more than other sports, is random. That is its beauty.
0 -
Their accuracy is pretty unequivocal over time I'm afraidHenry Irving said:Is that the Brentford owner who sacked his manager when they were near the top of the division only to then see them flop?
Reading did well and then did badly. XG doesn't prove or disprove that, it was already a proven fact.
Stats are fine but they just stats, it's the almost religious faith placed in them by somevthat is illogical.
Not everything, or even most things, in life fit neatly in statistical or other boxes.
People seek order in a chaotic world hence religion, conspiracy theories and over reliance on statistical models.
Football, far more than other sports, is random. That is its beauty.0 -
Accuracy of what?PolzeathNick said:
Their accuracy is pretty unequivocal over time I'm afraidHenry Irving said:Is that the Brentford owner who sacked his manager when they were near the top of the division only to then see them flop?
Reading did well and then did badly. XG doesn't prove or disprove that, it was already a proven fact.
Stats are fine but they just stats, it's the almost religious faith placed in them by somevthat is illogical.
Not everything, or even most things, in life fit neatly in statistical or other boxes.
People seek order in a chaotic world hence religion, conspiracy theories and over reliance on statistical models.
Football, far more than other sports, is random. That is its beauty.
They are after the event stats?
Yes, teams who take more of their chances win more often.0 -
In so much as that it is unsustainable to outperform or vice versa.
I fear that we may be going round in circles with this debate, but ultimately in blindly dismissing data as incapable of explaining your beautiful game you are trying to fight the laws of probability.
In starting this thread I merely wanted to put some meat on the bones of our performances...is our start sustainable? Is it too good to be true? etc....
The fact people seem so determined to ignore facts/data probably explains why Denise Coates is a billionaire.0 -
Low-budget team with idiot owner finds itself at the top of the Championship... I mean... I just don’t need hipster stats to tell me that’s a surprise we can’t expect to maintain!1
-
And they confirm your opinion. Isn't that cool?!JiMMy 85 said:Low-budget team with idiot owner finds itself at the top of the Championship... I mean... I just don’t need hipster stats to tell me that’s a surprise we can’t expect to maintain!1 - Sponsored links:
-
With techniques that have emerged in the last 5-10 years most things now can be modelled using a machine learning algorithm.Henry Irving said:Is that the Brentford owner who sacked his manager when they were near the top of the division only to then see them flop?
Reading did well and then did badly. XG doesn't prove or disprove that, it was already a proven fact.
Stats are fine but they just stats, it's the almost religious faith placed in them by somevthat is illogical.
Not everything, or even most things, in life fit neatly in statistical or other boxes.
People seek order in a chaotic world hence religion, conspiracy theories and over reliance on statistical models.
Football, far more than other sports, is random. That is its beauty.2 -
Really,?Leeds_Addick said:
With techniques that have emerged in the last 5-10 years most things now can be modelled using a machine learning algorithm.Henry Irving said:Is that the Brentford owner who sacked his manager when they were near the top of the division only to then see them flop?
Reading did well and then did badly. XG doesn't prove or disprove that, it was already a proven fact.
Stats are fine but they just stats, it's the almost religious faith placed in them by somevthat is illogical.
Not everything, or even most things, in life fit neatly in statistical or other boxes.
People seek order in a chaotic world hence religion, conspiracy theories and over reliance on statistical models.
Football, far more than other sports, is random. That is its beauty.
Read the thread on here on mental health and tell me a machine can model it.
Love,hate,war, all algorithms or is it just that people want certainty in an uncertain world?
By the way Coates, like Bloom, is a bookie, a professional that existed, and often thrived, long before Xg came along. My uncle taught me how to calculate the 100 as a kid.
0 -
Individual cases obviously cannot be modelled but over a large sample, I’m sure there are some very accurate studies with heaps of data regarding mental health.2
-
Last season’s data over the whole season... I’m sure xG was wildly wrong on specific individual occasions but OVER A LARGE ENOUGH SAMPLE, the data was accurate.stackitsteve said:Last season...
Premier League top 3: 1 Man City 2 Liverpool 3 Chelsea
end of season xG stats: 1 Man City 2 Liverpool 3 Chelsea
Championship: 1 Norwich 2 Sheffield United 3 Leeds
xG: 1 Leeds 2 Sheffield United 3 NorwichLeague One: 1 Luton 2 Barnsley 3 Charlton
xG: 1 Luton 2 Barnsley 3 Pompey
There is certainly more to it than useless statistics.1 -
I have got a model, where it allocates each team a points value based on the results of games already played.
I give them 3 points for a win, a point for a draw and 0 for a loss.
I have gone over my model for the last 10 years and I am pretty much bang on with the corresponding league tables for those seasons.
I can use this to deduce a team currently on 54 OneLung points is more likely to win against a team with 30 OneLung points.
Am willing to share the system with you guys if admin move this to members only.
9 -
Our percentage of shots on target is currently sitting at almost 60%. The next closest teams are Sheff Wed and Bristol City at just a touch over 35%.1
-
“If Reading can limit their shots”
The idea of shooting less is that Charlton only shoot when a chance is incredibly good. It’s not shooting for the sake of it. It’s about creating a genuine chance to score a goal. Reading can’t “limit” us if we’re deciding what a golden chance is. That’s completely different to being shot-shy. They might as well say “Reading can win if Charlton don’t score, we’re so smart, can you believe how smart this system is. *Smug face*”
3 -
I agree with you. We are definitely limiting our number of shots from outside of the area and this is a key contributing factor.JiMMy 85 said:“If Reading can limit their shots”
The idea of shooting less is that Charlton only shoot when a chance is incredibly good. It’s not shooting for the sake of it. It’s about creating a genuine chance to score a goal. Reading can’t “limit” us if we’re deciding what a golden chance is. That’s completely different to being shot-shy. They might as well say “Reading can win if Charlton don’t score, we’re so smart, can you believe how smart this system is. *Smug face*”
83.3% (30/36) of all CAFC shots have come from inside the penalty area. We have also created a total of ten “big chances”.
It basically highlights a clear philosophy of picking and choosing our moments and resisting all temptation to shoot on sight.
2 -
Callumcafc said:
If charltons 2 best performing players get less chances they may not do so well
.... you don’t need a graph to work that out, just fking common sense.
4
