Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Norwich City' started by DUNCAN DONUTS, Dec 18, 2020.
There you go @robbieBB
The original title was a tad wordy
**** sake, in Latin please!
I did suggest a separate thread for all the X to the power of G nonsense
a short while ago... but was shot down in flames!?
I'm happy for it to exist - as long as statistical tosh is restricted to
this one thread and doesn't infiltrate normal football threads
I wonder if there's a chart to work out whether I'll be drunk by 1300 tomorrow?
Probably a high probability
We only need to change one letter and the thread can have it's own signature tune
Don't whatever you do type that into Google images
Banging your head against the wall for one hour burns 150 calories.
An orgasm burns just two to three calories, though a person can burn around 50 calories in the activity leading up to the orgasm.
An alternative xG table from footballxg.com:
Table differs somewhat from Experimental 3-6-1, not sure how their calculations differ. This one claims to use Opta statistics, and the difference between xG/xGA and actual goals scored/conceded is much smaller. Our 27 goals is more in line with an xG of 28.9 from this site, compared to the xG of 35.3 from E361. Similarly, actual goals against is 18 vs xGs of 22 (FXG) or 26 (E361). In both tables we're second, with Blackburn leading this table when they're 7th in E361's table, and 11th in real life. Meanwhile E361 have Brentford leading, when they're 6th in real life.
Possibly the biggest outlier is Stoke. 8th in real life, 6th in one xG table, 21st in the other!
For me, this reinforces the idea that turning xG into a "league table" is pretty meaningless, and obscures a helpful statistic by trying to make a familiar table. I think real vs predicted xG is much more enlightening, and comparing those numbers to other teams is a better measure of performance than positions in a table such as this. For NCFC, I'm seeing that we're excellent at creating chances, and I'd much rather be in the position of taking less chances than we should be, than scoring more than is sustainable (in both tables, Bournemouth and Reading fit that category).
Some meaningful stats !! Its been a long time coming but has been worth the wait !
As I read that table DH, the ordering, with Blackburn top and Stoke in 21st, is simply based on cumulative xG , whereas the EXP 631 is based on Expected Points. The correct comparison would be with a table based on FXG's final column "xG Pts". In that final column, Blackburn are shown with 28 xG Pts, i.e fewer than us and a lot fewer than Brentford, who are actually top of both tables though only 6th in the league table.
The Likes from Bure Budgie and comment from Mike are truly comical!
Do try and refrain from getting personal, now there's a good chap.
Comical likes .
please log in to view this image
Buendia, Vrancic our most creative players (per90), Pukki, Hugill highest xG/90. Martin & Placheta perhaps surprisingly score well in both categories.
The comparison to Cardiff:
please log in to view this image
Cardiff No's 10, 17 both out this weekend.
Don't you agree there is something truly comical about two posters who have consistently criticised any reference to stats and rubbished comments based on them, suddenly changing their tune when DHCanary posts another stats table -- which the two posters haven't even bothered to look at properly? I'd say "comical" was a polite understatement.
How do you attribute intent from a poster clicking like?
I like all manner of posts for different reasons.
I'm pretty sure I've even liked one of your wacky charts in the past
You might well be polite but you do take yourself rather too seriously , do you not Robbie?! My comment was made after having read the 2 previous posts by Bure and ncgandy about head banging and orgasms ! It was not meant to be taken seriously and I am grateful that you found it comical.
7 out of 10 posters think this is a cracking thread.