Matchday 20 XG-Graphs, Charts, Chat & Plymouth Forecast

[ucandomagic]

I’ve got all of the Championship XG data in for the week now, so this is my review of Blades XG performance and general Championship XG stats. The purpose of this is simply to assess how teams are performing relative to their XG data – ie if a team’s results are better than their XG data it would suggest that they are overperforming and likely to slip back, unless they have a clearly above-average strike force or defence – and vice versa if their results are worse than their XG data.

On Wednesday December 11th we beat Millwall 1-0 at The New Den.

The XG data for the game was Blades 1.4 – Millwall 1.0. (So, unsurprisingly, the Stats would have expected a 1-1 result.)

Graph 1 shows a comparison of the progress of our actual goals for and against with our XG expected goals for and against over our 20 games so far. XG says that over those 20 games we should have scored 26.6 and conceded 18.7 and we have actually scored 28 and conceded 11. So, we are performing slightly above our XG in scoring and much better than average against our XGA in defence for the chances that we are creating and allowing. Our XG goal difference of about 8 is significantly less than our actual goal difference of 17. That difference is due to conceding about 8 less goals, which has probably gained us at least 8 extra points, without which we would be in 4th or 5th place in the table. Putting that into context with other teams, we have the 9th best XG total and the 3rd best XGA total.

However, the fact that we have a good XGA, and yet we are significantly out performing even that, is the major reason for our current league position.

Graph 1:



Chart 1 is the XTable - based on both team’s XG’s in matches played – alongside the actual League Table. Blades are 5th in the XTable and 1st in the actual League table, so our actual results are better than our XG stats would imply. This outperformance is actually even greater, because the XTable does not apply the 2-point deduction. If the deduction were applied we would only be 6th in the XTable. As discussed above, our outperformance is driven by having only conceded 11 goals against an XGA of 18.7.

Blackburn are the biggest overperformers here – being 5th in the actual table but 20th in the XTable. Coventry are the exact opposite, being 15th in the actual table but 4th in the XTable. This reflects the fact that Blackburn have conceded 9 less goals than their XGA and Coventry have conceded 9 more goals than their XGA.

Chart 1:



So, overall the stats show that our actual results are better than our XG performance. Our actual results represent a likely automatics position and our XG data suggest a playoff position. As mentioned, we are 8th best in XG, but we are 3rd best in XGA, behind only Leeds and Burnley (Millwall have played a game less). Our average XGA of 0.93 goals per game is a fairly good figure, but we are significantly outperforming that by delivering an actual average of 0.55 goals against per game. It is the outperformance of our XGA which leads to our outperforming our XG league position.

Our next game is tomorrow at The Lane against Plymouth.

Plymouth have scored just 3 goals in their 10 away games with an XG of 4.9 and conceded 27 with an XGA of 23.6!

So the actual stats would certainly suggest 3-0 and the XG stats probably the same.
However, I will forecast a 4-0 Blades win, with 3-0 and 4-1 as the next 2 most likely results.

So let’s hope we put in a professional performance and, for a change, have a relaxing afternoon in the absence of any banana skins!

UTB & Slava Ukraini!

 

[Houston_Blade]

What was the xG for Brewster’s goal? That must have been pretty much 1 on its own? The chance he had later on was much lower given the angle and I can’t think of many more chances we had apart from attempts from further out.

 

[ThirdGenBlade]

What was the xG for Brewster’s goal? That must have been pretty much 1 on its own? The chance he had later on was much lower given the angle and I can’t think of many more chances we had apart from attempts from further out.

I just looked it up on SportingLife.com, it was 0.96, which they described as “Massive”!!

UTB & FTP!

 

[Keen Blade]

I’ve got all of the Championship XG data in for the week now, so this is my review of Blades XG performance and general Championship XG stats. The purpose of this is simply to assess how teams are performing relative to their XG data – ie if a team’s results are better than their XG data it would suggest that they are overperforming and likely to slip back, unless they have a clearly above-average strike force or defence – and vice versa if their results are worse than their XG data.

On Wednesday December 11th we beat Millwall 1-0 at The New Den.

The XG data for the game was Blades 1.4 – Millwall 1.0. (So, unsurprisingly, the Stats would have expected a 1-1 result.)

Graph 1 shows a comparison of the progress of our actual goals for and against with our XG expected goals for and against over our 20 games so far. XG says that over those 20 games we should have scored 26.6 and conceded 18.7 and we have actually scored 28 and conceded 11. So, we are performing slightly above our XG in scoring and much better than average against our XGA in defence for the chances that we are creating and allowing. Our XG goal difference of about 8 is significantly less than our actual goal difference of 17. That difference is due to conceding about 8 less goals, which has probably gained us at least 8 extra points, without which we would be in 4th or 5th place in the table. Putting that into context with other teams, we have the 9th best XG total and the 3rd best XGA total.

However, the fact that we have a good XGA, and yet we are significantly out performing even that, is the major reason for our current league position.

Graph 1:
View attachment 199302


Chart 1 is the XTable - based on both team’s XG’s in matches played – alongside the actual League Table. Blades are 5th in the XTable and 1st in the actual League table, so our actual results are better than our XG stats would imply. This outperformance is actually even greater, because the XTable does not apply the 2-point deduction. If the deduction were applied we would only be 6th in the XTable. As discussed above, our outperformance is driven by having only conceded 11 goals against an XGA of 18.7.

Blackburn are the biggest overperformers here – being 5th in the actual table but 20th in the XTable. Coventry are the exact opposite, being 15th in the actual table but 4th in the XTable. This reflects the fact that Blackburn have conceded 9 less goals than their XGA and Coventry have conceded 9 more goals than their XGA.

Chart 1:
View attachment 199303


So, overall the stats show that our actual results are better than our XG performance. Our actual results represent a likely automatics position and our XG data suggest a playoff position. As mentioned, we are 8th best in XG, but we are 3rd best in XGA, behind only Leeds and Burnley (Millwall have played a game less). Our average XGA of 0.93 goals per game is a fairly good figure, but we are significantly outperforming that by delivering an actual average of 0.55 goals against per game. It is the outperformance of our XGA which leads to our outperforming our XG league position.

Our next game is tomorrow at The Lane against Plymouth.

Plymouth have scored just 3 goals in their 10 away games with an XG of 4.9 and conceded 27 with an XGA of 23.6!

So the actual stats would certainly suggest 3-0 and the XG stats probably the same.
However, I will forecast a 4-0 Blades win, with 3-0 and 4-1 as the next 2 most likely results.

So let’s hope we put in a professional performance and, for a change, have a relaxing afternoon in the absence of any banana skins!

UTB & Slava Ukraini!

Trying to get my head around the difference of 8 goals on the XgA side.

Am I right to think that this can't be due to a good defence which is not conceding chances ,
Because the XgA figure is telling us that our defence has actually conceded 18.7 goals worth of chances .
So if we have conceded only 11 goals the difference must be due to a good goalie or the opposition shooter firing wide or hitting woodwork ? Is that fair ?
Now I do like Michael Cooper , but I don't remember him saving many "almost certain goals" ,
So would you agree that we have been lucky that the shooter has been wide or woodwork ?
If so , is this potentially worrying because by the law of averages , the opposition shooters are likely to get more goals against us if we keep giving them this many XgA's worth of chances ?

 

[Keen Blade]

Also , looking at Leeds actual goals scored , are they outperforming their Xg , or just matching it by simply converting the higher number of chances they create ?
On a totally unscientific basis , my feeling is that we aren't creating enough chances for our forwards to stick away

 

[ThirdGenBlade]

Trying to get my head around the difference of 8 goals on the XgA side.

Am I right to think that this can't be due to a good defence which is not conceding chances ,
Because the XgA figure is telling us that our defence has actually conceded 18.7 goals worth of chances .
So if we have conceded only 11 goals the difference must be due to a good goalie or the opposition shooter firing wide or hitting woodwork ? Is that fair ?
Now I do like Michael Cooper , but I don't remember him saving many "almost certain goals" ,
So would you agree that we have been lucky that the shooter has been wide or woodwork ?
If so , is this potentially worrying because by the law of averages , the opposition shooters are likely to get more goals against us if we keep giving them this many XgA's worth of chances ?

XGA comes from actual shots - so our heroes blocking shots with various parts of their anatomy along with GoalCooper is why we are so great!

 

[ThirdGenBlade]

Also , looking at Leeds actual goals scored , are they outperforming their Xg , or just matching it by simply converting the higher number of chances they create ?
On a totally unscientific basis , my feeling is that we aren't creating enough chances for our forwards to stick away

In the data that I look at Leeds have an XG of 36.9 and have scored 36 - so they create a lot more chances than us.

 

[bornablade]

Thanks for the effort taken to put together all these statistics.

I haven't a Scooby-Do what any of them mean.

Best wishes from an old-fart Blade.

 

[Keen Blade]

XGA comes from actual shots - so our heroes blocking shots with various parts of their anatomy along with GoalCooper is why we are so great!

Ok , I get the goalie bit.
But the blocking ?
So they measure the xg when the shooter shoots (taking account of what defenders seem to be in the way)
but our defenders fly in unexpectedly from nowhere and block the shot ?

 

[ThirdGenBlade]

Ok , I get the goalie bit.
But the blocking ?
So they measure the xg when the shooter shoots (taking account of what defenders seem to be in the way)
but our defenders fly in unexpectedly from nowhere and block the shot ?

This is from one of the providers:-

"As we have already seen, the two most important factors involved in determining the xG value of a shot are the distance to the goal and the amount of the face of the goal the shooter can see. Oblique angles from the side of the goal are harder to score from, and angles in front of the goal are easier.

Other factors such as if the shot is taken with the player’s best foot (or with the head), if the assisting ball was from a cross or cutback, the position of defenders and goalkeeper (when we have tracking data), and so on are also important in determining xG of a chance. "

I would suspect that a lot of the time they don't have very accurate defender locations.

UTB & FTP!

 

[Keen Blade]

In the data that I look at Leeds have an XG of 36.9 and have scored 36 - so they create a lot more chances than us.

Cheers , that chimes with my impression watching them that they have an attack which creates 50% more chances than us.

I'm surprised that their strikers are only converting at the same rate as ours - both teams are scoring approximately what their Xg rate says they should.

But I've said all season that there is something less than optimum about how our attack is set up.
It doesn't click to create consistent pressure on defences.
Whether that's because of the imbalance between R & L , or to do with playing only one striker , or shoving Hamer onto the L , I don't know.
But we have talented players and there must be a way of creating more.

We have looked better with 2 strikers.

Folk have been calling for a LW to be signed but we don't play the LW we have in Brooks , so I'm stumped.

Maybe having O'Hare up front leads to fewer chances created but that's counterbalanced by his defensive work which has kept our goals conceded down low ?

Hoping we take the handbrake off tomorrow and bag a few

 

[Snowflake]

Thanks for the effort taken to put together all these statistics.

I haven't a Scooby-Do what any of them mean.

Best wishes from an old-fart Blade.

I think they mean we are doing well but ought not to be top !!

 

[Houston_Blade]

I think they mean we are doing well but ought not to be top !!

Irrespective of the xG numbers, we’re winning by the odd goal due to a combination of good defending and determination, coupled with a clinical striker (Campbell) and some decent midfielders up the other end.

Only against Oxford have we looked in the ascendancy for a sustained period in a game this season, the rest have been pretty to and fro with us prevailing the majority of the time. The exceptions being Leeds and Boro where we were poor throughout.

We seem to have rediscovered the knack of seeing a game out.

I’d say that from an entertainment perspective we’ve been much worse than the Hecky promotion season because Ndiaye isn’t on the pitch.

I’d question whether we can sustain this over a season but 20 games is a fairly good sample size and we’ve done well so far so who’s to say we won’t?!

 

[Keen Blade]

Irrespective of the xG numbers, we’re winning by the odd goal due to a combination of good defending and determination, coupled with a clinical striker (Campbell) and some decent midfielders up the other end.

Only against Oxford have we looked in the ascendancy for a sustained period in a game this season, the rest have been pretty to and fro with us prevailing the majority of the time. The exceptions being Leeds and Boro where we were poor throughout.

We seem to have rediscovered the knack of seeing a game out.

I’d say that from an entertainment perspective we’ve been much worse than the Hecky promotion season because Ndiaye isn’t on the pitch.

I’d question whether we can sustain this over a season but 20 games is a fairly good sample size and we’ve done well so far so who’s to say we won’t?!

No one can argue with our record but it is our battling mindset , rather than our attacking style , which argues that it can be maintained.
O'Hare , who plays as a 10 , epitomises this approach , pressing + harrying + winning back the ball , as opposed to silky passing or carrying the ball or loads of accurate shots.
The way we play , he is indispensable , but he keeps a second striker or a second winger out of the team.
No point getting a LW until CW decides we can do without O'Hare's industry in front of the double pivot of Souza & Peck/Davies.

 

[MayorOJC]

Trying to get my head around the difference of 8 goals on the XgA side.

Am I right to think that this can't be due to a good defence which is not conceding chances ,
Because the XgA figure is telling us that our defence has actually conceded 18.7 goals worth of chances .
So if we have conceded only 11 goals the difference must be due to a good goalie or the opposition shooter firing wide or hitting woodwork ? Is that fair ?
Now I do like Michael Cooper , but I don't remember him saving many "almost certain goals" ,
So would you agree that we have been lucky that the shooter has been wide or woodwork ?
If so , is this potentially worrying because by the law of averages , the opposition shooters are likely to get more goals against us if we keep giving them this many XgA's worth of chances ?

It's a metric that massively favours teams that play a possession style of football.

I think the main reason we have a higher than expected XGA is we allow don't often dominate possession. Opposition gets a decent number of shots against us, but it's mostly a cumulation of low XG shots from range.

 

[andy m]

What was the xG for Brewster’s goal? That must have been pretty much 1 on its own? The chance he had later on was much lower given the angle and I can’t think of many more chances we had apart from attempts from furthe

Irrespective of the xG numbers, we’re winning by the odd goal due to a combination of good defending and determination, coupled with a clinical striker (Campbell) and some decent midfielders up the other end.

Only against Oxford have we looked in the ascendancy for a sustained period in a game this season, the rest have been pretty to and fro with us prevailing the majority of the time. The exceptions being Leeds and Boro where we were poor throughout.

We seem to have rediscovered the knack of seeing a game out.

I’d say that from an entertainment perspective we’ve been much worse than the Hecky promotion season because Ndiaye isn’t on the pitch.

I’d question whether we can sustain this over a season but 20 games is a fairly good sample size and we’ve done well so far so who’s to say we won’t?!

looking forward to picking up how many things you've got wrong in 26 games time

 

[Houston_Blade]

looking forward to picking up how many things you've got wrong in 26 games time

I’ve not predicted the next 26 games so I’d struggle to have got anything wrong about them.

 

[Charlieblade]

Also , looking at Leeds actual goals scored , are they outperforming their Xg , or just matching it by simply converting the higher number of chances they create ?
On a totally unscientific basis , my feeling is that we aren't creating enough chances for our forwards to stick away

I am grateful to the author for compiling this, even if I’m too old to understand it. Without actually using google, our midfield and defenders seem to score more than our strikers? There are more of them though. Goals are important, whoever scores them. It shows we have finishing talent all over the place.

 

[SGBlade]

With just the eye test it’s fair to say we’ve been on the right side of luck for goals conceded this year. Can only really think of West Brom where the opposition has scored a soft / lucky goal. And I think we’ve had a few opposition shots hit the post. But Cooper has been excellent as well, and even though he’s not pulling off spectacular saves, his positioning and reactions are excellent, which I’m sure is having a sustainable impact on us over performing our XgA.

Also, there are a bunch of intangibles that are hard to measure on the advanced stats. For example, we’ve only been behind in our games this season for a combined total of 90 mins (ish). That’s out of 20 games, which is quite remarkable. If you’re ahead in games you tend to a) focus on ball retention over chance creation and b) concede a high number of low XG chances, as the opposition gets more desperate and starts to ping from all over. So it has a tends to increase your XGA and reduce your XG, without necessarily being a bad thing.

That said, it’s hard to argue we’ve been playing better than Leeds (and maybe also Boro). Hopefully our performances / control over games jumps up to match our results rather than the other way round. We’ve got a new / young team, so I do think performances are more likely to improve than regress, especially if we get one or two more bodies in Jan and avoid more major injuries.

 

[andy m]

I’ve not predicted the next 26 games so I’d struggle to have got anything wrong about them.

Don't know what happened there it wasn't your post I was replying to, sorry.