MLS Cup Playoffs - October 23 - Montreal (Away)

According to FBRef, NYCFC won 4 games in 2022 where the opponent had more xG, and lost 4 games where NYCFC had more xG.

Some day I will beat this forum into accounting for confirmation bias.
Day World GIF
 
You also have to wonder where the xG would have ended up had we not gotten the first early goal and started playing more conservatively.
Or how the game changes if that first Kai header bounces in off the post instead of out. This match really did roll out perfectly for us. Definitely feel like we're playing with a little bit of house money at this point.
 
You also have to wonder where the xG would have ended up had we not gotten the first early goal and started playing more conservatively.

I was actually surprised that was only a .4ish xG for Maxi’s shot. He had the ball at his feet with the goalie out of position and was only like 10-15 feet dead center in front of goal. 95+% of the time, that’s a goal
 
I was actually surprised that was only a .4ish xG for Maxi’s shot. He had the ball at his feet with the goalie out of position and was only like 10-15 feet dead center in front of goal. 95+% of the time, that’s a goal
I think it was because of the other defenders in the way.
 
Worst miss in my opinion is still Rodney Wallace, in the Derby (at YS), when we were down 1 or 2 men and missing from maybe 2 yards out, over the net. Might have been slightly less from an xG perspective... but it was BAD. Ended up tying the game, but should've been 3 points though.
I don't remember that somehow. Must have been too Amagutted. The highlights leave it out. xG says 66% but I take your point.
 
Great opportunity to slip in this beauty

(xG .63 apparently btw)
.63 greatly overestimates the difficulty of that shot. The ball was spinning wildly, and he had to try and volley it. Finally, the goalkeeper was very close, and it's not sure it's finished even if he puts it on frame.
 
.63 greatly overestimates the difficulty of that shot. The ball was spinning wildly, and he had to try and volley it. Finally, the goalkeeper was very close, and it's not sure it's finished even if he puts it on frame.
Oh definitely, I agree looking back now on the shot it was WAY harder than it looks... but still, i just wanted to bring everyone that feeling they felt back to them ;)
 
Oh definitely, I agree looking back now on the shot it was WAY harder than it looks... but still, i just wanted to bring everyone that feeling they felt back to them ;)
Also, not trying to be a Wondo apologist here, but damn he did so much work for that opportunity to even happen.
 
One thing to add. I think the heavy touch by Dempsey on the set piece that could have tied the match deep into stoppage time was as bad a mistake as Wondo's miss. This was clearly a training ground special, and it was worked to perfection until the ball got to Dempsey. He let the ball roll too far away from him, and that let the keeper close him down.

 
.63 greatly overestimates the difficulty of that shot. The ball was spinning wildly, and he had to try and volley it. Finally, the goalkeeper was very close, and it's not sure it's finished even if he puts it on frame.
I think you meant either underestimates the difficulty or overestimates the likelihood it would go in.
That said, I think you properly noted the limitation of xG - depending on which model, it accounts for things like the location of the shot, the play state (eg settled defense or transition), the presence of defenders and keeper, volley or not, kick or header (or Lampard butt shot). But once those are accounted for, things like reaction time, whether the keeper is still or closing or distracted, whether you are shooting a perfect service or a pass skipping along the field at high speed, or whether the shooter has time to set himself are part of the mix and for any value of X, some XX% shots are easier to make than others.
Which is OK. Every stat, whether traditional or advanced, has limitations.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top