MLS - March 11 - Miami (Home)

[mgarbowski]

Certainly they should not all have gone in, but at least one of them would have under normal circumstances, maybe two.

Reasonably fair and most likely scores for this game include 1-0, 1-1, and 2-1. We got 1-0 in an unusual way.

Multiple goals by both teams would have been an extreme outlier.

Worthwhile reminder: xG aside, on a simplified basis, teams at this level score roughly 10% of their non-PK shots. The shot count last night was 13-6, and 9 of the 19 were from outside the box. Expecting a 4-2 score means you think each team should have converted more than 50% of their shots from inside the box, or 30% of all the shots.

 

[Seth]

nice tip. I showed up a little after 7, saw the mass chaos at gate 6 so I went down to gate 4 and basically walked in with minimal wait. No beanies though.

I don't always use it but I have Clear (stadium-only, free account) and was able to walk right past gate 6 and basically just walk into the stadium with no wait. You need the Clear app and you have to apply and register, but once you're set up you can almost just walk up to the gate.

 

[Kenny]

I don't always use it but I have Clear (stadium-only, free account) and was able to walk right past gate 6 and basically just walk into the stadium with no wait. You need the Clear app and you have to apply and register, but once you're set up you can almost just walk up to the gate.

I was wondering what that was...

 

[Kenny]

Reasonably fair and most likely scores for this game include 1-0, 1-1, and 2-1. We got 1-0 in an unusual way.

Multiple goals by both teams would have been an extreme outlier.

Worthwhile reminder: xG aside, on a simplified basis, teams at this level score roughly 10% of their non-PK shots. The shot count last night was 13-6, and 9 of the 19 were from outside the box. Expecting a 4-2 score means you think each team should have converted more than 50% of their shots from inside the box, of 30% of all the shots.

We were very lucky that Josef missed one of those "harder to miss than make" shots in the first half.

 

[Seth]

I was wondering what that was...

If you fly all the time it's totally worth it to get a paid account as it can really speed up getting through security, but I mean like six or eight trips a year. But a free account works at a handful of ballparks and arenas. Yankee Stadium, Barclay's, and the Garden are part of it (but not Citi Field).

 

[moogoo]

Discussion on this forum makes much more sense if I translate clinical to mean "score at an inhumanly impossible and ahistorical success rate."

It took three games.

 

[moogoo]

Talles and Keaton smile power got us over the line.

 

[Shwafta]

Reasonably fair and most likely scores for this game include 1-0, 1-1, and 2-1. We got 1-0 in an unusual way.

Multiple goals by both teams would have been an extreme outlier.

Worthwhile reminder: xG aside, on a simplified basis, teams at this level score roughly 10% of their non-PK shots. The shot count last night was 13-6, and 9 of the 19 were from outside the box. Expecting a 4-2 score means you think each team should have converted more than 50% of their shots from inside the box, of 30% of all the shots.

I agree. Throughout the game I can't really say there were many "really good chances" that I strictly remember. A few, like when we had a breakaway in the second half, and of course Joseph's "how did he miss that" - but 1-0 seems about the right score. If we had won 3-0, I'd assume it was over-scoring our xg.

 

[FootyLovin]

Our xG was 3.3.

Total for our first 3 matches. Saturday we were unlucky to the tune of 0 goals on 1.1 xG. For the season we are unlucky to the tune of 1 on 3.3 xG.

If we had scored 2 against Chicago and netted 1 of our own against Miami, we'd probably be feeling much better about the team. We've started on the unlucky side. But these things have a tendency toward streakiness. Let's see how it progresses.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Talles and Keaton smile power got us over the line.

Keaton using his Portugese skills to convert one of the Brazilians.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Our xG was 3.3.

Total for our first 3 matches. Saturday we were unlucky to the tune of 0 goals on 1.1 xG. For the season we are unlucky to the tune of 1 on 3.3 xG.

If we had scored 2 against Chicago and netted 1 of our own against Miami, we'd probably be feeling much better about the team. We've started on the unlucky side. But these things have a tendency toward streakiness. Let's see how it progresses.

Of course, one of the issues with xG is that it is not a fixed metric. I saw the 1.1 for the Miami game from the Gameflow Twitter account. It seemed low to me. 538 had us at 1.4 on Saturday and 3.5 for the season. American Soccer Analysis on the other hand had us at 0.93 for the Miami game and 2.72 for the season.

 

[moogoo]

Of course, one of the issues with xG is that it is not a fixed metric. I saw the 1.1 for the Miami game from the Gameflow Twitter account. It seemed low to me. 538 had us at 1.4 on Saturday and 3.5 for the season. American Soccer Analysis on the other hand had us at 0.93 for the Miami game and 2.72 for the season.

ForumSoccerAnalysis has us at 3.89 for the game and 5.7 for the season. /s

 

[canchon]

ForumSoccerAnalysis has us at 3.89 for the game and 5.7 for the season. /s

Damn so apparently xG is more feelings than facts if it can be anywhere from 1.1 to 3.9? Lol

 

[mgarbowski]

xG: I know it when I see it.

 

[LostAnvil]

can anyone ELI5 (explain like I'm 5) how xG should be interpreted? I had thought it was just from 0 to 1 and was like a percentage of the likelihood of a goal being scored - so what's the > 1 number mean? Is it a differnet metric for a team compared to a player?

 

[mgarbowski]

can anyone ELI5 (explain like I'm 5) how xG should be interpreted? I had thought it was just from 0 to 1 and was like a percentage of the likelihood of a goal being scored - so what's the > 1 number mean? Is it a differnet metric for a team compared to a player?

It can go above 1 or 100% because it's cumulative.

The highest xG score for any single shot is very close to but just less than 100% (or 1.00 depending on the format). But over the course of a game a team (or individual player) can generate multiple chances and the total has no fixed upper limit. But an xG above 1.00 for any single shot is suspect.

 

[moogoo]

can anyone ELI5 (explain like I'm 5) how xG should be interpreted? I had thought it was just from 0 to 1 and was like a percentage of the likelihood of a goal being scored - so what's the > 1 number mean? Is it a differnet metric for a team compared to a player?

xG is the probability that a chance will result in a goal. A common misconception is that a 2.86 xG in a game means you should have had 3 goals.

Very simply, an xG of 0.10 means for that particular type of chance, 1 out of 10 usually result in a goal. What this probability is calculated on varies by who is publishing the stat. In general, most take into account:

a) distance from goal
b) angle to goal
c) header or foot
d) whether the chance was 1v1 or not.

Some will add other factors too and they all weight each of these factors a little differently as well, which is why there are different xG numbers from different sites.

In reference to the xG for a game or season being greater than 1, as mgarbowski said, it is cumulative. If you had 3 chances and each of those chances were 0.50 xG, then for the game you have 1.50 xG.

 

[Shwafta]

The other important thing to note about it is that it changed based on how you structure your probability model. Similar to any other model (think of fivethirtyeight vs other "prediction" models), it could vastly change on a small tweak. Which is probably why we're seeing such a variance in this case.

This is also why lots of people say to look at OTHER statistics that aren't xG, because xG can give you a false sense of a game. (penalties are i think .5 automatically right?)

 

[LostAnvil]

thank you all! makes much more sense - I was missing the cumulative price of the puzzle/formula

 

[Schwallacus]

The other important thing to note about it is that it changed based on how you structure your probability model. Similar to any other model (think of fivethirtyeight vs other "prediction" models), it could vastly change on a small tweak. Which is probably why we're seeing such a variance in this case.

This is also why lots of people say to look at OTHER statistics that aren't xG, because xG can give you a false sense of a game. (penalties are i think .5 automatically right?)

I think penalties may be at .7 or .75 xG, but not 100%.

Agreed, xG is a useful stat but at it's best when combined with other stats for a full analysis of the game. Similar to possession stats, where seeing one team with 70% possession might make you think that team played well. But, in reality, that team may have really only had the ball in their defensive half, just passing it between their backline as they were unable to breakthrough a good defense.