Experimental 361 - Final xG Table (Championship 20/21)

BFC1997

Active member
Joined
12 Feb 2011
Messages
9,057
Reaction score
1,139
Location
Osterley
I'm sure most know but for clarity's sake (and pulled from the internet) Expected goals (xG) is a predictive model used to assess every goal-scoring chance, and the likelihood of scoring. An xG model computes for each chance the probability to score based on what we know about it (event-based variables).

So based on this:
  • If each game was decided on xG, we would have finished top of the pile this season.
  • Based on quality of chances conceded, we had the best defence in the league (the two teams above us and the one immediately below us in the real table were very lucky to concede as few as they did given the quality of chances given up).
  • Barnsley are no joke.
  • Swansea were lucky to be near the play-offs.
  • Bristol City were dogshit.
  • Rotherham were probably unlucky.
P.S I know it all means nothing really, it's just a fun indicator of how things might have been different.

1620916006854.png
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
75,256
Reaction score
6,141
Location
London
Justice League Winners 3 seasons in a row. We get to keep the trophy 🏆🏆🏆
 

Friji

Active member
Joined
26 Apr 2005
Messages
2,280
Reaction score
494
Location
Leatherhead
Good to see QPR/Swansea in lower end of the table where they belong. Obviously Rotherham are well clear of relegation.. if they could've just finished their chances. No shock about Blackburn.. obviously a good goal scoring team.. just rubbish at the other stuff.

Wont say anything about us.. typical!
 

Outlander

Member
Joined
12 Jan 2020
Messages
250
Reaction score
298
I'm sure most know but for clarity's sake (and pulled from the internet) Expected goals (xG) is a predictive model used to assess every goal-scoring chance, and the likelihood of scoring. An xG model computes for each chance the probability to score based on what we know about it (event-based variables).

So based on this:
  • If each game was decided on xG, we would have finished top of the pile this season.
  • Based on quality of chances conceded, we had the best defence in the league (the two teams above us and the one immediately below us in the real table were very lucky to concede as few as they did given the quality of chances given up).
  • Barnsley are no joke.
  • Swansea were lucky to be near the play-offs.
  • Bristol City were dogshit.
  • Rotherham were probably unlucky.
P.S I know it all means nothing really, it's just a fun indicator of how things might have been different.

View attachment 25164
So does this mean we are not as clinical as other teams and our goalkeeper isn’t as good as others?

This is a genuine question and not a dig at anyone. Just confused as to the numbers.
 

LostBee

Active member
Joined
22 Oct 2000
Messages
4,161
Reaction score
594
Location
Down in Albion
So does this mean we are not as clinical as other teams and our goalkeeper isn’t as good as others?

From my understanding the first part of your sentence is correct but the second part isn't.

It means we concede a high number of goals compared to opposition chances created, but that isn't necessarily the goalkeepers fault.
 

badgerbee

Mafeking Avenue........gets you there!!!!
Joined
28 Jan 2008
Messages
16,092
Reaction score
2,106
Location
Langport, Somerset
So does this mean we are not as clinical as other teams and our goalkeeper isn’t as good as others?

This is a genuine question and not a dig at anyone. Just confused as to the numbers.
Was just about to post the same question.
Toney and Raya, cost us promotion...........??..................... ;)
 

Ealing Bee

Well-known member
Joined
5 Jun 2002
Messages
11,150
Reaction score
1,646
Location
Now Chiswick (proud to be a YIMBY)
Stoke in 6th "place" are an interesting one (actually finished 14th).

They lost their main (only?) attacking threat, Tyrese Campbell, to a season-ending injury in mid December. Campbell, the son of Kevin btw, was only 20 at the time, but he'd already managed 6 goals and 7 assists in 16 league games.

Being unable to replace him (finances), Stoke then went defensive for the rest of the season, but Campbell will be back for the start of the next one.

Seeing as the club is stable and their manager will be in his 3rd season, if they can finally offload the overpriced/overpaid crap previous managers bought when they were in the Prem, Stoke might be a good bet for the p/offs next season?
 
Last edited:
OP
BFC1997

BFC1997

Active member
Joined
12 Feb 2011
Messages
9,057
Reaction score
1,139
Location
Osterley
So does this mean we are not as clinical as other teams and our goalkeeper isn’t as good as others?

This is a genuine question and not a dig at anyone. Just confused as to the numbers.

It just means for the quality of chances we have created and given up across all of the games, we’ve ended up with fewer points than expected.

This could be bad goalkeeping and poor finishing, unfortunate refereeing decisions, unlucky bounces etc.
 

jlove

Well-known member
Joined
17 Dec 2002
Messages
34,839
Reaction score
2,172
Location
Vaison-la-Romaine
From my understanding the first part of your sentence is correct but the second part isn't.

It means we concede a high number of goals compared to opposition chances created, but that isn't necessarily the goalkeepers fault.
We've conceded 8/10ths of a goal more than the prediction... if I've read that right.
 

Invipai

Active member
Joined
29 Jul 2011
Messages
7,349
Reaction score
827
Location
Ealing, London
Astonishing that Wycombe finished exactly where they should have done, including in wins, draws and losses.

I think we all know Swansea haven't been all that, they've just used the dark arts to keep themselves in games where they shouldn't have been in there. The form was exposed by the end though. We were unlucky, but at the same time we all know 100 points for us this season would have been a large overachievement. We were only showing that form for a couple of months really... I can't complain about our 3rd place finish, but it could have gone differently...
 

AB

Well-known member
Joined
12 Apr 2000
Messages
12,366
Reaction score
2,324
Location
'Sunny' Leeds
So does this mean we are not as clinical as other teams and our goalkeeper isn’t as good as others?

This is a genuine question and not a dig at anyone. Just confused as to the numbers.
No. It says we should have scored 8 fewer goals and conceded just under one more than we did. But the distribution of results wasn’t as good as it could have been. There were 5 draws we should on xG have won and one defeat. Which is also pretty obvious from the games themselves- it wouldn’t be hard to think of at least 5 drawn games we were well on top in and drew, and if one of the defeats at QPR or Brum or at home to Preston had gone the other way it would not have been a burning injustice to the opponent.

Stats of course don’t account for luck, error and fine margins. So the table is consistent with the bad luck of Norwich’s deflected equaliser, Swansea’s Bidwell foul on Raya for their equaliser, Frank’s substitutions against Blackburn, Norgaard’s injury against Preston, Forss shooting right rather than left against Cardiff, Canos missing against Norwich etc.
 

Mr Cynical

Well-known member
Joined
1 Jul 2000
Messages
14,477
Reaction score
3,744
Location
London
It does show that we're absolutely doing the right things though. To have such a solid defence and to give away so few good chances gives you a really good base. Slightly gutting to see that over the season a mere 8 extra goals and one less conceded would have had such an impact! Nice to see QPR basically where they should be..
 

AB

Well-known member
Joined
12 Apr 2000
Messages
12,366
Reaction score
2,324
Location
'Sunny' Leeds
It does show that we're absolutely doing the right things though. To have such a solid defence and to give away so few good chances gives you a really good base. Slightly gutting to see that over the season a mere 8 extra goals and one less conceded would have had such an impact! Nice to see QPR basically where they should be..
8 fewer! We actually scored 79 not the 71 in the xG table. And conceded 42 not 42.8!
 

AB

Well-known member
Joined
12 Apr 2000
Messages
12,366
Reaction score
2,324
Location
'Sunny' Leeds
Whatever the xG stats show we finished 3rd, End of story.
The league table is what matters most in the end but when comparing us to the other play off teams this gives a bit more info on our relative seasons and strengths and weaknesses.
 

wanderer paul

https://brentfordfcmemorabilia.wordpress.com/
Joined
28 Oct 2002
Messages
51,427
Reaction score
2,922
Location
Brentford
There it is. Only took 15 posts! 🙄

What did you expect?

All that matters is where you end up after 46 matches.

Stats show what we could’ve had but failed.

We don’t need xG to tell us what we’ve seen this season, imo.

Brentford should clearly have won more points. Errors cost us dear.

The POs could put this right and xG will mean nothing a pointless stat for me.
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
75,256
Reaction score
6,141
Location
London
What did you expect?

All that matters is where you end up after 46 matches.

Stats show what we could’ve had but failed.

We don’t need xG to tell us what we’ve seen this season, imo.

Brentford should clearly have won more points. Errors cost us dear.

The POs could put this right and xG will mean nothing a pointless stat for me.
The whole point of this thread is to demonstrate that we have been "unlucky", Anyone can look at the league table and see that we finished 3rd. But thanks.
 
OP
BFC1997

BFC1997

Active member
Joined
12 Feb 2011
Messages
9,057
Reaction score
1,139
Location
Osterley
What did you expect?

All that matters is where you end up after 46 matches.

Stats show what we could’ve had but failed.

I’ve acknowledged all that in the original post tbf.

We don’t need xG to tell us what we’ve seen this season, imo.

You overestimate the average football fan!

Brentford should clearly have won more points. Errors cost us dear.

The POs could put this right and xG will mean nothing a pointless stat for me.

Agree with you mostly, I did stress in my post that it I know doesn’t really matter but it’s just a fun indicator of what might have been.
 

Jim Rourke

Active member
Joined
8 Jul 2000
Messages
1,307
Reaction score
79
Location
Billericay, Essex.
The whole point of this thread is to demonstrate that we have been "unlucky", Anyone can look at the league table and see that we finished 3rd. But thanks.

Jack Charlton said luck evens itself out.

Keeping that in mind along with the improving xG for and against in recent weeks - dare I say back to expected levels - we go into the playoffs in a very good place.

Still think we are in a lottery though :(
 

I'll Bee Damned

Active member
Joined
18 Nov 2006
Messages
1,542
Reaction score
139
Location
Yorkshire
What did you expect?

All that matters is where you end up after 46 matches.

Stats show what we could’ve had but failed.

We don’t need xG to tell us what we’ve seen this season, imo.

Brentford should clearly have won more points. Errors cost us dear.

The POs could put this right and xG will mean nothing a pointless stat for me.

Thankfully MB and his team thinks differently. Had we finished 4th in real life, like Swansea, but stats suggest we were lucky like Swansea (as per the OP's Justice League), they'd be more worried and focusing on those areas, as exposed by other collected data, on which we can improve. With the xG stats we know we are doing the right things largely so can evolve them rather than change them.
 
Top Bottom