xG

[Colr]

https://footystats.org/scotland/premiership/xg

xG v Actual

This analysis, according to my son, shows Hibs creat the most chances but are least likely to convert them. The Orcs create few chances but score them.

Not a surprise!

[MWHIBBIES]

Thing is, it does show we are doing things well. If the recruitment team had done their job and got 2/3 real quality players in the summer, we'd be right up there.

[wookie70]

https://footystats.org/scotland/premiership/xg

xG v Actual

This analysis, according to my son, shows Hibs creat the most chances but are least likely to convert them. The Orcs create few chances but score them.

Not a surprise!

I think we are top of both stats there. Not only do we not convert the expected goals but we concede more goals from chances than were expected. You don't need stats to tell you we miss too many and lose too many soft goals though. I wonder what the stats were before Nisbet came back.

[Not In The Know]

https://footystats.org/scotland/premiership/xg

xG v Actual

This analysis, according to my son, shows Hibs creat the most chances but are least likely to convert them. The Orcs create few chances but score them.

Not a surprise!

72% of all statistics are made up.

[basehibby]

Incredible how we manage to be far and away the least spawny team in the league in pretty much every metric there. Jambos the polar opposite -well who'd ha thunk it?!?

[Colr]

Points based analysis says our performances should have us in fourth if we converted the chances we make and stopped leaking goals on the few occasions opposition get a sniff.

Means tactics about right.

[007]

Points based analysis says our performances should have us in fourth if we converted the chances we make and stopped leaking goals on the few occasions opposition get a sniff.

Means tactics about right.

Is it not 3rd, based on the table? The 3rd highest xG and the 3rd lowest xGa. Or is the points based analaysis calculated using each individual match?

[Just_Jimmy]

I said in a post after the 2nd game of the season that I was glad we'd won but I was concerned how we'd created so many shots and converted so little to that point.

Hasn't changed

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

[H18 SFR]

Jack Ross rightly pointed out we were on the wrong end of fine margins etc on the run when he was sacked.

It does happen sadly.

[Unseen work]

XG through stats maybe.

But watching us I don’t think we create many genuine efforts.

We maybe get in good positions and flash it across goal etc.

But how many times do Nisbet, Youan, Melkersen McKirdy etc get slipped through on goal or receive a pass in a forward area where they’re able to get a shot away?

I saw about Melkersen when he left on loan that I don’t know if he’s a good finisher because out with Motherwell I can’t think of many decent chances he’s had. You could argue he doesn’t do enough to create them as when you look at Nisbet he’s been clinical when the ball gets to him

[Hibee Mac]

XG through stats maybe.

But watching us I don’t think we create many genuine efforts.

We maybe get in good positions and flash it across goal etc.

But how many times do Nisbet, Youan, Melkersen McKirdy etc get slipped through on goal or receive a pass in a forward area where they’re able to get a shot away?

I saw about Melkersen when he left on loan that I don’t know if he’s a good finisher because out with Motherwell I can’t think of many decent chances he’s had. You could argue he doesn’t do enough to create them as when you look at Nisbet he’s been clinical when the ball gets to himI agree mate, obviously it's night and day in terms of teams but when you think back to the team under Lennon when we had Allan McGinn and McGeouch in midfield, Kamberi and Maclaren were slipped through on goal countless times with really clear cut chances.

I just don't think we create those types of chance any where near as often and our forwards tend to play off scraps. And to add to that, Nisbet seems to be the only one who can actually turn scraps into goals.

[rcarter1]

XG through stats maybe.

But watching us I don’t think we create many genuine efforts.

We maybe get in good positions and flash it across goal etc.

But how many times do Nisbet, Youan, Melkersen McKirdy etc get slipped through on goal or receive a pass in a forward area where they’re able to get a shot away?

I saw about Melkersen when he left on loan that I don’t know if he’s a good finisher because out with Motherwell I can’t think of many decent chances he’s had. You could argue he doesn’t do enough to create them as when you look at Nisbet he’s been clinical when the ball gets to him

Agree, we dont make many actual chances. I think the xG makes the assumption that if you get into a good position you should be making and taking some of these. Hibs get into good positions but we are dreadful at turning them into real chances. I presume LJ and the coaching staff are working hard on this - if we suddenly make good chances surely we are going to make top 6 this season and build foundations for next year. But if we dont I still see a relegation scrap on the cards. We also seem to be honking at giving teams great chances with the few opportunities they have.

Hibs :bitchy:

[WestStandWillie]

We have players who continually make the same choices when in space within the penalty shots. They don’t shoot. Tippy tappy nonsense trying to walk it into net. So many times. Really boils my piss when you see other teams in same position and they get a shot on target, or actually score.

[I'm Spartacus]

At the moment, for me, xG is just a pile of pish.

[HarpOnHibee]

Problem with xG stats is that they show how many shots we have at goal and how many we have on target. They don't however show how good those chances actually were. It's easy to pass the ball to the opposition goalie from 35-40 yards out for a "shot on target". It doesn't make it a worthwhile chance to score though.

We create the most chances, but we also create the most subpar chances. Whereas across the road, they create the least chances, but many of those chances are somewhere in the middle of the box with a clear sight on goal.

[CapitalGreen]

Problem with xG stats is that they show how many shots we have at goal and how many we have on target. They don't however show how good those chances actually were. It's easy to pass the ball to the opposition goalie from 35-40 yards out for a "shot on target". It doesn't make it a worthwhile chance to score though.

We create the most chances, but we also create the most subpar chances. Whereas across the road, they create the least chances, but many of those chances are somewhere in the middle of the box with a clear sight on goal.

Your first sentence is entirely incorrect in the context of the xG stat being discussed on this thread. The xG number being discussed is our cumulative xG figure for the season divided by games played. It doesn’t tell us how many shots were taken or how many hit the target.

[HarpOnHibee]

Your first sentence is entirely incorrect in the context of the xG stat being discussed on this thread. The xG number being discussed is our cumulative xG figure for the season divided by games played. It doesn’t tell us how many shots were taken or how many hit the target.

It was bad wording on my part. What I should have said is that the xG figure is based on those statistics. But regardless, all it highlights is just how poor most of our opportunities are. We don't work many clear sights on goal from good angles inside the box.

[Callum_62]

It was bad wording on my part. What I should have said is that the xG figure is based on those statistics. But regardless, all it highlights is just how poor most of our opportunities are. We don't work many clear sights on goal from good angles inside the box.In which case our xG stat would be low?

xG stats arnt just based on 'a shot' but statistics around where the shot is coming from etc

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Vault Boy]

It was bad wording on my part. What I should have said is that the xG figure is based on those statistics. But regardless, all it highlights is just how poor most of our opportunities are. We don't work many clear sights on goal from good angles inside the box.

xG is based on the probability of scoring from each shot, not on overall shots/on target. It uses historical data to compare opportunities in similar positions and applies a rating to each chance on the basis of how likely a player is to score it. Your xG over the course of a game or a season is then the cumulative score of all your chances, how likely you should have been to score them vs your actual conversion rate.

When we first signed Kamberi and Maclaren, our actual chance conversion rate was outperforming xG, which ended up playing out the following season where this front line wasn’t as prolific. It’s a useful metric and helps to set the context behind outcomes, i.e. results vs performances. It nicely underpins the idea of ‘purple patches’ and ‘droughts’ in football, which I suppose boil down to the harder to quantify variables like mentality, confidence, composure etc.

[HarpOnHibee]

In which case our xG stat would be low?

xG stats arnt just based on 'a shot' but statistics around where the shot is coming from etc

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

In that case, I would consider xG statistics to be quite unreliable as there is always an element of subjectivity as to just how clear cut an opportunity actually is. I can only comment based on what I've seen from the team this season. I don't see us with too many chances that I would personally consider to be "on a plate" so to speak. It often looks like we're making it harder on ourselves than it needs to be. Whether that's making one decision too many in our attack or attempting something more complicated when there's a simpler more effective option available. But that's just from my own personal perspective.

[blackpoolhibs]

There's only two stats that matter, and that is we lose too many goals, and we dont score enough.

I dont need some guy behind a laptop to tell me that. :rolleyes:

[KWJ]

xG is based on the probability of scoring from each shot, not on overall shots/on target. It uses historical data to compare opportunities in similar positions and applies a rating to each chance on the basis of how likely a player is to score it. Your xG over the course of a game or a season is then the cumulative score of all your chances, how likely you should have been to score them vs your actual conversion rate.

When we first signed Kamberi and Maclaren, our actual chance conversion rate was outperforming xG, which ended up playing out the following season where this front line wasn’t as prolific. It’s a useful metric and helps to set the context behind outcomes, i.e. results vs performances. It nicely underpins the idea of ‘purple patches’ and ‘droughts’ in football, which I suppose boil down to the harder to quantify variables like mentality, confidence, composure etc.

Exactly. And while a little clunky, the key column on that chart is xG vs Actual which shows us bottom with -0.58. That must have been even worse before Nisbet came back. There's not a great deal LJ and the coaching team can do there apart from try and give those getting the opportunities confidence and (now including the Kensall, recruitment team and future DoF) bring in better goalscorers.

Vault Boy, you were pretty vocal about wanting LJ out, do these stats not change your mind a bit?

Oh - and the goals we concede being 1.63 on average PG instead of the expected 1.3 PG isn't down to bad defending but a combination of not looking good on Marshall and strikers doing better than expected against us - see Shankland's effort and probably a load of others I've blanked out.

[Vault Boy]

Exactly. And while a little clunky, the key column on that chart is xG vs Actual which shows us bottom with -0.58. That must have been even worse before Nisbet came back. There's not a great deal LJ and the coaching team can do there apart from try and give those getting the opportunities confidence and (now including the Kensall, recruitment team and future DoF) bring in better goalscorers.

Vault Boy, you were pretty vocal about wanting LJ out, do these stats not change your mind a bit?

Oh - and the goals we concede being 1.63 on average PG instead of the expected 1.3 PG isn't down to bad defending but a combination of not looking good on Marshall and strikers doing better than expected against us - see Shankland's effort and probably a load of others I've blanked out.

Just saw your question! I’m definitely surprised that our ranking on the xG table is so high - but my position on Johnson is based on a myriad of other factors and doesn’t change on this basis. He’s not liked by his squad, I’m not impressed by his press output, and ultimately it’s the other variables that impact conversion vs xG (motivation, awareness, confidence, being well-drilled, signing good finishers) that he can impact. And I don’t think he’s done a good job of that.

These stats are very interesting as a point of context, though. Agreed RE the point about Marsh, even he looks hesitant and second guessing his decisions at the moment.