This is what I’m saying, taking into account chance by chance basis it’s factually incorrect. The datum of each chance is completely different, the expected goal of a shot is completely dependant on who takes the shot, a shot on target is a result of an action. Not a prediction or assumption like xG. For example “oh we should be winning more games our xG is higher than X/Y” doesn’t ring true because some teams have Philogene others have Longman. *EDIT: Easier to say this is why it’s not an objective stat and whilst interesting shouldn’t hold the weight it does.
From the disputes I’ve seen on Twitter people regard it quite highly obviously within the actual game zero. Derby fans for example lording it over us as why our position is false.
You're describing precisely what the stat is designed to be. The whole point is to take away the quality of finishing to give a (close to) objective comparison of the level of chances a team created, to give an idea of how happy a team can be with their chance creation. It is overused and sometimes misused though.
In the actual game zero? It's a stat like any other. If people want to misunderstand it they'll misuse it.
xg is just a more detailed stat, its not really any different to any other shots.. a team had 10 shots this match, but then break it down 2 shots on target, 8 shots off target xg gives more detail, were they random pop shots from 30 yards, or did the team consistently get into the penalty area? its no worse or better than any other statistic really and it works better across averages instead of a sole game
using it as a metric to judge an individual players ability deffo has merit, judging a side though it misses the mark a bit. Also want to see more 30 yard screamers.
Are you talking about xG? It measures the plausibility of chances created, based on an average of all players, it says nothing about the quality of the player taking an individual chance. That's why our goals scored exceeds our xG - we have above average finishers (or we are very lucky, or both).
