Queens vs Pars

[Homer Thompson]

3 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

Except, you do. 

 

As shown by the three examples I showed you. 

A deflection or pass back going in isnt by your own efforts, is it? Shot hitting the post, I'll give you. Would that be counted as a shot off target though, I dont know?

The original point, though, was that not having a shot on target is poor from a squad with the attacking talent Dunfermline has. That doesnt change no matter what the xG is. Unless you're happy to rely on deflections and back passes to win games.

[HoBNob]

2 minutes ago, Mr X said:

A deflection or pass back going in isnt by your own efforts, is it? Shot hitting the post, I'll give you. Would that be counted as a shot off target though, I dont know?

The original point, though, was that not having a shot on target is poor from a squad with the attacking talent Dunfermline has. That doesnt change no matter what the xG is. Unless you're happy to rely on deflections and back passes to win games.

Hitting a shot that in turn goes in off a deflection is your own effort, if you don't take the shot the ball doesn't go in. Maybe you've pressured the defender into a bad back pass? Whatever happens on a football pitch had a cause. 

And yes, a shot hitting the woodwork counts as an off target shot, regardless of where it goes. 

 

You're statements that I was arguing with were that you can't score if you have 0 shots on target and that xG is bollocks. I've already said that no matter what way you dress it up that we're totally insipid going forward. 

 

[parsforlife]

Probably the best example of scoring through good play without a shot on target is when a hard low cross is turned in by a defender making a desperate attempt to clear it before the striker can tap it in.

im not sure xG would credit you for that tho.

[Otis Blue]

3 hours ago, Grant228 said:

Whenever a shot is taken on a football pitch it has a relevant xG (Expected Goal) the maxium an xG can be from a chance is 1, a penalty for example has an xG of 0.76, a tap in the middle of an empty goal might have an xG of 0.9 or something like, whereas a speculative 35 yard hit would be much lower, like 0.08 or something. 

Now if we were Mr X and we got to the end of a hypothetical game that finished 0-0, however one team had a penalty they put wide and had an open goal that they scooped over. However the opposition had one shot on target from 40 yards that reached the keeper at a snails pace, but was on target, who's had the better of the game? Mr X would be shouting from the rooftops that the team with one shot on target from 40 yards had the better of it. Its a nonsense. 

 

https://raumdatafootball.com/2020/01/19/the-worst-miss-ever-a-beginners-guide-to-expected-goals-part-1/

 

There's a article here explaining it, which shows the Yakubu miss

This has an xG of 0.99, because 99 times out of hundred that goes in. However in the 2010 match thread Mr X was busy posting about how it wasn't a shot on target so it should be forgotten about. 

 

Thanks for taking the time to explain this concept to me ....... I used to think it was in essence a very simple game, how wrong I was.

The Yakubu miss clip unfortunately brought back memories of Billy Bremner missing Brazil's goal from 2 yards in the 74 WC in Germany; something that scarred me psychologically as a 17 year old and clearly still gives me flashbacks. Although to be fair BB had less time to react than Yakubu did. Also reminds me of my hero John Dempster (QOS) clearing the Pars crossbar from centre of the 6 yard box in a Sunday Scottish Cup tie at EEP in 1974; we lost 1-0, think Alex Kinninmonth got the Pars winner. 74 was obviously an extremely painful time for me in my formative years ... but I digress, apologies. Please do carry on the statistical debate.

NB - much preferred EEP in its 70's layout; cracking stadium back then. Loved the continuous covered terrace from behind the goal at the town end and down the side to the uncovered end.

[Skyline Drifter]

4 hours ago, Grant228 said:

No, that's not a fact, if you a hit shot that hits the post and then goes in you've scored a goal and not had a shot on target,

Wait, what?

A shot at goal that goes in off the post doesnt count as a shot on target? What alternative reality is this? Am I misreading what you meant? Did you mean if it comes off the post then hits the keeper? Or a defender? 

A shot that goes in off the post is by definition on target surely? 

[Slipmat]

4 hours ago, Grant228 said:

Whenever a shot is taken on a football pitch it has a relevant xG (Expected Goal) the maxium an xG can be from a chance is 1, a penalty for example has an xG of 0.76, a tap in the middle of an empty goal might have an xG of 0.9 or something like, whereas a speculative 35 yard hit would be much lower, like 0.08 or something. 

Thanks for the explanation.  I'd never heard of this xG malarkey until now.

If I've understood correctly, a Dan Pybus shot must have a negative xG regardless of how easy the chance is perceived to be.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Slipmat

[Skyline Drifter]

4 hours ago, Grant228 said:

And yes, a shot hitting the woodwork counts as an off target shot, regardless of where it goes.  

Thats ludicrous.

Even something that clips the back of the post just before the whole ball crosses the line on its way in? 

Absolutely laughable measure of off target. If a shot at goal would enter goal under its own steam without a deflection unless someone prevents it its 'on target' for me. 

[parsforlife]

IMO on target should include part of the post, but it’s very difficult to quantify where that part is, depending on pace of the ball, spin or even any bobble on/ near to goal line changes that. 

It’s simple easier to say, hits the post=off target.  Otherwise we end up saying anything that hits the post is on target when that’s not true.

[Skyline Drifter]

15 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

IMO on target should include part of the post, but it’s very difficult to quantify where that part is, depending on pace of the ball, spin or even any bobble on/ near to goal line changes that. 

It’s simple easier to say, hits the post=off target.  Otherwise we end up saying anything that hits the post is on target when that’s not true.

The whole thing's subjective though. If it hits the post and goes in its clearly on target. If it hits the post and doesnt it clearly wasnt. Thats easy.

Who decides whether a shot hit towards the edge of the goal from 20 yards thats saved or blocked 6 yards from goal was 'on target' or would have hit the post (whether on its way in or not)? Or even gone wide. We dont have any ball tracking technology at this level. Some guy in the stand uses a bit of paper and his naked eye judgement.

The ones that actually do hit the post are the ones that we can be sure of. They either go in or they dont. If this xG measure actually doesnt count goals off a post as on target then it loses credibility. Nobody is suggesting the ones that hit the post and dont go in should count as on target.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Skyline Drifter

[parsforlife]

18 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

The whole thing's subjective though. If it hits the post and goes in its clearly on target. If it hits the post and doesnt it clearly wasnt. Thats easy.

Who decides whether a shot hit towards the edge of the goal from 20 yards thats saved or blocked 6 yards from goal was 'on target' or would have hit the post (whether on its way in or not)? Or even gone wide. We dont have any ball tracking technology at this level. Some guy in the stand uses a bit of paper and his naked eye judgement.

The ones that actually do hit the post are the ones that we can be sure of. They either go in or they dont. If this xG measure actually doesnt count goals off a post as on target then it loses credibility. Nobody is suggesting the ones that hit the post and dont go in should count as on target.

Of course it subjective. As you say, shots on target will be based on whatever the guy in the stand says.  The instructions they will be given is if they think its between the posts= on target, anything else off target.

xG isn't about where shots end up its about the situation they come from, the final analysis doesn't care. You score a penalty, its 0.76, you miss it your xG from that is still 0.76. 

[HoBNob]

xG doesn't count if a shot is on or off target, it just measures how good a chance it is, how probable it was that you were going to score it, the end result does not effect the data. 

[Skyline Drifter]

9 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

xG doesn't count if a shot is on or off target, it just measures how good a chance it is, how probable it was that you were going to score it, the end result does not effect the data. 

Ok, it doesnt relate to the xG measure, but you said that a shot hitting the woodwork counts as off target whether it goes in or not, right here:

5 hours ago, Grant228 said:

And yes, a shot hitting the woodwork counts as an off target shot, regardless of where it goes.

Thats plainly utter codswallop. 

11 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Of course it subjective. As you say, shots on target will be based on whatever the guy in the stand says.  The instructions they will be given is if they think its between the posts= on target, anything else off target.

And that instruction is perfectly reasonable on a subjective judgement before a ball reaches goal. Once it physically hits the post though it ceases to be subjective. Its factual. It either goes in without further contact with another player or it doesnt. 

If it does, then it was self evidently 'on target'. And should be counted as such by anyone with a double figure IQ. 

[HoBNob]

26 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Ok, it doesnt relate to the xG measure, but you said that a shot hitting the woodwork counts as off target whether it goes in or not, right here:

Thats plainly utter codswallop. 

And that instruction is perfectly reasonable on a subjective judgement before a ball reaches goal. Once it physically hits the post though it ceases to be subjective. Its factual. It either goes in without further contact with another player or it doesnt. 

If it does, then it was self evidently 'on target'. And should be counted as such by anyone with a double figure IQ. 

Aye, I got my wires crossed with that. C'est la vie. Took the Fifa definition of a shot in target in far to much good faith. 

I called that absolutely wrong, you called the game on Saturday O.K, everyone's made mistakes. 

Regardless it's still perfectly capable of scoring a goal without having a shot on target. 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Grant228

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, Grant228 said:

Aye, I got my wires crossed with that. C'est la vie. Took the Fifa definition of a shot in target in far to much good faith. 

I called that absolutely wrong, you called the game on Saturday O.K, everyone's made mistakes. 

Regardless it's still perfectly capable of scoring a goal without having a shot on target. 

I never said it wasnt. 

Game on saturday was ok. I stand by it. Not good by any means but not awful and not even the worst Queens game of the week. I enjoyed it more than our loss at Inverness the week before, even before the goal.

[HoBNob]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I never said it wasnt. 

Game on saturday was ok. I stand by it. Not good by any means but not awful and not even the worst Queens game of the week. I enjoyed it more than our loss at Inverness the week before, even before the goal.

Fair one, I personally chose to admit when I was wrong, you doubled down. Fair play!