The analysis is interesting (more so than I thought when you brought it up). However, I still have this reservation:

• there's no analysis (and it's not your fault) of the news items where xG is generated without opportunity/goal --> that's the whole problem, in my opinion, because the opportunity/goal conversion rate is nice, you learn little tricks, but it allows for very limited analysis. And the game is largely made up of news items (with xG) that don't provide any opportunities. (You only have to look at the number of people complaining that nothing happens in matches, and rightly so, since nothing can be displayed for dozens of minutes sometimes). Now, an event at 0.2xG that doesn't generate any chances is no less dangerous on paper than an opportunity at 0.1xG. The opportunity is just a display.

If there were to be an evolution, I'd tend to agree with woodz. The impact of variance is much less significant when you increase the number of events. And I hope that this kind of analysis will make Aymeric want to give the evolution of xG for each event, not just for each action, even if it means reducing the size of the sample of matches.

Great job Azby, a future data analyst if you're not one already!

In any case, if I've understood correctly, recently the match engine seems to be much more punitive as soon as a premium opportunity is created.
That's why I made the link with LR's 260 points, because as the dominant cartel, it wouldn't have been surprising if they'd benefited from this 'bonus' in terms of concretisation.

As for the rest, the options are on the table, even if there may be (i) counter-measures to these options (such as reducing the number of chances scored on goal to something more dispersed) or (ii) other options: creating a malus on afk, dealing with the bugs of attacks that are too strong on the flanks, etc.

Well done!

CP has come a long way 😁

Or it must have been strange for him to have an audience that understood his paintings 😁

Either way, hats off to the artists. Even if you can have several angles of reading, and an opinion on the raw data, at least it gives you something to think about.

Very clean analysis, well done 👍🏼

It confirms the feeling, and I also think that the various solutions proposed can improve the situation.

After that, it's highly likely that we'll get the basic premise wrong, in which case the analysis no longer holds. 🤷

It's really just a thought exercise.

Well done, and thanks for your work.

Has pieutte understood anything?

Nice work ...even if I didn't understand everything ;( ;( ;(

And well done for the investment and, I'd even go so far as to say, the self-sacrifice, because all this work, which is likely to have taken several hours, can be wiped out in 5 seconds with a small, discreet and unannounced change to a programme line or even a single digit in one of the programme lines that manages the MDM!

Unfortunately in this game, the truths of today are not the truths of yesterday, nor are they the truths of tomorrow. For example, you only have to look at the current releases of players from the CDF, detections and players from the VF store!

Adrimax: Bravo, et merci pour le taff.

Est ce que pieutte a compris qque chose ?

I wrote it...

Adrimax: Bravo, et merci pour le taff.

Est ce que pieutte a compris qque chose ?

You already have the answer, admit it.

What a job this analysis has done, and even if it's difficult to understand in detail, it allows the majority to understand how the whole thing works, the creator to have another vision, and the more mathematically minded to get their bearings and bounce back.

Most of us wanted a change and we got it, and that's a very positive thing.

So yes, there are bound to be some adjustments, but we're moving in the right direction and we have the impression that we're being heard.

For the first time in a long time I'm thinking that maybe I won't end up getting bored with this game in the medium term, and that's great.

jul068: Le niveau CP a sacrément évolué 😁

It's an average.

I'll let you imagine the idiots we have to catch up with. And right now I'm going to propose an idea so that you understand what I'm talking about 😅

Idea: to avoid having the impression that nothing is happening, to have regular "actions" and, in addition to fouls, cards, chances and goals, we add pink rectangles with comments such as "The teams are neutralising each other" "Absolutely nothing is happening today. "What a boring match..."

I realise as I'm writing this how boring it is 😄

Listen to the others instead, have a good day

Galywat: L'analyse est intéressante (plus que ce que je pensais quand vous l'avez ébruité -le filtre temporel est par ailleurs malin-). Néanmoins, j'ai toujours cette réserve :

• il n'y a pas d'analyse (et c'est pas de votre faute) sur les actu où sont générées de la xG sans occasion/but --> c'est tout le problème selon moi car le taux de conversion occasion/but, c'est sympa, on apprend des petits trucs, mais ça permet des analyses très limitées. Or le jeu est en grande partie constitué d'actus (avec...

This is precisely the major point I noted when reading Misha and Azby's analyses, and which I've tried to explore further.

What you get:

• The raw xG of the update generated in the file (the analysis here focuses on that)

What we don't see (in the style of the bias that made us think that a fault generated xG):

• The probability of the event that generated xG being fired.
• The unknown influence of independent factors on xG (styles of play, aggressiveness, attacking vs. defending, etc.).

So, my hypothesis was that an action at 0.01xG at 0.25 will generate a 25% chance of blue and a 75% chance of green. Even so, the probability of seeing a set [green,blue] for a stock at 0.01xG will potentially be 4%, compared with 80% for a stock at 0.2xG. So we could have the following distribution of draws:
0.01xG: 1 goal, 3 actions, 96 events with no indications
0.2xG: 20 goals, 60 actions, 20 events with no indications

On paper, the consistency of the xGs would therefore be followed, but the display would show that 25% of the chances [action,goal] would result in a goal (1/4 vs 20/80). However, I don't think it's possible to analyse this ratio because, unless I'm mistaken, it hasn't been quantified. Furthermore, we don't know how certain parameters could influence these ratios, for example, aggressiveness could very well increase changing a ratio of 0.01xG as it is:
0.01xG: 1 goal, 3 actions, 96 events with no indications (no aggressiveness)
Aggressiveness++: 20 goals, 20 actions, 20 yellow cards, 20 red cards, 20 fouls

The only analysis I've found that could be used to answer this question slightly is based on the figures in Misha's first table. The first thing that caught my eye was the 'Opportunities' column (shown in blue, including green and blue actu), where there are several trends that go with the narrative:

• Up to 0.22xG: Gradual increase in the number of chances (as if the probability of goals increased, but also the probability of chances)
• 0.22-0.24: We reach a sort of threshold in the number of chances and goal conversions, which does not vary particularly.
• 0.25+: The number of chances increases considerably, with the conversion rate equivalent to the xG overall.

I therefore carried out a totally empirical test based on the assumption that the xG really represents the probability of scoring independently of the conversion rate of 25% of the subset [goals,actions] as I detailed above, by dividing the number of goals by the xG of the levels, to obtain "xEvents" (the number of events expected per xG increment, including goals, actions, and non-visible artefacts), shown in green (note that this value is biased for very low xG, dividing by very low increments leads to very high Y variations, xEvents stabilises at around 0.03xG. Ideally, we should either exclude them or subtract them by subgroups of 0.001 of xG). Behind this, I simply projected the ratio of Occasions to xEvents, to observe empirically the proportion of occasions to the number of events at each level of xG (in red). Empirically, we can see that :

• Up to 0.25xG, the probability of an occasion is not 100%. There may be other events different from the subset [action,goals] whose existence we don't know. But if we follow the curve, we would have xOccasion = 4xG, xBut = xG, xAction = 3xG (an occasion has a 25% chance of ending up as a goal, and a 75% chance of ending up as an action), and xArtefact = 1 - 4xG (an event that is not an occasion).
• From 0.25xG, every event seems to be an opportunity [action,goal], which represents Azby and Misha's "premium" bracket. Here, we would have xBut = xG (Azby/Misha analysis), and xOccasion = 1 - xG, for no artefact event.
  

The xG would therefore really represent the probability of scoring, despite the fact that an opportunity always has a 25% chance of scoring.... assuming that no parameter can be used to considerably increase the probability of generating an opportunity, without modifying the xG. And above all, it generates a feeling of gag goals all the time, because 25% of the "gagesque" chances you'll see displayed will end up as goals, without seeing the "artefact" news package.

Hats off to you guys for your analysis!

brewen: C'est justement le point majeur que j'ai noté lors de la lecture des analyses de Misha et Azby, et que j'ai tenté d'approfondir.

Ce qu'on a :

• La xG brute de l'actualisation générée dans le fichier (l'analyse ici porte sur ça)

Ce qu'on ne voit pas (dans le style du biais qui nous faisait penser qu'une faute générait de la xG) :

• La proba qu'avait l'event ayant actualisé de la xG, d'être tiré.
• L'influence inconnue de facteurs indépendants sur la xG (les styles de jeux, l'agressivité, of...

Yes, I think it's a pretty good method. My main point was that you can't get much out of this analysis.

So yeah, there's not much to analyse in terms of news without opportunities/goals because you can't always see the xGs. Having said that, aymeric's file also gives the news with fouls (which don't generate any change in xG) but displays the xG at the time. So you can see at the start of a match which news items had xG without a chance/goal.

Based on the start of the match, you can see the % of each event (chances/goals/0 chances) by xG. It's not the most detailed because the number of samples is small, but it does give a trend that may help some people to understand xG better.

image](https://i.imgur.com/w8K2zlv.png)

Where is @demi brain ... ? 🧐🤓

PS: Nice work guys it's strong, very strong!
PS2 : No bickering on this post please

You're in luck, we're on the CP discord every day and there are several of them, they're multiplying.

I just wanted to have a mug at the start. In the end, I'm drinking alone and colouring while they chat.

Socrate: Où est @demi cerveau … ? 🧐🤓

PS : Beau boulot les mecs c’est costaud, très costaud !
PS2 : Pas de chamaillerie sur ce post svp

I don't get it.

More seriously, I read, I try to understand what it's about, I don't always succeed but it's really interesting.

I like Galy's last analysis, which seems to me a fairly simple model to set up and which would corroborate the basic observations.

And above all, if all this proves to be true, I'll continue to bitterly miss the days when we could see xg rising live and continuously. Sure, it didn't look very xg, but it was a great tool for monitoring and analysing matches live.

Demi-cerveau: J'ai rien compris.

Plus sérieusement, je lis, j'essaie de saisir de quoi ça parle, j'y arrive pas toujours mais c'est bigrement intéressant.

J'aime bien la dernière analyse de Galy, qui me semble une modélisation assez simple à mettre en place et qui corroborerait bien les observations de base.

Et surtout, si tout cela est avéré, je vais continuer à regretter amèrement l'époque où on voyait monter la xg en direct et de manière continue. Certes, ça faisait pas très xg, mais c'était un bel...

Yeah, clearly it's a bit lacking I think. It would at least allow you to "see" what's going on even without any action.

I'd like to say a big thank you to all those who have been analysing and producing the figures for this Xg analysis over the last few days.

For my part, I'm like Demi, I just don't get it.

But I do have one question:

• Can the tactics and instructions of each club be taken into account in the concretisation Xg / goal?

For example, if you have a large number of players in defence and the instructions are that the defence shouldn't give away too many Xg compared to an offside team, the Xg won't be the same, but can that influence the final result?

Brutus: Déjà un grand respect à tous ceux qui ont analysé, sorti les chiffres ces derniers jours pour cette analyse des Xg.

De mon côté, je suis comme Demi, rien capté, ça me dépasse là.

Par contre, j’ai une question :

• Est-ce que les tactiques et consignes de chaque club peuvent-elles être prise en compte dans la concrétisation Xg / but ?

Ex. : grand nombre de joueurs en défense, consigne défense ne donne pas trop trop d’Xg comparé à une équipe off, les Xg ne seront pas les mêmes mais cela peut...

Roughly speaking, nothing influences the xG --> goal conversion (or even the opportunity).

All your tactical instructions etc... influence xG directly.

Ok thanks Galy 🙂

Thanks for your feedback, here or by PM.
It's hard to read between two things to do, so I'll take the time to look at it properly.

So if I understand the analyses correctly, it's the opportunity/goal conversion rate, which is probably managed by a poisson's law, that leads to these goals often coming from elsewhere because there's as much chance of scoring with a low XG opportunity as with a maximum opportunity? Would the XG be more of a translation of what's happening in the match, but have little effect on the result?
We should therefore suggest to aymeric that we award 1 goal for every 5 chances with less than 0.20xg and 1 /3 for XG greater than 0.27xg, so that we can reward the teams that dominate?

Tomasm: Donc si je comprend bien les analyses, c'est le taux de conversion occasion / but géré surement par une loi de poisson, qui fait qu'on à ces buts souvent venu d'ailleurs car il y a autant de chances de marquer avec une occasions à faible XG plutôt qu'une occasion maximale ? La XG serait plus une traduction de ce qui se passe dans le match, mais n'aurait que peut d'effet sur le résultat ?
Il faudrait donc proposer à aymeric de faire en sorte d'attribuer 1 but / 5 occasions à moins de 0,20xg et...

No, it's mainly that the opportunity/goal conversion rate doesn't really make sense.

Yes, gali, so the tactics aren't working either? It doesn't really work

mick3829: Oui gali donc la tactique non plus ? Sa ne fonctionne pas franchement

Tactics always help you distribute your stats. After that, there's always an element of randomness when it comes to converting these stats into xG/goal, but there's not much you can do about that - it'll always exist.

Galywat: La tactique te sert toujours à bien répartir tes stats. Après il y a toujours une part d'aléatoire pour la conversion de ces stats en xG/but, ça on n'y peut pas grand chose ça existera toujours

Very random, especially at the moment
More and more crazy matches like this one (fortunately it doesn't end in a carrot lol)
It's regular now to see teams score 2 goals with < 0.5xG

Galy, it wasn't like this before, don't tell me otherwise, now I have the impression that you can do whatever you want, it's just randomness. Maybe I'm bad, I don't know, but frankly it's obvious, and I'm not just talking about my defeats, even my victories, I don't understand them at all.

It would be interesting to see if xG = goal in the global data now.

Because if that's the case, it would show that there's a rebalancing in certain matches to compensate for matches with 7 goals for 2xG.
As things stand, it's normally impossible for xG = goal when you see the number of matches with at least 3-4 goals for 1xG.

Skyz: Ca serait intéressant de regarder si les xG = but dans la data globale maintenant.

Car si c'est le cas ça montrerait qu'il y a un rééquilibrage sur certains matchs pour compenser les matchs à 7 buts pour 2xG.
En l'état c'est normalement impossible que xG = but quand on voit le nombre de matchs à minimum 3-4 buts pour 1xG

Of course, if it's possible, just include in your analysis all the games without a goal but with more xG. It's an average.

Skyz: Ca serait intéressant de regarder si les xG = but dans la data globale maintenant.

Car si c'est le cas ça montrerait qu'il y a un rééquilibrage sur certains matchs pour compenser les matchs à 7 buts pour 2xG.
En l'état c'est normalement impossible que xG = but quand on voit le nombre de matchs à minimum 3-4 buts pour 1xG

It's the same for average salaries in France. If you were above average for the first 30 years of your career, you don't get paid for the last 10. That's the rebalancing.

Galywat: Bien sûr que si c'est possible, tu omets juste de ton analyse tous les matchs sans but mais avec plus de xG. C'est une moyenne.

If all the chances actually have ~25% conversion, then the goal expectancy depends solely on the number of shots (0.25 × shots), and not on the sum of the xGs. So a team with 10 chances at 0.1 xG (1 xG) actually has an expectation of 2.5 goals. This shows that the xGs displayed do not represent the real probabilities and are not a good indicator.

No, the conversion % is not necessarily 25%.
It depends on the xG of the share and you have shares without xG.

That's what I said above, with supporting evidence (or on the other subject I'm a bit confused).

Galywat: Non le % de conversion c'est pas nécessairement 25%
Ça dépend du xG de l'action et tu as des montées de xG sans action de type occasion ou but.

C'est ce que j'ai mis un peu plus haut, avec preuves à l'appui (ou sur l'autre sujet je m'y perds un peu).

I said around 25%.
You can clearly see that there's been an increase in the number of goals and crazy games in terms of xG/goals in certain matches.

Games with 7 goals for 2xG and then 5xG 0 goals to make up for it.

Just take the case of this manager's games and you can only laugh.
#match?mid=6691663&score
#match?mid=6691145&score
#match?mid=6694260&score
All this in the space of a week is magnificent.

I think you meant to say that you have xg that can rise without any visible action.

Skyz: J'ai dit environ 25%
On voit bien qu'il y a eu une augmentation du nombre de buts et de matchs délirants en terme d'xG/buts sur certains matchs.

Des matchs avec 7 buts pour 2xG et ensuite 5xG 0 but pour rattraper

Tu prends juste le cas des matchs de ce manager tu ne peux que rigoler
#match?mid=6691663&score
#match?mid=6691145&score
#match?mid=6694260&score
Tout ça en l'espace d'une semaine c'est magnifique.

Yes, but as I said last time, it doesn't matter what the goal conversion opportunity is.

Yes, you can have chances with 0.01 xG or at 0.xG but not with the same probability.

--> ≈3% chance of an opportunity at 0.01 xG and exactly 1% chance of a goal
--> ≈60% chance of opportunity at 0.20xG and exactly 20% chance of goal.

Yet you'll have a 25% "conversion rate" in both cases, but that doesn't say much.