The defense was bad and anything that seems to tell you otherwise shouldn't be trusted. That game could be used as a case study on why that chart doesn't match reality. There were a lot of dangerous near misses that didn't lead to a shot. E.g., I don't see any black mark for that nice lobbing cross that didn't quite find anyone at the right post. Augsburg was failing to execute on the lapses, but the lapses were bad. And there were should-have-been yellows used to snuff out some other lapses. As much as it seems like Bayern gets the benefit of the doubt on fouls, MD24 it seemed like BVB got away with quite a few yellow-card-worthy fouls and somehow got not one.
Gotze unsurprisingly is near the top. So is (somewhat more surprisingly) Dahoud. Considering the amount of passing they do and they skill they have, that does make sense if you actually look at their passing contributions compared to a guy like Pulisic. If CP played where Gotze plays, would he have the consistent passing numbers/contribution Gotze does? While y-lee thinks so, I think the answer is probably not. The BVB coaching staff seems to agree with me. But who knows, if Gotze goes down maybe they'll play him there some more.
xa90, expected assists per 90. Unlike stats such as "goals", "assists", and even "key passes", a calculation like xa90 takes into account more, contextually. And for me, if you're talking about stats, context is king. There's a reason that players with high xa90 are the best creators in the world. Because of their very nature, numbers like xg90 and xa90 translate pretty well to actual production. And there are a bunch of other numbers to look at to gain an even better picture of a player's involvement. Some of which, frankly, confuse me. But xa90 is pretty straight forward, and coupling it with more traditional stats (number of touches, through balls, dribbles, backwards passes, chances created) tells a fuller story of a player's performance.
Correct, but models that calculate chances that aren't shots aren't public. This is the best I can show. If you're looking at the end result, then neither does a saved shot. Shots on target that don't go in don't mean that a team is playing better than a team with shots off target.
I totally misread and skipped over "saved shot"... but surely a team that is creating chances that end up in shots on target is performing better than a team whose shots aren't on target? If a keeper is standing on his head keeping good shots out, that doesn't mean the attacking team isn't performing well... right? Or are you just talking about play as it relates to chances of success in the match?
A shot has to be on target (well, usually) for a goal to occur, so of course it technically is better, but comparing number of shots and shots on target reflects more on the defensive play styles of the teams then it does the game itself. I suspect that in a few years, people will start talking about shots/on target the same way they do now with possession: accurate, explains some things, but it leaves more unknowns about "who played better" than any statistic used to talk about the "better team" should.
They are out there, switch your capitals around to xA and xG ad add the word soccer and bam the world of information is yours.
Watching this Dortmund is a chore. I used to follow them just for the pretty soccer, now I don't feel like watching even when Puli plays.
I hope bVb can bring in wagner, Stoger is doing something worse than losing, he's utterly boring and soul killing.
Commentators absolutely skewering stoger for his lack of ambition, lack of energy, lack of entertainment, lack of soul.