Fair points, I hadn't looked back at that - so xG doesn't factor in GK ability - which makes sense, but then shows how flawed the whole thing is I guess.
It's not flawed. It's a simple measure of how often a shot from that position ends up in a goal. It stands to reason that the better goalkeepers will save more than expected and vice versa, the better finishers will score more than expected. This is why the better teams will, generally, outperform these measures.
Yeah, but your 8pts comments - LOL
We've averaged (more than) 8 because we've averaged (more than) 8 and guess what, we're going at 8+ this season
And I picked out those 5 full seasons as they're the ones that coincide with Liverpool having a side competing at the top of the table, similar to now. Including this season we've massively outperformed xPTS in 4 of the 6 seasons since then - those seasons are the norm, not the two seasons where we've had really bad seasons (and still ended up equalling xPTS). Because of Alisson we're a side that will always outperform these metrics - when we have a good season we'll be miles ahead of expectations and when we have a bad season we'll be in line with expectations.But the simple fact is it's not sustainable as proven by the last few years, 0 points, 5 points, 0 points - hence 'not sustainable'...even your comment about those winning the league; 6 points, 1 point, 3 points.We've averaged (more than) 8 because we've averaged (more than) 8 and guess what, we're going at 8+ this season
You admitted in your earlier post that you don't understand how xG is calculated and that shows in these posts. As I explained, xPTS is a simple calculation between xG for and against in each match. If you look back through every season in which Alisson has been at the club, we've outpeformed xGA by big amounts - we've shown therefore that this is sustainable. That means that our performance relative to xPTS is almost entirely linked to our attack - if you look back through the 5/6 seasons, when our attack has performed inline (or above) xG then our xPTS have been way above expectations, up to a huge amount when our attack has overperformed as much as Alisson has and when we've underperformed in attack our xPTS 'only' reverts to the norm. Our performances in attack this season have been bang in line with xG - that is 100% sustainable and as mentioned, outperforming xGA is exactly what we always do so again sustainable. Our points total relative to performances is exactly where it should be based on our players - this will only change (for good or bad) if the performance of our forwards change or we're without Alisson for a prolonged period.
Ha, I know exactly how xG is calculated, I just hadn't considered that is doesn't take into account the ability of the keeper. And yes, xPTS looks at the xG and simply states whichever team had the higher xG 'deserved to win' - seems another flawed metric...for example, if you didn't get more than +1 xG then is it really fair that that table gives you the 3 points? because technically you didn't do enough to beat the team by the required 1 goal (is there such a table anywhere?)
I guess this boils down to how you determine what is and isn't sustainable. If you accept that Liverpool will outperform xGA then we're only looking at xG and we're not outperforming xG - we're performing, broadly speaking, inline with what we're expected to. Of course it doesn't guarantee that we will continue to do so and when I say it's 100% sustainable, I'm saying that it's perfectly logical (to be expected in fact) that we'll continue to do so, not that it definitely will happen (which I cover in my final sentence).
Just to clarify we were discussing xG, you didn't specifically say 4 but you said; "if you look back through the 5/6 seasons, when our attack has performed inline (or above) xG then our xPTS have been way above expectations," - 2 of the last 4 seasons (that's 50%) your attack has not performed near xG (both around -4/-5) and these seasons you 'only' hit you xPTS - hence my comment about it not being sustainable or near 100%.
A) So 4 of 4 has become 2 of 4? B) We were covering a 5/6 season period at which Liverpool have competed at the top of the table - why not pick out 1 season or even 1 game, that will allow you to mislead even more.
Sorry, 4 of 4 was a typo - I meant 2 of 4...must have had a senior moment! You can go back as far as you want mate, you want to go 6? Ok - so 30% is still a risk...remember, this is based on your '100%' comment.
You're attempting to twist words to make out I've said something which I've not rather than accept what you said was wrong. I never said Liverpool 100% would continue to (or had) match/better xG/xGA - I said it's 100% sustainable and if you look up the meaning of the word sustainable, it's being able to maintain a certain level. Are Liverpool able to maintain that level? 100% they're able to, whether they do only time will tell, which I said in that very post but again you're going to ignore that because you're still digging after making up a nonsense claim or you don't know the meaning of the word sustainable.
History has proven they didn't 2 of the last 4 seasons. Not sure what you're not getting...and I quoted earlier what sustainable means.
So in 2 they did (and the other 5 that you want to ignore) so they are able to maintain that level so it's therefore sustainable. Thank god we've finally cleared that up.
Yeah, sorry 2 in 9 they didn't
And neither did I say it's 100% going to happen. The issue here is you seem to have confused me saying something is 100% sustainable to meaning it's 100% going to happen, when that's not what it means.Yeah, sorry 2 in 9 they didn't
I'm not saying they can't, just that it's not 100%...and I really am out now, didn't mean to upset you.
