The new Arsenal Club Thread - *No Spoilers & Read OP Before Posting*

[BaZ87]

Sorry, I meant xPTS (also xGA) - point being, you've got more point's than you should have based on what is expected by quite a bit (over 8pts);

EPL xG Table and Scorers for the 2024/2025 season | Understat.com

xG table of EPL standings and top scorers for the 2024/2025 season, also tables from past seasons and other European football leagues.

understat.com

Expected points is based on the difference in xG & xGA in each game and it's only xGA where we're outperforming and if you look back through every season since signing Alisson, we always massively outperform xGA. It's a perk of having the best keeper in the world.

Over the last 5 seasons, which obviously include 2 very poor seasons, we've out performed xPTS by an average of 8+ points so it is sustainable. In fact sides at the top of the table almost always outperform xPTS by similar, if not bigger margins.

 

[BaZ87]

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.

 

[BaZ87]

Yeah, but your 8pts comments - LOL

5 maybe, but you only averaged 8 because you included a ridiculous season, only last season you got ~0...shows how sustainable it is

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.

 

[BaZ87]

But the simple fact is it's not sustainable as proven buy 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.

So no, sorry, we will have to agree to disagree.

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.

 

[BaZ87]

I totally understand where you're coming from now, but the fact you're hitting xG at the moment doesn't necessarily mean you will maintain it, because (as you say) you have not done so in 4 of the last 4 years, so again - is it sustainable? "able to be maintained at a certain rate or level." I'd say not (certainly not your 100%!), anything can happen in the last 13 games what with injuries etc.

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).

As you say, anything can happen. Alisson is currently injured, although hopefully only for a match or two but equally Salah and or Nunez could go on a hot streak and we could start massively outperforming our xG. The underlying point though is that to this point of the season, Liverpool are not performing better than they should be, which was your implication when you mentioned us outperforming xG and then corrected yourself to xPTS. We're overperforming compared to the norm but we're not the norm because of one beautiful, bearded Brazilian bear.

edit: and where did I say we didn't in 4 of 4 years? We've bettered xPTS in 4 of 6 seasons including this and in two of those seasons by much more than this season.

 

[BaZ87]

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.

Since the 18/19 season we've outperformed xG in 4 of 6 seasons including this one on a season by season basis and have outperformed xG on an overall basis over that period so to suggest that Liverpool going along at fractionally over xG this season is unsustainable is nothing short of nonsense.

*And if you want an even larger sample size, look at every season under Klopp and it's 7 of 9. The cumulative outperformance of xG is even greater. To suggest it's not sustainable to simply maintain xG is laughable.

Now I appreciate you said something completely incorrect to begin with and have since tried to claim that you meant something else and then admitted that you didn't realise player ability doesn't factor into xG/xGA etc but you should probably put the shovel down now.

 

[BaZ87]

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.

I mentioned the last 4 because it has been one season positive, one season negative, one season positive, one season negative. Does that sound consistent? Does that sound sustainable? Frankly, if you think it is then good for you...but it's certainly not nonsense vs the "100%" comment lol

Even 7/9 is not 100%, I can see maths is not your strong point.

Anyway, this is an Arsenal thread so probably should be talking about Arsenal lol

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.

By claiming it's not sustainable, you're saying they're not able to maintain that level and history has proven that they are and do so most seasons.

 

[BaZ87]

History has proven they didn't 2 of the last 4 seasons.

Not sure what you're not getting.

I admitted I made a mistake also...we are just human. Anyway, I'm stepping out and bow to your superior knowledge.

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.

 

[BaZ87]

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.

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.

Anyway we should leave this before somebody complains and I ban them for derailing the thread.