Thiago Translantara

[KingLeo10]

You lot make me laugh

Seeing you lot defend Thiago, is like a watching someone defend and wanting their ex-girlfriend back after she leaves you for another bloke. You lot more than anyone should be like "fuck this bitch" and love how he got schooled by Tom Davies yesterday.

Twitter is laughing at this flop, Bayern fans are laughing at this flop, Liverpool fans are calling him a flop, but here are Barcelona fans sitting there in hope going "maybe he (she) will come back to us"

Why hasn't this clown been banned already?

 

[Yannik]

Twitter is laughing at this flop

I cannot imagine unironically getting my talking points from twitter.

 

[Birdy]

Midtable mediocrity.

The only thing laughable is you fronting as a Liverpool lawyer without even being paid for it.

Stick to xG.

LOL 'midtable mediocrity' about the side with the 2nd most leagues in England, and most CLs in English football,
And being condescending about xG:
Thanks for saving me time from having to answer to you, ridiculing yourself and showing ignorance about football...

I am lawyer of City as well the last 5 years, and of many other sides that play decent football, unlike Barca of recent times. Sorry I am not a fanboy, but a fan.
My problem, Go back now to your parallel reality

 

[KingLeo10]

LOL 'midtable mediocrity' about the side with the 2nd most leagues in England, and most CLs in English football,
And being condescending about xG:
Thanks for saving me time from having to answer to you, ridiculing yourself and showing ignorance about football...

I am lawyer of City as well the last 5 years, and of many other sides that play decent football, unlike Barca of recent times. Sorry I am not a fanboy, but a fan.
My problem, Go back now to your parallel reality

I actually have a formal education in statistics, dawg. And I know enough about xG to know that it doesn't have the all-purpose use that you often subject it to.

So my point on that is still salient.

Also, very interesting to see you cartwheel for Liverpool's glory, the vast majority of which was before the 1990s. Lmao. And to add to that, you bandwagon City too? Do us all a favor and take that Xavi picture from your signature, you opportunist.

 

[BarcaOG]

I actually have a formal education in statistics, dawg. And I know enough about xG to know that it doesn't have the all-purpose use that you often subject it to.

So my point on that is still salient.

Also, very interesting to see you cartwheel for Liverpool's glory, the vast majority of which was before the 1990s. Lmao. And to add to that, you bandwagon City too? Do us all a favor and take that Xavi picture from your signature, you opportunist.

i love this! can you expand kingleo?

 

[Birdy]

I actually have a formal education in statistics, dawg. And I know enough about xG to know that it doesn't have the all-purpose use that you often subject it to.

So my point on that is still salient.

Also, very interesting to see you cartwheel for Liverpool's glory, the vast majority of which was before the 1990s. Lmao. And to add to that, you bandwagon City too? Do us all a favor and take that Xavi picture from your signature, you opportunist.

So you are a formally educated statistician who is a stat disbeliever. LOL

I don't know if you have heard that coaches study ways of attacking/defending so as to maximize xG taken, and minimize xG conceded?
I guess you don't. Take that bit for the new thing you learned today, and next time you are going to downplay xG stats think twice.

If by 'all-purpose' you mean efficiency, yes that's what they measure. I have posted other stats many times as well that capture other aspects of the game.
The analytics part of the sport is growing so much that only dinosaurs underestimate it these days.
Maybe you should look into that personally: gradually more and more people with math/stat formal education get employed in the data analytics departments of clubs.

Then, yeah it's well known that teams rise and fall in cycles. Liverpool is on the rising cycle now. United had disappeared before Ferguson, and then rose again.
It's not improbable to think how many anti-United fans - during the first few years of them winning stuff again - would have been going 'oh they belong to mid-table mediocrity'.
Do better than that...

Yeah i currently like BOTH City AND Liverpool. I know its hard for fanboys to fathom that.
Like I said, sorry I am not a fanboy, I am a football fan mate.

 

[KingLeo10]

So you are a formally educated statistician who is a stat disbeliever. LOL

Maybe some reading comprehension would do you good.

The problem, as with all statistics, is not in the tool but people like you who either 1) over-interpret or worse 2) inappropriately or misinterpret.

Let's start with basics and see if you actually know what you are talking about. I hate pseudo intellectuals like you.

1) What is the basis of the xG model that you reference. Is it in the frequentist framework or the Bayesian framework? My understanding, based on when I looked at the mechanics behind xG calculations some months earlier, is that it stems from logistic regression models in the frequentist framework. Surely, you know the litany of assumptions and caveats that come with using logistic regression to model the probability of a goal from some linear combination of explanatory variables (and if in the Bayesian framework, then the importance of choosing the right 'prior' distribution). Maybe xG is better than no xG (or maybe it isn't). But it surely isn't the end all and be all that you're propagating with your "you are going to downplay xG stats think twice".

2) What I'm still unsure about regarding xG is - Does xG take into account the quality of the player taking the shot? And if so, HOW WELL is that being considered? Because, if not, then I reiterate my stance that I have moderate to low faith in xG.

Oh, and a general word of advice - the less you question your statistical model and the more absolute you deem it, the worse it usually is.

 

[Birdy]

OK,
So I am a 'pseudo-intellectual', but you showing off with flashy terminology like 'Bayesian framework', 'logistic regression', and 'frequentist framework' are what exactly?

If you are a statistician and you are unable to explain to a lay-person what your stat model is doing, then you are not a good scientist, at least interacting with the public.
I have read many many texts explaining how xG models work, and I have explained it to other people here based on what I have read. Do I need to know if they are using Bayesian framework to know what the philosophy behind the model is? Probably not.
I am skipping all 1), since you try to show off and not communicate.

About 2), after all that showing off you seem to not have looked into what xG is at all.
We have discussed the issue you pose countless times with people here.
xG is NOT taking into account the quality of the finisher. At least they have not incorporated it yet in any of the models used.
I have said many times here as well that the future will be to incorporate that too.
Does that mean that xG as it is now is irrelevant?
Well, if coaches study ways of attacking based on xG models, maybe it's not so much...

let's recap then:
1) You really haven't even googled what xG model is, how it works, but you act as a cocky idiot mocking people who refer to it.
2) Given 1), it looks even worse on you to claim that you have a forma education in stats, as if this forum requires from the members some qualification to express opinion.
3) You show off with terminology that you know the interlocutors cannot argue against on equal basis, unless they have not studied the same thing. You come off as what I described in 1 again.

Then, I would you to show me how I misintepret xG models. Please do. I bet you haven't even read a single line from what I write, apart from 'this guy posts xG maps' stereotyping.
You will show your arrogance and your ignorance one more time.

Finally,
a) you call people names(like 'pseudo-intellectual', 'cartwheeler', and other) without even trying to argue point by point and try to refute through argumentation what they are saying.
b) you call off people based on what teams they like.
Sorry, but you are the worst type of member here.

 

[KingLeo10]

OK,
So I am a 'pseudo-intellectual', but you showing off with flashy terminology like 'Bayesian framework', 'logistic regression', and 'frequentist framework' are what exactly?

If you are a statistician and you are unable to explain to a lay-person what your stat model is doing, then you are not a good scientist, at least interacting with the public.
I have read many many texts explaining how xG models work, and I have explained it to other people here based on what I have read. Do I need to know if they are using Bayesian framework to know what the philosophy behind the model is? Probably not.
I am skipping all 1), since you try to show off and not communicate.

About 2), after all that showing off you seem to not have looked into what xG is at all.
We have discussed the issue you pose countless times with people here.
xG is NOT taking into account the quality of the finisher. At least they have not incorporated it yet in any of the models used.
I have said many times here as well that the future will be to incorporate that too.
Does that mean that xG as it is now is irrelevant?
Well, if coaches study ways of attacking based on xG models, maybe it's not so much...

let's recap then:
1) You really haven't even googled what xG model is, how it works, but you act as a cocky idiot mocking people who refer to it.
2) Given 1), it looks even worse on you to claim that you have a forma education in stats, as if this forum requires from the members some qualification to express opinion.
3) You show off with terminology that you know the interlocutors cannot argue against on equal basis, unless they have not studied the same thing. You come off as what I described in 1 again.

Then, I would you to show me how I misintepret xG models. Please do. I bet you haven't even read a single line from what I write, apart from 'this guy posts xG maps' stereotyping.
You will show your arrogance and your ignorance one more time.

Finally,
a) you call people names(like 'pseudo-intellectual', 'cartwheeler', and other) without even trying to argue point by point and try to refute through argumentation what they are saying.
b) you call off people based on what teams they like.
Sorry, but you are the worst type of member here.

It IS NECESSARY to understand whether xG is in the frequentist framework or the Bayesian framework. Or whether the computational mechanism is logistic regression or some other thing. Because that gives YOU the ability to assess for yourself the assumptions of the model and whether the assumptions are being met. I'm not trying to disqualify you from the conversation. But, if you're going to parade xG, the onus does fall on you to demonstrate some level of technical knowledge of its working. Can't simply go "I understand the philosophy behind the model" and leave it at that if you want to shove it down people's throats as you do in virtually every thread.

The message I'm trying to convey is:

"xG is NOT taking into account the quality of the finisher. At least they have not incorporated it yet in any of the models used."

When cartwheeling over xG, also make sure to note these sorts of limitations in your posts. The reason I don't see anywhere the amount of utility in xG as you do is because of this reason. There is a difference in Messi or CR7 or Mbappe taking a shot and the average LL/Serie A/ Ligue 1 forward. And here the point about Bayesian v frequentist does come into play, because with a Bayesian approach (which computes posterior probability based on likelihood (evidence) times prior probability), one should be able to account for the type of player taking the shot (i.e. incorporate it into the prior probability). I actually made this point in response to BBZ many months ago and if I have the time, I'll find it.

My point still stands but I'll make it even more succint: You're a clown. No apologies, either.

 

[Bobo32]

Here is a site keeping track of xG stats I just found this evening:
https://understat.com

Whatever framework, the xG seems to correlate surprisingly well with G over time, in all the big leagues.
Obviously you need to know what the stat is. It's surely better than shots on goal or possession (both also telling you something still)

 

[Jadentheman]

Oi Klopp ya fancy a Coutinho/Thiago swap?

Barca won't be an appealing destination for people in mid career at this moment. It's his childhood cloub, but I would guess he wants to excel in a current top team.

 

[Birdy]

It IS NECESSARY to understand whether xG is in the frequentist framework or the Bayesian framework. Or whether the computational mechanism is logistic regression or some other thing. Because that gives YOU the ability to assess for yourself the assumptions of the model and whether the assumptions are being met. I'm not trying to disqualify you from the conversation. But, if you're going to parade xG, the onus does fall on you to demonstrate some level of technical knowledge of its working. Can't simply go "I understand the philosophy behind the model" and leave it at that if you want to shove it down people's throats as you do in virtually every thread.

The message I'm trying to convey is:

"xG is NOT taking into account the quality of the finisher. At least they have not incorporated it yet in any of the models used."

When cartwheeling over xG, also make sure to note these sorts of limitations in your posts. The reason I don't see anywhere the amount of utility in xG as you do is because of this reason. There is a difference in Messi or CR7 or Mbappe taking a shot and the average LL/Serie A/ Ligue 1 forward. And here the point about Bayesian v frequentist does come into play, because with a Bayesian approach (which computes posterior probability based on likelihood (evidence) times prior probability), one should be able to account for the type of player taking the shot (i.e. incorporate it into the prior probability). I actually made this point in response to BBZ many months ago and if I have the time, I'll find it.

My point still stands but I'll make it even more succint: You're a clown. No apologies, either.

As much a clown as Klopp, Pep, Poch, Tuchel and all the coaches that have analytics team behind them and incorporate their models in devising ways to attack so as to maximize xG.

The point you are making has been made time and time again, and no one needs to know if Bayesian framework is used to know that simple fact.
That's the role of any text that explains the philosophy behind a model.

Plus, I have made it clear time and time again that this drawback (which will be alleviated in the future) does not take back the merit of all x models.
I could give you reasons why, like the one Bobo gives above, but I have no desire in engaging in an earnest discussion with someone who does not want to exchange opinion and communicate.

 

[Skalman]

Well for me he is always welcome back here, especially now.

 

[KingLeo10]

As much a clown as Klopp, Pep, Poch, Tuchel .

Except they're making millions and actually coaching football teams while you're on the forum cartwheeling, earning 0.00.

Have you considered they might be doing a tad more than analytics to earn all those millions?

 

[Horatio]

I thought Thiago was the second coming of Jesus of the kingdom of midfield? Now he is a flop?