my problem with xstats is when they are used as an argumentative crutch to ignore concrete results and to pretend that reality is otherwise. other than that, they are a neat little tool.
I am using them as a tool that depicts something: how good chances a team is creating/conceding.
On the top of that, there is tons of analyses that can take place.
But if you don't get the basics right, you can't have a proper analysis
Total two legs: Barca 3.9 - Liverpool 3.8
It's well documented since then that the tie was pretty balanced overall in terms of chances.
3-0 at Camp Nou was not corresponding to what happened, as Liverpool missed sitters,
likewise 4-0 was not corresponding at Anfield, as Barca missed sitters.
What does this prove about xG?
Oh, nothing
As everyone who uses this tool knows that one-offs can happen, especially in knockout ties.
But just another occasion for the Barcaforum 'analysts' to shit on a tool that whole departments of clubs use
According to those xA, and xG or whatever, Ozil was a better player than both Xavi and Iniesta while at Madrid. That's when I knew on the spot that these stat metrics are bullshit in most cases.
I say, watch football with a critical eye, and use the eye test. Yea, it's personal, and you get it wrong many times, but it's much better than basing your opinions on some stats devoid of context. It's more fun too.
Here is a prime example of not understanding x metrics
Common fallacy is to not critically judge what the metric tells you about a player.
Ozil, for instance, might have better xG and xA than both Xavi and Iniesta. Why?
Because Ozil was playing between the lines, his job was to make assists for Ronaldo Benzema and Higuain, and he was doing that well (hence good xA), and they way RM was playing back then meant that Ozil was getting frequently into goalscoring positions (hence good xG)
Does this mean he is a better player than Xavi and iniesta? Of course, not.
Xavi, and Iniesta, were doing other jobs on the pitch, further back, that Ozil could not do. There are other sophisticated stats for what Xavi and Iniesta were doing.
That's just appeal from authority fallacy.
It would have been appeal to authority, If that was my explanation why I am using x stats.
But that's not my main argument about why I am using them.
I have explained their importance time and time again.
That's just an empirical fact that supports the explanation already provided, and helps disillusion some people here who think they know better than whole departments of clubs dedicated to this kind of analysis
