[Seagy]

Here is where the xG Metric falls down becasue Robinsons initial shot is counted as 0.04, Diagne's shot is counted as 0.67, and finally Phillips Tap in 0.95 so it definitely double/triple counts. So in reality in this match we created one amazing chance and converted it and not much else it seems. Robinsons offisde chance was rated at 0.45 so that is taken into account even though it was most likely offside.

[TheJacko2000]

So the website I use (understat) has the Diagne shot that was saved before Phillips' goal as worth 0.67, Phillips' shot itself as 0.95, and Robinson's saved shot as 0.45. So yes it is including that shot.

Regarding the Robinson shot, it's a bizarre turn of events where, if it is scored, it would be reviewed and probably deemed offside, whereas because it was saved and play continued, it's considered 'valid' and included.

Equally if Diagne's initial shot goes in, then Phillips doesn't get the gimme which bolsters our numbers.

It's all a lot of fun.

Cheers mate thought as much. So really we were 0.95 

[ronnie_allen]

Here is where the xG Metric falls down becasue Robinsons initial shot is counted as 0.04, Diagne's shot is counted as 0.67, and finally Phillips Tap in 0.95 so it definitely double/triple counts. So in reality in this match we created one amazing chance and converted it and not much else it seems. Robinsons offisde chance was rated at 0.45 so that is taken into account even though it was most likely offside.

The sum of the figures leading up to the Phillips goal is less than our total XG above of 1.62, before adding in Robinson's chance and  couple of other low value efforts. 

[alex1]

If the xG metric can't factor in if a goal chance is offside, is there any point to it?

[Atomic]

If the xG metric can't factor in if a goal chance is offside, is there any point to it?

No its pointless all round. It's just a way of putting a figure on something anyone with one brain cell can see with their own eyes.

It's a gimmick, something dreamed up for the sake of it.

[MarkW]

If the xG metric can't factor in if a goal chance is offside, is there any point to it?

It's not that it "can't", it's that Robinson's shot is a valid shot because it was a valid shot. It wasn't flagged offside so it counts. As I said, it it went in, it would have been checked.

And Atomic, so many stats are putting a number of something you "know". Literally every stat in the world is putting a number to something, but sometimes being able to do that is extremely helpful. It's some sort of silver bullet which is going to make everything else obsolete, but it's the most predictive single stat for a team's performance, and is very informative too.

[Atomic]

It's not that it "can't", it's that Robinson's shot is a valid shot because it was a valid shot. It wasn't flagged offside so it counts. As I said, it it went in, it would have been checked.

And Atomic, so many stats are putting a number of something you "know". Literally every stat in the world is putting a number to something, but sometimes being able to do that is extremely helpful. It's some sort of silver bullet which is going to make everything else obsolete, but it's the most predictive single stat for a team's performance, and is very informative too.

You are already manipulating the "facts". Robinson's shot "counted" although it wasnt a "legal" shot.

Absolute nonsense and no help at all to anyone other than those who need help understanding the obvious.

[TheJacko2000]

It's not that it "can't", it's that Robinson's shot is a valid shot because it was a valid shot. It wasn't flagged offside so it counts. As I said, it it went in, it would have been checked.

And Atomic, so many stats are putting a number of something you "know". Literally every stat in the world is putting a number to something, but sometimes being able to do that is extremely helpful. It's some sort of silver bullet which is going to make everything else obsolete, but it's the most predictive single stat for a team's performance, and is very informative too.

The issue you've got is ours was a terrible game to highlight (I know your initial post was merely a comparison to our previous matches,  but still) virtually our entire xG comes from 3 shots in the same move one leading to the next (surely this passage of play should be aggregated somehow, especially if it results in a goal, as play would be stopped?) and a shot that could not have resulted in a "goal", the main component of said metric.

It's just a poorly implemented stat imo.

[skyclad99]

This game was the first that we outscored an opponent on xG and yet didn't win - 1.62 for us Vs 1.36. Only other game we outscored on xG was the Wolves win.

We lost the game Mark with yet another abject display. That's the only stat I need......