Can you answer my question please so we can move forward
Your last long post was about actual assists.. this one is about expected assists
The point is to assess Darwin as a forward so how do you want to do that? - do you want to take assists out entirely? ..
I'm giving you the power... you tell me how you personally measure/assess how good a froward is and we'll go from there...
Im already doing this? I'm questioning the validity of his xA and his top line assist numbers being used as means of assessing his performances.
How valid are they? Where would xA rank on the scale of 1 being useless and 10 being watertight a great metric that can't be undermined in any way.
Assists is much easier to answer right? Its kind of a contextless broad high level stat that isnt really telling us anything other than player x passed to player y who scored. Doesnt give us any shade in how we truly got to the outcome (goal). Which is why I find it strange to see stats centric analysis of darwin using g+a per 90 as means to do so.
Regardless, where on the spectrum is xA?
Because this is the difference maybe between yours and some others' application of numbers and my own. Is it tht you see the number itself as evidence, proof, fact, and will use it as such?
Where as I see them as existing on a spectrum of validity when it comes to applying them.
Warning here, im moving away from assists for a brief moment, but only for illustrative purposes to draw out how i see these numbers and their application.
Darwin takes a lot of shots, thats a useful number to me. Can't score a goal without a shot, more shots means more possible goals. Direct correlation.
High value shots, again great, high value shots means an increased likelihood of a goal as a result. Love it.
Where I start to get lost is when I hear people say that xG cares not for things such as composure or finishing ability, that they're 'noise'. That's when a metric slides down the spectrum for me. Not to say its useless, not at all, but certainly I'll start to be a little more skeptical about it. Because there appears to be an inherent flaw in the data when you suggest one player taking a shot in a given scenario is the roughly, as close as makes no difference, has the same chance of resulting in a goal as any other.
Now I know xG is an average, i know the number given for any one chance is based on that average. But when people apply an xG total to a specific player they tend not to acknowledge that the average is based upon players being both below and above that number. Some players can exist above it consistently, good finishers you could call them, and some can exist below it consistently, bad finishers. The majority, will fluctuate between both, thats the noise(?).
So! To return to Darwin and his xA, where on my spectrum, in your opinion, should xA be placed? Is it definitive proof that Darwin is a creative force in his teams, is an indicator he is, or could he be benefitting from a boost by good teammates, playing in stronger teams in respective competition or good coaching and it's actually not that great of an indicator?
How deep/shallow is it?
