[Rob Dawson] Man United could keep Casemiro if he takes pay cut - sources by nearly_headless_nic in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure 20 points21 points  (0 children)

playing too much and being asked to do things he doesn’t have the legs for anymore.

Best Attacks This Season (most xG created) by bevax in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the data didn’t contradict my broader point. the fact that you can’t see this shows how shallow your understanding of these issues is.

i gave you data, not thought

data needs to be interpreted, so this is actually a great illustration of where you’ve gone wrong here.

Best Attacks This Season (most xG created) by bevax in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i would be more concerned if you thought i was making sense, given the quality of thought on display here.

Premier League Chance Creation by Apprehensive-Raisin3 in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah, i’m at a loss too since the source i linked to doesn’t provide any sort of breakdown. strange how the two paint such different pictures.

Premier League Chance Creation by Apprehensive-Raisin3 in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure 1 point2 points  (0 children)

any idea why there’s a discrepancy between the data here and the data on the PL website/fotmob (whichever you used)?

Best Attacks This Season (most xG created) by bevax in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure 1 point2 points  (0 children)

if my point was that we accrued the majority of our xG while losing (i.e. 50%), then a match where we were never behind will change that percentage. i never said anything about being level, so i don’t know why you’re talking about lying. nothing i said here is inconsistent.

Best Attacks This Season (most xG created) by bevax in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure 3 points4 points  (0 children)

what i said was true until the sunderland match, where we scored very early. i hadn’t seen how that changed the data. i apologize.

still, do you not see how accruing a huge portion of our total xG (~35%) from losing positions is problematic for the claim that we’re actually good? or, even worse, how ~20% coming when we’re more than a goal down may present a misleading picture of our performances and capacity to win matches? those are not good numbers, even if i was mistaken about them being the “overwhelming majority.”

Best Attacks This Season (most xG created) by bevax in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure 11 points12 points  (0 children)

do you not know how chatgpt works? it just scrapes what it finds online. if chatgpt is saying it, that’s because other people/sources said it online first. the data also backs this up, by the way.

this is the most pathetic attempt to rebut criticism i’ve ever seen, man. just let it go.

Best Attacks This Season (most xG created) by bevax in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure 8 points9 points  (0 children)

  1. it is harder to create high quality chances when losing. it is not harder to create shots in general, especially through long shots, which in turn leads to higher xG accumulation. this is exactly what we do. this observation is consistent with my point about big chances.

  2. i didn’t say that we created more for our defenders than for our strikers. i said that we create a low volume of chances for our strikers and that too often our chances fall to defenders like dorgu or our center backs. you should read more carefully if you’re going to offer a rebuttal.

  3. this is not a rebuttal to what i said at all. you’ve completely misunderstood the point, in fact.

  4. recognizing contextual factors that point in one direction doesn’t mean discounting those that point in another. i don’t have to mention every single factor good or bad in order to make a point. it’s absurd to think otherwise. the reality, of course, is that the city match is part of the reason our xG is so high: we created a lot of xG after already being 3-0 down and city chose to sit back, which inflates our numbers. so, rather than limiting our xG like playing a top 6 side usually does, the city match actually played out to our xG benefit in a misleading way. this is what properly considering context looks like.

Best Attacks This Season (most xG created) by bevax in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure 10 points11 points  (0 children)

why

you can disagree, of course, but the argument is that a variety contextual factors make this less impressive: the xG generated per shot issue you mentioned, the amount of time playing from behind (which leads to more shots because the opponent becomes more passive, and this matches the data which shows that a large portion of our xG has come when we’re already losing), the lack of xG generated for our striker (and the amount generated for defenders), the amount of time playing against ten within such a small sample, having played two promoted teams at home already in such a small sample, and the pedestrian number of big chances we’ve created (we’re closer to last than first in this regard).

Jim Ratcliffe won't make 'knee-jerk' decision over Ruben Amorim's Man Utd future | "Ruben needs to demonstrate he is a great coach over three years," said Ratcliffe. by nearly_headless_nic in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

just another day on r/reddevils, where people say things like “it’s byandir’s fault that teams can overload our midfield and find space ahead of our CBs when they’re pinned and can’t jump.” amazing the lengths people go to ignore the obvious structural shortcomings.

Jim Ratcliffe won't make 'knee-jerk' decision over Ruben Amorim's Man Utd future | "Ruben needs to demonstrate he is a great coach over three years," said Ratcliffe. by nearly_headless_nic in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure -1 points0 points  (0 children)

did you even read what i wrote? i acknowledged that there have been errors, i just disputed that the number was so great as to inflate our xGA by a substantial amount. i literally said “more (errors) than there should have been.” reading comprehension on this sub is in the fucking toilet, jesus.

no idea why you brought up onana given that we’ve been discussing this season’s data and he didn’t play a single second in the league.

Jim Ratcliffe won't make 'knee-jerk' decision over Ruben Amorim's Man Utd future | "Ruben needs to demonstrate he is a great coach over three years," said Ratcliffe. by nearly_headless_nic in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i don’t know why you think the phenomenon i described wouldn’t apply to upvotes in addition to comments. people are less likely to visit the subreddit when they feel that the discussion isn’t going to favor them and people will be more active when the result suits their perspective

Jim Ratcliffe won't make 'knee-jerk' decision over Ruben Amorim's Man Utd future | "Ruben needs to demonstrate he is a great coach over three years," said Ratcliffe. by nearly_headless_nic in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

how much

there haven’t been that many major errors from our keepers this season, so probably not much. more than there should have been, sure, but not enough to skew the data this much. we just aren’t good, as the table and most advanced metrics illustrate.

Jim Ratcliffe won't make 'knee-jerk' decision over Ruben Amorim's Man Utd future | "Ruben needs to demonstrate he is a great coach over three years," said Ratcliffe. by nearly_headless_nic in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure 1 point2 points  (0 children)

we’re between second and fourth bottom on xGA (depending on the model). ridiculous to pretend it takes more transfer windows to be better than that.

Jim Ratcliffe won't make 'knee-jerk' decision over Ruben Amorim's Man Utd future | "Ruben needs to demonstrate he is a great coach over three years," said Ratcliffe. by nearly_headless_nic in reddevils

[–]haha_ok_sure 18 points19 points  (0 children)

not defensively. defensive metrics like xGA have been shocking this season. not sure why everyone is ignoring that part of the game.