Performance Analysis
Identifying regression risk using Expected Goals (xG) data
Last Updated
13 Jan 2026, 00:46
Understanding the Analysis
Expected Goals (xG)
A measure of shot quality. A close-range shot might have 0.8 xG (80% chance of scoring), while a long-distance effort has 0.05 xG (5% chance). Teams creating high-quality chances have high xG.
Expected Points (xPTS)
How many points a team SHOULD have based on their xG. Calculated using mathematical models (Poisson distribution) that convert chance quality into win/draw/loss probabilities, then into expected points.
Variance
The difference between actual points and expected points (Actual - xPTS). Positive variance (+) = overperforming (getting lucky). Negative variance (-) = underperforming (unlucky).
Overperforming
Getting MORE points than performance suggests. Example: 26 actual points but only 20.5 xPTS. Usually due to exceptional finishing or goalkeeping luck. Warning sign - performance will likely regress (drop) when luck normalizes.
Underperforming
Getting FEWER points than performance suggests. Example: 15 actual points but 22 xPTS. Usually due to poor finishing or goalkeeping errors. Good sign - results will likely improve naturally when luck normalizes, without needing major changes.
Risk Score (0-100)
How likely performance will regress. 90-100 = Critical (major drop coming), 70-89 = High (regression likely), 40-69 = Moderate, 0-39 = Low (sustainable or will improve).
Key Insights
High Risk Teams
7 teams getting results that flatter their performance
Overperformance Warning
+3 variance = unsustainable finishing/goalkeeping luck
Unlucky Teams
Creating quality chances but not getting the points they deserve
Potential ROI
40-60M saved by avoiding panic decisions
| Status | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Arsenal | 19 | 45 | 40.7 | +4.3 | 83 | High Risk83 |
2 | Manchester City | 19 | 41 | 36.7 | +4.3 | 83 | High Risk83 |
3 | Aston Villa | 19 | 39 | 21.9 | +17.1 | 100 | Critical Risk100 |
4 | Liverpool | 19 | 33 | 31.4 | +1.6 | 49 | Moderate Risk49 |
5 | Chelsea | 19 | 30 | 30.4 | -0.4 | 18 | Low Risk18 |
6 | Manchester Utd | 19 | 30 | 31.7 | -1.7 | 14 | Low Risk14 |
7 | Sunderland | 19 | 29 | 18.4 | +10.6 | 100 | Critical Risk100 |
8 | Everton | 19 | 28 | 22.4 | +5.6 | 91 | Critical Risk91 |
9 | Brentford | 19 | 27 | 27.9 | -0.9 | 16 | Low Risk16 |
10 | Crystal Palace | 19 | 27 | 31.2 | -4.2 | 6 | Low Risk6 |
11 | Fulham | 19 | 27 | 23.2 | +3.8 | 78 | High Risk78 |
12 | Tottenham | 19 | 26 | 20.5 | +5.5 | 91 | Critical Risk91 |
13 | Newcastle Utd | 19 | 26 | 30.2 | -4.2 | 6 | Low Risk6 |
14 | Brighton | 19 | 25 | 28.3 | -3.3 | 7 | Low Risk7 |
15 | Bournemouth | 19 | 23 | 26.6 | -3.6 | 6 | Low Risk6 |
16 | Leeds United | 19 | 21 | 26.2 | -5.2 | 5 | Low Risk5 |
17 | Nott'ham Forest | 19 | 18 | 22.8 | -4.8 | 5 | Low Risk5 |
18 | West Ham | 19 | 14 | 18.1 | -4.0 | 6 | Low Risk6 |
19 | Burnley | 19 | 12 | 13.7 | -1.7 | 14 | Low Risk14 |
20 | Wolves | 19 | 3 | 18.4 | -15.4 | 0 | Low Risk0 |
Legend
Matches Played
Actual Points
Expected Points
Based on chance quality
Variance
Pts - xPTS difference
Risk Categories:
Variance Interpretation:
+3 or more: Overperforming (results better than performance) - regression risk
-3 or less: Underperforming (unlucky) - natural improvement likely
-2 to +2: Performing as expected - results match underlying metrics