By Paul Harvey, Mike Imburgio, Ben Bellman

Since it was introduced, Goals Added has been superior to most of the publicly available algorithmic rating systems, such as those provided by WhoScored, SofaScore, or Fotmob. The additional context of just how much each action is contributing to the likelihood of scoring provides more information than simply evaluating a player based on the number of certain actions (the value of those actions also weighted by a human being, introducing bias). Similarly, basing scoring on a known currency of goals is simply much more intuitive than some nebulous 0-10 rating scale.

By Paul Harvey

When Goals Added first entered the public sphere, it marked a major shift in how soccer could be interpreted using data. Although similar models had been developed, it was hard to get data and turn that data into insights. In terms of a unit of account, there are few expected value models as accessible and understandable as g+.

Despite the initial success, though, g+ is still an opaque measure in many ways. Much like it’s spiritual father figure, WAR, you lose some of the how of a player's game. Although on the broad level the numbers are clear, even a simple comparison between two players can be hard to do just with the six Goals Added categories. Sure, we can say that one player has added more value via passing than another one. But what kind of passes led to that value? What’s the actual on field difference between the two players?