Pass difficulty
83.8%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Kevin Stöger
Bochum · Left Center Midfield · MID
Matches observed1
Pass attempts64
Limited sampleActual completion
78.1%
50 completed passes
Pass difficulty
83.8%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-5.6 pp
-3.6 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
Position profile
MID context · Each percentile is an empirical rank among eligible players in the same broad position group. Percentiles are not ratings.
Insufficient eligible position metrics for a meaningful radar.
Style
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Under-pressure pass rate
9.4%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
23.4%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
18.8%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
2.8 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
728.0 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
20.313
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
45.0%
42nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 111
Progressive carry rate
6.0%
72nd percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 50
Progressive action rate
15.3%
88th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 111
Under-pressure action rate
18.0%
22nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 111
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
3.5%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-5.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-1.3 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 6
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-8.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 15
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+7.7 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 12
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.035
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.111
93rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 111
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.098
95th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 61
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.126
63rd percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 50
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.092
80th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 111
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.036
58th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 111
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.577
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty-0.51 z
Under-pressure pass rate-1.26 z
Progressive-pass rate+1.67 z
Long-pass rate+1.18 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+1.08 z
Carry share of actions-0.15 z
Bars are z-scores relative to eligible positional peers, not percentiles or ratings. Distance-based style separation, not a probability. Smaller values mean the player lies nearer the boundary between the two archetypes.
Role Fit
MID role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed MID role.
#29 of 39Comparable external midfield candidatesRaw distance: 1.244
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Carry involvement
- Expected completion rate
- Passes under pressure
Largest stylistic difference
Progressive passing rate
limited sampleObserved across 1 matchesRole: 34 matches · 10 contributors
Role Fit compares observed playing style. It does not predict player quality, transfer success, or future performance.
Expected Goals
Non-penalty shooting
Goals above expected is descriptive for this observed sample, not a definitive finishing-skill rating.
Shots
1
1 matches observed
Goals
0
Total xG
0.0
Goals above expected
-0.0
xG / shot
0.0
0.0% goals / shot
Limited sample: fewer than 20 non-penalty shots.
Campos visualization
Shot map
Non-penalty xG is encoded by marker size and color. Preserved penalties have no modeled xG.
Shots1
Goals0
xG0.03
xG0.00 – 1.00
Green outline = GoalNormal outline = Non-goal
Attacking impact
Impact of passes and carries
Measures how much each pass or carry changed the expected attacking value of a possession. Positive values improved the attack; negative values reduced it.
Overall impact / 100 actions
+0.111
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.098
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.126
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.092
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.036
111 actions · 61 passes · 50 carries · 48.6% increased attacking value
Campos visualization
Carry value map
Exact StatsBomb carry start/end locations. Green increases modeled possession value; coral decreases it.
Situational execution
Under pressure
6 attempts
- Actual
- 83.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 84.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -1.3 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
15 attempts
- Actual
- 40.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 48.2%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -8.2 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
12 attempts
- Actual
- 58.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 50.6%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
23.4%
Pressure-pass rate
9.4%
Average forward distance
2.8 m
Positive forward distance / 100
728.0 m
Final-third entries / 100
20.3
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–64 of 64 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.7%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0019
- Value before
- 0.0075
- Value after
- 0.0057
- Length
- 28.8 m
- Context
- Standard
Event clocks are not retained in the pass API.
Similar playing styles
Style similarity compares position-relative playing style across passing and carrying tendencies. Scores are not ability ratings.
100 means identical observed profiles; 50 is about the median same-position playing style match. Not a probability.
Limited sample: this player's style profile is based on 1 observed match, so nearest-neighbor rankings may be less stable.
Style similarity
69.0 / 100
Long Pass RatePressure Pass RateExpected Completion Rate
Sample support: Limited · 1 limiting matches
Observed: 1 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
65.6 / 100