Pass difficulty
90.9%
91st percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 178
Player profile
Min Jae Kim
Bayern Munich · Left Center Back · DEF
Matches observed2
Pass attempts178
Reliable sampleActual completion
92.7%
165 completed passes
Pass difficulty
90.9%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+1.8 pp
+3.2 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
Position profile
DEF context · Each percentile is an empirical rank among eligible players in the same broad position group. Percentiles are not ratings.
Style
Performance
0–100 empirical percentiles among eligible same-position peers.
Style
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Under-pressure pass rate
9.0%
23rd percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 178
Progressive pass rate
6.2%
9th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 178
Long-pass rate
12.4%
36th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 178
Average forward distance
7.3 units
73rd percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 178
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
884.7 units
64th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 178
Final-third entries / 100 passes
6.180
27th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 178
Carry share of actions
43.8%
48th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 313
Progressive carry rate
0.7%
34th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 137
Progressive action rate
3.5%
6th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 313
Under-pressure action rate
7.7%
14th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 313
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
12.9%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+1.8 pp
77th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 178
Under-pressure completion above expected
-1.1 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 16
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+5.6 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 11
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-1.3 pp
55th percentile among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 22
Goals above expected
-0.129
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.006
44th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 313
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.005
68th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 176
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.006
0th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 137
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.014
33rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 313
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.004
14th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 313
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.553
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+1.21 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.60 z
Progressive-pass rate-1.39 z
Long-pass rate-0.53 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.03 z
Carry share of actions-0.07 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.
Leverkusen Role Fit
DEF role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed DEF role.
Role distance · lower is closer0.685
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Long Pass Rate
- Pressure Pass Rate
- Expected Completion Rate
Largest difference
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 9 contributors
Role Fit measures how closely a player's observed playing style resembles Bayer Leverkusen's observed positional-role style. It does not predict 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
0.1
Goals above expected
-0.1
xG / shot
0.1
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
xG0.13
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
+0.006
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.005
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.006
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.014
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.004
313 actions · 176 passes · 137 carries · 64.9% 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
16 attempts
- Actual
- 68.8%
- Pass difficulty
- 69.9%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -1.1 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
11 attempts
- Actual
- 45.5%
- Pass difficulty
- 39.8%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +5.6 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
22 attempts
- Actual
- 72.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 74.0%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
6.2%
Pressure-pass rate
9.0%
Average forward distance
7.3 m
Positive forward distance / 100
884.7 m
Final-third entries / 100
6.2
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–178 of 178 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 98.6%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0009
- Value before
- 0.0091
- Value after
- 0.0100
- Length
- 18.4 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 2 observed matches, so nearest-neighbor rankings may be less stable.
Style similarity
79.6 / 100
Expected Completion RatePressure Pass RateProgressive Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 25 matches
Style similarity
79.4 / 100