Rangers of Govan vs Academicals of Hamilton. 8th November.

[Henrik's tongue]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Alli said:

I get that you're only here (and everywhere else) to take pops at Bennett, I was just wondering what you meant by fans going to Ibrox.

Seems it was just a very poorly thought out dig. 

Covid hasn’t been keeping bennett away from Ibrox for the past thirty years, mate.  
 

Congrats on some poorly thought out white knighting though.

[Derry Alli]

20 minutes ago, Henrik's tongue said:

Covid hasn’t been keeping bennett away from Ibrox for the past thirty years, mate.  
 

Congrats on some poorly thought out white knighting though.

Pointing out a poster following another around the forum isn't "White Knighting", I wouldn't think. 

Thanks for the congratulations though, mate. 

[KnightswoodBear]

13 hours ago, G51 said:

I would say you're more of a Luddite than an outcast mate. But it's worth learning, because it's the most predictive football metric around that's publicly accessible.

Basically, an xG of 4.94 means that, from the shots we take, we could expect to score 4.94 goals. This is calculated by recording where a shot was taken, comparing it to a calculated probability of that shot going in, then assigning that probability to the shot. So penalties, for example, are scored somewhere between 75 - 78% of the time on average, so a penalty has an xG value of between 0.75 - 0.78.

The probabilities are calculated based on thousands of shot locations from years of football.

Now obviously, the chance of Lionel Messi converting a shot and a diddy like Patryk Klimala converting that same shot are different, because Messi is a better player. So better players (and therefore teams) tend to overperform their xG, which is what we did today. Logically, it follows that poor teams underperform their xG.

Now I was cheating a little bit, because single game xG isn't really a very good analysis of a game. There's a lot of luck in football after all. The best way to evaluate xG is to look at it as a trend over a stretch of games.

You missed the part of my post where I said I wasn't willing to try and understand.

[G51]

1 minute ago, KnightswoodBear said:

You missed the part of my post where I said I wasn't willing to try and understand.

See, this is why Div gubs you every week in the betting challenge.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

So an xG is something generated after a match, based upon the attempts on goal during it?

If so, it's not much of a predictor is it? More of a reflective tool for analysis after the event.

[KnightswoodBear]

1 minute ago, G51 said:

See, this is why Div gubs you every week in the betting challenge.

Too soon.

[Henrik's tongue]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Alli said:

Pointing out a poster following another around the forum isn't "White Knighting", I wouldn't think. 

Thanks for the congratulations though, mate. 

You’re wrong.

You’re welcome.

[Sortmeout]

A goal for every year the club have been alive.

 

[Jacksgranda]

2 hours ago, Mr. Alli said:

How are Rangers fans getting into Ibrox? 

Through the water pipe from the church.

[G51]

5 minutes ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

So an xG is something generated after a match, based upon the attempts on goal during it?

If so, it's not much of a predictor is it? More of a reflective tool for analysis after the event.

It is a reflective tool for analysis, but xG difference has been shown in studies to be the most predictive metric we have for how a team will perform - better than shots on target, possession, anything else we have. Generally, the best teams have the best xG difference. Bookmakers incorporate it into their decision making processes.

So ultimately, it's both. It's an excellent tool for analysis, but when trended over the long-term it is more predictive than anything else we have.

 

[Ranaldo Bairn]

Hmmm interesting.

I am a bit of a statto but have not paid much attention to it (obviously).

I'm still utterly disgusted by the very existence of Assists in quoted stats. Such a nebulous and pointless number. 

[G51]

1 minute ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

Hmmm interesting.

I am a bit of a statto but have not paid much attention to it (obviously).

I'm still utterly disgusted by the very existence of Assists in quoted stats. Such a nebulous and pointless number. 

Totally agree. That's why the development of xA - expected assists - is important. A much more meaningful stat than assists IMO.

 

[SANTAN]

15 hours ago, Mvondo_the_great said:

Fair play to rangers. They are taking advantage of the worst premier league I have ever seen. In a normal league they would be sitting third. But gotta take these opportunities when they arise. Aberdeen know what I'm talking about

 

Jesus christ that's a big reach. 

[Raidernation]

Football was much better before xG

[kingjoey]

1 hour ago, G51 said:

It is a reflective tool for analysis, but xG difference has been shown in studies to be the most predictive metric we have for how a team will perform - better than shots on target, possession, anything else we have. Generally, the best teams have the best xG difference. Bookmakers incorporate it into their decision making processes.

So ultimately, it's both. It's an excellent tool for analysis, but when trended over the long-term it is more predictive than anything else we have.

 

I stopped reading after “It is a”.