Match Thread [FT] Rangers 4 (Lammers 10'; Danilo 78'; Sima 84'; Dowell 90') - 0 Livingston

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,476]

[the gunslinger 3,366]

17 hours ago, Rousseau said:

You've not read my point, so you've made up a silly argument.

 

I don't think we created enough against the low block. That's it; that's my whole point. I've then used the xG to prove we didn't create enough. 

 

The result was great. I'm happy with the result.

We definitely need to be creating more in these games. Definitely Rousseau is right. 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

16 hours ago, CammyF said:

Serious question, is it used in any other sport (tennis, rugby etc)? 

Statistics like this are ubiquitous. 

 

Tennis players know what percentage of second serves are into the body etc. 

Cricketers know how a Batter has got out every time. 

American sports love it etc etc 

Edited August 15, 2023 by the gunslinger

[the gunslinger 3,366]

9 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said:

Was all this xG data you have described so well above compiled by one company? If so, why? It must have been an absolutely massive data dump. It clearly isn’t monetised if it’s readily available for all games, and I’m assuming there must be some sort of AI bot keeping track of all games going on at all times in order to produce real time xG updates?

 

Still can’t get my head round it. Take the Lammers absolute sitter v Servette in first half. That should have an xG of 1 because it should be scored every single goddam time, but clearly he didn’t score, so next time  a player has the exact same chance the xG will be below 1 because Lammers missed his, so a striker scoring that sitter looks to have outdone his xG but in reality he has just scored an absolute sitter so shouldn’t have his stats enhanced as a result of another player having a howler? Agreed?

won't have an XG of 1 but will  be high. 

 

our XG was 3.03 v Servette. 

 

this will have been compiled by a bored accountant for sure. 

[Rousseau 9,370]

10 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said:

Was all this xG data you have described so well above compiled by one company? If so, why? It must have been an absolutely massive data dump. It clearly isn’t monetised if it’s readily available for all games, and I’m assuming there must be some sort of AI bot keeping track of all games going on at all times in order to produce real time xG updates?

 

Still can’t get my head round it. Take the Lammers absolute sitter v Servette in first half. That should have an xG of 1 because it should be scored every single goddam time, but clearly he didn’t score, so next time  a player has the exact same chance the xG will be below 1 because Lammers missed his, so a striker scoring that sitter looks to have outdone his xG but in reality he has just scored an absolute sitter so shouldn’t have his stats enhanced as a result of another player having a howler? Agreed?

There are several data modelling companies, Opta being one. 

 

Football clubs will pay for the service - which includes far more data than I get from my wee preferred App. (The App I use gets its data from Opta, so they must be paying for that.)

 

It should? I don't think so. Even Sima's goal at the weekend was similar, I'd say, but easier to score than Lammers' chance. It has an xG of 0.41 (I think - I can't remember exactly off the top of my head). 41% of the time players score that. It's quite high. That's what the data tells us. 

 

Remember: it's based on tens of thousands of shots. 

 

You say, 'it should be scored every single goddam time', but how many games is that based on? Can you say that with absolute objectivity. 

 

I actually think it was a tricky chance because it comes at him quite fast, from behind. It's difficult to get your legs sorted for that type of pass. 

[Yorkie Bear 507]

11 hours ago, Rousseau said:

 

Yes, low blocks are sitting deep. 

 

I've tried to explain xG above:

 

They take hundreds of thousands of past shots, going back decades, from every conceivable position on the pitch, and check how many times a player actually scored. 

 

In practice, that means if a chance has 0.2xG, it should be scored 20% of the time, because out of those hundreds of thousands of past shots they've looked at, the player actually scored 20% of the time. 

 

They take into account many more variables than just position on the pitch, e.g.:

 

- Type of Assist

- Distance to the goal

- Angle to the goal

- Did the player strike it with his feet or was it a header?

- In what passage of play did it happen? (e.g. open play, direct free-kick, corner kick, counter-attack)

- Has the player just beaten an opponent?

 

We do it in our heads all the time, using our judgement and past experience of watching games, when we say, 'that's a sitter - he has to score that'.

 

The xG tells you how many times players in the past have actually scored from that position - and taking into account all the other variables. 

 

An xG measurement can be generated for both teams as a whole and individual players, giving an indication as to how well they should be performing in front of goal.

 

Combining a player or team's xG ratings during the course of a season can give an approximation of how many goals a they should have scored.

 

Not only can that be used to evaluate a particular performance, it can also be used in the projection of a future or long-term performance.

Just think. When AI really takes off, we won't need to play any games. AI will tell us the score without a ball being kicked, though managers may still have to submit team sheets (with certified proof of fitness)

 

[Rousseau 9,370]

10 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said:

Was all this xG data you have described so well above compiled by one company? If so, why? It must have been an absolutely massive data dump. It clearly isn’t monetised if it’s readily available for all games, and I’m assuming there must be some sort of AI bot keeping track of all games going on at all times in order to produce real time xG updates?

 

Still can’t get my head round it. Take the Lammers absolute sitter v Servette in first half. That should have an xG of 1 because it should be scored every single goddam time, but clearly he didn’t score, so next time  a player has the exact same chance the xG will be below 1 because Lammers missed his, so a striker scoring that sitter looks to have outdone his xG but in reality he has just scored an absolute sitter so shouldn’t have his stats enhanced as a result of another player having a howler? Agreed?

I found Lammers' shot xG: 0.34. 

 

Dessers' tap-in had an xG of 0.88. 

 

(For a base line, a penalty is 0.79 xG.)

 

You say he should be scoring, but you've surely seen players miss from closer. I've seen players sky it from pretty much under the bar! 

 

As to your last point about 'enhanced his stats'. xG just described the quality of the chance, based on past shots - it's not applied to the player. Obviously, better players (Haaland) will over-perform the xG, because they can take chances that others wouldn't. On the opposite end of the spectrum, if someone is consistently under-performing their xG, they're p*sh. 

 

I used xG to defend Lammers' goalscoring record: Three goals in a season is poor, but his xG was 5, or something. He's under-performing, but it's not atrocious. It's not as if he should be scoring 25 goals from those 5 chances - no one can do that.  

[Rousseau 9,370]

Just now, Yorkie Bear said:

Just think. When AI really takes off, we won't need to play any games. AI will tell us the score without a ball being kicked, though managers may still have to submit team sheets (with certified proof of fitness)

You're taking the piss...

 

[Gonzo79 13,605]

9 minutes ago, Yorkie Bear said:

Just think. When AI really takes off, we won't need to play any games. AI will tell us the score without a ball being kicked, though managers may still have to submit team sheets (with certified proof of fitness)

 

It wouldn't surprise me.

[Bluedell 5,329]

15 hours ago, Rousseau said:

I wasn't calling for the manager to be sacked. I did say I didnt want him appointed in the first place, but I'm willing to see him given a chance. (I did ask how many games a manager could lose on the bounce before being sacked, but it was a thought experiment.)

You said you'd love to see a new manager...