I have banged on about the importance of these particular stats before, but here I go again:

in the table below from L-R we have: ladder, ave goals per game, ave differential goals, ave inside 50s, ave inside 50s differential

what it clearly shows that there is an extremely high correlation between inside 50s, goals, and wins

this of course should not be a shocking revelation to anybody - but the reason i raise it is to make the point that despite how awful we were last year, when you look at these critical stats we are actually not too far off the mark

2013 MFC average stats
inside-50s: 40.0
goals: 9.5

2013 AFL 8th place stats
inside-50s: 52.3
goals: 13.8

so, we get the ball inside an 12.3 times a game for and extra 4.3 goals a week and we're in the finals

if that seems like an oversimplification look at the table again and realise these stats are incapable of lying

Are you for real , those stats are terrible!

Inside 50 differential is more important that simple inside 50s for.

We had an average difference of -18 inside 50s, and -8.4 goals.

So yes, we were WAY off the mark.

No surprise. We had games where we had less than 3 i50s at half time from memory.

Our i50s have been appalling for 4 yrs. Its all about the midfield. And ours has been shiite and they dont run two ways (hello Beemer)

Good to see your banging on about a new set of stats C&B. You were banging for a long time about games played and that all would be right if we just got games into players (hello Cale Morton)

The dogs keep barking but the caravan rolls on.....

earthshattering

No surprise. We had games where we had less than 3 i50s at half time from memory.

Our i50s have been appalling for 4 yrs. Its all about the midfield. And ours has been shiite and they dont run two ways (hello Beemer)

Good to see your banging on about a new set of stats C&B. You were banging for a long time about games played and that all would be right if we just got games into players (hello Cale Morton)

The dogs keep barking but the caravan rolls on.....

i would wager the average games of the 22 that takes the field in round 1 has not increased much since early Bailey, we have remained an inexperienced mob relative to our opponents

that's another stat that doesn't lie, average games/age = wins

Are you for real , those stats are terrible!

wtf are you on about

how much do you want to bet me that if we were to average 52 inside 50s and 14 goals in 2014 we would make the 8 or very close to

there is only one pertinent stat...well two

time ball in melbourne/opponents possession

time ball in melb/opponents half

put them together and you end up on the scoreboard

its pretty much that simple

next you will be telling us that if you kick more goals you increase your chance of winning

Inside 50 differential is more important that simple inside 50s for.

We had an average difference of -18 inside 50s, and -8.4 goals.

So yes, we were WAY off the mark.

you will notice that is about double

that's because if we get an extra 4 goals generally our opponent gets 4 less also

shouldnt have to point that out

there is only one pertinent stat...well two

time ball in melbourne/opponents possession

time ball in melb/opponents half

put them together and you end up on the scoreboard

its pretty much that simple

yes well go find those stats for the league average and im sure youll find they also correlate with inside 50s and goals

you will notice that is about double

that's because if we get an extra 4 goals generally our opponent gets 4 less also

shouldnt have to point that out

Haha what? Do you actually understand stats? Us getting more goals doesn't mean the other team gets less, they might get more also if it's a loose game or they may even get less than double the difference. Your point makes no sense whatsoever.

The differential is the important bit, not the total amount. We don't win a game because we beat the average inside 50s for the 8th place team, but we MAY win if we get more inside 50s than the team we're playing against on the day. That's why it's all about the difference, not the total.

Shouldn't have to point that out.

Excellent you've highlighted the problem with the Melbourne game plan over the years. We haven't been getting inside 50's and goals. Now we know this I'm sure the wins will flow.

Haha what? Do you actually understand stats? Us getting more goals doesn't mean the other team gets less, they might get more also if it's a loose game or they may even get less than double the difference. Your point makes no sense whatsoever.

The differential is the important bit, not the total amount. We don't win a game because we beat the average inside 50s for the 8th place team, but we MAY win if we get more inside 50s than the team we're playing against on the day. That's why it's all about the difference, not the total.

Shouldn't have to point that out.

umm no, if the average side scores 14 goals then the average game has a total of 28. If our average is 10 then our opponent's average is 18. If we increase our average to our 14 then it stands to reason that our opponent drops to 14, meaning the average total remains at 28. Unless you are suggesting that for some reason every game we play is going to somehow go up from a total average of 28 to 32 next year, which is of course silly. Stats 101. Actually grade 3 maths 101.

Excellent you've highlighted the problem with the Melbourne game plan over the years. We haven't been getting inside 50's and goals. Now we know this I'm sure the wins will flow.

hmm yeah the point was the moderate difference between us and the average, as was clealry stated, but thanks for your valuable input.

Take a closer look at Adelaide, Fremantle, and North Melbourne. The stats are up and down and sometimes half a ladder from the club's position.

I'm not even going to bother picking it apart much further.

umm no, if the average side scores 14 goals then the average game has a total of 28. If our average is 10 then our opponent's average is 18. If we increase our average to our 14 then it stands to reason that our opponent drops to 14, meaning the average total remains at 28. Unless you are suggesting that for some reason every game we play is going to somehow go up from a total average of 28 to 32 next year, which is of course silly. Stats 101. Actually grade 3 maths 101.

Oh dear me.

It's the 'Zero-sum game' interpretation of football scoring.

I warned you C+B. If you had left the homicidal maniac as your avatar you wouldn't be getting this grief!!!

I like it C & B. I'm surprised Stuie has had a crack at you though. That's not his style.

The use of this statistics in this thread went from 'whatever' to 'wtf' faster than Miley Cyrus' career.

umm no, if the average side scores 14 goals then the average game has a total of 28. If our average is 10 then our opponent's average is 18. If we increase our average to our 14 then it stands to reason that our opponent drops to 14, meaning the average total remains at 28. Unless you are suggesting that for some reason every game we play is going to somehow go up from a total average of 28 to 32 next year, which is of course silly. Stats 101. Actually grade 3 maths 101.

You're missing the point. It's NOT about averages, it's about differentials.

Our inside 50s may double this year, but if every other team triples theirs then is that considered a win? No. Because it's about DIFFERENTIALS.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.

The term was popularised in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Other coiners have therefore been proposed, and the phrase is often attributed to Twain himself.

(attribution to Wikipedia)

The use of this statistics in this thread went from 'whatever' to 'wtf' faster than Miley Cyrus' career.

Who?

Who?

She's American. Professionally.

Why is I50 a key stat? Why not I40 or I30 or I25 or any other arbitrary number?

Stats are what they are but I50 only exists because there is a line painted on the ground.

I'd guess most of our I50's were shallower than the stat leaders.

And less well directed in terms of proximity to the coridor.

And there were also more contested possessions when they landed.

And unfortunately, we probably lost most of those contests on average.