I love that Jack "Worst Disposal In The History Of The Game According To Demonland Experts" Grimes is ranked 4th for effective disposals. Further proof that people just see what they want to see.

Must admit that it was a shock to me.

BTW I don't want to see Jack missing passes.

PS. It was an extra shock to me, as I watch him closely in games, as my family sponsors him and have for the last few years.

PPs. The one I fear with the ball is Bail, but he occasionally does well with it.

Grimes is currently ranked 13th in the clanger count. He was ranked 5th overall in the team up to Rnd 17 last season. I didnt bother taking stats after that Rnd. In fact i'm not even sure why i did it that long last year. Must have been delirious with joy.

While i'm not suggesting Grimes is amazing with ball use i'd like to propose the following theory. He might still be turning the ball over in a horrible fashion, which stands out like bull's balls when he does, but he just might be doing it less often than last season. And yes, i might be wrong. These are pretty junky statistics and as i've said before many times, they don't tell the full story and are only a rough comparative guide/indicator vs other players/teams progress within that same stat over various points in time.

I think we've established numerous times here that statistics never tell the entire story.

The effective disposal statistics is no exception. It is a bogus statistic. I remember reading the definition of an effective disposal in the AFL Prospectus once, and from memory it includes kicks which travel 40 metres or more and go to a 50/50 (or better). So, you could kick it 50 metres to JKH vs Jamison and that would be effective.

Similarly, the stat doesn't speak to how bad your ineffective disposals are. Grimes regularly turns it over directly to the opposition, as opposed to those kind of kicks which go to a 2-on-1 or get spoiled or something like that. I find him to be as bad as anyone in our side for turning the ball over directly to the opposition, and when you're running off half-back that's both more damaging and more noticeable.

Even though I know we've played Carlton, St Kilda and GWS, I still believe that is a significant improvement and comes from a wide range of things, including a far more competitive midfield, more time with the ball in our hands instead of the opponents', and fewer turnovers.

That's correct Titan. It doesn't account for the disposal being either....

• A junk one (eg., panick offload handball / kick which still gets to fellow player);
• A strategic one (eg., switch kick); or
• An attacking forward thrust type of disposal. Disposals that have a high attacking impact value are the one that we should be most interested in. Roughly 20 years of data scrutiny since Champion introduced this form of stat in 1996 suggests this is one of the KPIs to watch and one that is most damaging in terms of "wins" vs opponents when you see a significant differential ...if only it were publicly available...which of course it isn't. The overall stat without the "attacking" carve out, as you say, is flawed. When Champion data introduced this stat in 1996 it was a reasonably well thought out stat as most teams were encouraged to push the ball forward at all costs by their coaches and players were often berated if they stuffed around with the ball too much (eg., sideways/backwards etc).

That's correct Titan. It doesn't account for the disposal being either....

• A junk one (eg., panick offload handball / kick which still gets to fellow player);
• A strategic one (eg., switch kick); or
• An attacking forward thrust type of disposal. Disposals that have a high attacking impact value are the one that we should be most interested in. Roughly 20 years of data scrutiny since Champion introduced this form of stat in 1996 suggests this is one of the KPIs to watch and one that is most damaging in terms of "wins" vs opponents when you see a significant differential ...if only it were publicly available...which of course it isn't. The overall stat without the "attacking" carve out, as you say, is flawed. When Champion data introduced this stat in 1996 it was a reasonably well thought out stat as most teams were encouraged to push the ball forward at all costs by their coaches and players were often berated if they stuffed around with the ball too much (eg., sideways/backwards etc).

I guess what we know is that statistics are very rarely indicative on their own. The more you have, the more context each individual stat has, the more of a picture they paint, but even then, there are so many things that happen in games that don't get picked up in statistics.

Comparison between Dom Tyson and Josh Kelly.

This season

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?tid1=12&pid1=3641&tid2=25&pid2=3919&type=A&fid1=S&fid2=S

At the same age

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?tid1=12&pid1=3641&tid2=25&pid2=3919&type=A&fid1=O&fid2=O

Don't journalists have access to facts? Oh that's right they just make stuff up.

Edit- Spelling plus more stats

Haha...you can say that again MD. Nice work on the comparison. Those stats are in complete contrast to what we've been hearing from some of these so called experts lately.

Ok folks, 6 Matches in and we have a bit of data to work with.

Firstly some good news courtesy of Champion Data.

The Demons are giving up 42 points per game less versus last season's average. That's a big turnaround. In addition we're the only team in the AFL, so far, who has yet to give up a coast to coast goal to the opposition. I'm not sure how many we gave up last year at this stage but i'd be betting it was a few more than the big O

Lets take a look at some rankings on some popular team junk stats versus league averages. I've also included the Hawks and Cat's rankings as well just so we have a reference point on the 2 most successfull teams in the last 7 years. For those interested i've included the last 6 matches under Neeld (Rnds 6 to 11, 2013).

Tackle Average (per game)

Demons 64.3 (12) Neeld 60.5

League 66.8

Cats 74.0 (4)

Hawks 52.5 (18)

Clearances

Demons 30.8 (18) Neeld 31.8

League 38.7

Hawks 41.3 (5)

Cats 35 (17)

Contested

Demons 131.3 (17) Neeld 116.7

League 139.5

Cats 143.5 (6)

Hawks 143.3 (7)

Uncontested

Demons 217.7 (8) Neeld 184.3

League 222.3

Hawks 260.7 (2)

Cats 217.5 (9)

Effective Disposals

Demons 253.3 (11) Neeld 213.3

League 261.4

Hawks 300.2 (2)

Cats 257.7 (8)

Effective Disposal %

Demons 71.7 (10) Neeld 69.8

League 71.4

Hawks 73.7 (4)

Cats 72.0 (7)

Clangers (lower rank = better)

Demons 44.2 (6) Neeld 47.0

League 45.5

Hawks 44.0 (5)

Cats 47.8 (13)

Contested Marks

Demons 7.2 (16) Neeld 7.8

League 8.7

Cats 12.2 (1)

Hawks 8.5 (9)

i50s

Demons 41.8 (18) Neeld 36.2

League 49.8

Cats 55.7 (1)

Hawks 54.5 (3)

Marks i50

Demons 8.3 (15) Neeld 6.5

League 10.7

Cats 16.2 (1)

Hawks 13.5 (3)

There is massive improvement in contested possies, inside 50s, and uncontested possies, but relative to the league we are terrible, terrible, and middle of the road in those categories.

lol

All you can do is laugh...

Sigh.

Stats that matter

Goals, Behinds, POINTS

im surprised dunney wasn't up amongst the top for efficiency.

Stats that matter

Goals, Behinds, POINTS

they will come

Effective disposals best Georgiou? Like it.

That'll stick it up a few around here!

i50s still abominable.

Mids need to work harder running both ways....

im surprised dunney wasn't up amongst the top for efficiency.

Those rankings only applied to Rnd 4. But even after Rnd 6 he is still outside the top 5 who have played so far this year, sitting in position 8. Still a good result. Suffered in the match against the Blues with a DE % of around 44.

As your probably aware there's a fare bit of junk within that stat and in particular disposals out of the last line of defense so take it with a grain of salt. Just a very rough indicator of how well players "might be" using it.

Sitting top of the table out of players who have played all rounds of footy so far is Georgiou with a percentage of 80.5

While i'm not suggesting Grimes is amazing with ball use i'd like to propose the following theory. He might still be turning the ball over in a horrible fashion, which stands out like bull's balls when he does, but he just might be doing it less often than last season.

May I propose a different theory? It applies to all backmen who are regularly maligned by both the media and their own fans.

When a defender kicks and makes a mistake, the result is regularly a turnover which provides a shot on goal for the opposition. This is a highly memorable event. When they kick well, it results in a mark and another kick. This is not particularly memorable.

When an attacker kicks and makes a mistake, the result is usually either a behind or a turnover that results in a mark to the opposition and another kick. Not a particularly memorable event. When they kick well, it results in either goal, or a mark with a shot on goal. This is a highly memorable event.

As a result, human observers (who are scientifically proven to be absolutely terrible at "gut feel" statistics, and also scientifically proven to overestimate their ability to judge "gut feel" statistics) are massively prone to recalling defenders mistakes, and attackers successes. As a result, Tom McDonald, Jack Grimes, Dean Terlich and Lynden Dunn are constantly overly criticised for their disposal quality, when it's simply the location on the ground their disposal takes place that is the problem (and is outside of their control).

Every single team has "whipping boy" defenders who are statistically no worse than their teammates, but are constantly unfairly criticised thanks to the ease of recall fallacy. Grimes is one.

Stats that matter

Goals, Behinds, POINTS

Agreed, after all is said and done the scoreboard is a pretty fair indicator Norm

May I propose a different theory? It applies to all backmen who are regularly maligned by both the media and their own fans.

When a defender kicks and makes a mistake, the result is regularly a turnover which provides a shot on goal for the opposition. This is a highly memorable event. When they kick well, it results in a mark and another kick. This is not particularly memorable.

When an attacker kicks and makes a mistake, the result is usually either a behind or a turnover that results in a mark to the opposition and another kick. Not a particularly memorable event. When they kick well, it results in either goal, or a mark with a shot on goal. This is a highly memorable event.

As a result, human observers (who are scientifically proven to be absolutely terrible at "gut feel" statistics, and also scientifically proven to overestimate their ability to judge "gut feel" statistics) are massively prone to recalling defenders mistakes, and attackers successes. As a result, Tom McDonald, Jack Grimes, Dean Terlich and Lynden Dunn are constantly overly criticised for their disposal quality, when it's simply the location on the ground their disposal takes place that is the problem (and is outside of their control).

Every single team has "whipping boy" defenders who are statistically no worse than their teammates, but are constantly unfairly criticised thanks to the ease of recall fallacy. Grimes is one.

Ok. So, the position on the ground where the shot at target (to player or at goal) takes place accentuates either the negative or positive of the resulting outcome. And those down back are unfairly weighted towards a more than likely negative outcome. Fair argument.

Yikes, if correct....the only position i would want to play on the ground would be as a fixed, old fashioned FF, or at least...forward of center

Ok. So, the position on the ground where the shot at target (to player or at goal) takes place accentuates either the negative or positive of the resulting outcome.

Correct. The technical term for it is the availability heuristic. It's one of the most frequently noticeable cognitive biases.

Effective disposals best Georgiou? Like it.

Every team needs a "working class man" hard nut who just gets the job done, week in, week out. Throwing in high effective disposal rate is an added bonus.

I am sure though that the Georgiou detractors, those who offensively label him a 'dud' or 'spud' will still find some explanation to support their cause.

Well done Alex. Some here appreciate your efforts.

PS re stats in general. We all know that 86.35% of stats are made up and the other 28.73% are just plain wrong :-)

May I propose a different theory? It applies to all backmen who are regularly maligned by both the media and their own fans.

When a defender kicks and makes a mistake, the result is regularly a turnover which provides a shot on goal for the opposition. This is a highly memorable event. When they kick well, it results in a mark and another kick. This is not particularly memorable.

When an attacker kicks and makes a mistake, the result is usually either a behind or a turnover that results in a mark to the opposition and another kick. Not a particularly memorable event. When they kick well, it results in either goal, or a mark with a shot on goal. This is a highly memorable event.

As a result, human observers (who are scientifically proven to be absolutely terrible at "gut feel" statistics, and also scientifically proven to overestimate their ability to judge "gut feel" statistics) are massively prone to recalling defenders mistakes, and attackers successes. As a result, Tom McDonald, Jack Grimes, Dean Terlich and Lynden Dunn are constantly overly criticised for their disposal quality, when it's simply the location on the ground their disposal takes place that is the problem (and is outside of their control).

Every single team has "whipping boy" defenders who are statistically no worse than their teammates, but are constantly unfairly criticised thanks to the ease of recall fallacy. Grimes is one.

I agree with this - it's why I notice Terlich's mistakes so much more than, say, Viney's.

However, isn't it also relevant that those mistakes cost us more? As in, yes, we remember them more because of where they occur, but the fact that a mistake in that part of the ground can be so important surely means those players need to be extra careful? Which, for example, Terlich is not?

That'll stick it up a few around here!

The fact that he doesn't turn it over is great, but effective disposal stat is quite pointless when he rarely moves the ball forwards. But good that when he has it we generally keep possession

Clearance numbers have gone DOWN since Neeld? That is something I wasn't expecting and would surely be going the opposite direction by season's end.

The Neeld averages for possessions are amazing. How that was allowed to slip to such putrid levels, one can only wonder.

Clearance numbers have gone DOWN since Neeld? That is something I wasn't expecting and would surely be going the opposite direction by season's end.

The Neeld averages for possessions are amazing. How that was allowed to slip to such putrid levels, one can only wonder.

Stoppage work is a science these days - it's like running a basketball play every time the ump throws it up.

It is understandable, if unacceptable, that Jones and co. are struggling with it. The mids are new, young, NQR, or 1 person...

The stats really show how much not having Clark, Hogan and Dawes (for the first three games) impacted with their absence seeming the prime cause of low Contested marks, low inside 50's and low marks inside 50.

The rest of the areas are showing good improvement. On the clearances being worse than Neeld, be keen to see how well our opposition does in clearances now vs Neeld's time, as I feel we are bottling teams up far better at stoppages.

Snapshot of Stat leaders to Round 8, 2014. Rankings based on all players who have played at least 2 or more games this season.

Player Top 5 Rankings

Contested (average per game)

1. The Jones Boy (11.4)

2. D Tyson (10.7)

3. D Cross (10.2)

4. J Viney (10.0)

5. B Vince (8.40)

Uncontested

1. The Jones Boy (15.9)

2. M Jones (15.0)

3. B Vince (14.2)

4. D Tyson (13.6)

5. J Grimes (13.4)

Effective Disposals

1. The Jones Boy (18.9)

2. D Tyson (17.0)

3. D Cross (16.6)

4. J Toumpas (16.2)

5. M Jones (15.9)

Effective Disposal % (Best)

1. J Toumpas (83.7%)

2. N Jetta (83.1)

3. J McKenzie (81.4%)

4. J Spencer (81.3%)

5. D Kent (79.2%)

AFL team average (71.6%) - Excludes MFC

Effective Disposal % (Worst)

1. M Evans (47.6%)

2. M Jamar (51.9%)

3. J Kennedy-Harris (54.6%)

4. B Vince (57.5%)

5. C Salem (58.8%)

Clangers

1. J McKenzie (4.0)

2. J Viney (3.3)

3. D Tyson (3.1)

4. B Vince (2.7)

5. L Dunn (2.6)

Clearances

1. The Jones Boy (6.0)

2. D Tyson (5.2)

3. B Vince (3.75)

4. J Viney (3.67)

5. D Cross (3.0)

Tackles

1. D Cross (6.2)

2. R Bail (5.9)

3. The Jones Boy (5.5)

3. J Viney (5.5)

5. N Jetta (4.7)

1 %ers

1. T McDonald (10.5)

2. C Pederson (5.1)

3. N Jetta (4.7)

4. L Dunn (4.0)

5. A Georgiou (3.9)

Stats: Courtesy of Footywire

Tommy with double the next best 1%ers? Nice.

Dat Jones Boy..

Tommy with double the next best 1%ers? Nice.

Dat Jones Boy..

And another 15 1%ers tonight!

And people knock his game

And another 15 1%ers tonight!

And people knock his game

What happens if you get more than 100 1 per centers?

Just saying.....