Stats, Stats and damning stats

[nutbean 8,837]

I looked at the stats this morning and wasn't surprised that we were beaten in every key indicator (except marks).

I can see the possession count per quarter and there is no surprise that we won the second half. It is also no surprise that we lost all indicators for the entire match as we were very ordinary in first half - I would be very interested to see all the stats ( tackles, contested possessions, inside 50's) from the 10 minute mark of the 3rd quarter to the end of the game. I suspect we would have been ahead in all of them.

My point is that leading possessions ( especially contested), tackles, marks etc means little unless you take advantage of the supremacy by putting it on the scoreboard. What we did successfully is take advantage of leading the stats in that last part of the game - we took advantage by kicking goals. For the first 2 and half quarters - Essendon didn't.

Edited June 15, 2014 by nutbean

[jnrmac 19,482]

We were smashed in CPs. They were at the bottom of nearly every pack and seemed to extract it so much better than us from packs.

[TGR 1,367]

Surely we won the smother count.

Saved a couple of goals?

Gave us a couple.

This stat mattered IMO.

[radar 1,858]

Should have, could have buried us early.

But when it's 1.2 to 3.9 you're not really out of it.

Port game - we led in final quarter and only out of it when they snagged a couple of late ones.

Pies QB - still in it 10 min mark final term.

Our last - only pasting - eagles game

[nutbean 8,837]

Surely we won the smother count.

Saved a couple of goals?

Gave us a couple.

This stat mattered IMO.

Agree.

If you are pressuring hard enough to execute quite a few smothers it not only impacts that play but has the opposition rushing their next disposals because "the opposition are on, they are throwing themselves across our boots - better dispose a bit quicker"

[Chook 14,647]

We won the "goals-for" count. That's a pretty important stat.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

Can anyone explain to me the difference in the last two dot points in the blue box in this article?

It says:

• "fifth best defence, conceding an average 69 points a game
• has conceded 10.8 goals a game this year - the fourth fewest of any team"

So, we've conceded 69 points but only 10 goals 8 behinds (=68 points) per game or, alternatively if the 10.8 is metric (ie, 10 plus 8 tenths of a goal per game = 64.8 points per game). Either way 68 and 64.8 aren't the same as 69.

And have we conceded the fourth or the fifth fewest goals or points per game?

[nutbean 8,837]

Can anyone explain to me the difference in the last two dot points in the blue box in this article?

It says:

• "fifth best defence, conceding an average 69 points a game
• has conceded 10.8 goals a game this year - the fourth fewest of any team"

So, we've conceded 69 points but only 10 goals 8 behinds (=68 points) per game or, alternatively if the 10.8 is metric (ie, 10 plus 8 tenths of a goal per game = 64.8 points per game). Either way 68 and 64.8 aren't the same as 69.

And have we conceded the fourth or the fifth fewest goals or points per game?

my brain hurts

[Chook 14,647]

Can anyone explain to me the difference in the last two dot points in the blue box in this article?

It says:

• "fifth best defence, conceding an average 69 points a game
• has conceded 10.8 goals a game this year - the fourth fewest of any team"

So, we've conceded 69 points but only 10 goals 8 behinds (=68 points) per game or, alternatively if the 10.8 is metric (ie, 10 plus 8 tenths of a goal per game = 64.8 points per game). Either way 68 and 64.8 aren't the same as 69.

And have we conceded the fourth or the fifth fewest goals or points per game?

Perhaps the distinction is "points against" (69) vs "goals against" (10.8).

69 points against could consist of 0 goals 69 behinds per week, while 10.8 goals against may REQUIRE 10 actual goals, but could equally consist of 10 goals 69 behinds (or any number of behinds, for that matter).

I'm just guessing though, because it's pretty confusing either way.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Chook

[ManDee 7,096]

Can anyone explain to me the difference in the last two dot points in the blue box in this article?

It says:

• "fifth best defence, conceding an average 69 points a game
• has conceded 10.8 goals a game this year - the fourth fewest of any team"

So, we've conceded 69 points but only 10 goals 8 behinds (=68 points) per game or, alternatively if the 10.8 is metric (ie, 10 plus 8 tenths of a goal per game = 64.8 points per game). Either way 68 and 64.8 aren't the same as 69.

And have we conceded the fourth or the fifth fewest goals or points per game?

That bothered me too.

[deanox 8,945]

I can't comment on the fourth v fifth but I wonder of the distinction is in points conceded (which includes rushed behinds) versus opposition scores conceded. Average of 1 point per rushed behind each week sounds conceivable?

Edited June 17, 2014 by deanox

[Red and Bluebeard 2,049]

Can anyone explain to me the difference in the last two dot points in the blue box in this article?

It says:

• "fifth best defence, conceding an average 69 points a game
• has conceded 10.8 goals a game this year - the fourth fewest of any team"

So, we've conceded 69 points but only 10 goals 8 behinds (=68 points) per game or, alternatively if the 10.8 is metric (ie, 10 plus 8 tenths of a goal per game = 64.8 points per game). Either way 68 and 64.8 aren't the same as 69.

And have we conceded the fourth or the fifth fewest goals or points per game?

I think it is your second case, ie it means an average of just under 11 goals per game, not a score of 10.8 = 68 points. I don't see the contradiction; we are ranked fourth for goals against and fifth for overall score against, meaning it is slightly harder to score a goal against us than a point. If you like, we would have still won by a point on Sunday if Essendon had kicked 11.11 or 12.5 (or 9.23 ) instead of 10.17. All the same total of points, but different number of goals.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

I think it is your second case, ie it means an average of just under 11 goals per game, not a score of 10.8 = 68 points. I don't see the contradiction; we are ranked fourth for goals against and fifth for overall score against, meaning it is slightly harder to score a goal against us than a point. If you like, we would have still won by a point on Sunday if Essendon had kicked 11.11 or 12.5 (or 9.23 ) instead of 10.17. All the same total of points, but different number of goals.

If you're right (and I think you are), then I have another problem with the stats. If we've conceded an average of 10.8 goals per game (meaning more than 10 but fewer than 11 goals, rather than 10 goals and 8 behinds), then we have conceded an average of 64.8 points per game by way of goals. But if we're only conceding an average of 69 points per game, this would suggest teams are averaging 69 - 64.8 = 4.2 points by way of behinds. And this we know not to be true given the inaccuracy of our opponents.

My brain is now hurting even more. I wish I hadn't started thinking about this.

[mog 58]

We've conceded 130 goals in 12 games, which is an average of 10.8 goals a game.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/fts_team_rankings?type=OA&year=2014&sby=4

As we've had on average a further 14.7 behinds a game kicked against us, making a total of 956 points at a average of 79.67 pts a game, I have no idea were the 69 points stat comes from.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

We've conceded 130 goals in 12 games, which is an average of 10.8 goals a game.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/fts_team_rankings?type=OA&year=2014&sby=4

As we've had on average a further 14.7 behinds a game kicked against us, making a total of 956 points at a average of 79.67 pts a game, I have no idea were the 69 points stat comes from.

Probably a typo. You've answered everything, thanks.

And now my brain no longer has to hurt.

[The Reverend 1,718]

Who Cares? We beat them!

[Red and Bluebeard 2,049]

Probably a typo. You've answered everything, thanks.

And now my brain no longer has to hurt.

Glad to hear it. Just to round off mog's analysis (which is spot on IMHO), we have conceded a total of 956 points against, so with 130 goals, that means 956 - 780 = 176 points, or an average of 14,6 per game. So, if you can stand it, our average score against is 10.8 goals, 14.6 behinds total 79.6.

[old dee 23,255]

Who Cares? We beat them!

And in the end Reverend is the only stat that counts

Edited June 17, 2014 by old dee

[TGR 1,367]

As long as our supporters don't get too upset/surprised when an finally opposition kicks straight and converts. It might get ugly. But 2 ugly games in over half a season we should be able to digest.

[nutbean 8,837]

As long as our supporters don't get too upset/surprised when an finally opposition kicks straight and converts. It might get ugly. But 2 ugly games in over half a season we should be able to digest.

Roos ethos of "make them kick at goal from difficult spots" has worked a treat. Besides the Eagles game I thought this failed against the dogs in that they did kick goals from difficult spots ! That was the difference at the end of the night.