Worthless Stats

[Bobby McKenzie 2,209]

Just read on the AFL site that despite losing by a massive 112 points Essendon had only two less disposals than Adelaide. Makes some statistics completely pointless doesn't it? The only stat that counts is the scoreboard figures.

[daisycutter 28,709]

Just read on the AFL site that despite losing by a massive 112 points Essendon had only two less disposals than Adelaide. Makes some statistics completely pointless doesn't it? The only stat that counts is the scoreboard figures.

reminds me of how the early bears used to play. 20 possessions and moved the ball 10 metres

[Biffen 12,450]

Once you have the first injection you can lose count and the primary objective becomes to have more injections without telling anyone and then you begin to lie to yourself and everyone around you.

It's the same with stats,the media,the truth.

Apparently most of Essendons clean disposals were put into a little yellow box but never recorded.

[bjDee 1,249]

Once you have the first injection you can lose count and the primary objective becomes to have more injections without telling anyone and then you begin to lie to yourself and everyone around you.

It's the same with stats,the media,the truth.

Apparently most of Essendons clean disposals were put into a little yellow box but never recorded.

So can you please explain to me Einstein's theory of general relativity? If you can summarise the whole Bombers / Asada mess, anything is possible.

[Biffen 12,450]

So can you please explain to me Einstein's theory of general relativity? If you can summarise the whole Bombers / Asada mess, anything is possible.

I was shooting from more of a chemistry background than physics BJ.

All I know is ethics are irrelevant and imagination is more important than knowledge.

Hardly rocket science!

[bjDee 1,249]

I was shooting from more of a chemistry background than physics BJ.

All I know is ethics are irrelevant and imagination is more important than knowledge.

Hardly rocket science!

Ahhh! Essendrug = Magic x Chemistry^2

Now I geddit.

[John Dee 439]

Ahhh! Essendrug = Magic x Chemistry^2

Now I geddit.

As someone who has a degree in nuclear physics, I might point out the e=mc^2 is Einstein's energy equation, not his theory of relativity.

His theory of general relativity has only one basic tenet, time is not constant. Indeed Essendrug seem to be stuck in some sort of time warp whereby they will ever be under investigation and never recognise any decision that goes against them.

[Pipefitter 2,069]

I think Hirdy is daring them to sack him just like Malthouse did.

[dpositive 1,600]

Newtons immutable 4th? Law

For each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

[Pates 9,541]

I remember when we were losing by 100+ points in the Neeled era and he was saying stuff like "we just didn't get our hands on the ball". Well Essendon did and it sure didn't help them!

The last quarter was a total rout though, once Giles went down they didn't have anyone who could match Jacobs in the ruck for any contest (Giles was getting smashed as it was). Dangerfield was unstoppable.

[beelzebub 22,582]

Only one stat matters

G-P-B

[Bitter but optimistic 21,560]

Only one stat matters

G-P-B

At the final siren.

[Samael 560]

Just read on the AFL site that despite losing by a massive 112 points Essendon had only two less disposals than Adelaide. Makes some statistics completely pointless doesn't it? The only stat that counts is the scoreboard figures.

I read somewhere that a couple of weeks ago Dyson Hepple (?) had 30 odd disposals and actually had negative meters gained. Stats are pretty useless in and of themselves. They do allow comparison of players because they are the same for all. But they don't account for position played, team rules, players role etc. Lies, Damm Lies and Statistics still holds true.

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

But did Dyson Heppel's negative metres gained set up his teammates for compelling attacks? If they did, maybe they were beneficial to his team.

All these new stats, like "percentage of scores from inside fifties that result from a drive from half back caused by a turnover after a hard ball get when the roof is closed" .... sounds like farnarkling.

Check how many times commentators in print and on radio/TV quote them. Do they really mean much?

I would love to know what stats the experts (as in the coaching panels) actually look at to know how their team is travelling.

[Redleg 38,195]

As someone who has a degree in nuclear physics, I might point out the e=mc^2 is Einstein's energy equation, not his theory of relativity.

His theory of general relativity has only one basic tenet, time is not constant. Indeed Essendrug seem to be stuck in some sort of time warp whereby they will ever be under investigation and never recognise any decision that goes against them.

I failed Phys, Chem and Maths. Maybe I could head up a supplements team.

[daisycutter 28,709]

I failed Phys, Chem and Maths. Maybe I could head up a supplements team.

nice trifecta, red

[McQueen 17,864]

I remember when we were losing by 100+ points in the Neeled era and he was saying stuff like "we just didn't get our hands on the ball". Well Essendon did and it sure didn't help them!

The last quarter was a total rout though, once Giles went down they didn't have anyone who could match Jacobs in the ruck for any contest (Giles was getting smashed as it was). Dangerfield was unstoppable.

I can't believe we lost to that rabble of a club.

[titan_uranus 22,922]

Only one stat matters

G-P-B

If you're boiling it down to one stat only, shouldn't it be W-D-L?

[beelzebub 22,582]

If you're boiling it down to one stat only, shouldn't it be W-D-L?

go further ?

Flags

[rpfc 27,662]

But did Dyson Heppel's negative metres gained set up his teammates for compelling attacks? If they did, maybe they were beneficial to his team.

All these new stats, like "percentage of scores from inside fifties that result from a drive from half back caused by a turnover after a hard ball get when the roof is closed" .... sounds like farnarkling.

Check how many times commentators in print and on radio/TV quote them. Do they really mean much?

I would love to know what stats the experts (as in the coaching panels) actually look at to know how their team is travelling.

If your best player is literally not going anywhere - that is not good.

He is like Jones to us, he should be taking it on himself to take the game on and not abdicate to someone else.

One stat that I know are used are Pressure Acts (tackles, corrals, smothers, etc.) and the position of those acts - the Dogs have a high number in their forward half, and we have a high number in our back half. The more you have in your forward half, the easier it is to score obviously. The Dogs have based their game around pressure in their forward half.

[ManDee 7,093]

Famous sayings #243

Half the stats you read don't give the whole picture.

(I just made that up I think)

[dpositive 1,600]

All the stats you read dont give you half the picture!

Just made that up too. I think

[daisycutter 28,709]

statistically speaking statistics are correct 107% of the time

[ManDee 7,093]

statistically speaking statistics are correct 107% of the time

Yes but 47% of experts are wrong half the time, 33% most of the time and the other 40% were undecided.

[daisycutter 28,709]

Yes but 47% of experts are wrong half the time, 33% most of the time and the other 40% were undecided.

agree with you 110%