Stats Files - 2020

[old55 23,687]

23 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Road to Finals / GF - Triple Crown Update (to Rnd 10, 2020)

Vs the Crows

• Meters Gained Differential (looking for + 200 or more) ? +859 ✔️
• Marks inside 50 Differential (any positive is a win but the higher the better) ? +6 ✔️
• Contested Possession Differential (looking for a +10 or greater) ? +25 ✔️

Season Averages (the one that counts)

• Meters Gained Average Differential (looking for an average of + 200 or more) ? +82.5 ❌

Substantial improvement on -14.5 last week.  The top five with current ladder positions in parenthesis below.  It is worth noting that only the top three clubs have a +200 (or greater) average here.  That's one less club than last week with the Lions dropping out of contention.  We are presently lying 6th.

           1. Power 414 (1st)  2. Tigers 337 (3rd)  3. Cats 229 (5th)  4. Saints 167 (2nd)  5. Lions 106 (4th)

• Marks inside 50 Average Differential (ideally we need to see a top 6 ranking) ? 4th ✔️

Up two places from last week with a +1.6 average differential, equal 3rd with the Cats and the Tiges.

The top 5... 1. Lions  2. Power  3. Cats  3. Demons  3. Tigers

• Contested Possession Average Differential (looking for +10 or more) ?  +9.2 ❌

Moving up one place to No.3 from last week and just a smidgen below the required pass rate.  Super close but no cigar just yet.

The top 5:   1. Pies  2. Cats  3. Demons  4. Kangas  5. Lions

Great work Rusty!  It seems counter-intuitive that the metric we're ahead in is Marks inside 50 Average Differential despite the well known failure of connection between our mids and forwards

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

1 hour ago, Pollyanna said:

Great work Rusty!  It seems counter-intuitive that the metric we're ahead in is Marks inside 50 Average Differential despite the well known failure of connection between our mids and forwards

Thanks Polly.  Yes i reckon that's all started to change since we saw Weid replace T-Mac.  Much more mobile and converting nicely.

Then we've had Clarry starting to connect a little better plus the addition of Gus slowly starting to spend a tad more time in the middle.

Viney pushing forward is a better alternative than majority of his time in the middle imv.

Add to that Jackson finding the ball a bit last week.

A fair way to go but starting to see a couple of promising positives eh.

Just need Kozzie to come on now or maybe Bedford coming in and impacting at some point.  Must play Kozzie closer to goal though.  Not sure why he was getting any game time up the field of late.  Crazy stuff at this early stage.  He needs to stay deep and learn his craft ie; crumbing, kicking goals and pressuring the opp inside 50.

The other issue is some of the long kicks coming out of defence from May.  His medium / short kicks tend to be a bit dodgy but he does find some targets long at times which sees those on the receiving end with plenty of time/space to find options around the arc etc.  Having a solid season so far.

Edited August 8, 2020 by Rusty Nails

[Nascent 9,283]

On 8/6/2020 at 10:01 PM, Rusty Nails said:

Weighted Average Scores - Rnd 8 through Rnd 10, 2020

Still 8% off our 2019 average team score in the last three rounds.  Tracc in rocket mode vs 2019 & Clarry a fair way ahead of 2019 also once the 20% reduction in time factor is added back.  Same with Viney.  Lever also on the rise.  Maxy a little off his best, injury no doubt taking it's toll in this block of matches.  Some established senior names really struggling down low.  Some not making the cut for round 10.

 

Player	Rounds 8 to 10 Weighted Score	2020 Rank	2019 Weighted Score	% Change vs 2019	2019 Rank	Change in Rank vs 2019
Clayton Oliver (3)	4.442	1	4.643	-4.33	1	0
Christian Petracca (3)	3.817	2	2.616	45.91	10	8
Jack Viney (3)	2.833	3	3.068	-7.66	5	2
Christian Salem (3)	2.725	4	3.448	-20.97	3	-1
Steven May (3)	2.708	5	2.446	10.71	14	9
Ed Langdon (3)	2.200	6	-	-	-	-
Jake Lever (3)	2.167	7	2.313	-6.31	17	10
Max Gawn (3) #	2.083	8	3.256	-36.03	4	-4
Angus Brayshaw (3)	2.083	8	2.894	-28.02	6	-2
Tom Sparrow (2)	2.013	10	1.075	87.26	37	27
Michael Hibberd (3)	2.000	11	2.124	-5.84	20	9
Bayley Fritsch (3)	1.933	12	2.641	-26.81	9	-3
James Harmes (3)	1.633	13	3.850	-57.58	2	-11
Harley Bennell (2)	1.425	14	-	-	-	-
Luke Jackson (3) #	1.350	15	-	-	-	-
Jake Melksham (3)	1.250	16	1.931	-35.27	23	7
Jay Lockhart (3)	1.233	17	1.660	-25.72	31	14
Sam Weideman (3)	1.208	18	1.818	-33.55	23	5
Adam Tomlinson (1)	1.200	19	-	-	-	-
Nathan Jones (3)	0.983	20	2.711	-63.74	8	-12
Kysaiah Pickett (2)	0.775	21	-	-	-	-
Oscar McDonald (2)	0.688	22	1.877	-63.35	26	4
Tom McDonald # (1)	0.600	23	2.150	-72.09	19	-4
Mitchell Hannan (2)	0.538	24	1.325	-59.40	36	12
Alex N-Bullen (1)	0.375	25	1.984	-81.10	21	-4
Aaron Vandenburg (1)	0.300	26	-	-	-	-
Neville Jetta (1)	0.250	27	2.264	-88.96	18	-9
Average Team Score -Top 22	42.749		59.623	-28.30

# Hit outs to advantage not captured

Numbers in parentheses = number of games played for this data set

Stats courtesy of footywire.com

Apologies Rusty if this has already been explained but where are these numbers derived from? I could be a bit daft but I can't make any sense of these random numbers without context. What stats combine to create a weighted score? Is it a combination of effective disposal, metres gained, score involvements etc...? Is there a bench mark figure for what players should be attaining? Is it affected by position, i.e will mids will have a higher number due to overall possession numbers but dour defenders and pressure forwards score lower. For example would that mean a "good" score for a mid might be >3 where as a small forward >1? What are the poor, average, good benchmarks for players and positions across the league and across and how do our players compare?  

Apologies again and I'm certainly don't expect you to do the leg work in some of those questions I asked, just trying to wrap my head around the theory behind the numbers.

 

 

[old55 23,687]

1 hour ago, Rusty Nails said:

Thanks Polly.  Yes i reckon that's all started to change since we saw Weid replace T-Mac.  Much more mobile and converting nicely.

Then we've had Clarry starting to connect a little better plus the addition of Gus slowly starting to spend a tad more time in the middle.

Viney pushing forward is a better alternative than majority of his time in the middle imv.

Add to that Jackson finding the ball a bit last week.

A fair way to go but starting to see a couple of promising positives eh.

Just need Kozzie to come on now or maybe Bedford coming in and impacting at some point.  Must play Kozzie closer to goal though.  Not sure why he was getting any game time up the field of late.  Crazy stuff at this early stage.  He needs to stay deep and learn his craft ie; crumbing, kicking goals and pressuring the opp inside 50.

The other issue is some of the long kicks coming out of defence from May.  His medium / short kicks tend to be a bit dodgy but he does find some targets long at times which sees those on the receiving end with plenty of time/space to find options around the arc etc.  Having a solid season so far.

A graph of your 3 metrics average by round would be nice

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

21 hours ago, Pollyanna said:

A graph of your 3 metrics average by round would be nice

Not a bad idea Polly.  Could be possible.  I'm not a big fan of excel graphs so i'll take a look around and see what's out there.  Have to be able to cut and paste in here as well without any major loss of formatting etc.  I've noticed it isn't as friendly this year as previous years.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

On 8/8/2020 at 2:51 PM, Nascent said:

Apologies Rusty if this has already been explained but where are these numbers derived from? I could be a bit daft but I can't make any sense of these random numbers without context.

What stats combine to create a weighted score? Is it a combination of effective disposal, metres gained, score involvements etc...?

Yes correct Nascent.  Just a series of select weighted stats that are averaged as the weeks go by so that you can theoretically compare one player to another across a series of weeks,  months or even an entire season, regardless of how many games each player has played.  The score is therefore pretty relevant, regardless of whether the player has played say only 5 matches vs a fellow player who may have been lucky enough to play an entire season.

The first thing i will say is.... there is a huge danger in looking at any stats (these included) without having watched the game you are deriving the stats from.... intently and in conjunction with the weights and the overall outcome / Score.  So was there any testing done to ensure the scores were somewhat robust vs what was happening on the field?  Yes, albeit limited.  I watched replays of 6 matches in the second half of 2017 to ensure the player scores were, at the very least, "somewhat" reflective (to the best of my limited ability and the limited compromised data available) of how each of the players performed on match day.  Fair to say the rewind and fast forward buttons received a pummelling.  Obviously there are a myriad of inputs, flaws and subjective bias that goes into the end product and if a serious analyst got hold of this it would probably end up either in the bin or be given a major overhaul but there was some small but subjective back testing carried out over about 3 weeks.  Do i think the scores somewhat reflect the outcome on game day in most cases?  Not always for every player, but yes in most cases they would appear to (aside from the Maxy / ruckman hit outs to advantage issue / players given a lock down or forward pressure role etc)

What stats are being weighted?  Your assumption is accurate and certainly no rocket science involved.  Each stat is subjectively weighted and includes...

Effective disposals (the receiver actually receives the ball ie., there is some robustness in this one), Contested Marks (Maxy, Casboult, Kennedy et al), Marks inside 50 (forwards and mids pushing forward), 1%ers (a pretty dodgy stat but does cover all players, especially critical for defenders spoiling etc), Rebound 50s (covers defenders and mids running both ways to help out.  Even forwards on the odd occasion), Clearances (mostly mids, but also covers forwards, rucks and possibly the odd defender.  Basically anyone hitting in and getting the pill out), Inside 50s (very low weighting as anyone can bomb the ball in), tackles, score involvements, intercepts and goals.  Then i deduct a significant factor off the score of each player for any turnovers.  This last part is extremely arbitrary and something i have thought over for a while but my view is it is no good racking up 30 disposals if you just as easily gave back 10 of those straight to the opp.  And often after game day we will hear those complaints from fans "So and so got plenty but much of it was junk and went straight to the opp" etc etc.  This discount or deduction ensures that poor users of the ball are punished accordingly and the score is reflective of their poor use.  Meters gained is not presently covered but given it's supposed importance in the finals/GF success metrics i am considering adding this in 2021.

Is there a bench mark figure for what players should be attaining?

No but it could be done if you had the time and wherewithal.  If one could be bothered carving out the players that play a similar role or position and compare their relevant scores across the entire AFL then it could be possible but that's already covered and in a much more robust accurate way by AFL ratings.  The only issue i have with their ratings is it is very laggy as it is based on a player's last 40 matches and therefore doesn't cover players who have been out for quite a while injured or rookies etc.  Could i be bothered / do i have the time?  No lol.

Do i presently have any idea what a benchmark pass is by position or at all?  Not really and anything on this topic is purely subjective.  Also, in many ways you are only as good as your opponent and sometimes a benchmark or what i might consider a "good" score one week, might be off 20% the next but that same player might have played just as well on the day and/or have played a very good game, but, he did so playing on a better quality opponent / team and hence his score is off vs the previous week (usually the pressure factor).  Does that make sense?  This is why an average score over a minimum number of games (my guess is at least approx 5 or more) is obviously more robust than just one, two or three week scores.

Is it affected by position, i.e will mids will have a higher number due to overall possession numbers but dour defenders and pressure forwards score lower. For example would that mean a "good" score for a mid might be >3 where as a small forward >1?

A small pressure forward might be there to do just that and maybe score the odd goal.  His stats and therefore his weighted score will generally not look great vs say a mid racking up plenty of effective disposals by handball / boot or a defender chipping plenty of short kicks around the back half or even backwards on occasions (transferring pressure).  So then it comes down to comparing apples to apples while or after watching the game in question.  Unfortunately we don't have access to Champion data's best data.  Things like their 'kick rating' would be very handy as well as hit outs to advantage for ruckmen.  Maxy presently suffers in these tables with this aspect not being captured, albeit the rest of his game still sees him mostly always at or very near the top of the tables.  This would likely improve the robustness of the input data.  The old saying rubbish in rubbish out is a great starting point and in that instance these tables should only ever be considered as a very rough guide and only taken into consideration after having watched the match in its entirety.

What are the poor, average, good benchmarks for players and positions across the league and across and how do our players compare?

Having said all the above my gut feel generally is.... a 1.80 to 2.0 or better is a bare minimum pass mark in almost any role / position unless said player is playing a lock down type role eg; shoulder to shoulder defender a la an Oscar or May type role, a mid or even as a small pressure forward who might be tasked to shut down a dangerous play making rebounding defender etc.  In this instance a 1.30 (ish) to about 1.70 may well classify as a good pass if his opponent has had limited impact vs his usual impact.  I would also apply that lowish approx score to a rookie for a rough pass mark.

Looking at particular areas of the ground.  As a rough guide... Score pass mark i would expect to be generally lower up forward....roughly 1.80 ish.  Mids roughly a 2.5 to 3.0.  And defenders roughly 1.80ish and above.  Any player getting near a 3.0 or higher should (in theory) have had a good to quite good match or at least held his own on the day.  Over 3 to 5.0 is a very good game. Over 5 to 6.9 outstanding.  7.0 and above is off the charts.

Apologies again and I'm certainly don't expect you to do the leg work in some of those questions I asked, just trying to wrap my head around the theory behind the numbers.

G'day Nascent.  This didn't come up on my reply feed for some reason so apologies for the delay.

I have explained this once before already but it was some time back and i can't find the response.  Anyway, i've inserted the answers to your questions above ?  Hope this helps make a bit more sense of things.

Edited August 9, 2020 by Rusty Nails

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

Rnd 11, 2020 Adelaide Oval - Demons vs Roos

Mr Oliver, over 500 meters gained two weeks running and another outstanding game.  Gus at the top with 563!  Let's look at some of the output....

Clarry ?  25 effectives running at just under 81% efficiency.  Nearly 8% above the AFL average and into elite ball use territory.  6 clearances, equal with North's Dumont on the night.  2 rebound 50s, 8 inside 50s, 5 tackles 7 score involvements, 6 intercepts and a goal.  The only bit of shine off all that was the 6 turnovers but to be expected somewhat given the amount of pressure through the middle.

Tracc not far off ?  19 effectives at 66%, 2 marks inside 50, 4 clearances, 3 inside 50s, 3 tackles, a massive 12 score involvements (Fritta the only other who was close out of the 2 clubs with 9), 6 intercepts and a goal.  Also 6 turnovers the only downside.

Gus  ?  Same effectives and efficiency as Tracc, 2 clearances, 3 rebound 50s, 8 inside 50s, 3 tackles, 7 score involvements, 5 intercepts and a goal.  7 Turnovers.

Big question...how important is the ruck position given we only had 7 hit outs (no idea how many to advantage) between T-Mac and LJ and still won in a canter?

Thought Hibb and Langdon were both very good tonight.  Hibb back to near his best it would seem.

Total team score the equivalent to that against the Hawks.  15.8% up on season 2019 and 1.6% better than 2018.  We are only as good as the opp of course.  The next few weeks will tell the tale.

Player	Score	Rank
Clayton Oliver	6.400	1
Christian Petracca	4.375	2
Ed Langdon	3.800	3
Angus Brayshaw	3.675	4
Michael Hibberd	3.050	5
Jake Lever	2.975	6
Christian Salem	2.825	7
Tom Sparrow	2.800	8
Sam Weideman	2.675	9
Tom McDonald #	2.675	9
Trent Rivers	2.450	11
Bayley Fritsch	2.325	12
Luke Jackson #	2.175	13
Charlie Spargo	2.075	14
Kysaiah Pickett	2.000	15
Adam Tomlinson	1.975	16
Mitchell Hannan	1.925	17
Nathan Jones	1.850	18
Aaron Vandenberg	1.375	19
Jake Melksham	1.150	20
Steven May	1.125	21
James Harmes	1.075	22
Team Score	56.750
Top 6	24.275
Bottom 6	8.500
# Hit outs to advantage not captured

Stats courtesy of footywire.com

Edited August 9, 2020 by Rusty Nails

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

Weighted Averages up to and including Rnd 11, 2020

Only three matches to work with but Sparrow moves into the top 10!  Ed & Salem leap frog May into 5th and 6th respectively.  And our Mr Clarry takes over the No.1 mantle from Tracc....just.  He has now also overtaken his No.1 2019 season score once the adjustment is made for the 20% loss in game time.  Is this the year of take off for our young gun!??  Champion / match winning form three out of the last four weeks.

Player	2020 Weighted Score	2020 Rank	2019 Weighted Score	% Change vs 2019	2019 Rank	Change in Rank vs 2019
Clayton Oliver	3.973	1	4.643	-14.43	1	0
Christian Petracca	3.770	2	2.616	44.11	10	8
Max Gawn #	3.039	3	3.256	-6.66	4	1
Jack Viney	2.953	4	3.068	-3.75	5	1
Christian Salem	2.483	5	3.448	-27.99	3	-2
Ed Langdon	2.480	6	-	-	-	-
Steven May	2.405	7	2.446	-1.68	14	7
Tom Sparrow	2.275	8	1.075	111.63	37	29
Angus Brayshaw	2.208	9	2.894	-23.70	6	-3
Michael Hibberd	2.206	10	2.124	3.86	20	10
Jake Lever	2.093	11	2.313	-9.51	17	6
James Harmes	1.963	12	3.850	-49.01	2	-10
Oscar McDonald	1.825	13	1.877	-2.77	26	13
Harley Bennell	1.790	14	-	-	-	-
Nathan Jones	1.780	15	2.711	-34.34	8	-7
Alex N-Bullen	1.683	16	1.984	-15.17	21	5
Jay Lockhart	1.656	17	1.660	-0.24	31	14
Sam Weideman	1.654	18	1.818	-9.02	23	5
Bayley Fritsch	1.650	19	2.641	-37.52	9	-10
Tom McDonald #	1.638	20	2.150	-23.81	19	-1
Mitchell Hannan	1.625	21	1.325	22.64	36	15
Adam Tomlinson #	1.604	22	-	-	-	-
Aaron Vandenburg	1.492	23	-	-	-	-
Trent Rivers	1.388	24	-	-	-	-
Luke Jackson #	1.354	25	-	-	-	-
Neville Jetta	1.305	26	2.264	-42.36	18	-8
Kysaiah Pickett	1.184	27	-	-	-	-
Joel Smith	1.158	28	-	-	-	-
Toby Bedford *	1.150	29	-	-	-	-
Jake Melksham	1.130	30	1.931	-41.48	23	-7
Charlie Spargo	0.913	31	1.375	-33.60	23	-8
Jayden Hunt	0.858	32	1.958	-56.18	22	-10
Mitchell Brown *	0.625	33	-	-	-	-
Average Team Score -Top 22	48.753		59.623	-18.23
# Hit outs to advantage not captured

Stats courtesy of footywire.com

[Nascent 9,283]

On 8/9/2020 at 4:18 PM, Rusty Nails said:

G'day Nascent.  This didn't come up on my reply feed for some reason so apologies for the delay.

I have explained this once before already but it was some time back and i can't find the response.  Anyway, i've inserted the answers to your questions above ?  Hope this helps make a bit more sense of things.

That's terrific, thanks for the detailed response Rusty. You must have put countless hours into these stats, posters such as yourself that produce high quality work make Demonland worth reading.  Think it's time I paid for a subscription to Demonland. Isolation would be so much worse without this forum.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Any interesting stat - we are =4th for lowest score against.  Not bad considering we overpaid for Lever and May apparently.

This weekend we play Collingwood, who are 13th for score for.  We are 10th.

Collingwood is also the best ranked side for scores against.

We have kicked around 10 goals more than them this season, but they have had 11 goals less kicked against them.

What does this mean?  NFI.  But I'm probably expecting a defensively cr@p game on Saturday, and hope that having the extra two days rest will mean we are fresher in the legs, and can open the game up in the 2nd half, coming away with a 3-4 goal win.

[Age 485]

6 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

Any interesting stat - we are =4th for lowest score against.  Not bad considering we overpaid for Lever and May apparently.

This weekend we play Collingwood, who are 13th for score for.  We are 10th.

Collingwood is also the best ranked side for scores against.

We have kicked around 10 goals more than them this season, but they have had 11 goals less kicked against them.

What does this mean?  NFI.  But I'm probably expecting a defensively cr@p game on Saturday, and hope that having the extra two days rest will mean we are fresher in the legs, and can open the game up in the 2nd half, coming away with a 3-4 goal win.

Have to be wary with this as we have played one less game than most teams, on saying that, Essendon havent been putting up huge scores that would have blown this out. 

[daisycutter 29,737]

sorry if been discussed before, but i'm late to this thread

i see lots of unfavourable comparisons to 2019 which seemed surprising and wondered if it could be due to the shorter game time this year. should the 2020 stats be multiplied by 1.2 to be comparable? 

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

14 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

sorry if been discussed before, but i'm late to this thread

i see lots of unfavourable comparisons to 2019 which seemed surprising and wondered if it could be due to the shorter game time this year. should the 2020 stats be multiplied by 1.2 to be comparable? 

that is correct daisy ... all scores should be multiplied by that if doing a direct comparison and many of the comparisons that are in the red vs 2019, Rnd 11 in particular, are actually in the positive.  I've tried to highlight this a bit when i remember in the pre chart summaries.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

2 hours ago, Nascent said:

That's terrific, thanks for the detailed response Rusty. You must have put countless hours into these stats, posters such as yourself that produce high quality work make Demonland worth reading.  Think it's time I paid for a subscription to Demonland. Isolation would be so much worse without this forum.

Some very good questions and assumptions in your initial post thanks Nascent.

Too many hours i think but i do enjoy seeing who's heading in what direction vs previous years or in comparison to watching a game live to see if i'm missing something or someone.  It's also helped remind me at times that i have many 'viewer' flaws and predetermined biases towards certain players that are either way off the mark or a little off what a player is actually delivering on the park, both in a role sense and their actual output on the day.  Sometimes i carry over a bad performance and because it's imprinted on the memory i can label that player as ordinary, and on the day or even a few matches they may have been, but they can also bounce back, find form again a prove you very wrong.

Weid a good example of that this year.  Not that i needed stats or these tables as confirmation for him in particular.  His improved performance is out there for all to see given his KP role.  But more so in the less prominent positions / roles at times.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Rusty Nails

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

1 hour ago, The Chazz said:

Any interesting stat - we are =4th for lowest score against.  Not bad considering we overpaid for Lever and May apparently.

This weekend we play Collingwood, who are 13th for score for.  We are 10th.

Collingwood is also the best ranked side for scores against.

We have kicked around 10 goals more than them this season, but they have had 11 goals less kicked against them.

What does this mean?  NFI.  But I'm probably expecting a defensively cr@p game on Saturday, and hope that having the extra two days rest will mean we are fresher in the legs, and can open the game up in the 2nd half, coming away with a 3-4 goal win.

Good pick up Chazz.  Maybe confirmation we are starting to really bed down our back 6.  Going alright this year and have held up well under serious fire at times.

Wondering how much of Howe is in that Pies ranking and what effect, if any, having him out is going to effect their defensive game as the remainder of the season plays out?

[In Harmes Way 7,823]

I'm a fan of the quarters won stat

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_ladder?year=2020&pt=PD&st=Q1&sb=p

According to Footywire, we are 15th of the 18 teams for first quarters won (3-6-1, 83%), 8th for 2nd quarters (6-4, 107.9%), 17th for 3rd quarters (3-7, 81.3%) and 1st for last quarters (8-2, 196.3%).

We really need to work out how to come out firing from the first bounce. These stats show we seem to work our way into games and then the half time break destroys our momentum. I'd put the exceptional last quarter performance down to great fitness relative to the opponent. Sure a couple of easy scalps helps the percentage, but an 8-2 record is no fluke. 

Four quarter effort on Saturday pls. 

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

On 8/11/2020 at 1:18 PM, The Chazz said:

Any interesting stat - we are =4th for lowest score against.  Not bad considering we overpaid for Lever and May apparently.

This weekend we play Collingwood, who are 13th for score for.  We are 10th.

Collingwood is also the best ranked side for scores against.

We have kicked around 10 goals more than them this season, but they have had 11 goals less kicked against them.

What does this mean?  NFI.  But I'm probably expecting a defensively cr@p game on Saturday, and hope that having the extra two days rest will mean we are fresher in the legs, and can open the game up in the 2nd half, coming away with a 3-4 goal win.

 

On 8/11/2020 at 3:11 PM, Rusty Nails said:

Good pick up Chazz.  Maybe confirmation we are starting to really bed down our back 6.  Going alright this year and have held up well under serious fire at times.

Wondering how much of Howe is in that Pies ranking and what effect, if any, having him out is going to effect their defensive game as the remainder of the season plays out?

Found this table courtesy of a Dee Man link on Bin's "Game plan, Tactics" thread.  Howe played up to and including Rnd 3.  While not necessarily causal there might (or might not) be some degree of correlation here between his departure and points conceded of late with the points conceded certainly trending up post the All Australian's departure...

 

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

On 8/11/2020 at 4:06 PM, In Harmes Way said:

I'm a fan of the quarters won stat

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_ladder?year=2020&pt=PD&st=Q1&sb=p

According to Footywire, we are 15th of the 18 teams for first quarters won (3-6-1, 83%), 8th for 2nd quarters (6-4, 107.9%), 17th for 3rd quarters (3-7, 81.3%) and 1st for last quarters (8-2, 196.3%).

We really need to work out how to come out firing from the first bounce. These stats show we seem to work our way into games and then the half time break destroys our momentum. I'd put the exceptional last quarter performance down to great fitness relative to the opponent. Sure a couple of easy scalps helps the percentage, but an 8-2 record is no fluke. 

Four quarter effort on Saturday pls. 

We have too often been slow out of the blocks in so many seasons HW.  Would love to see this improved substantially.  Also the 3rd quarter is a bit of a worry being almost bottom of the rung.  Not sure what relevance if any it has in today's game but back in the day and still now (occasionally) some ex-players often referred to the 3rd as the premiership quarter.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Rusty Nails

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

Road to Finals / GF - Triple Crown Update (to Rnd 11, 2020)

Vs the Roos

• Meters Gained Differential (looking for + 200 or more) ? +876 ✔️
• Marks inside 50 Differential (any positive is a win but the higher the better) ? +8 ✔️
• Contested Possession Differential (looking for a +10 or greater) ? +4 ❌

Season Averages (the one that counts)

• Meters Gained Average Differential (looking for an average of + 200 or more) ? +161.9 ❌

Substantial improvement on +82.5 last week and we also move into the top 5 replacing the Saints who have dropped to 6th after their big loss to the Cats.  The top five with current ladder positions in parenthesis below.  Only the top three clubs have a +200 (or greater) average which is unchanged on last week albeit the Cats have replaced the Tigers in 2nd place.  The Power are clear leaders here and have actually improved their average while playing what was considered by many to be the match of the year so far against the reigning premiers, the Tigers.  The two skewed results at this point (if this stat has any true reflection on who will most likely play finals / GF)...  West Coast sitting in 4th on the ladder but only ranked 8th in meters gained with +49 and the Demons ranked 4th in meters gained but sitting outside the eight in 9th position on the ladder.  Are the Weagles slightly over rated as they're playing most of their recent matches at home?  Are the Demons truly a finals prospect and about to storm their way into the eight in the next few rounds?

           1. Power 439 (1st)  2. Cats 283 (3rd)  3. Tigers 244 (6th)  4. Demons 162 (9th)  5. Lions 110 (2nd)

• Marks inside 50 Average Differential (ideally we need to see a top 6 ranking) ? 3rd ✔️

Holding on last weeks move into 3rd with a slight improvement from last week' +1.6 average to 2.2 and shaking off the Cats and Tigers who were also equal 3rd to own this place outright for now.  The Power overtaking the lions here into the No.1 spot.

The top 5... 1. Power  2. Lions  3. Demons  4. Cats  5. Pies

• Contested Possession Average Differential (looking for +10 or more) ?  +8.7 ❌

Moving up another place to outright 2nd but still below the required pass rate, in fact we dropped off a little but we were playing one of the top rated teams in this area last match in the Roos, who were ranked No.4 at that point.  Super close but still no cigar just yet.  However even the top ranked team, The Pies, have not hit the required qualifying mark sitting just below with +9.1

The top 5:   1. Pies  2. Demons  3. Power  4. Cats  5. Roos

P.S. apologies to Polly who asked for this to be put in graph form.  Had a look around but the free online software is fairly limited and not sure i want to spend $ buying their premium versions just for this purpose.  Then the time required learning all the input methods and present something worthwhile (not the fastest learner of new tech and being out of the statistical analysis game for a few decades now doesn't help)

Edited August 13, 2020 by Rusty Nails

[deelusions from afar 1,861]

While its all very interesting... I think most team's numbers will stack up pretty well after playing the crows and roos back to back.

The question is have we turned the corner or are we just putting away terrible teams.  Next two weeks will tell a lot

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

2 hours ago, deelusions from afar said:

While its all very interesting... I think most team's numbers will stack up pretty well after playing the crows and roos back to back.

The question is have we turned the corner or are we just putting away terrible teams.  Next two weeks will tell a lot

It's a series of 3 metrics based on season averages DFA (ie; 11 rounds) not one or two matches.  I'm only quoting match by match beforehand just to see whether we hit all three or not in that particular match for those who might be interested.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Rusty Nails

[buck_nekkid 6,046]

7 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

It's a series of 3 metrics based on season averages DFA (ie; 11 rounds) not one or two matches.  I'm only quoting match by match beforehand just to see whether we hit all three or not in that particular match for those who might be interested.

I think this is a good approach - it allows a sense of in game performance on these metrics as well as the abstraction to the season average.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

Rnd 12, 2020 Gabba - Demons vs Pies

Holey moley Batman.  Fabulous team effort from the boys and it all stems from the defence holding up big time post the Port match, the forward line finally starting to click along with more efficient ball use in general.  Let's look at some of the outcomes...

Team DE % at 78.13% ... 5% above the usual AFL team average.  Only bettered by a smidgen in Rnd 7 vs the Hawks.

Disposals per goal at a season low 20.12

% of inside 50s into Goals 40%

Conversion % at 80%

Those last three above the best for the season.

Gus heads the stats table for the first time this season with 18 effectives @ 78%, 4 clearances, 4 tackles, 3 rebounds, 6 score involvements, 8 intercepts (only beaten by Hibb with 9) and a goal.

Tracc topping the meters gained count with 505 followed closely by Jakey snakey with 407.

Turnover kings this week were AVB with 8 closely followed by Fritta with 7.

Player	Score	Rank
Angus Brayshaw	4.475	1
Christian Salem	4.125	2
Clayton Oliver	4.125	2
Ed Langdon	3.850	4
Steven May	3.425	5
James Harmes	2.950	6
Christian Petracca	2.900	7
Tom Sparrow	2.525	8
Nathan Jones	2.325	9
Michael Hibberd	2.325	10
Braydon Preuss # *	2.150	11
Charlie Spargo	1.900	12
Jake Lever	1.900	12
Tom McDonald #	1.750	14
Jake Melksham	1.700	15
Jack Viney	1.675	16
Jay Lockhart	1.475	17
Adam Tomlinson	1.450	18
Sam Weideman	1.375	19
Bayley Fritsch	1.100	20
Kysaiah Pickett	0.800	21
Aaron Vandenberg	0.500	22
Team Score	50.800
Top 6	22.950
Bottom 6	6.700

# Hit outs to advantage not captured

* Not an average, only one match played

Stats courtesy of footywire.com

Edited August 16, 2020 by Rusty Nails

[old55 23,687]

It's not easy to create these metrics but there's a problem with your scoring when Weid scores so low.  He was instrumental in that big win, taking big marks and kicking important goals early and flying courageously in the pack to even the contest against multiple opponents all night.  It's very difficult to score those moments but they are absolutely critical.  Similarly with VDB, it's impossible to empirically value his pack crashing defensive effort that knocked out Mihocek or when he went back with the flight into Weid and Moore, but they are inspirational and set the standard.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

3 hours ago, Pollyanna said:

It's not easy to create these metrics but there's a problem with your scoring when Weid scores so low.  He was instrumental in that big win, taking big marks and kicking important goals early and flying courageously in the pack to even the contest against multiple opponents all night.  It's very difficult to score those moments but they are absolutely critical.  Similarly with VDB, it's impossible to empirically value his pack crashing defensive effort that knocked out Mihocek or when he went back with the flight into Weid and Moore, but they are inspirational and set the standard.

I hear you Polly.

Stats in general are, to various degrees, flawed regardless of how good the stat itself might be (in the case of some of the non-public Champion data stuff).  Let alone publicly available stuff that i use as the basis here which is, in the main, flawed.  Some of it a little more robust than others but we do our best to paint some sort of picture with the limited stuff we have available to work with.

Now the one thing that stats don't do (at least the publicly available ones and probably even most of Champion data's with maybe some exceptions) is measure things like you have highlighted.  Crashing packs, going back into an on coming marking contest.  Going back with the flight or laterally to spoil a boil with courage as we saw with Vanders yesterday.  All they are there to do is try and capture a very basic overview of who produced what results / output on the day in a very rough guide sense that may (or may not) be an indicator of who performed sub par, ordinary/average, above average, good to very good or excellent to off the charts.  They generally don't cover the points you highlighted and they certainly don't cover things like a lock down player playing his role in keeping a top opponent's output well down below his usual.  A defender keeping a top KF very quiet vs his usual.  A KF having a somewhat quiet day up forward but still doing the little things at the contest that bring others into the game, score assists, spoils from behind, hit outs to advantage when taking forward ruck duties etc.

Stats also don't measure the quality of an opponent or the opposition.

These are all analogue / qualitative factors which sometimes get overlooked with pure stats alone.

That's why i always say, don't judge any player on stats alone and certainly don't look at these weighted scores in isolation wherever possible..  Watch the entire game first and determine for yourself how that player went as stats alone can never capture the entire story of what went on on the field.  A very rough guide that sometimes works and sometimes a fair way off, sometimes partially correct.

With regard to Weid's output in this particular match and what made up his lowish output / score of 1.375 and a ranking of 19th on the day?  Let's look at what went into that score.  5 effectives running at 62.5% efficiency.  About 10% below the AFL average although i don't know what that is for KFs.  Probably somewhat less than 73% given the pressure they're under.  One contested mark, three marks inside 50, two 1%ers, two inside 50s, one tackle (inside 50), three score involvements, two goals and two turnovers.

Now let's look at the previous week where he finished with a score of 2.675 and equal 9th alongside T-Mac against the Roos in Rnd 11.  He had 10 effectives running at 76.9%, roughly 4% above the AFL average DE %.  three contested marks, five marks inside 50, two 1%ers, eight score involvements, two goals and two turnovers.

As you can see, more than double his effective disposals against the Pies, nearly twice as many marks inside 50 and two extra contested marks.  Add to that nearly three times as many score involvements.  Same goals, same turnovers.  So in many areas more than double the output with the same score and turnovers, producing a statistical weighted score just under twice that of his match against the Pies.  As you can see it's merely the statistical results / output produced on the day that make up this score.

Did he play an ordinary game against the Pies however?  In my view no.  He contributed and still produced the same number of goals, brought the ball to ground on occasions as you have highlighted.  He played his role.  Was his match against North nearly twice as good in comparison?  Really hard to call.  Honestly, i forget much of what happens in most matches fairly quickly and would need to watch it again and then watch the Pies match again to be sure.  And who has time to do this?  If i was getting paid for it...maybe!

He contributed nicely yesterday and we won by a very solid margin.  As did Vanders albeit he didn't rack up many possessions and turned it over quite a bit.  He also played his role in various ways throughout the day, played a hard at the pill game and lead the way with a number of courageous acts.  As we know, those courageous acts (aside from the actual spoil against opponent itself as a 1%er) aren't captured in this data.

It is what it is as they say and we spifflicated the Pies.  All is well!

Edited August 16, 2020 by Rusty Nails