I don't understand how this stat is calculated 🤷‍♂️

So our losses come against lesser 22 squads because they get rested against us? Doesn’t sound as good when you put it that way right?

10 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

I don't understand how this stat is calculated

I would assume you would nominate a best 22 for each club then count up how many games those 22 have missed during the year through injury/suspension.  It confirms that we've had a charmed run in that regard.

I have no idea what this means. I’ve read the comments above and that only served to make me even more confused.  

I've seen similar charts before (that were actually properly explained) and the 'games lost from 22' was based on which players were considered in the team's best 22 and how many games they had been injured.

I've never liked it much as a statistic because the starting point for the calculation is a completely subjective assessment of the 'best 22'.

I wonder how they are assembling our 25 games missed? Tomlinson, obviously, and then how much of Brown and Weideman's early season? Are they both best 22? Were they out of it early because of injury? 

Anyway, the club invested very heavily in the best possible conditioning leaders they could find and they have established really good professional habits. This stat, 'soft' as it is, is nothing more than delivering on that investment.

Not surprised with that stat.

We’ve had our best run with injury in decades. 

We've had a good run, but strange stat calculation.

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/2021.html#12

 

 

Now or never.

The possibility of no byes means not as many chances for opposition injured first 22 to make it back, and for us to use our supposed fitness advantage.

We won't get a better chance than this year. Let's hope the players understand this also.

 

 

4 hours ago, Demonstone said:

I would assume you would nominate a best 22 for each club then count up how many games those 22 have missed during the year through injury/suspension.  It confirms that we've had a charmed run in that regard.

Ok

Totally different from what I assumed from reading the headline

But basically,  Melbourne has had the least injuries measured by games missed from the "notional" best 22 measured by champion data rating pre season

5 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

I have no idea what this means. I’ve read the comments above and that only served to make me even more confused.  

It’s the heading that makes this confusing. “Games Lost To Best 22.”

Maybe “Games Lost By Players In The Best 22” would’ve been clearer. Or if that’s too long: “Games Lost By Best 22.”

Wow. Just realised how much thought I’ve put into something so insignificant. Lockdown is truly getting to me. 🙃

We also use the substitute less than other sides, which is obviously linked to this stat. 

Pretty confusing stat, certainly not helped by the misuse of the word “lost” where they really mean “missed”. I thought it meant “lost” as the opposite of “won”, which was pretty darn confusing initially.

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Maybe “Games Lost By Players In The Best 22” would’ve been clearer. Or if that’s too long: “Games Lost By Best 22.”

How about games MISSED by best 22?

Just now, Fanatique Demon said:

How about games MISSED by best 22?

Even better!

Anyway, it’s meaningless because it rates all best 22 players equally. Surely a game missed by your best player isn’t equal to a game missed by your 22nd best player. 
 

Interesting concept. I’d say round 1 our best 22 had Jones, Jetta, Weideman, VDB and possibly Lockhart in it. 

The title of the table is very poorly worded indeed.

Of the 25 games missed by our "best 22", the vast majority of those would be Tomlinson and Viney.  May missed one as did Langdon and I think Salem as well.

Title should be "Games missed by best 22".

It requires a subjective choice over who the "best 22" are.

Brown's currently in our best 22, but he's missed 12 games. Tomlinson was best 22 before his injury and he's missed 13 games. That's 25 right there before you add everyone else's.

That aside, we know we've had a great run with injuries this year. This stat doesn't show it (I mean, it has Brisbane at 104 games lost, but they've had a great run with injuries until the last month. There's no way anyone could argue Brisbane has had a worse run with injuries than the Dogs this year).

1 hour ago, The heart beats true said:

Interesting concept. I’d say round 1 our best 22 had Jones, Jetta, Weideman, VDB and possibly Lockhart in it. 

And BBB! Surely you wouldn’t count those 2 Blokes we tried to trade, that no one wanted as best 22 in round 1.
2 perfect examples from the top 🙄bottom and saints having to drop best 22 players regularly for crap performances.

Certainly its helped us but we have been on the other side often enough

but our fitness is a lot better this year due to burgess

we generally finish of the last quarter well ( last week was anomaly  )

its given a chance for the team to click

this year ill take any advantage

last year the essendon  delayed  game forced us to squeeze an extra game in a monsoon cairns

 

 

We have kept our best players on the park and that is the difference at the top. 

Previous iterations of Dees teams have not had the galaxy of stars we now have so it is even more imperative to winning deep into the year.

It also hampers the notion of depth being important. Can’t replace your best players  nor your brightest stars.

They go out, you’re left with a black hole.

Edited August 14, 20214 yr by rpfc

19 hours ago, Demonland said:

This is when you win premierships. 😎

We've had a great run with injuries and those injuries we have suffered we've been able to cover. TMAC for BB, Petty for Thommo. Weid by LJ/Gawn rotating ruck combo. Fingers and toes crossed our luck holds