Stats Files - 2023

[Deelightful Dee 152]

Hi Demon faithful. First time poster, long time reader.

Yes, RIchmond was the last time we won when expected to lose - see below for this year's actual vs expected results

[Deelightful Dee 152]

Interested in @binman's question around whether our drop off in accuracy is indicative of a league-wide drop off due to weather and fatigue / loading, so I looked at all team's scoring compated to expectation (using Champion Data's calculation srouced from the Herald Sun) by round this season and calculated the average difference per round (see below data visualisation).

League-wide, the average (grey line) looks to hover around the expected difference of 0 as you would expect, but it varies with some early rounds (3 and 4) being lower than average with the 'worst' round being round 11. In saying that, round 12 and 13 were actually better than expected and this was when we performed most poorly other than round 16.

In terms of Melbourne's performance (red dots) in poor weather / rain, I can recall round 5 vs Ess, round 9 vs Port, round 15 vs Gee and round 16 vs GWS. The first two we scored above expectation, the last two well below. It's difficult to assess the fatigue / loading aspect for us, but there looks to be something in this if we assume we load around our bye in round 14. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the season unfolds from here as you wouldn't expect there to be loading from here, although fatigue / rain / wind / cold may be a factor. And sometimes, it could just be luck :)

[old55 21,297]

1 hour ago, Deelightful Dee said:

Hi Demon faithful. First time poster, long time reader.

Yes, RIchmond was the last time we won when expected to lose - see below for this year's actual vs expected results

Great stuff @Deelightful Dee, more please :)

So it's two wins we should have had: Fremantle and GWS vs two losses we should have had: Richmond and St.Kilda.

We've had some matches where we should have won by more: Carlton and Collingwood, but more games where we won by more than expected: Sydney, West Coast, North and Hawthorn.  We were also fortunate against Port to be so close.

Probably overall our W-L and % reflects our performance so far.

[old55 21,297]

On 7/6/2023 at 8:18 AM, WheeloRatings said:

The circles in the left half of the following field map are Melbourne's shots from general play. Melbourne's only set shot within 30 metres was Melksham's on the tight angle.

 

 

Thanks for this @WheeloRatings.  I've been away so have been on my mobile and now back on desktop so can have a better look.

Can you please give me the key green/grey/purple and diamond/circle.

[Deelightful Dee 152]

here you go @old55

[Deelightful Dee 152]

I like to use Player Ratings to try to capture player performance in one number as it takes into account where and how the ball was won and the result of the player's action (acknowledging that this still rarely tells the full story).

As you can see below, usually when we win (results of games in top left), our average player rating is higher (bottom left).

By looking at the individual player ratings and comparing them to their last 40 games' average, we can also see who has performed above and below what we might typically expect (right side graphs). Top right shows highest to lowest performance over/under expectations, whilst bottom right gives some perspective as to where the over/under performers have come from, i.e. our top/mid/bottom tier players.

So for last round against St Kilda, I think it was clear that May had a spectacular game, but the top right shows that Jordan and Sparrow were also well above average which is probably down to the full time mid role they both played compared to what they previously have. On the other side of the equation, it was clear that Kossie struggled, but Salem and Grundy in particular actually were even lower than Kossie in terms of their usual output.

From an overall team perspective, I also think it's interesting that we do tend to have a lull in performance during the middle part of the year (supporting @binman's loading theory).

In 2021, it was for 10 games from rounds 10 to 19 where we lost 5 games and drew 1, before flicking the switch vs Gold Coast in Round 20 and progressively improving towards the oustanding performances in the prelim and GF.

In 2022, the 6 games from rounds 11 to 17 were below par other than the round 15 Bris mauling. We then stablised for the rest of the season, but the drop off in the finals was clear.

This year looks similar. The 5 games from rounds 10 to 16 were well below our season average, but we've seen an improvement in the last two weeks. If we can continue the upward trajectory, we could end up timing our run ideally for a shot at finals similar to 2021!

[Engorged Onion 9,262]

Thank you for providing your detailed quantitative analysis @Deelightful Dee.

100% username and content delivery accuracy.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Engorged Onion

[binman 38,019]

19 hours ago, Deelightful Dee said:

Hi Demon faithful. First time poster, long time reader.

Yes, RIchmond was the last time we won when expected to lose - see below for this year's actual vs expected results

Brilliant stuff DD - welcome aboard. 

That's really interesting on a few levels.

One is that our accuracy in the early rounds meant our winning margin was significantly higher than the expected score in several cases, in particular the Swans and Roos wins (we won both by 5 plus goal more than the expected score). 

My understanding is weather is not one of the (many) data points specifically factored in to arrive at the expected score. All of those games were played in perfect conditions.

But from the ESPN podcast wheelo suggested (ta - really interesting though i could have done without revisiting 186!) my understanding is the historical data they use goes back to 2013, so weather should in theory be factored in in totality (ie the aggregated data of the 1000s of games played), if that makes sense.

But i doubt the point in the season the game is played in is factored in.

My contention is that in footy now, teams are at their fittest in the first say 8-9 rounds, drop off say rounds 11- 18 and on the back of increased loads through those middle rounds HOPEFULLY the fitness (as defined by running power - aerobic and pace) gets back to the in the early season levels.

Another way of looking at that pattern is players are are their least fatigued rounds 1-8, most fatigued rounds 11-18 and if their program has worked and they don't have too many injuries, fatigue levels from rounds 18-19 are similar to rounds 1-8. I suspect this has only become a league wide phenomena in the last 1-2 seasons so it is not yet apparent in the modelling to arrive at expected score.

Taking our example, less fatigue means much faster ball movement and less fatigue related skill errors (handball, ball handling, hitting targets by foot and accuracy for goal).

Which correlates to higher scores because the fast ball movement means we run in waves and create more free options, one on ones and space inside 50 AND we turn it over less frequently so fewer scoring chains break down. And because our skills are less impacted by fatigue we can take more risks with our kicking, for example more changing lanes and use of the corridor.   

I texted a question for Daniel Hoyne from Champion data's slot on SEN asking what data could be used to get a sense of the relative fitness for each team. I meant publicly available data, but his answer was the GPS numbers, which CD doesn't have access to and is completely locked up by the clubs. 

The expected scores might be one data point to at least explore that issue - at least in terms of assessing say one teams fatigue levels over the course of the season.

Looking at the chart, there seems to be less anomalous results in the middle part of the season than the first third of the season. I'll be interested to see if we see an uptick in higher real scores than expected scores for the dees as the season progresses. if we do, that might be an indicator our fitness levels are retuning to optinal levelks. 

(on the above, my gut feeling is last season we would have not had as many anomalous results in the first third of the season, but still above water to so to speak, and then a similar drop of in the middle part of the year. But i doubt there was an uptick for higher real scores than expected scores for the dees because we clearly never got back to the fitness levels of the first third of the season). 

[binman 38,019]

17 hours ago, Deelightful Dee said:

I like to use Player Ratings to try to capture player performance in one number as it takes into account where and how the ball was won and the result of the player's action (acknowledging that this still rarely tells the full story).

As you can see below, usually when we win (results of games in top left), our average player rating is higher (bottom left).

By looking at the individual player ratings and comparing them to their last 40 games' average, we can also see who has performed above and below what we might typically expect (right side graphs). Top right shows highest to lowest performance over/under expectations, whilst bottom right gives some perspective as to where the over/under performers have come from, i.e. our top/mid/bottom tier players.

So for last round against St Kilda, I think it was clear that May had a spectacular game, but the top right shows that Jordan and Sparrow were also well above average which is probably down to the full time mid role they both played compared to what they previously have. On the other side of the equation, it was clear that Kossie struggled, but Salem and Grundy in particular actually were even lower than Kossie in terms of their usual output.

From an overall team perspective, I also think it's interesting that we do tend to have a lull in performance during the middle part of the year (supporting @binman's loading theory).

In 2021, it was for 10 games from rounds 10 to 19 where we lost 5 games and drew 1, before flicking the switch vs Gold Coast in Round 20 and progressively improving towards the oustanding performances in the prelim and GF.

In 2022, the 6 games from rounds 11 to 17 were below par other than the round 15 Bris mauling. We then stablised for the rest of the season, but the drop off in the finals was clear.

This year looks similar. The 5 games from rounds 10 to 16 were well below our season average, but we've seen an improvement in the last two weeks. If we can continue the upward trajectory, we could end up timing our run ideally for a shot at finals similar to 2021!

Again, fascinating on a number of levels

The pattern of aggregated player across the 2021, 2022  and this season certainly supports my hypothesis that the arc of a season can be thought of as three acts or phases. And that those phases are related to fatigue (ie logic suggests the performance of players is strongly correlated with fatigue).

It is interesting you should post this data actually.

In 2021, around this middle part of the season i was trying to make the case that loading, and therefore fatigue was a significant factor in our drop off in form. One of the things i pointed to as evidence was exactly this (well not exactly, i did not have the brilliant charts) - a significant drop off in the collective player rankings (there was some article about this - like always pointing the symptom not the diagnosis - that's to say making the argument that our drop off in form was because our players ratings had fell away BUT not trying to explore why that might be the case. Cause and effect and all that).  

I also recall using that same data to support my argument for how critical nibbler was (and remains for that matter) to the team.

In that middle phase of the season, the ONLY two best 22 dees players whose player ratings didn't drop below their average were Nibbler and Hunt.

I say critical because our game is based around all team defense, which is 100% reliant on ALL players working super hard to block outlets, cover oppo players, spread and get up and down the ground all match. Fatigue makes that very difficult, hence we get opened up more. And lose games we otherwise would win. So any player who can continue to cover the ground close to their optimal level is gold. 

I suspect nibblers ratings didn't drop below his average last year or this year either, or if it did, only marginally. Terrific evidence of nibblers incredible fitness, leadership and work ethic. 

This season we have clearly tried to use tempo again (which we didn't really last year after about round 12)  - and also a higher zone press (which is new)- to mitigate the impact of fatigue on our all team defence.  The last quarter against the saints was the perfect example of this strategy. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by binman

[RyanD 239]

22 hours ago, Deelightful Dee said:

I like to use Player Ratings to try to capture player performance in one number as it takes into account where and how the ball was won and the result of the player's action (acknowledging that this still rarely tells the full story).

As you can see below, usually when we win (results of games in top left), our average player rating is higher (bottom left).

By looking at the individual player ratings and comparing them to their last 40 games' average, we can also see who has performed above and below what we might typically expect (right side graphs). Top right shows highest to lowest performance over/under expectations, whilst bottom right gives some perspective as to where the over/under performers have come from, i.e. our top/mid/bottom tier players.

So for last round against St Kilda, I think it was clear that May had a spectacular game, but the top right shows that Jordan and Sparrow were also well above average which is probably down to the full time mid role they both played compared to what they previously have. On the other side of the equation, it was clear that Kossie struggled, but Salem and Grundy in particular actually were even lower than Kossie in terms of their usual output.

From an overall team perspective, I also think it's interesting that we do tend to have a lull in performance during the middle part of the year (supporting @binman's loading theory).

In 2021, it was for 10 games from rounds 10 to 19 where we lost 5 games and drew 1, before flicking the switch vs Gold Coast in Round 20 and progressively improving towards the oustanding performances in the prelim and GF.

In 2022, the 6 games from rounds 11 to 17 were below par other than the round 15 Bris mauling. We then stablised for the rest of the season, but the drop off in the finals was clear.

This year looks similar. The 5 games from rounds 10 to 16 were well below our season average, but we've seen an improvement in the last two weeks. If we can continue the upward trajectory, we could end up timing our run ideally for a shot at finals similar to 2021!

These sort of posts are amazing. Thanks for doing the work.

[RyanD 239]

On 7/12/2023 at 2:08 PM, Deelightful Dee said:

Hi Demon faithful. First time poster, long time reader.

Yes, RIchmond was the last time we won when expected to lose - see below for this year's actual vs expected results

My feeling was that we tend to lose more games we are expected to win and we don't win many games we are expected to lose. But this doesn't really support either, so it's great to see some objective data to show it's just my MFSS kicking in. 

[pewpewpew 686]

@binman - depending on what happens tonight I may or may not be bringing up these stats in the Podcast Thread so be warned. :)

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by pewpewpew

[Deelightful Dee 152]

On 7/13/2023 at 10:57 AM, binman said:

Again, fascinating on a number of levels

The pattern of aggregated player across the 2021, 2022  and this season certainly supports my hypothesis that the arc of a season can be thought of as three acts or phases. And that those phases are related to fatigue (ie logic suggests the performance of players is strongly correlated with fatigue).

It is interesting you should post this data actually.

In 2021, around this middle part of the season i was trying to make the case that loading, and therefore fatigue was a significant factor in our drop off in form. One of the things i pointed to as evidence was exactly this (well not exactly, i did not have the brilliant charts) - a significant drop off in the collective player rankings (there was some article about this - like always pointing the symptom not the diagnosis - that's to say making the argument that our drop off in form was because our players ratings had fell away BUT not trying to explore why that might be the case. Cause and effect and all that).  

I also recall using that same data to support my argument for how critical nibbler was (and remains for that matter) to the team.

In that middle phase of the season, the ONLY two best 22 dees players whose player ratings didn't drop below their average were Nibbler and Hunt.

I say critical because our game is based around all team defense, which is 100% reliant on ALL players working super hard to block outlets, cover oppo players, spread and get up and down the ground all match. Fatigue makes that very difficult, hence we get opened up more. And lose games we otherwise would win. So any player who can continue to cover the ground close to their optimal level is gold. 

I suspect nibblers ratings didn't drop below his average last year or this year either, or if it did, only marginally. Terrific evidence of nibblers incredible fitness, leadership and work ethic. 

This season we have clearly tried to use tempo again (which we didn't really last year after about round 12)  - and also a higher zone press (which is new)- to mitigate the impact of fatigue on our all team defence.  The last quarter against the saints was the perfect example of this strategy. 

In reference to your thoughts on ANB @binman, he's had a pretty solid year, averaging 9.1 ratings point per game, 15th best for the team. Not quite up to his best year of 10.7 (7th in team) in 2018 and 10.2 (10th) in 2021

He's only had 3 games that dipped quite a bit under that average, but overall, the data supports your hypothesis.

[Deelightful Dee 152]

Whilst talking about expected scores, @crow_data_sci from Twitter, recently posted expected score data covering the 2021 to 2023 season up to round 16. So I thought I'd take a look to determine a different / better perspective of accuracy, given that missing a goal from a hard shot vs an easy shot results in the same accuracy measure generally used in the AFL media. Looking at the actual (result) score less the expected score (xScore) shows that Bowey is our most accurate shot at goal, whilst JVR has started his career strongly in this regard. Fritter is the best of those with plenty of shots, whilst Trac, Gawn and, somewhat surprisingly to me, ANB are down the other end of the table.

[Deelightful Dee 152]

A stats based previous of our to 4 clash tonight: There are many similarities in how both teams play: strong contest & time in forward half are strengths. Lions are the best clearance differential team, but Dees are 2nd over the last 4 games. If Dees can keep up in clearances, a win is within reach!

[WheeloRatings 906]

Melbourne v Brisbane (Round 18, 2023)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20231806

Key Team Stats

Stats highlighted purple were won by Melbourne.

Stat	For	Against	Diff
Disposal Efficiency	71.3	73.1	-1.8
Kicking Efficiency	59.4	67.8	-8.4
Metres Gained	6095	5907	+188
Inside 50s	51	56	-5
Shots At Goal	26	28	-2
Shots Per Inside 50	51.0	50.0	+1.0
Contested Possessions	146	125	+21
Ground Ball Gets	82	86	-4
Intercepts	66	72	-6
Intercept Marks	17	18	-1
Centre Clearances	17	12	+5
Stoppage Clearances	28	20	+8
Contested Marks	14	13	+1
Marks Inside 50	12	17	-5
Hitouts	47	34	+13
Hitouts To Advantage	22	8	+14
Tackles	56	53	+3
Tackles Inside 50	14	10	+4
Def One On One Loss %	26.9	9.1	+17.8

Pressure

Team pressure

Quarter	For	Against
1	169	158
2	150	164
3	181	207
4	174	192
Match	168	180

Source: Herald Sun

Most Pressure Points

Note: pressure points are the weighed sum of pressure acts. Physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing acts are 1.5 points and corralling are 1.2. ( https://www.championdata.com/glossary/afl/ )

Player	Pressure Acts	Pressure Points	Season Average*
Jack Viney	23	54	54.1
Kysaiah Pickett	21	43	43.0
Max Gawn	12	36	22.9
Christian Petracca	15	35	48.1
Alex Neal-Bullen	20	35	48.0
Tom Sparrow	17	32	42.6
Taj Woewodin	14	28	25.5
Lachie Hunter	13	28	23.9
Trent Rivers	11	28	23.7
Angus Brayshaw	15	27	30.3
Jake Lever	12	26	15.2
Steven May	10	26	15.0
James Jordon	13	24	20.3
Ed Langdon	8	19	27.2
Christian Salem	8	18	29.0
Ben Brown	8	15	12.2
Jake Melksham	5	14	14.6
Charlie Spargo	8	13	24.9
Jacob van Rooyen	8	13	23.8
Jake Bowey	7	11	20.4
Harrison Petty	7	10	19.4
Judd McVee	6	9	18.2
Joel Smith	3	7	21.0

* Pressure points for rounds 4 and 6 have not been able to be sourced from the Herald Sun. Pressure points for these matches have been estimated from the number of pressure acts for each player.

Source: Herald Sun

Time in Forward Half

Quarter	For	Against
1	47%	53%
2	50%	50%
3	40%	60%
4	64%	36%
Match	50%	50%

Source: Match total sourced from the Herald Sun; quarter values are my own calculations.

Score Sources

Summary

Score sources highlighted purple were won by Melbourne.

Category	For			Against			Diff
	G	B	T	G	B	T
Kick-in	0	0	0	0	0	0	+0
Centre Bounce	1	2	8	0	1	1	+7
Stoppage (Other)	7	4	46	6	0	36	+10
Turnover	8	3	51	10	7	67	-16

Category	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season
Kick-in	0	2.6	0	2.4
Centre Bounce	8	10.7	1	6.7
Stoppage (Other)	46	23.2	36	21.6
Turnover	51	53.5	67	41.2

Chain start region

Note: region is from the scoring team's perspective. Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by Brisbane.

Category	Region	For		Against
		Match	Season	Match	Season
Kick-in	D50	0	2.6	0	2.4
Centre Bounce	Centre	8	10.7	1	6.7
Stoppage (Other)	D50	7	0.8	6	2.2
Stoppage (Other)	Centre	1	2.9	0	1.2
Stoppage (Other)	Wing	18	11.3	18	6.9
Stoppage (Other)	F50	20	8.2	12	11.3
Turnover	D50	6	10.2	19	6.1
Turnover	Centre	0	7.9	7	5.9
Turnover	Wing	32	28.6	34	21.2
Turnover	F50	13	6.6	7	8.0

Region	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season
D50	13	13.6	25	10.6
Centre	9	21.5	8	13.8
Wing	50	39.9	52	28.1
F50	33	14.9	19	19.3

Points from defensive half

For		Against
Match	Season	Match	Season
28	34.2	50	24.2

Shots at goal

Team	Shots	G	B	T	Acc.
Set Position
Melbourne	15	8	4	52	53.3
Brisbane	15	9	5	59	60.0
General Play
Melbourne	11	8	2	50	72.7
Brisbane	13	7	2	44	53.8

Centre Bounce Attendances

	CBAs	CBA %	2023 %	2022 %
Max Gawn	32	91	52.5	65.5
Angus Brayshaw	28	80	25.6	16.0
Jack Viney	26	74	68.9	74.6
James Jordon	20	57	26.2	0.2
Christian Petracca	15	43	63.6	74.6
Tom Sparrow	11	31	46.6	32.2
Kysaiah Pickett	5	14	11.7	1.3
Jacob van Rooyen	3	9	5.7
Trent Rivers	0	0	4.2	0.0
Alex Neal-Bullen	0	0	3.1	3.5
Harrison Petty	0	0	0.9	0.0
Clayton Oliver			82.8	86.5
Brodie Grundy			55.7	83.7
James Harmes			27.8	14.6
Tom McDonald			5.4	0.0
Josh Schache			0.0	13.8

Ruck Contests and Hitouts

Ruck Contests

	Ruck Contests	RC %	2023 %	2022 %
Max Gawn	83	84	47.9	57.8
Jacob van Rooyen	15	15	10.0
Ben Brown	1	1	2.6	3.6
Harrison Petty	0	0	2.0	0.0
Steven May	0	0	0.1	0.0
Alex Neal-Bullen	0	0	0.1	0.0
Christian Petracca	0	0	0.1	0.1
Brodie Grundy			49.5	77.4
Tom McDonald			8.9	7.0
Josh Schache			6.7	13.4
Clayton Oliver			0.0	0.0

Hitouts

	Ruck Contests	Hitouts	To Adv.	To Adv. % (2023)	To Adv. % (2022)
Max Gawn	83	39	17	32.3	33.6
Jacob van Rooyen	15	7	5	27.0
Ben Brown	1	1	0	0.0	14.3
Harrison Petty	0	0	0	22.2
Alex Neal-Bullen	0	0	0	0.0
Brodie Grundy				30.8	30.2
Tom McDonald				25.0	33.3
Josh Schache					33.3

Opposition hitouts

	Ruck Contests	Hitouts	To Adv.
Oscar McInerney	86	33	8
Joe Daniher	13	1	0

[RyanD 239]

20 hours ago, Deelightful Dee said:

A stats based previous of our to 4 clash tonight: There are many similarities in how both teams play: strong contest & time in forward half are strengths. Lions are the best clearance differential team, but Dees are 2nd over the last 4 games. If Dees can keep up in clearances, a win is within reach!

Again, thank you.

Fascinating reading. 

[old55 21,297]

Expected Score @WheeloRatings or have I missed it embedded in there again?  I suspect we lost on that?

[WheeloRatings 906]

33 minutes ago, old55 said:

Expected Score @WheeloRatings or have I missed it embedded in there again?  I suspect we lost on that?

You didn't miss it, I forgot to include that. We lost expected scores 76-90.

[binman 38,019]

4 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

You didn't miss it, I forgot to include that. We lost expected scores 76-90.

We were 21 points down on expected score at 3 quarter time - I saw it written on the board they take out to the huddle

[RyanD 239]

Expected score: Melbourne 77.1 vs Brisbane 89.3. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by RyanD

[Demon Dynasty 15,412]

Round 18, 2023 MCG - Demons vs Lions

All hail King Maxy!

Statistically we may have just witnessed Max's greatest performance.  124% up on his season's average!

His highest player rating ever recorded since i started keeping records in 2018.  His next best was against the Swans in Rnd 12, 2022 with a 6.225

Note that the Swans rating does not take into account hit outs to advantage as i was not including that in 2022.  Even so, doubt he would have had 17 to advantage as he did last night.

To put that in to some perspective the combined average hit outs to advantage (average) of Max and Grundy prior to last night was 13.  JVR not bad either with 5 to advantage as a chop out forward ruck!  McInerney gathering 8 as the main ruckman for the Lions. 

Taking a look at some of Max's off-the-charts performance....

21 effectives @ 72.4% (roughly the AFL average), 3 contested marks, 2 one percenters, 10 clearances (the most on the night and one more than the Lion's best...Neale with 9), 1 rebound, 3 inside 50s, 7 tackles (only one behind Viney who had 8 with the most on the night), 6 score involvements, 8 intercepts (the most for us), 17 hit outs to advantage, 457 meters gained, 1 goal and a respectable 4 turnovers.

Tracc another amazing job.  Gus, Viney, Bowey and Hunter all eclipsing their usual output along with McVee, Kozzy and Melksham.

Demons

Scoring Efficiency
Disposals Per Goal	22.69
% In50s Goal	31.40
Conversion %	64.00

Lions Scoring Efficiency
Disposals Per Goal	20.94
% In50s Goal	28.60
Conversion %	66.70

Player	Rating	Rank	Season Rating to Prior Rnd	% Change vs Season Rating
Max Gawn	7.000	1	3.113	124.86
C Petracca	4.850	2	4.681	3.61
A Brayshaw	4.850	2	3.763	28.89
Jack Viney	4.675	4	3.663	27.63
J Bowey	3.575	5	3.070	16.45
L Hunter	3.275	6	2.987	9.64
T Rivers	3.250	7	3.648	-10.91
J McVee	2.625	8	2.248	16.77
S May	2.525	9	3.284	-23.11
Ed Langdon	2.500	10	3.168	-21.09
K Pickett	2.450	11	2.189	11.92
J Jordon	2.200	12	3.995	-44.93
Jake Lever	2.000	13	3.110	-35.69
J Melksham	1.950	14	1.429	36.46
T Sparrow	1.825	15	3.025	-39.67
C Salem	1.825	15	3.386	-46.10
C Spargo	1.700	17	1.904	-10.71
T Woewodin	1.700	17	1.750	-2.86
J V Rooyen	1.600	19	2.183	-26.71
Ben Brown	1.375	20	2.095	-34.37
A N-Bullen	1.275	21	2.556	-50.12
Joel Smith > 32%	1.150	22	1.541	-25.37
H Petty < 52%	1.100	23	2.594	-57.59
Team Rating	60.18		71.45	-15.78
Top 6	28.23		26.15	7.93
Bottom 6	8.80		9.29	-5.27

 

< Subbed out / TOG %

> Subbed in / TOG %

Stats courtesy of footwire.com & wheeloratings.com

Edited July 15, 2023 by Demon Dynasty

[Engorged Onion 9,262]

@WheeloRatings @binman - what’s your analysis of the ‘pressure ratings’ - from the naked eye, they don’t really marry up.

neither  team operating at AFL standard level in the 1st?

Brisbanes pressure rating higher in the 4th?

[Demon Dynasty 15,412]

Team & Player Ratings to Rnd 18, 2023 vs H&A Season 2022

Player	2023 Rating	2023 Rank	2022 Rating	% Change vs 2022	2022 Rank	Change in Rank vs 2022
C Oliver	5.285	1	5.320	-0.66	1	0
C Petracca	4.691	2	4.456	5.27	2	0
A Brayshaw	3.826	3	3.839	-0.34	5	2
J Jordon >	3.775	4	3.164	19.31	9	5
Jack Viney	3.727	5	3.971	-6.14	3	-2
T Rivers <	3.625	6	2.423	49.61	18	12
Max Gawn	3.412	7	3.643	-6.34	8	1
Steven May	3.233	8	3.971	-18.58	3	-5
C Salem	3.191	9	3.363	-5.11	7	-2
B Grundy	3.159	10	-	-	-	-
Ed Langdon	3.127	11	3.109	0.58	11	0
Jake Bowey <	3.105	12	2.856	8.72	13	1
Jake Lever	3.041	13	2.703	12.50	14	1
L Hunter	3.005	14	-	-	-	-
A Tomlinson	2.965	15	2.079	42.62	22	7
T Sparrow	2.950	16	2.665	10.69	16	0
J Harmes >	2.804	17	3.082	-9.02	12	-5
M Hibberd <	2.589	18	2.613	-0.92	17	-1
H Petty <	2.571	19	2.392	7.48	19	0
A N-Bullen	2.481	20	2.688	-7.70	15	-5
K Chandler <	2.360	21	-	-	-	-
Judd McVee	2.271	22	-	-	-	-
B Fritsch	2.230	23	1.936	15.19	27	4
K Pickett	2.207	24	2.118	4.20	21	-3
J V Rooyen	2.138	25	-	-	-	-
T McDonald	2.054	26	1.967	4.42	26	0
Ben Brown <	1.975	27	1.762	12.09	29	2
C Spargo <	1.886	28	1.981	-4.80	24	-4
T Woewodin	1.725	29	-	-	-	-
Joel Smith >	1.541	30	2.239	-31.17	20	-10
J Melksham >	1.536	31	1.947	-21.11	25	-6
J Schache *	1.375	32	-	-	-	-
B Laurie < > *	1.300	33	-	-	-	-
D Turner < *	1.075	34	-	-	-	-
Team Rating	71.19		69.48	2.47

* Played less than two full matches (in total)

< Subbed Out at least once or more (player rating could be comprised somewhat)

> Subbed In at least once or more (player rating could be comprised somewhat)

Stats courtesy of footwire.com & wheeloratings.com

[binman 38,019]

16 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

@WheeloRatings @binman - what’s your analysis of the ‘pressure ratings’ - from the naked eye, they don’t really marry up.

neither  team operating at AFL standard level in the 1st?

Brisbanes pressure rating higher in the 4th?

That's an interesting question, one I've been pondering since i saw that data yesterday and was also reflecting on after the blues game. Was planning on raising on the podcast (we discussed this a bit after the blues game).

My initial thoughts is that i think a factor in the low pressure numbers in this game, and the blues game, relates to how both of those teams played - and how we responded to their method.

Comparing the Lions game with the Pies King's Birthday game, both games felt high pressure watching, but perhaps on Friday night more in the sense that it was a tense, enthralling contest between two genuine contenders that finished in high drama?

But what were the differences in how the Pies and the Lions (and the blues) played and how we responded. And how might that impact the pressure numbers.  

These were the pressure numbers from the Pies game:

Q1: 176 - 180
Q2: 174 - 172
Q3: 201 - 206
Q4: 186 - 177
Tot: 183 - 186

The big difference in the way the two games were played is the Pies played their game against us and ran at us they way they like to do - chaining handballs until they find an outside kicker in space to take on a high risk kick to the corridor.  

We responded to that method by denying them time and space by:

• having our defensive zone set high to create density 
• take the corridor away from them and force them down the line
• really getting up in their grill as the Pies went forward with frontal pressure (ie dees players ahead of the ball peeling of their man and running at the ball carrier)
• Sweating on their mids and flankers sitting on the outside waiting for the ball to be fed out

From wheelo def, pressure points for players are the weighed sum of pressure acts. I assume the same true is of the team's pressure ratings (i also assume the teams' ratings is the players ratings aggregated?) 

Physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing acts are 1.5 points and corralling are 1.2.

The way we responded to the Pies method by denying them time and space ticks all the above boxes in terms of how pressure points are accumulated.

But against the Lions and the Blues we didn't press up nearly as aggressively or apply the same level of pressure frontal pressure. And out zone wasn't set as high. 

The Lions came with a plan to use the width of the G to move our defensive zone around, i think to pull Lever and may apart to minimize their intercepting ability and to expose them one on one.

To that end, they switched more than any team against us since perhaps the first half of last season.  We let them do so, and never really pressed up. The blues did something similar, but more i think because they couldn't get through our zone going in straight line.

And now that i think about it, the saints also did something similar and tried to control possession of the ball - and the pressure numbers were low in that match too.

So, with the ball getting switched side to side, fewer opportunities to aggregate pressure points because there is less corralling, closing acts and chasing acts. And less contests. 

And added to that we went fast in the first and last quarters, with the ball in motion and lots of wave running that creates space around the and ahead of the ball. Very much how the Pies love to play. But unlike us against the Pies, the Lions didn't really look to deny us space, for example by pressing up or frontal pressure  - which meant fewer pressure acts like corralling, closing acts and chasing.

So, to your question about my analysis of the ‘pressure ratings’, i think they are really useful indicator as evidenced by the fact clubs use them during games (which surprised me), but like any stat only tell part of the tale. 

I've been looking at them all season, and my overall impression is, as a rule they pass the eye test in the sense they reflect my sense of the pressure in the game.

That was not necessarily the case in the blues and Lions games - or for that matter the Saints games - in the sense those games didn't feel low pressure as such.

That said the pressure numbers in those games do point to the strategies of switching and denying us the ball (though its not then really possible, unless you have intently watch the games, to compare say the lions game with a run in the mill actual low pressure game).