Interesting one.

I'll step up in defence of Bowey for a moment, though - the situation when he gets the ball is almost invariably one where we are being pressed, not when we are one the move ourselves. How many times as the moment Bowey gets the ball been the moment we can finally exhale as a surge of pressure is relieved because he has calmly done the sensible thing and spotted an open teammate who can take a mark and give us a few seconds to move without being grappled.

His disposals are the living breathing opposite of the hospital handpass.

Jake 'Eat your vegetables' Bowey. Or maybe 'apple a day'.

Yeah, I'm going to call him 'Apple' from now on.

Who or what determines 'expected threat' I wonder?

But this is meaningless unless both the X and Y axis are properly defined.! Surely ? What do "expected threat" and "threat rating" mean?

33 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

Jake 'Eat your vegetables' Bowey. Or maybe 'apple a day'.

Yeah, I'm going to call him 'Apple' from now on.

Red delicious?

10 minutes ago, Bystander said:

But this is meaningless unless both the X and Y axis are properly defined.! Surely ? What do "expected threat" and "threat rating" mean?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-01/afl-what-makes-a-good-kick-in-2023/102420562

 

I can’t help be reminded of the old saying, “lies, damned lies and statistics.” 

This new data is interesting but I am not sure whether we can come to any strong conclusions 

Does it have any real meaning? 

I suppose we are often surprised to watch a live game and then look at game day statistics. The game day stats provide relevant information that can be a reality check on what we have observed with our own eyes but rarely provide definitive meaning or conclusions. 

They do provide useful information when reviewing the team or individual performance but only as part of a broader review that takes account of context and other factors. 

My hurt heads...

1 hour ago, Little Goffy said:

Interesting one.

I'll step up in defence of Bowey for a moment, though - the situation when he gets the ball is almost invariably one where we are being pressed, not when we are one the move ourselves. How many times as the moment Bowey gets the ball been the moment we can finally exhale as a surge of pressure is relieved because he has calmly done the sensible thing and spotted an open teammate who can take a mark and give us a few seconds to move without being grappled.

His disposals are the living breathing opposite of the hospital handpass.

Jake 'Eat your vegetables' Bowey. Or maybe 'apple a day'.

Yeah, I'm going to call him 'Apple' from now on.

I think this representing a lot of our dump kicks out of d50 stoppage though. We also need our defenders to be taking safe options exiting d50 and to switch to safe targets across the ground. 

40 minutes ago, hemingway said:

I can’t help be reminded of the old saying, “lies, damned lies and statistics.” 

This new data is interesting but I am not sure whether we can come to any strong conclusions 

Does it have any real meaning? 

I suppose we are often surprised to watch a live game and then look at game day statistics. The game day stats provide relevant information that can be a reality check on what we have observed with our own eyes but rarely provide definitive meaning or conclusions. 

They do provide useful information when reviewing the team or individual performance but only as part of a broader review that takes account of context and other factors. 

The good thing about stats is that they are unbiased.  So many supporters make up their mind about a player very quickly and nothing will change their mind after that. They will forever view that player through the lens of that early prognosis.

15 minutes ago, Vipercrunch said:

The good thing about stats is that they are unbiased.  So many supporters make up their mind about a player very quickly and nothing will change their mind after that. They will forever view that player through the lens of that early prognosis.

On the other hand, the bad thing about stats is that they are a quantitative measure with limited qualitative application. To be fair to Champion Data and others, over time they have tried to introduce quality measures such as effectiveness and efficiency, but the moment you do that, you introduce subjectivity into the data.

It's some good new data and well done to Adelaide for producing this. Doesn't cover all kicking scenarios but does for quite a few.

I've always thought a better measure of disposal efficiency would be measuring the distance from where the player got it and where that passage of play ended. A disposal could be up to, roughly, plus or minus 180m. So, for example lever gets the ball at chb, spots a player free gets it to him and because player B is free he has greater chance of good disposal and so on. Plus 150. If he butchers it. Minus 40m.

But I'm sceptical. Very long time since my uni maths/stats but too many variables.

Its good to see Jack Viney in the top right quadrant ahead of Petracca and Oliver. Jack's decision making and kicking in our forward half has been outstanding for the past 12 or so months.

Would be interesting to see where Fritsch fits in this too as he generally uses the ball really well.

1 hour ago, layzie said:

It's some good new data and well done to Adelaide for producing this. Doesn't cover all kicking scenarios but does for quite a few.

The "crow" is Liam Crowhurst, data scientist, not Adelaide FC.

3 minutes ago, old55 said:

The "crow" is Liam Crowhurst, data scientist, not Adelaide FC.

Ok cheers, thought it might have been a club analyst. 

3 hours ago, Bystander said:

But this is meaningless unless both the X and Y axis are properly defined.! Surely ? What do "expected threat" and "threat rating" mean?

+1.

5 hours ago, Demonland said:

I have no idea what that is saying. What does a threat rating of 18 and an expected threat of 0.31 mean? 

4 hours ago, Bystander said:

But this is meaningless unless both the X and Y axis are properly defined.! Surely ? What do "expected threat" and "threat rating" mean?

It's easy @Bystander. Here's an example:

Some of us expected Footscray to be a threat on 25 Sept. '21 . . .

but

their threat rating was -5000.

See  - easy.

4 hours ago, Bystander said:

But this is meaningless unless both the X and Y axis are properly defined.! Surely ? What do "expected threat" and "threat rating" mean?

 

47 minutes ago, tiers said:

+1.

 

32 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

I have no idea what that is saying. What does a threat rating of 18 and an expected threat of 0.31 mean? 

You could try clicking through to the article, even use the link I posted above ...

Yes, thanks for sending that through. Appreciated. Helped but not convinced of the statistical validity. I know that is a bit general but I'm not going to dig out my old textbooks. But interesting.

Go dees. Top right hand corner if you please.

36 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

I have no idea what that is saying. What does a threat rating of 18 and an expected threat of 0.31 mean? 

Haha, you have no hope of understanding it from a tweet and an only slightly better one of understanding it if you read the entire article very carefully. I'm not completely sure I have got it, but I'll have a shot. The threat seems to be referring to the likelihood of the kick generating a successful scoring chain. And the threat rating is how much more likely the person or team is to generate more scores than that type of kick would normally generate. Kicking down the line generates very few scores (I think in his example it was 1 in 10) so low threat but some kickers are able to generate successful scoring chains kicking down the line at twice or three times that amount so their threat rating is significantly higher.

I've probably just confused you even more, sorry.

13 minutes ago, FlashInThePan said:

Haha, you have no hope of understanding it from a tweet and an only slightly better one of understanding it if you read the entire article very carefully. I'm not completely sure I have got it, but I'll have a shot. The threat seems to be referring to the likelihood of the kick generating a successful scoring chain. And the threat rating is how much more likely the person or team is to generate more scores than that type of kick would normally generate. Kicking down the line generates very few scores (I think in his example it was 1 in 10) so low threat but some kickers are able to generate successful scoring chains kicking down the line at twice or three times that amount so their threat rating is significantly higher.

I've probably just confused you even more, sorry.

That's basically correct, Expected threat is how damaging (or risky) the kick type is, threat rating is about the result - does the kick become part of a scoring chain.  Kade Chandler employs threatening (and risky) kicks with good results.  Steven May and Michael Hibberd go safe long down the line but Hibbo's result in more effective scoring chains.

Unsurprisingly in the article it shows Collingwood high in Expected threat kicks (#1).  More surprising to me is that MFC are high on this measure too (#3).

Edited June 8, 20232 yr by old55

5 hours ago, Vipercrunch said:

The good thing about stats is that they are unbiased.

8 hours ago, old55 said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-01/afl-what-makes-a-good-kick-in-2023/102420562

 

Fascinating glimpse into the possibilities of analysis using big data and machine learning! 

A simple take away for those who may not wish to read the article is that "kicking efficiency" is a fundamentally flawed statistic due to the way an efficient kick is define: a kick that goes to a teammate or over 40m to a contest.

That means, if May is on the forward 50m arc - with Fritsch alone in the goal square - and sprays the ball wide to a contest between Mason Cox and Spargo, while MFC supporter's head's will explode the statisticians dutifully record an effective kick. 

A more advanced assessment of kicking efficiency would involve measuring the proportion of kicks that are retained or result in scores.