As part of the effort to trim the runtime of the regular podcast, we’ve been looking at which segments could be reshaped without losing what makes them valuable. One segment that naturally came into focus was Binman’s Stats Files. Not because it isn’t important; quite the opposite. It’s become such a substantial and much-loved part of the show that it deserves a little room to breathe.

The Stats Files is one of the things that gives this podcast its unique flavour, but it also takes up a fair bit of airtime and, just as importantly, a lot of preparation from Binman behind the scenes especially with the tight turnaround after those Sunday late-afternoon games.

So rather than lose it altogether, we’re evolving the format.

We’ll still bring you an abridged version of The Stats Files on the main podcast, but for those of you who really like to sink your teeth into the numbers, we’re launching this midweek companion pod featuring the full-length version.

So for fans of The Stats Files, don’t worry it isn’t going anywhere. It’s just getting its own stage.

And this podcast is its debut.

Presenting the inaugural Stats Files presented by Binman for Round 1.

great listen thanks @binman

i would think one of the reasons salem's ratings are lower than the likes of lindsay playing in a similar-ish role as a half back rebounder is that he takes the more 'risky' kicks that are more likely to result in turnover etc.

would that be a correct interpretation of how it is judged by the ratings system?

Thanks @Demonland , @binman and @WheeloRatings . The new format (two pods) works extremely well for me! I thought the way Bin linked the stats to our on field strengths and weaknesses, and even some comparisons to 2025 was fantastic. Painted a great picture of our evolution as a footy team under Kingy.

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

great listen thanks @binman

i would think one of the reasons salem's ratings are lower than the likes of lindsay playing in a similar-ish role as a half back rebounder is that he takes the more 'risky' kicks that are more likely to result in turnover etc.

would that be a correct interpretation of how it is judged by the ratings system?

That's possible - particularly if those turnovers result in oppo goals.

The way the CD player rating is calculated is each involvement a player has (eg kick, handball, pressure act, mark, free kick for and against etc etc) is scored on a system called Next Expected Score, which in simple terms is how that involvement impacts the probability your team scores, or in the case of an error the opponent scores - i think I'm right in saying that each involvement is scored on a scale of negative six to positive six depending on the NES value (@WheeloRatings is that right?).

So yes, if Salo took on more high risks on Sunday, and in doing so turned the ball over resulting in a Saints goal he would get wacked for that points wise (eg a clanger goes to an opponent who directly kicks a goal, such as the kick Salo had intercepted inside our 50, Salo would lose 6 points, if the turnover resulted in in a goal but only after say a chain of 3 disposals he might lose 3 points).

Conversely though if Salo's high risk kick are part of a scoring chain (which is why such kicks are so valuable when they come off) Salo earns points. If one of those kicks is a goal assist, he scores good points (maybe 6, but 6 might be only for actual goal scorers, im not sure -it's all a bit mysterious).

All that said, XL actually had more turnovers (6) than Salo who had 4. But Salo had 6 clangers, one of which did directly result in a goal, two more than HL. So, he lost points to XL there.

They both had 4 score involvements and 1 goal assist so close to equal points on that front.

A criticism of the CD player rating system is because it focuses on scoreboard impact of each involvement it over indexes goals, goal assists and score involvements and therefore defenders and role players often don't score as well as forwards or mids.

That means defenders often rate lower than you think they otherwise might. Which makes XLs 13.4 player rating even more meritorious.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by binman

Liked the new pod - and as @Deeoldfart mentioned, the way the stats are linked to what we've seen was valuable.

I felt the stand alone pod probably was easier to digest than having the stats deep-dive competing with time / focus of the 'main' podcast. Looking forward to future episodes unpacking the reasons we won! (Not looking forward to an episode that says, basically; "according to all the metrics, we should have lost by a lot more!")

Only 43 mins?