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 yesterday at 03:211 day 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?

3 hours ago, adonski said:

Only 43 mins?

Well I did aim for 20 (but might make it 30) and was padded out by Andy's intro and that song after - which will never be heard again

Well done @binman - what’s going to be your goal kicking song?!

Kudos and huge thanks to @Demonland @binman @george_on_the_outer for giving up your time to deliver these excellent podcasts.

9 hours ago, binman said:

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.

The underlying model estimates the likelihood of each team scoring next based on (1) the location on the ground, and (2) the game state (i.e. set position, uncontested, hard ball, loose ball).

An equity value is calculated based on the likelihood of each team scoring next, which will range between -6 (opponent is guaranteed to score a goal) and +6 (team is guaranteed to score a goal).

When the ball is in a contested state (for example, a stoppage, prior to winning a contested possession, or there's a marking contest), equity values are calculated from each team's perspective if they were to win next possession, and then these are averaged. At a centre bounce, each team is as likely to score next as each other, so the equity is 0.

A player's equity (or player rating) is calculated from the change in equity as a result of their involvement. An individual involvement will rarely be close to +6 or -6 - it's typically only a fraction of that. As an example, consider a goal from a centre bounce where the opposition had no involvement in the chain. The team's equity started at 0 and ended at +6 (i.e. they scored a goal), so the total change in equity was 6 points. Those 6 points are shared among all players involved in the play.

Here is the breakdown of equity for the final goal in the third quarter of the 2021 GF, based on my model:

Player	Stat	Equity
Tim English	Hitout	+0.00
Jack Viney	Ground Kick	+1.76
Luke Jackson	Gather	+0.00
Luke Jackson	Run	+0.09
Luke Jackson	Handball	+0.30
Clayton Oliver	Handball Received	+0.00
Clayton Oliver	Run	+0.29
Clayton Oliver	Kick	+3.56
Total		+6.00

Players gain/lose equity from taking possession of the ball, running with the ball, disposals, hitouts, spoils, smothers, applying pressure including tackles, giving away free kicks, dropping uncontested marks. There are also various instances where the change in equity is shared between two players. For example, the equity change from a hitout to advantage is shared between the ruck and player gaining possession; the equity change from a mark on lead is shared between the player kicking the ball and the player taking the mark.

Chapters 5-8 in this thesis goes into detail on field equity and the player ratings methodology:

https://figshare.swinburne.edu.au/articles/thesis/Assessing_player_performance_in_Australian_football_using_spatial_data/26294677?file=47661457

The data set I use for equity calculation is missing pressure, smothers, and hitouts sharked (I use hitouts to opposition as a proxy), so there are some differences in my model due to availability of data.

The following table shows the average equity gained/lost per involvement in my model (for most involvement types) as a guide, but it can vary a lot for a given type of involvement:

Category	Total	D50	Def. Mid	Att. Mid	F50
Disposal
Goal	2.39
Ground Kick - Effective	1.26	1.32	1.25	1.27	1.19
Kick - Effective	0.30	0.15	0.22	0.49	1.19
Ground Kick - Ineffective	0.27	0.35	0.27	0.33	0.05
Handball - Effective	0.21	0.20	0.21	0.19	0.27
Ground Kick - Clanger	-0.09	-0.10	-0.04	-0.06	-0.26
Kick - Ineffective	-0.29	-0.36	-0.33	-0.24	-0.25
Handball - Ineffective	-0.70	-0.62	-0.72	-0.70	-0.74
Handball - Clanger	-0.71	-0.67	-0.73	-0.71	-0.72
Kick - Clanger	-0.84	-0.74	-0.71	-0.82	-1.37
Behind	-1.68
Contested Possession
Contested Mark	1.58	1.94	1.24	1.24	2.03
Contested Knock On	1.06	1.11	1.07	1.02	1.07
Free For	0.74	0.82	0.64	0.67	1.01
Loose Ball Get	0.73	0.75	0.71	0.72	0.76
Hard Ball Get	0.50	0.53	0.47	0.49	0.53
Ruck Hard Ball Get	0.44	0.37	0.45	0.48	0.40
Gather From Hitout	0.23	0.20	0.23	0.26	0.19
Uncontested Possession
Knock On	1.07	1.01	1.06	1.07	1.13
Uncontested Intercept Mark	0.80	0.84	0.73	0.77	1.21
Gather from Opposition	0.63	0.64	0.62	0.63	0.70
Mark On Lead	0.48	0.21	0.32	0.40	0.72
Gather	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Handball Received	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Uncontested Mark	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Hitout
Hitout To Advantage	0.46	0.41	0.43	0.50	0.37
Hitout	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Hitout To Opposition	-0.19	-0.14	-0.17	-0.21	-0.17
Spoil
Spoil	0.35	0.65	0.19	0.16	-0.20
Debits
Free Against	-0.68	-0.76	-0.58	-0.61	-0.98
No Pressure Error	-1.03	-0.93	-1.04	-0.99	-1.16
Mark Dropped	-1.21	-0.78	-0.94	-1.00	-2.02

15 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

The underlying model estimates the likelihood of each team scoring next based on (1) the location on the ground, and (2) the game state (i.e. set position, uncontested, hard ball, loose ball).

An equity value is calculated based on the likelihood of each team scoring next, which will range between -6 (opponent is guaranteed to score a goal) and +6 (team is guaranteed to score a goal).

When the ball is in a contested state (for example, a stoppage, prior to winning a contested possession, or there's a marking contest), equity values are calculated from each team's perspective if they were to win next possession, and then these are averaged. At a centre bounce, each team is as likely to score next as each other, so the equity is 0.

A player's equity (or player rating) is calculated from the change in equity as a result of their involvement. An individual involvement will rarely be close to +6 or -6 - it's typically only a fraction of that. As an example, consider a goal from a centre bounce where the opposition had no involvement in the chain. The team's equity started at 0 and ended at +6 (i.e. they scored a goal), so the total change in equity was 6 points. Those 6 points are shared among all players involved in the play.

Here is the breakdown of equity for the final goal in the third quarter of the 2021 GF, based on my model:

Player	Stat	Equity
Tim English	Hitout	+0.00
Jack Viney	Ground Kick	+1.76
Luke Jackson	Gather	+0.00
Luke Jackson	Run	+0.09
Luke Jackson	Handball	+0.30
Clayton Oliver	Handball Received	+0.00
Clayton Oliver	Run	+0.29
Clayton Oliver	Kick	+3.56
Total		+6.00

Players gain/lose equity from taking possession of the ball, running with the ball, disposals, hitouts, spoils, smothers, applying pressure including tackles, giving away free kicks, dropping uncontested marks. There are also various instances where the change in equity is shared between two players. For example, the equity change from a hitout to advantage is shared between the ruck and player gaining possession; the equity change from a mark on lead is shared between the player kicking the ball and the player taking the mark.

Chapters 5-8 in this thesis goes into detail on field equity and the player ratings methodology:

https://figshare.swinburne.edu.au/articles/thesis/Assessing_player_performance_in_Australian_football_using_spatial_data/26294677?file=47661457

The data set I use for equity calculation is missing pressure, smothers, and hitouts sharked (I use hitouts to opposition as a proxy), so there are some differences in my model due to availability of data.

The following table shows the average equity gained/lost per involvement in my model (for most involvement types) as a guide, but it can vary a lot for a given type of involvement:

Category	Total	D50	Def. Mid	Att. Mid	F50
Disposal
Goal	2.39
Ground Kick - Effective	1.26	1.32	1.25	1.27	1.19
Kick - Effective	0.30	0.15	0.22	0.49	1.19
Ground Kick - Ineffective	0.27	0.35	0.27	0.33	0.05
Handball - Effective	0.21	0.20	0.21	0.19	0.27
Ground Kick - Clanger	-0.09	-0.10	-0.04	-0.06	-0.26
Kick - Ineffective	-0.29	-0.36	-0.33	-0.24	-0.25
Handball - Ineffective	-0.70	-0.62	-0.72	-0.70	-0.74
Handball - Clanger	-0.71	-0.67	-0.73	-0.71	-0.72
Kick - Clanger	-0.84	-0.74	-0.71	-0.82	-1.37
Behind	-1.68
Contested Possession
Contested Mark	1.58	1.94	1.24	1.24	2.03
Contested Knock On	1.06	1.11	1.07	1.02	1.07
Free For	0.74	0.82	0.64	0.67	1.01
Loose Ball Get	0.73	0.75	0.71	0.72	0.76
Hard Ball Get	0.50	0.53	0.47	0.49	0.53
Ruck Hard Ball Get	0.44	0.37	0.45	0.48	0.40
Gather From Hitout	0.23	0.20	0.23	0.26	0.19
Uncontested Possession
Knock On	1.07	1.01	1.06	1.07	1.13
Uncontested Intercept Mark	0.80	0.84	0.73	0.77	1.21
Gather from Opposition	0.63	0.64	0.62	0.63	0.70
Mark On Lead	0.48	0.21	0.32	0.40	0.72
Gather	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Handball Received	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Uncontested Mark	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Hitout
Hitout To Advantage	0.46	0.41	0.43	0.50	0.37
Hitout	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Hitout To Opposition	-0.19	-0.14	-0.17	-0.21	-0.17
Spoil
Spoil	0.35	0.65	0.19	0.16	-0.20
Debits
Free Against	-0.68	-0.76	-0.58	-0.61	-0.98
No Pressure Error	-1.03	-0.93	-1.04	-0.99	-1.16
Mark Dropped	-1.21	-0.78	-0.94	-1.00	-2.02

Thanks wheelo, that's a brilliant explanation of the ratings sytem.

In your scenario of a goal from a centre bounce where the opposition has no involvement in the chain, the the team scores six points, shared between players involved.

How many equity points would a player receive, say Maxy, who took the ball from the ball up, ran forward and goaled without any involvement from a teamate (eg no shepherd)?

6 minutes ago, binman said:

Thanks wheelo, that's a brilliant explanation of the ratings sytem.

In your scenario of a goal from a centre bounce where the opposition has no involvement in the chain, the the team scores six points, shared between players involved.

How many equity points would a player receive, say Maxy, who took the ball from the ball up, ran forward and goaled without any involvement from a teamate (eg no shepherd)?

He would get 6 points in that scenario.

7 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

He would get 6 points in that scenario.

And if he Maxy tapped it Koz who goaled without the involvement of a teammate he and Maxy would each get 3 points?

Edited 22 hours ago22 hr by binman

8 hours ago, binman said:

And if he Maxy tapped it Koz who goaled without the involvement of a teammate he and Maxy would each get 3 points?

If that was a hitout to advantage at a centre bounce (ball up), Max would only get about 0.6 points, Koz 5.4. The ruck gets two thirds of the change in equity from a hitout to advantage, and the player winning possession gets one third. BUT, the change in equity is only around 0.9 points because the likelihood of actually scoring a goal from that position in the centre of the ground is still low. If Koz kicks a goal with no other player involved, he would get around 5.1 points from his run and shot (the change in equity from 0.9 to 6.0) plus the 0.3 he got from the gather from the hitout.

The example of a goal from a centre clearance is a simple example, but the equity value is constantly changing with every possession/disposal regardless of whether there is a score. Every shift in the equity is credited (or debited) to a player (or two).

30 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

If that was a hitout to advantage at a centre bounce (ball up), Max would only get about 0.6 points, Koz 5.4. The ruck gets two thirds of the change in equity from a hitout to advantage, and the player winning possession gets one third. BUT, the change in equity is only around 0.9 points because the likelihood of actually scoring a goal from that position in the centre of the ground is still low. If Koz kicks a goal with no other player involved, he would get around 5.1 points from his run and shot (the change in equity from 0.9 to 6.0) plus the 0.3 he got from the gather from the hitout.

The example of a goal from a centre clearance is a simple example, but the equity value is constantly changing with every possession/disposal regardless of whether there is a score. Every shift in the equity is credited (or debited) to a player (or two).

To determine the equity points for ball winning at the all team level you aggregate each of that team's players equity points for actions that result in winning the ball.

How do you source the individual ball winning equity points - is that data extracted from the CD data?