Analysis Good, Bad and Not Much Ugly

[Alwaysacrow]

Darren Jarman is pretty tough to ignore.
Those finals performances are hard to better.
Yes Dawson is a great recruit.

Let's not forget Eddie Betts

 

[MarcusP2]

I’d prefer to see him tap it to one of our onballers

He hit it straight to a running Rankine for his goal in the pocket.

 

[cleanhands]

He hit it straight to a running Rankine for his goal in the pocket.

1……… He can put in his highlights reel

 

[Mutineer]

1……… He can put in his highlights reel

So he's not Bill Wedding....very few are.

 

[cleanhands]

So he's not Bill Wedding....very few are.

Yeh but I’m not as big a knock on ROB as some

 

[Betts are off]

2nd watch is really fascinating. A few notes.

1) Rankine plays 2 games. The game on the stats sheet. And the mind game with all 6 defenders. I just wish there was a camera and microphone on him for all 120mins.

2) ROB showed more ruckcraft and gamecraft this round then in the full 2 seasons prior. Impressive game from him

3) Michalanney doesn't get beaten the same way twice. While Cameron's game was great, but I'd say 3 of his 4 goals were not on Max. Opportunistic plays by a gun player, but when Max was tested by Cameron, he showed up.

4) Soligo was only OK. Missed a fair few targets, and not many Soligo like plays. Nothing to worry about, but not his best game.

5) Brisbane were not bad at all, in fact they were good. Their effort would have conservatively beaten 15 teams IMO.

 

[xjamescleanx]

The stats are not trying to give you some kind of alternative reality (despite the person above saying ‘we still would have won’).

wait, is this about me?

if my team wins or loses a game and there's a huge goal/point ratio - you bet the first stat I'm looking for is xScore to get closer to understanding if it's a system (shot %, defensive setup) or skill issue (McKay). Eg. the Collingwood game.

If I saw the Lions xScore was higher than hours... it would feel like a less meaningful win.

don't @ me dawg

 

[WeeBlake]

wait, is this about me?

if my team wins or loses a game and there's a huge goal/point ratio - you bet the first stat I'm looking for is xScore to get closer to understanding if it's a system (shot %, defensive setup) or skill issue (McKay). Eg. the Collingwood game.

If I saw the Lions xScore was higher than hours... it would feel like a less meaningful win.

don't @ me dawg

xjamescleanx i think we are on the same side of this fight, but I would actually prefer to start a new one with the stats haters.

Did you know that Ben Keays takes the most threatening kicks of the whole AFL? Whether he does a good job or not is another story:

It's an age-old question: What makes a good kick in the AFL?

What constitutes an effective or ineffective kick has been discussed for years, but one data scientist thinks he may have unlocked the next evolution of settling this debate, write Cody Atkinson and Sean Lawson.

www.abc.net.au

 

[arrowman]

xjamescleanx i think we are on the same side of this fight, but I would actually prefer to start a new one with the stats haters.

Did you know that Ben Keays takes the most threatening kicks of the whole AFL? Whether he does a good job or not is another story:

It's an age-old question: What makes a good kick in the AFL?

What constitutes an effective or ineffective kick has been discussed for years, but one data scientist thinks he may have unlocked the next evolution of settling this debate, write Cody Atkinson and Sean Lawson.

www.abc.net.au

Thanks for posting - that's an interesting read - although I might have to read it several times before I fully understand it Love the Ben Keays appearance!

That article actually deserves a wider audience than a nearly redundant game review thread.

 

[WeeBlake]

Thanks for posting - that's an interesting read - although I might have to read it several times before I fully understand it Love the Ben Keays appearance!

That article actually deserves a wider audience than a nearly redundant game review thread.

Confirms what we knew about Dawson. Also shows Blakey has filled Sydney’s Dawson-shaped hole

 

[MarcusP2]

xjamescleanx i think we are on the same side of this fight, but I would actually prefer to start a new one with the stats haters.

Did you know that Ben Keays takes the most threatening kicks of the whole AFL? Whether he does a good job or not is another story:

It's an age-old question: What makes a good kick in the AFL?

What constitutes an effective or ineffective kick has been discussed for years, but one data scientist thinks he may have unlocked the next evolution of settling this debate, write Cody Atkinson and Sean Lawson.

www.abc.net.au

Actually, he's furthest on the x axis (threat rating) which means he overperforms vs the kicks he takes:
'The higher the threat rating, the better a player produced shots at goal relative to historical levels from their kicking situation.'

This, however could be a function of the Crows in general being crap at holding on to the ball but devastating when we manage to do so, since we are the highest rated team in the AFL for threat rating despite being only average at kicking. So Keays might be benefiting from having Rankine/Rachele etc turning his lead into gold upfield.

Also you can see Nick Daicos taking on a lot of non threatening kicks, but above average retention. So he's good at picking a safe option and putting it to advantage. Whereas Clayton Oliver turns the ball over a lot but it seems to be because he's extremely attacking with his kicks.

Dawson is attacking and also good at retaining the ball. Solid gold.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Did Rankine's left foot snap goal blow the kicking stats machine up?

 

[Stephen2]

It was a good read and I totally agree, we need way better stats. Normalize every interaction and rate against median or expected is clearly the gold target, but so so hard to quantify.

But hell, if deep neural networks can spit out what LLMs are doing right now, they can get the job done analyzing footy interactions, it's got way less variables than language processing!

But still needs nuance and understanding. I like what was said above, Keays (& Dawson) are benefitting on the threat ranking due to the crazy talent of the forwards when they kick.

So the one that sums retention+threat makes a lot of sense, but you have to get that weighting against each other right etc. etc..

Super interesting, and love it. Not ready for casual interaction and consumption yet though

 

[arrowman]

But hell, if deep neural networks can spit out what LLMs are doing right now, they can get the job done analyzing footy interactions, it's got way less variables than language processing!

An AFL coaching box, 2033:



"Bring on Newchurch!"

"Why?"

"Because he's number 42, duh."

 

[Interloperer]

xjamescleanx i think we are on the same side of this fight, but I would actually prefer to start a new one with the stats haters.

Did you know that Ben Keays takes the most threatening kicks of the whole AFL? Whether he does a good job or not is another story:

It's an age-old question: What makes a good kick in the AFL?

What constitutes an effective or ineffective kick has been discussed for years, but one data scientist thinks he may have unlocked the next evolution of settling this debate, write Cody Atkinson and Sean Lawson.

www.abc.net.au

Consistent with what I've noticed about Keays' play, he knows his kicks will be terrible so he may as well make them high risk/high reward too. (This data excludes shots at goal, his biggest weakness)

 

[FR0GGY]

Did Rankine's left foot snap goal blow the kicking stats machine up?

I feel like Rachele’s was a harder degree of difficulty

 

[StonesThrow]

2nd watch is really fascinating. A few notes.

1) Rankine plays 2 games. The game on the stats sheet. And the mind game with all 6 defenders. I just wish there was a camera and microphone on him for all 120mins.

2) ROB showed more ruckcraft and gamecraft this round then in the full 2 seasons prior. Impressive game from him

3) Michalanney doesn't get beaten the same way twice. While Cameron's game was great, but I'd say 3 of his 4 goals were not on Max. Opportunistic plays by a gun player, but when Max was tested by Cameron, he showed up.

4) Soligo was only OK. Missed a fair few targets, and not many Soligo like plays. Nothing to worry about, but not his best game.

5) Brisbane were not bad at all, in fact they were good. Their effort would have conservatively beaten 15 teams IMO.

What about Rankine's last goal? I'm not sure what the Brisbane defenders were doing here. They all seemed to stop and just let him slowly snap around the corner. Coleman didn't even put much effort in trying to spoil on the line.

 

[Betts are off]

What about Rankine's last goal? I'm not sure what the Brisbane defenders were doing here. They all seemed to stop and just let him slowly snap around the corner. Coleman didn't even put much effort in trying to spoil on the line.

He'd probably mentally broken them by then.

 

[MarcusP2]

What about Rankine's last goal? I'm not sure what the Brisbane defenders were doing here. They all seemed to stop and just let him slowly snap around the corner. Coleman didn't even put much effort in trying to spoil on the line.

I commented that at the time, why didn't Coleman go after it? It might have bounced up instead of straight on!

 

[MarcusP2]

I feel like Rachele’s was a harder degree of difficulty

I'm guessing Rachele's was the 1.83 and Rankine's was the 2.63 so the data bears this out. Of course that doesn't take into account that Rankine was snapping off his left while moving away, which increases the difficulty.

 

[arrowman]

I feel like Rachele’s was a harder degree of difficulty

For me it wasn't so much about degree of difficulty, as about deliberate intent / control of the ball. Rankine's was a high degree of skill, but still a bit of "hit and hope", whereas Rachele very clearly aimed his shot and hit the ball very deliberately. It's splitting hairs, though.

 

[Grenville]

Darren Jarman is pretty tough to ignore.
Those finals performances are hard to better.
Yes Dawson is a great recruit.

Mcleod even tougher..

 

[Mr_Moogle]

For me it wasn't so much about degree of difficulty, as about deliberate intent / control of the ball. Rankine's was a high degree of skill, but still a bit of "hit and hope", whereas Rachele very clearly aimed his shot and hit the ball very deliberately. It's splitting hairs, though.

That sounds a bit like you're saying Rankine fluked it. I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt.

 

[arrowman]

That sounds a bit like you're saying Rankine fluked it. I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt.

Oh god no, I don't mean to imply that, at all. It most definitely wasn't a "fluke". Really I was more about giving Rachele a thumbs up.

In the Rachele case - I know that most of those "dribble / bounce" goals are a result of at least some skill, more than luck, it's just that in Rachele's case the viewer could see very clearly how he aimed, and placed the ball on his boot.

Both goals were examples of a high level of skill.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Oh god no, I don't mean to imply that, at all. It most definitely wasn't a "fluke". Really I was more about giving Rachele a thumbs up.

In the Rachele case - I know that most of those "dribble / bounce" goals are a result of at least some skill, more than luck, it's just that in Rachele's case the viewer could see very clearly how he aimed, and placed the ball on his boot.

Both goals were examples of a high level of skill.

Sorry I misinterpreted what you meant when you said "hit it and hope". Rankine has innate goal sense where he doesn't have to look at the goals. That's talent.