Resource 2019 Stats thread + prior year comparisons

Enviable Tradition

Professional Procrastinator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Posts
15,901
Likes
14,277
Location
The Hills
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#26
DE, Turnovers, and R50 aren't great.
DE and turnovers are going to be lower when you play on so quick like we do and take the risky kicks into the middle.

R50 being low is because we have focused on turning it over further up the ground.

Once they get it inside 50 they are already past our defence.

Having said that getting better at decision under pressure and getting into positions to take pressure off the decision maker are the key to getting our DE down and turning this list onto a contender.

Can the young blokes do it this year or will it take a few years? Time will tell.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RussellEbertHandball

Flick pass expert
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
54,291
Likes
69,845
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #28
Last couple of years I have kept some basic stats around inside 50's and marks inside 50, plus scores, plus contested possessions and clearances, to get an idea of how efficient we were in scoring given how much of the ball we get. Have added marks and contested marks, not so much that contested marks are hugely important these days but so you can get the uncontested marks figure. A huge differential of contested marks, if its evenly spread outside inside forward 50 usually means players are getting into space to receive the ball.

So far this year we have racked up;


1554697325431.png
 

Port85

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Posts
1,799
Likes
972
Location
NSW
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#29
After 3 games this year we're ranked as follows:

I50 Port/Opponent Avg Differential = 2nd (+13.3), 2018 = 8th
Centre Clearances Differential = 3rd (+3.7), 2018 = 2nd
Stoppage Clearances Differential = 2nd (+4.7), 2018 = 16th
Uncontested Possessions Diff = 2nd (+56.3), 2018 = 2nd
Contested Possessions Diff = 5th (+6.3), 2018 = 10th

Goals Per Inside 50 = 11th (20% of entries), 2018 = 13th
Scoring Shots Per Inside 50 = 14th (35.79% of entries), 2018 = 14th
Total Scoring Shots per game = 5th (25), 2018 = 12th
Goal kicking conversion = 11th (50.7%), 2018 = 9th

Opp Goals Per Inside 50 = 14th (24% of entries), 2018 = 4th
Opp Scoring Shots Per Inside 50 = 9th (36.67% of entries), 2018 = 2nd
Total Scoring Shots per game conceded = 2nd (20), 2018 = 3rd
Opp Goal Kicking Conversion = 15th (60%), 2018 = 12th


So 3 games is not a great sample size, and I've obviously not shown every possible statistic available but its a good starting point to see if any trends are emerging.

It appears that with our new game plan we've significantly improved our ability to generate inside 50s. We've also improved hugely at stoppage clearances, probably down to the inclusions of Lycett and the return to form of Rocky & Boak.

In defence, we've been very good at keeping scoring shots down but thats mainly due to keeping the numbers of inside 50s down (we've conceded the least inside 50s league wide) rather than great defending when the ball is in there. I don't have access to forward half turnovers but I'd guess they would be up on last year. We've also faced some of the best converting oppositions in our games thus far - some of this will be down to the quality of shots we're giving up but also could improve slightly simply by regressing more to the mean over time - but don't count on dramatic improvement (we'd probably only be going back to the middle of the pack) in opponent conversion.

In attack its the same story people have been rightly complaining about with our forward structure. We've improved our ability to generate scoring shots but that has come off the back of our ability to create more inside 50s than last year. We simply are very poor at forward line efficiency and the stats bear out what many supporters are seeing with their eyes on the field.

As a summary, my interpretation would be:

Midfield Play / Forward-Half Press: Really good this season, taking territory, getting the ball inside 50, keeping out of our defensive 50. Winning possession, keeping possession, winning clearances, winning the contest.

Defensive Play (once it's through the press): Seems worse than last year but we're keeping the ball away from that part of the ground with our team defence, so it hasn't hurt us too badly...yet

Forward Craft: Just as mediocre as ever, we're just getting the ball inside 50 more often than last year, so we're scoring more via weight of numbers than anything else...just like 2017 (although not quite in the same way). It's also most likely down to the often mentioned combination of poor delivery (Avg DE% is the 2nd worst in the league) and structure (e.g. lack of quality talls).

I'm pretty impressed by our midfield numbers but if these trends keep going in this direction I fear for our ability to make the top 8. I'm mildly optimistic that Monty might be able to tweak our defensive numbers a bit - for the times opposition get through the press, which could boost our ladder position, but I don't really hold out much hope of any forward line improvements under Hinkley and Bassett.

However I'm hopeful of being proven wrong if we can get Lienert, Houston, Duursma and Hartlett all fit and delivering the ball inside 50 - that might boost our kicking so I'll be watching with interest if and when that comes about.
 

GremioPower

"Ad Astra Per Aspera"
Joined
May 26, 2017
Posts
6,381
Likes
10,144
Location
Uruguayana, RS (BRA) [last: Rockville, MD (USA)]
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Grêmio, DC United, Cleveland Indian
#30
Offensivelly, our games have been quite similar. There wasn't much difference with Sam Gray on the team...

We have scored in our games, in order:
Points - 87; 88; 90.
Goals - 12, 13, 13.

Our I50 for each game, in order: 59; 69; 61.
I50/Goals: 4.92; 5.31; 4.70.
Points/I50: 1.48; 1.28; 1.48.


----
Defensively, that's another story. The Lions have killed us with their accuracy.

Our opponents have scored, in order:
Points - 61; 72; 107.
Goals - 9, 11, 16.

Our opponents' I50 for each game, in order: 45 (-14); 52 (-17); 52 (-9).
I50/Goals: 5.00; 4.73; 3.25.
Points/I50: 1.37; 1.39; 2.06.
 

Port85

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Posts
1,799
Likes
972
Location
NSW
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#31
If you take out rushed/touched points, focusing on shots that made it through - the Lions converted at 66% and Port at 60%

Its definitely better but I think the timing of our mistakes in front of goal hurt more than any other factor.
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,820
Likes
47,010
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#32
Offensivelly, our games have been quite similar. There wasn't much difference with Sam Gray on the team...

We have scored in our games, in order:
Points - 87; 88; 90.
Goals - 12, 13, 13.

Our I50 for each game, in order: 59; 69; 61.
I50/Goals: 4.92; 5.31; 4.70.
Points/I50: 1.48; 1.28; 1.48.


----
Defensively, that's another story. The Lions have killed us with their accuracy.

Our opponents have scored, in order:
Points - 61; 72; 107.
Goals - 9, 11, 16.

Our opponents' I50 for each game, in order: 45 (-14); 52 (-17); 52 (-9).
I50/Goals: 5.00; 4.73; 3.25.
Points/I50: 1.37; 1.39; 2.06.
What will really bake your noodle is opposition intercept marks - that people are adamant Todd Marshall being included in the side would prevent:

Melbourne 75 (Marshall)
Carlton 92 (Marshall) (+17)
Brisbane 78 (no Marshall) (-14)

And people wonder why Marshall was dropped. I wonder if they even watch the game, or if they just form an opinion beforehand and then validate it regardless of what actually happens.
 

Chrizzt

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
7,259
Likes
13,723
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#33
What will really bake your noodle is opposition intercept marks - that people are adamant Todd Marshall being included in the side would prevent:

Melbourne 75 (Marshall)
Carlton 92 (Marshall) (+17)
Brisbane 78 (no Marshall) (-14)

And people wonder why Marshall was dropped. I wonder if they even watch the game, or if they just form an opinion beforehand and then validate it regardless of what actually happens.
You do realise in round 1 when Marshall played a pretty decent game we had our lowest intercept marks for the year? Going to love the display of cognitive dissonance to explain that one.
 

GremioPower

"Ad Astra Per Aspera"
Joined
May 26, 2017
Posts
6,381
Likes
10,144
Location
Uruguayana, RS (BRA) [last: Rockville, MD (USA)]
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Grêmio, DC United, Cleveland Indian
#34
You do realise in round 1 when Marshall played a pretty decent game we had our lowest intercept marks for the year? Going to love the display of cognitive dissonance to explain that one.
Game 1: 75
Game 3: 78

I will put ALL those extra THREE marks (4%) on Sammy's tab.
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,820
Likes
47,010
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#35
You do realise in round 1 when Marshall played a pretty decent game we had our lowest intercept marks for the year? Going to love the display of cognitive dissonance to explain that one.
A full three less intercept marks than against Brisbane? Hold me back.

I’d rate Brisbane’s back line as being better than Melbourne’s without Lever, too.

When he’s actually in form he’ll make a difference, but playing him just because due to something dumb like structure is just that. Dumb.
 

Chrizzt

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
7,259
Likes
13,723
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#36
A full three less intercept marks than against Brisbane? Hold me back.

I’d rate Brisbane’s back line as being better than Melbourne’s without Lever, too.

When he’s actually in form he’ll make a difference, but playing him just because due to something dumb like structure is just that. Dumb.
Look I'm a little on the fence about Marshall's dropping - he was clearly one of our worst against Carlton, but on the other hand we need to develop him. But I was more commenting on your argument which was based off an absurdly small sample size where the data itself actually went against your conclusion.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,820
Likes
47,010
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#38
Look I'm a little on the fence about Marshall's dropping - he was clearly one of our worst against Carlton, but on the other hand we need to develop him. But I was more commenting on your argument which was based off an absurdly small sample size where the data itself actually went against your conclusion.
No it didn’t.

The opposition had less intercept marks because the disposal efficiency was higher. And that came from having players that didn’t jam it on the boot at the first sign of pressure like Bonner - who should have been nowhere near the team after his performance against Carlton.

Look at the actual cause rather than the cause that was predetermined by people who think playing out of form talls is the panacea to high intercept marks. It’s not. The panacea is good decision making and quality disposal out of defence.

That’s one thing that Clarkson knows better than anyone - that’s why he makes sure his defenders can kick.
 

Chrizzt

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
7,259
Likes
13,723
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#39
No it didn’t.

The opposition had less intercept marks because the disposal efficiency was higher. And that came from having players that didn’t jam it on the boot at the first sign of pressure like Bonner - who should have been nowhere near the team after his performance against Carlton.

Look at the actual cause rather than the cause that was predetermined by people who think playing out of form talls is the panacea to high intercept marks. It’s not. The panacea is good decision making and quality disposal out of defence.

That’s one thing that Clarkson knows better than anyone - that’s why he makes sure his defenders can kick.
Chicken or the egg? Having a target to kick to will allow more kicks to be effective, right?
 

GremioPower

"Ad Astra Per Aspera"
Joined
May 26, 2017
Posts
6,381
Likes
10,144
Location
Uruguayana, RS (BRA) [last: Rockville, MD (USA)]
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Grêmio, DC United, Cleveland Indian
#40
Emergencies 2019:

R1: Mayes (dnp), Howard, Sammy, Farrell
R2: Farrell (dnp), Mayes, Howard, Johnson
R3: Garner (dnp), Mayes, Johnson, Marshall
R4: Mayes, Marshall, Farrell, Broadbent

4 - Mayes
3 - Farrell
2 - Howard, Marshall, Johnson
1 - Sammy, Garner, Broadbent
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,820
Likes
47,010
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#41
Emergencies 2019:

R1: Mayes (dnp), Howard, Sammy, Farrell
R2: Farrell (dnp), Mayes, Howard, Johnson
R3: Garner (dnp), Mayes, Johnson, Marshall
R4: Mayes, Marshall, Farrell, Broadbent

4 - Mayes
3 - Farrell
2 - Howard, Marshall, Johnson
1 - Sammy, Garner, Broadbent
Generally the first emergency is considered closest to a call up. It should show you which player is in the gun for their performance.

For example - you wouldn’t hear as many complaints from people (though there would have been quite a few) if Marshall had been dropped for Farrell, who was the first emergency for the Carlton game. But because he didn’t play, Sam Gray took his spot. But it showed that the coaches were looking at the forward line, because Farrell is a forward.

This week, Broadbent is first emergency, so you know they are looking at defence.

Mayes will get a game as soon as form from other players drops off. Farrell should be in for Sam Gray already and is most likely pissed off that Gray took a spot because he played and Farrell was held back as emergency.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
54,291
Likes
69,845
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #43
GremioPower's Robert Younger retweet got me thing about his XScore or Expected Score. I thing he might have invented it or refined Champion Data's work as he worked part time for CD. So I have taken the stats that the CD published in the News Corp papers. This is what has been achieved in our games so far.

Both Port and Melbourne kicked poorly for goal in Rd 1, Melbourne worse than us. Brisbane kicked well for goal in Rd 3 and we kicked poorly. The other two games were pretty normal.


1555640954763.png
 

Port85

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Posts
1,799
Likes
972
Location
NSW
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#44
I guess that's a good indication of what we all saw with our own eyes. We should have won the Brisbane game based on our performance.

Whether we should have won the Richmond game on paper is a bit of a moot point but based on the performance we deservedly lost.

Sitting 3-1 going into a run including West Coast and Collingwood would have been a hell of a lot better than where we sit now, even though it's only 1 win different.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
54,291
Likes
69,845
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #45
Decided to add a few more columns to the graphic I put up 2 posts above. Added goals and behinds and therefore calculated missed shots and inside 50's with no score.

Now some points are rushed, but they are relatively minor, especially ones coming from defenders handballing the ball or running the ball thru for a point, rather than touching/punching the ball going for goal, so I have ignored them.

Missed means, didn't make the distance, out of bounds, out on the full, or an intercept mark when the player is trying to kick a goal.

Doesnt change the results, but just reinforces we wasted opportunities against Carlton and Brisbane. Carlton game might be weather related, but 50% shots on goal for every inside 50 is about normal and we only kicked at 1/3rd. Brisbane looks even worse, those 4 missed shots ie Hoffs terrible out on the full, Rozee's snap on target but marked by the goalkeeper in the square are 2 of the 4, I remember.

The Richmond result is about right given the whole 4 quarters, ie they were better than us in the first 2 or 3, and we wasted opportunities in the last quarter. The last quarter we went inside 50 19 times for 3.2 with 1 missed shot I can remember, they took 8 intercept marks and 3 other times we couldn't score, compared to the Tigers 8 inside 50 for 4.1

The Tigers kicked 9.1 in the 2nd half from 22 inside 50's. In the 1st half it was 6.8 from 28 inside 50's.
We kicked 7.5 in the 2nd half from 30 inside 50's and in the first half it was 7.5 from 22 inside 50's.

So both sides had a wasteful half and an efficient half.

1555646543654.png
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
54,291
Likes
69,845
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #46
Decided to go to one more level of analysis on our inside 50's ie look at it by quarter.

We really have to improve our conversion in the last quarter when 4 of the 5 games we have dominated inside 50's and territory, but have kicked poorly, ie Melbourne and West Coast games and used dumb tactics against Richmond.

The oppo are cleaner than us at converting goals. We should be aiming for 25% conversion as a minimum and looking to get towards 30%. Carlton and WCE were affected by weather, but we didn't get value for dominance.

Our hard running causes fatigue, but that's not the sole reason for our poor last quarter conversion rate.

1555912223977.png
 
Last edited:

GremioPower

"Ad Astra Per Aspera"
Joined
May 26, 2017
Posts
6,381
Likes
10,144
Location
Uruguayana, RS (BRA) [last: Rockville, MD (USA)]
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Grêmio, DC United, Cleveland Indian
#48
Decided to go to one more level of analysis on our inside 50's ie look at it by quarter.


We really have to improve our conversion in the last quarter when 4 of the 5 games we have dominated inside 50's and territory but have kicked poorly ie Melbourne and West Coast game and used dub tactics against Richmond.

The oppo are clearer than us at converting goals . we should be aiming for 25% conversion as a minimu and looking to get towards 30%. Carlton and WCE were affected by weather but we didn't get value for dominance.

Our hard running causes fatigue, but that's not the sole reason for our poor last quarter conversion.

View attachment 659663
Score conversion is similar; goal conversion, clearly not.

Our score conversion was fine against Richmond and WC until Q4. In Perth, our goal conversion then was also bad.

Richmond is the only game that we kicked more goals than behinds every quarter.

Only twice our opposition kicked more behinds than goals: Richmond, Q1 (2.5); Carlton, Q2 (0.2).

Melbourne, Brisbane, and Richmond have quarters with 5 scores out of only 8 I50: MEL, Q3 (3.2); BRI, Q2 (3.2); RIC, Q4 (4.1).

We kicked more goals than behinds in both of our losses, but in only one of our wins.

We lost the scoring-shot count in both of our losses.

This seems very 2017-ish.
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,820
Likes
47,010
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#50
Port Adelaide

All stats are averages. Top four in stats in blue. Bottom four in stats in red.


1st for disposals (406.4), 2nd for team/opponent disposal differential (+53.0)

3rd for kicks (233.6), 3rd for team/opponent kick differential (+14.2)

3rd for handballs (172.8), 1st for team/opponent handball differential (+38.8)

10th for marks (91.2), 6th for team/opponent mark differential (+8.0)

4th for goals (13.0), equal 6th for team/opponent goal differential (+1.2)

4th for behinds (12.4), 1st for team/opponent behind differential (+4.8)

4th for goal assists (9.0), 7th for team/opponent goal assist differential (+0.6)

1st for inside 50s (62.6), 1st for team/opponent inside 50 differential (+15.0)

10th for tackles (59.6), 1st for team/opponent tackle differential (+6.6)

5th for free kicks (21.0), 18th for team/opponent free kick differential (-4.0) (LOL, how can you dominate so many stats but be pinged for so many free kicks?!)

1st for clearances (44.6), 1st for team/opponent clearance differential (+8.6)

3rd for clangers (61.0), 15th for team/opponent clanger differential (-3.2) (This means we make mistakes, but we make our opponents make more. It also means we've got a lot of room for improvement)

18th for rebound 50s (34.6), 18th for team/opponent rebound 50 differential (-13.4) (This is due to defending higher up the ground and intercepting the ball before it reaches defensive 50)

4th for hitouts (44.0), 5th for team/opponent hitout differential (+12.4)

1st for contested possessions (160.4), equal 2nd for team/opponent contested possession differential (+10.6)

6th for uncontested possessions (240.2), equal 1st for team/opponent uncontested possession differential (+47.0)

3rd for effective disposals (289.2), 3rd for team/opponent effective disposal differential (+41.6)

13th for contested marks (10.2), 11th for team/opponent contested mark differential (-0.8)

Equal 2nd for marks inside 50 (12.6), 3rd for team/opponent marks inside 50 differential (+2.8)

1st for one percenters (58.4), equal 1st for team/opponent one percenter differential (+7.4)

2nd for turnovers (78.2), 17th for team/opponent turnover differential (-3.2)

1st for intercepts (82.0), 5th for team/opponent intercept differential (+2.4)

2nd for tackles inside 50 (12.8), 3rd for team/opponent tackles inside 50 differential (+3.2)


Look at all that pretty blue. This after playing Melbourne, Brisbane, Richmond and West Coast.
 
Top Bottom