Janus
Advocatus Diaboli
- Sep 9, 2007
- 23,355
- 57,130
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
Resource 2019 Stats thread + prior year comparisons
- Thread starter RussellEbertHandball
- Start date
- Tagged users None
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #102
Billy Bob65 does a great job sometimes putting up some of the centre bounce players involved stats, in game review threads. Given he has only put 6 up and not all 13, I have copied them into this thread.
Rd 5 WCE in Perth
www.bigfooty.com
Rd 6 NM at AO
www.bigfooty.com
Rd 7 Coll at Docklands
www.bigfooty.com
Rd 13 Freo in Perth
www.bigfooty.com
Rd 14 Gee at AO
www.bigfooty.com
Rd 15 Bulldogs at AO
Rd 5 WCE in Perth
Review - Round 5, 2019 vs West Coast
Went to school with her. Genuinely the most f**king irritating human being I have ever met. I genuinely feel really sorry for you.
www.bigfooty.com
Rd 6 NM at AO
Review - Porf vs. Nort
That and the navicular. Oh right, the Navicular. The hand thing means the Navicular.
www.bigfooty.com
Rd 7 Coll at Docklands
Review - R7 - Port ate all the Pies
The Port I grew up watching would come out firing a week after a disappointing loss. But not this team, plus we’re playing at home. We’ve turned a home ground advantage into a home ground disadvantage
www.bigfooty.com
Rd 13 Freo in Perth
Review - Review v Freo - Rd 13, 2019
He's not playing inside mid as you asked Don't blame him he goes where directed by coaches . Was at game, very little time inside mid . Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com Wherever he was playing it was a lacklustre effort IMO. Made far too many mistakes. Yes the coaches would be to...
www.bigfooty.com
Rd 14 Gee at AO
Game Day - Game day Ports v cats
How gorgeous is Travy Dreamboat in hugging Dixon and it means a lot to him ... thankfully You could've stopped there.
www.bigfooty.com
Rd 15 Bulldogs at AO
Last edited:
1st in inside 50's, 5th in goals, 17th in least Opponent rebound 50's per game. Almost like we needed more than 1 real KPF up forward.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #105
Put this in the showdown review thread answering gremio's question. but really belongs in here.
scores/I50 ---- Pts/I50
4/12 = 33.3% 19/12 = 1.58 pts
4/13 = 30.8% 19/13 = 1.46 pts
9/18 = 50.0% 39/18 = 2.17 pts
9/23 = 39.1% 24/23 = 1.04 pts
So in Q3 we converted most of our I50's into scores and into the most points. Q2 was our worst conversion into scores but Q4 was the worst points scored for those I50's.
We average 60 I50's per game. If we could average 2.0 pts per I50 we would average kicking 120 pts which would make us the top side.
I have manipulated the data from this website page.
For 66 inside 50's we kicked against Adelaide
Ave goals 22% x 66 = 14.5 goals, Average behinds 20% x 66 = 13.2 pts = 100 pts
Best goals 27% x 66 = 17.8 goals, behinds 20% x 66 = 13.2 pts = 120 pts
Against the crows 15 goals/66 I 50 = 22.7%, score conversion 15+11/66 = 39.4%. We were better than our average, we were around AFL average but we were worse than the top 5 sides average.
It is no fluke that the top 5 sides have kicked the most goals, have the best I50 goal conversion and score conversion percentages, despite their different levels of I50's.
Edit Pts For I50
Geel 1399 / 769 = 1.82
WCE 1275 / 746 = 1.71
Coll. 1286 / 775 = 1.66
Bris. 1361 / 833 = 1.63
GWS 1377 / 786 = 1.75
Rich. 1263 / 814 = 1.55
PA... 1242 / 903 = 1.38 ** our pts/I50 conversion is 31.9% behind Geelong
.....
NM.. 1264 / 795 = 1.59
I look at it the other way round and use I50 as the denominator, because its the driver of scores.
scores/I50 ---- Pts/I50
4/12 = 33.3% 19/12 = 1.58 pts
4/13 = 30.8% 19/13 = 1.46 pts
9/18 = 50.0% 39/18 = 2.17 pts
9/23 = 39.1% 24/23 = 1.04 pts
So in Q3 we converted most of our I50's into scores and into the most points. Q2 was our worst conversion into scores but Q4 was the worst points scored for those I50's.
We average 60 I50's per game. If we could average 2.0 pts per I50 we would average kicking 120 pts which would make us the top side.
I have manipulated the data from this website page.
AFL Statistics Team Rankings for Season 2019
AFL Statistics Team Rankings for Season 2019.
www.footywire.com
For 66 inside 50's we kicked against Adelaide
Ave goals 22% x 66 = 14.5 goals, Average behinds 20% x 66 = 13.2 pts = 100 pts
Best goals 27% x 66 = 17.8 goals, behinds 20% x 66 = 13.2 pts = 120 pts
Against the crows 15 goals/66 I 50 = 22.7%, score conversion 15+11/66 = 39.4%. We were better than our average, we were around AFL average but we were worse than the top 5 sides average.
It is no fluke that the top 5 sides have kicked the most goals, have the best I50 goal conversion and score conversion percentages, despite their different levels of I50's.
Edit Pts For I50
Geel 1399 / 769 = 1.82
WCE 1275 / 746 = 1.71
Coll. 1286 / 775 = 1.66
Bris. 1361 / 833 = 1.63
GWS 1377 / 786 = 1.75
Rich. 1263 / 814 = 1.55
PA... 1242 / 903 = 1.38 ** our pts/I50 conversion is 31.9% behind Geelong
.....
NM.. 1264 / 795 = 1.59
Last edited:
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #106
Stats from the AFL Record for Sunday's game against Brisbane.
Only one of the categories we kept up with season average against Brisbane was our shitty kicking.
blow up the writing on pressure factor
No real surprised in these categories
Lots of our mid fielders are below AFL average kicking efficiency pecentage compared to AFL average for mid fielders.
I highlighted Port players in the top 10 list. Boak in 5 of 14, Rockliff in 3 and Lycett in 1.
Only one of the categories we kept up with season average against Brisbane was our shitty kicking.
blow up the writing on pressure factor
No real surprised in these categories
Lots of our mid fielders are below AFL average kicking efficiency pecentage compared to AFL average for mid fielders.
I highlighted Port players in the top 10 list. Boak in 5 of 14, Rockliff in 3 and Lycett in 1.
GremioPower
Taking notes of policy re: bikini/lingerie images
- May 26, 2017
- 20,924
- 43,069
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Grêmio, DC United, Pistons
This season, until Round 19, we have either lost Q1 or tied scoring fewer shots in 12 games. Our record in those games is 4-8, with 2 of the wins being the first two games of the season. The other two comebacks came against Gold Goast (R9) and West Lakes (R16). Those Q1 losses have come in waves:
QT Scores R1-R3
Port-Melb, 2.4:16 - 4.3:27; Points: -11; Scoring Shots: -1
Port-Carl, 4.2:26 - 5.2:32; Pts: -6; SS: -1
Port-Fitz, 3.2:20 - 5.2:32; Pts: -12; SS: -2
FT Record: 2-1
QT Scores R7-R10
Port-Coll, 0.3:3 - 7.6:48; Points: -45; Scoring Shots: -10
Port-WL, 0.2:2 - 2.1:13; Pts: -11; SS: -1
Port-GC, 3.1:19 - 4.4:28; Pts: -9; SS: -4
Port-Haw, 0.0:0 - 5.2:32; Pts: -32; SS: -7
FT Record: 1-3
QT Scores R15-R19
Port-Foot, 1.2:8 - 3.2:20; Points: -12; Scoring Shots: -2
Port-WL, 3.1:19 - 2.7:19; Pts: 0; SS: -5
Port-Fitz, 2.1:13 - 7.1:43; Pts: -30; SS: -5
Port-Rich, 2.4:16 - 5.4:34; Pts: -18; SS: -3
Port-GWS, 0.3:3 - 2.5:17; Pts: -14; SS: -4
FT Record: 1-4
----
In the games that we have finished Q1 with a lead, our overall record is 4-2. They also came in waves:
R4: Port-Rich, 4.1:25 - 2.5:17; Pts: +7; SS: -2
R5: Port-WC, 3.5:36 - 1.1:7; Pts: +29; SS: +6
R6: Port-NM, 5.2:32 - 2.3:15; Pts: +17; SS: +2
FT Record: 2-1
R11: Port-StK, 5.1:31 - 3.4:22; Pts: +9; SS: -1
R13: Port-Freo, 5.1:31 - 3.2:20; Pts: +11; SS: +1
R14: Port-Geel, 3.4:22 - 1.2:8; Pts: +14; SS: +4
FT Record: 2-1
----
Here, the last four games of the season:
R20: Port-Ess, 5.2:32 - 2.4:16; Pts: +16; SS: +1
R21: Port-Syd, 4.4:28 - 3.4:22; Pts: +6; SS: +1
R22: Port-NM, 1.1:7 - 6.3:39; Pts: -32; SS: -7
R23: Port-Freo, 3.4:22 - 5.1:31; Pts: -9; SS: +1
FT Record: 3-1
QT Scores R1-R3
Port-Melb, 2.4:16 - 4.3:27; Points: -11; Scoring Shots: -1
Port-Carl, 4.2:26 - 5.2:32; Pts: -6; SS: -1
Port-Fitz, 3.2:20 - 5.2:32; Pts: -12; SS: -2
FT Record: 2-1
QT Scores R7-R10
Port-Coll, 0.3:3 - 7.6:48; Points: -45; Scoring Shots: -10
Port-WL, 0.2:2 - 2.1:13; Pts: -11; SS: -1
Port-GC, 3.1:19 - 4.4:28; Pts: -9; SS: -4
Port-Haw, 0.0:0 - 5.2:32; Pts: -32; SS: -7
FT Record: 1-3
QT Scores R15-R19
Port-Foot, 1.2:8 - 3.2:20; Points: -12; Scoring Shots: -2
Port-WL, 3.1:19 - 2.7:19; Pts: 0; SS: -5
Port-Fitz, 2.1:13 - 7.1:43; Pts: -30; SS: -5
Port-Rich, 2.4:16 - 5.4:34; Pts: -18; SS: -3
Port-GWS, 0.3:3 - 2.5:17; Pts: -14; SS: -4
FT Record: 1-4
----
In the games that we have finished Q1 with a lead, our overall record is 4-2. They also came in waves:
R4: Port-Rich, 4.1:25 - 2.5:17; Pts: +7; SS: -2
R5: Port-WC, 3.5:36 - 1.1:7; Pts: +29; SS: +6
R6: Port-NM, 5.2:32 - 2.3:15; Pts: +17; SS: +2
FT Record: 2-1
R11: Port-StK, 5.1:31 - 3.4:22; Pts: +9; SS: -1
R13: Port-Freo, 5.1:31 - 3.2:20; Pts: +11; SS: +1
R14: Port-Geel, 3.4:22 - 1.2:8; Pts: +14; SS: +4
FT Record: 2-1
----
Here, the last four games of the season:
R20: Port-Ess, 5.2:32 - 2.4:16; Pts: +16; SS: +1
R21: Port-Syd, 4.4:28 - 3.4:22; Pts: +6; SS: +1
R22: Port-NM, 1.1:7 - 6.3:39; Pts: -32; SS: -7
R23: Port-Freo, 3.4:22 - 5.1:31; Pts: -9; SS: +1
FT Record: 3-1
Last edited:
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #108
This was from Friday's 'Tsier
Port Adelaide’s inability to pinpoint inside-50 targets is killing it.
Exclusive Champion Data statistics show that only three Power players are above the AFL average for the team scoring from their kicks inside 50 this season.In a damning analysis that illustrates one of the key reasons Port is struggling to hit the scoreboard — and failing to capitalise on its high percentage of inside 50 entries — is that only midfielders Sam Powell-Pepper (37.9 per cent) and Xavier Duursma (35.9) and defender Darcy Byrne-Jones (35.2) are going at better than the AFL average of 33.2 per cent.
...........
LACKING POWER
Port’s score percentage from kicks I50
(AFL Ave: 33.2%)
Kicks....................... I50; Score %
Sam Powell-Pepper – 58; 37.9%
Xavier Duursma.... – 39; 35.9%
Darcy Byrne-Jones – 54; 35.2%
Karl Amon............ – 38; 31.6%
Travis Boak.......... – 77; 27.3%
Riley Bonner......... – 52; 26.9%
Scott Lycett.......... – 42; 26.2%
Tom Rockliff......... – 50; 26.0%
Dan Houston........ – 47; 25.5%
Robbie Gray......... – 42; 23.8%
Only three Port players are above the AFL average of 38.9 per cent for score percentage from its top-10 targeted players inside 50
I50............ Target; Score %
Robbie Gray.. – 56; 46.4%
Connor Rozee – 58; 43.1%
Paddy Ryder.. – 53; 41.5%
Then against Essendon we kick 14.2 from set shots the 2 points were posters by Rozee and SPP. We took 15 marks inside 50 and kicked 11.2 with Sutcliffe centering the ball which wasn't marked and Dixon from a mark near where 50m meets the boundary line went for a pass up the line and put it out of bounds on the full. We kicked 3.0 from free kicks we got, Robbie, Butters in the 1st quarter and X on the boundary OOTF kick and then did the arrow.
Port Adelaide’s inability to pinpoint inside-50 targets is killing it.
Exclusive Champion Data statistics show that only three Power players are above the AFL average for the team scoring from their kicks inside 50 this season.In a damning analysis that illustrates one of the key reasons Port is struggling to hit the scoreboard — and failing to capitalise on its high percentage of inside 50 entries — is that only midfielders Sam Powell-Pepper (37.9 per cent) and Xavier Duursma (35.9) and defender Darcy Byrne-Jones (35.2) are going at better than the AFL average of 33.2 per cent.
...........
LACKING POWER
Port’s score percentage from kicks I50
(AFL Ave: 33.2%)
Kicks....................... I50; Score %
Sam Powell-Pepper – 58; 37.9%
Xavier Duursma.... – 39; 35.9%
Darcy Byrne-Jones – 54; 35.2%
Karl Amon............ – 38; 31.6%
Travis Boak.......... – 77; 27.3%
Riley Bonner......... – 52; 26.9%
Scott Lycett.......... – 42; 26.2%
Tom Rockliff......... – 50; 26.0%
Dan Houston........ – 47; 25.5%
Robbie Gray......... – 42; 23.8%
Only three Port players are above the AFL average of 38.9 per cent for score percentage from its top-10 targeted players inside 50
I50............ Target; Score %
Robbie Gray.. – 56; 46.4%
Connor Rozee – 58; 43.1%
Paddy Ryder.. – 53; 41.5%
Then against Essendon we kick 14.2 from set shots the 2 points were posters by Rozee and SPP. We took 15 marks inside 50 and kicked 11.2 with Sutcliffe centering the ball which wasn't marked and Dixon from a mark near where 50m meets the boundary line went for a pass up the line and put it out of bounds on the full. We kicked 3.0 from free kicks we got, Robbie, Butters in the 1st quarter and X on the boundary OOTF kick and then did the arrow.
GremioPower
Taking notes of policy re: bikini/lingerie images
- May 26, 2017
- 20,924
- 43,069
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Grêmio, DC United, Pistons
This was from Friday's 'Tsier
Port Adelaide’s inability to pinpoint inside-50 targets is killing it.
Exclusive Champion Data statistics show that only three Power players are above the AFL average for the team scoring from their kicks inside 50 this season.In a damning analysis that illustrates one of the key reasons Port is struggling to hit the scoreboard — and failing to capitalise on its high percentage of inside 50 entries — is that only midfielders Sam Powell-Pepper (37.9 per cent) and Xavier Duursma (35.9) and defender Darcy Byrne-Jones (35.2) are going at better than the AFL average of 33.2 per cent.
...........
LACKING POWER
Port’s score percentage from kicks I50
(AFL Ave: 33.2%)
Kicks....................... I50; Score %
Sam Powell-Pepper – 58; 37.9%
Xavier Duursma.... – 39; 35.9%
Darcy Byrne-Jones – 54; 35.2%
Karl Amon............ – 38; 31.6%
Travis Boak.......... – 77; 27.3%
Riley Bonner......... – 52; 26.9%
Scott Lycett.......... – 42; 26.2%
Tom Rockliff......... – 50; 26.0%
Dan Houston........ – 47; 25.5%
Robbie Gray......... – 42; 23.8%
Only three Port players are above the AFL average of 38.9 per cent for score percentage from its top-10 targeted players inside 50
I50............ Target; Score %
Robbie Gray.. – 56; 46.4%
Connor Rozee – 58; 43.1%
Paddy Ryder.. – 53; 41.5%
Then against Essendon we kick 14.2 from set shots the 2 points were posters by Rozee and SPP. We took 15 marks inside 50 and kicked 11.2 with Sutcliffe centering the ball which wasn't marked and Dixon from a mark near where 50m meets the boundary line went for a pass up the line and put it out of bounds on the full. We kicked 3.0 from free kicks we got, Robbie, Butters in the 1st quarter and X on the boundary OOTF kick and then did the arrow.
Let me get this straight: SPP is our best scorer from I50 this season!?
I confess that I didn't understand the data.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #110
What it says is that SPP has 58 times kicked the ball I50, but only 22 times have we got a score from those I50 entries. Scores could be 15.7 or 6.16 but that data isn't supplied.
Given we on average get the ball I50, about 60 times a game, the AFL average suggests we should get 20 scores ie 12.8 or 11.9.
That article was written before the Essendon game where we kicked 19.12 from 58 I50, above our season average.
Currently we have kicked 219.221 from 1113 I50. That score conversion is above AFL average of 33.2% at 39.5%. The above list is for only the top 10 players by I50 not all 36 who have played. Some may only have 30 entries at 45%.
So the updated stats are we average 11.5 goals and 11.6 pts per game from an average of 58.6 I50 per game.
GremioPower
Taking notes of policy re: bikini/lingerie images
- May 26, 2017
- 20,924
- 43,069
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Grêmio, DC United, Pistons
Our home/away split on goals v behinds is not funny. We are way worse on average at home.
TeeKray
Moderator
Port Adelaide - Allir Allir Player Sponsor 2021
Port Adelaide - Kane Farrell Player Sponsor 2021
Port Adelaide Forum Tipping Champion
Bring Back the Bars
Port Adelaide - Connor Rozee Player Sponsor 2020
Port Adelaide - Zak Butters 2019 Player Sponsor
Port Adelaide - Jack Watts Player Sponsor 2018
Port Adelaide - Riley Bonner Player Sponsor 2016
- Moderator
- #112
Probably because it pisses down with rain every time we set foot in the place.
GremioPower
Taking notes of policy re: bikini/lingerie images
- May 26, 2017
- 20,924
- 43,069
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Grêmio, DC United, Pistons
We are worse in comparison with our opponents. If I am not mistaken, we have scored some -10 goals and +30 behinds than the opposition totals. When away, the numbers are more even.
Schulzenfest
TheBrownDog
And yet half this board seems to want Jonas traded or delisted because he went skiing.
PepeSilvia
Norm Smith Medallist
Any reason why Nathan Brown isn't on there? He's had 48 contested defensive one on ones for only seven losses (14.6%). Interesting, though.
GremioPower
Taking notes of policy re: bikini/lingerie images
- May 26, 2017
- 20,924
- 43,069
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Grêmio, DC United, Pistons
Few 1v1 (Bottom-2), but impressive nonetheless. Jonas must have been paying for his captaincy more than he should.
Judging by eye, looks like they set a 50 contest minimum
GremioPower
Taking notes of policy re: bikini/lingerie images
- May 26, 2017
- 20,924
- 43,069
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Grêmio, DC United, Pistons
2019 CLOSE GAMES
There were five games that I considered to have been close, for one reason or another. In all the other games, even though the control of the game has usually switched between teams along the way, one team has clearly dominated the game and won it. In those, we've had:
- 7 losses (rounds 7, 8, 10, 15, 17, 18, 22)
- 10 wins (rounds 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 16, 20, 21, 23)
On the close games, I have divided them in three categories.
I) Games in which we had the upperhand for most of the game, but ended up losing: (2)
- R3, @BRI (close score)
- R13, @FRE (score not close at all)
II) Games in which the opposition had the control for most of the night, but we ended up making it close: (1)
- R19, v.GWS (loss)
III) Games in which we played even with the opposition throughout the match:
- R4, v.RIC (loss)
- R14, v.GEE (win)
[2019 close-game record: 1-4]
----
SPLITTING THE SEASON
1 - We began the season with 4 convincing wins and 2 close losses (very 2017-like). [4-2]
2 - We started to yo-yo, with 3 bad losses intertwined with 2 good wins from round 7 to the bye. [2-3]
3 - The first game after the bye is the really weird loss against Freo away (very 2018-like), followed by a rare close win against Geelong no less. [1-1]
4 - We have a really bad series of games between rounds 15 and 19, with the Showdown being an exception (very 2018-like, and our solitary win in Ballarat in the end of the season). [1-4]
Finally:
5 - We finished the season with three solid wins, with the vexing loss against North in R22 in-between them. [3-1]
----
I have no idea what to do with this. It simply shows what we already know - that our games seem based on pure luck. The numbers followed attached. Any doubts, just ask me.
There were five games that I considered to have been close, for one reason or another. In all the other games, even though the control of the game has usually switched between teams along the way, one team has clearly dominated the game and won it. In those, we've had:
- 7 losses (rounds 7, 8, 10, 15, 17, 18, 22)
- 10 wins (rounds 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 16, 20, 21, 23)
On the close games, I have divided them in three categories.
I) Games in which we had the upperhand for most of the game, but ended up losing: (2)
- R3, @BRI (close score)
- R13, @FRE (score not close at all)
II) Games in which the opposition had the control for most of the night, but we ended up making it close: (1)
- R19, v.GWS (loss)
III) Games in which we played even with the opposition throughout the match:
- R4, v.RIC (loss)
- R14, v.GEE (win)
[2019 close-game record: 1-4]
----
SPLITTING THE SEASON
1 - We began the season with 4 convincing wins and 2 close losses (very 2017-like). [4-2]
2 - We started to yo-yo, with 3 bad losses intertwined with 2 good wins from round 7 to the bye. [2-3]
3 - The first game after the bye is the really weird loss against Freo away (very 2018-like), followed by a rare close win against Geelong no less. [1-1]
4 - We have a really bad series of games between rounds 15 and 19, with the Showdown being an exception (very 2018-like, and our solitary win in Ballarat in the end of the season). [1-4]
Finally:
5 - We finished the season with three solid wins, with the vexing loss against North in R22 in-between them. [3-1]
----
I have no idea what to do with this. It simply shows what we already know - that our games seem based on pure luck. The numbers followed attached. Any doubts, just ask me.
Last edited:
Forzaport
Brownlow Medallist
Jonas loses the least number of 1v1s but also has the lowest 1v1s contests. Seems a waste. May as well trade him while the perception of value is high.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #121
The Tsier have some champion data stats for Port. They say the kids and young players had good improvement the older players went backwards.
So many above average players, yet a mediocre average result. probably good padding against the poor teams.
Lycett I have praised all year. Reckon he has been our 2nd or 3rd best player. The numbers don't lie.
Houston's figure are assisted by playing mid field for 2nd half of the year and racking up mid stats compared to general defender stats in that period.
Ryder, Motlop, Wines (injuries), Jonas, Ebert (injuries), Robbie, Dixon (injuries) and Hoff had big backward years
Lycett, Amon, Boak, Rockliff, DBJ, Houston and Clurey had big positive improvement years.
That's why the club says it thinks we are going in the right direction - the younger players, but the old boys have gone backwards.
So many above average players, yet a mediocre average result. probably good padding against the poor teams.
Lycett I have praised all year. Reckon he has been our 2nd or 3rd best player. The numbers don't lie.
Houston's figure are assisted by playing mid field for 2nd half of the year and racking up mid stats compared to general defender stats in that period.
Ryder, Motlop, Wines (injuries), Jonas, Ebert (injuries), Robbie, Dixon (injuries) and Hoff had big backward years
Lycett, Amon, Boak, Rockliff, DBJ, Houston and Clurey had big positive improvement years.
That's why the club says it thinks we are going in the right direction - the younger players, but the old boys have gone backwards.
Last edited:
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #122
The above ties in with some stats Sleezy calculated and posted in page 3 of the -
“He’s simply getting on with the job of navigating a young group through the perils of inconsistency...” thread
[QUOTE="Sleezy, post: 62462865, member: 160718"
So I've done some maths.
Across 21 games this season's we've had:
- 7 players with 0-25 games experience play in at least 3 wins and 3 losses
- 8 players with 26-75 games experience play in at least 3 wins and 3 losses
- 6 players with 76-150 games experience play in at least 3 wins and 3 losses
- 8 players with 150 games experience play in at least 3 wins and 3 losses
Based on 21 games of AFL player ratings data, for these groups:
0-25:
- 18% drop in performance in losses v wins
- average rating: 7.9 (wins: 8.7; losses: 7.2)
26-75:
- 5% drop in performance in losses v wins
- average rating: 9.6 (wins: 9.9; losses: 9.4)
76-150:
- 36% drop in performance in losses v wins
- average rating: 8.5 (wins: 10.2; losses: 7.0)
150+:
- 6% drop in performance in losses v wins
- average rating: 12 (wins: 12.4; losses: 11.6)
But yes, it's the youngsters fault we're inconsistent.
“He’s simply getting on with the job of navigating a young group through the perils of inconsistency...” thread
[QUOTE="Sleezy, post: 62462865, member: 160718"
So I've done some maths.
Across 21 games this season's we've had:
- 7 players with 0-25 games experience play in at least 3 wins and 3 losses
- 8 players with 26-75 games experience play in at least 3 wins and 3 losses
- 6 players with 76-150 games experience play in at least 3 wins and 3 losses
- 8 players with 150 games experience play in at least 3 wins and 3 losses
Based on 21 games of AFL player ratings data, for these groups:
0-25:
- 18% drop in performance in losses v wins
- average rating: 7.9 (wins: 8.7; losses: 7.2)
26-75:
- 5% drop in performance in losses v wins
- average rating: 9.6 (wins: 9.9; losses: 9.4)
76-150:
- 36% drop in performance in losses v wins
- average rating: 8.5 (wins: 10.2; losses: 7.0)
150+:
- 6% drop in performance in losses v wins
- average rating: 12 (wins: 12.4; losses: 11.6)
But yes, it's the youngsters fault we're inconsistent.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #123
Snipets from the article I posted those charts.
At 11-11, for the second year running, Port Adelaide finished in 10th spot on the AFL ladder. But Power coach Ken Hinkley says “it feels like there is a fair bit of difference” this time around. “I’m optimistic about 62 games into three first-year draft choices, six debutants, two new people in Scott Lycett and Ryan Burton to come to the club, the change of leadership,” he said. Has Hinkley’s list improved enough across the board to warrant such optimism?
From the kids and the middle-tier, absolutely, it has. Karl Amon (+21.6), Darcy Byrne-Jones (+15.4) and Dan Houston (+11.8) were three of the six Power players, who have played more than five games, to increase their Champion Data ranking-points average by more than 10 this season.
.......
But that’s where the optimism ends. The numbers say senior players Justin Westhoff (-21.2), Charlie Dixon (-13.9), Robbie Gray (-13.1), Brad Ebert (-10.3), Tom Jonas (-9.6), Ollie Wines (-9.1), Steven Motlop (-8) and Paddy Ryder (-7.2) failed to improve in 2019.
.....
In the wake of the Round 23 victory over the Dockers, Hinkley said “I know we’ve had some bad moments, but we’ve had some good moments”. And the same can be said of his playing list in 2019.
From the kids and the middle-tier, absolutely, it has. Karl Amon (+21.6), Darcy Byrne-Jones (+15.4) and Dan Houston (+11.8) were three of the six Power players, who have played more than five games, to increase their Champion Data ranking-points average by more than 10 this season.
.......
But that’s where the optimism ends. The numbers say senior players Justin Westhoff (-21.2), Charlie Dixon (-13.9), Robbie Gray (-13.1), Brad Ebert (-10.3), Tom Jonas (-9.6), Ollie Wines (-9.1), Steven Motlop (-8) and Paddy Ryder (-7.2) failed to improve in 2019.
.....
In the wake of the Round 23 victory over the Dockers, Hinkley said “I know we’ve had some bad moments, but we’ve had some good moments”. And the same can be said of his playing list in 2019.
Lawnchair Larry
Cancelled
- Apr 1, 2015
- 2,627
- 3,098
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Here are some plots of the age distribution profiles of 220 premiership winning players, which I have compared to Port’s best 22, in rounds 2, 10 and 23 for year 2019 – arbitrary choices to reflect “beginning, middle and end” of season.
So, I have lumped together 220 players over 10 grand finals as a means of comparing the age distribution of a selection of our teams with potential characteristics of success.
The ages of the players have been corrected to the day of the Grand Final, independent of the year. It assumes that one of the Port Round 2, 10 or 23 teams were a Grand Finalist team of 2019 (again, age corrected to 28 Sept 2019).
The 10 x 22 (=220) players reflecting GF winners were in the following teams: 2005 (Sydney), 2010 (Pies) 2013, 14, 15(Hawks), 2007, 2009, 20011 (Cats) and finally 2017, 2019 (Tigers).
The evaluation of premiership winning players has needed no data treatment, simply because the data is dense. The curve produced is very smooth, and so remains unaltered. It does smear the data, however, hiding the nuance of individual premiership teams. By contrast, the data for examination of 22 players is much noisier, due mostly to the smaller sample. In this case I have provided both the actual data, as well as a smooth curve, which I have fitted to the actual data, using a bit of maths. Sometimes I have presented just the smoothed curves for 22s in comparisons, lest the actual inputs for teams turn the plots into a confusing array of intermingled data points.
Here are the plots for the 3 Port teams relative to the 10 GF teams:
And just presenting the overlaid best fit curves for the data:
Our “olds” are a bit older, and our “youngs” more substantially younger than the reference curve.
The age profile of our oldest players (beyond 70% of the team age profile) has remained substantially the same over the games I looked at, while for Round 23 there has been a drift to a somewhat older age range in the bottom 70% of the team (probably amounting to 20-30 games of experience for our youngest players). Whether there has been a systematic move to an outcome closer to the “Grand Accumulation” over the course of the season, or whether this drift is just a random occurrence based upon my sampling of games, is open to question. It may or may not have reflected Ken’s desperation, as the season drew to an end, in selecting substandard experience over youth.
Here are the plots for the 2 x 2019 Grand Finalist teams (Tigers & GWS) relative to the 22 x 10 GF premiership winners/ players. Both teams have a substantially closer age profile to the “Grand Accumulation” than Port teams. Of course age profile is only a partial reflection of success, but these 2 teams are closer to “on the money” in this regard.
I view, as others probably do, that those players between 24-28yo are a key to the success of footy teams, mainly because they represent the middle ground between inexperienced youth and the injury and slow-down of individuals beyond 28yo (despite their experience). The table below shows the count of players in each of the 10 premiership teams, whose ages lie <24 and <=28yo. It compares the count with each of the 3 above Port teams and the GWS 2019 R/U. Again all ages reflect players on the day of the GF in each respective year. The Port 2019 Squad carries approximately ½ the players in this age range compared to the Tigers 2019 Squad, and their 2019 Premiership team carries more players in this age range than in our total 2019 squad. Somehow the population in this age range needs to be increased.
It seems to me that these age profiles are quite difficult to alter. Waiting for the “youngs” to fall into this age range will push some of the “olds” off the plot due to retirements – then what? Bringing in more “youngs” will again blow out the bottom of the age profile. Alternatively “steal” players in this age range, as employed by Hawks and to a lesser extent Tigers? I think we tried that but made the wrong choices.
Pies in 2010 and Cats 2011 are atypical, but Pies 2010 Premiers offers some hope that “youngs” can do the job, although they totally break the mould. Pies 2010 ask more questions for Collingwood than about Port. Why did they not create a dynasty with both youth and Grand Final experience? Cats 2011 Premiers seem to reflect a drift of a cohort of older very skilled players to extinction – as though they drained the tank on the capability of these players before falling off the “conveyor belt”. To create a long term dynasty, this is probably not the right way to go about it.
So, I have lumped together 220 players over 10 grand finals as a means of comparing the age distribution of a selection of our teams with potential characteristics of success.
The ages of the players have been corrected to the day of the Grand Final, independent of the year. It assumes that one of the Port Round 2, 10 or 23 teams were a Grand Finalist team of 2019 (again, age corrected to 28 Sept 2019).
The 10 x 22 (=220) players reflecting GF winners were in the following teams: 2005 (Sydney), 2010 (Pies) 2013, 14, 15(Hawks), 2007, 2009, 20011 (Cats) and finally 2017, 2019 (Tigers).
The evaluation of premiership winning players has needed no data treatment, simply because the data is dense. The curve produced is very smooth, and so remains unaltered. It does smear the data, however, hiding the nuance of individual premiership teams. By contrast, the data for examination of 22 players is much noisier, due mostly to the smaller sample. In this case I have provided both the actual data, as well as a smooth curve, which I have fitted to the actual data, using a bit of maths. Sometimes I have presented just the smoothed curves for 22s in comparisons, lest the actual inputs for teams turn the plots into a confusing array of intermingled data points.
Here are the plots for the 3 Port teams relative to the 10 GF teams:
And just presenting the overlaid best fit curves for the data:
Our “olds” are a bit older, and our “youngs” more substantially younger than the reference curve.
The age profile of our oldest players (beyond 70% of the team age profile) has remained substantially the same over the games I looked at, while for Round 23 there has been a drift to a somewhat older age range in the bottom 70% of the team (probably amounting to 20-30 games of experience for our youngest players). Whether there has been a systematic move to an outcome closer to the “Grand Accumulation” over the course of the season, or whether this drift is just a random occurrence based upon my sampling of games, is open to question. It may or may not have reflected Ken’s desperation, as the season drew to an end, in selecting substandard experience over youth.
Here are the plots for the 2 x 2019 Grand Finalist teams (Tigers & GWS) relative to the 22 x 10 GF premiership winners/ players. Both teams have a substantially closer age profile to the “Grand Accumulation” than Port teams. Of course age profile is only a partial reflection of success, but these 2 teams are closer to “on the money” in this regard.
I view, as others probably do, that those players between 24-28yo are a key to the success of footy teams, mainly because they represent the middle ground between inexperienced youth and the injury and slow-down of individuals beyond 28yo (despite their experience). The table below shows the count of players in each of the 10 premiership teams, whose ages lie <24 and <=28yo. It compares the count with each of the 3 above Port teams and the GWS 2019 R/U. Again all ages reflect players on the day of the GF in each respective year. The Port 2019 Squad carries approximately ½ the players in this age range compared to the Tigers 2019 Squad, and their 2019 Premiership team carries more players in this age range than in our total 2019 squad. Somehow the population in this age range needs to be increased.
It seems to me that these age profiles are quite difficult to alter. Waiting for the “youngs” to fall into this age range will push some of the “olds” off the plot due to retirements – then what? Bringing in more “youngs” will again blow out the bottom of the age profile. Alternatively “steal” players in this age range, as employed by Hawks and to a lesser extent Tigers? I think we tried that but made the wrong choices.
Pies in 2010 and Cats 2011 are atypical, but Pies 2010 Premiers offers some hope that “youngs” can do the job, although they totally break the mould. Pies 2010 ask more questions for Collingwood than about Port. Why did they not create a dynasty with both youth and Grand Final experience? Cats 2011 Premiers seem to reflect a drift of a cohort of older very skilled players to extinction – as though they drained the tank on the capability of these players before falling off the “conveyor belt”. To create a long term dynasty, this is probably not the right way to go about it.
- Oct 28, 2007
- 3,277
- 3,277
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port
Sweet Jesus Larry. Don't you have a lawn to mow?
