Resource 2022 Stats thread

[RussellEbertHandball]

The majority of scoring in AFL is based on turnover. That's why limiting turnovers goes 70% of the way to a victory.

So it should as be they only keep 3 stats - scoring from;
1) Turnover
2) Stoppages
3) Kick ins

3 is very minor, 2 is ok, so 1 should actually be split into 3 or 4 parts to be more useful - turnover from stupid useless kicks, turn over from great intercept play. turnover from bad fumbles, turnover from great pressure etc.

 

[Sleezy]

So it should as be they only keep 3 stats - scoring from;
1) Turnover
2) Stoppages
3) Kick ins

3 is very minor, 2 is ok, so 1 should actually be split into 3 or 4 parts to be more useful - turnover from stupid useless kicks, turn over from great intercept play. turnover from bad fumbles, turnover from great pressure etc.

You could split it like forced and unforced error in tennis. Forced turnover - pressure, forced turnover - intercpet, unforced turnover.

I'd also be interested to see it broken down by area on the ground:
D50; D-Mid; F-Mid; F50; L-Wing; R-Wing

 

[jonasshirtfront]

Some interesting stats that give some insight into where things went right and wrong in 2022. Courtesy of WheeloRatings and some of my own stuff.

Rankings in the league by some key metrics:

Midfield

Contested Possession Differential: 11th
Ground Ball Gets Differential: 4th
Centre Clearances Differential: 12th
Stoppage Clearances Differential: 5th
Overall Clearances Differential : 5th

Turn Over Differential: 6th

Inside 50s Differential: 9th

Midfield stats looks really weird to me. Very strange to have such a difference in rakings for contested possession and ground ball gets. My hypothesis is that a lot of the contested possession negative actually comes from losing contestd around the ground (particularly in marking contets) and not in clearance. Ground ball suggests our midfield is doing ok.

Suck at centre clearances but ok in stoppage. I think this is where not playing a ruckman hurts.

Turnover differential is middling. This is mostly due to our turnovers, we have the 3rd most turnovers per game in the league.

Offence

Overall Offensive Efficiency (Goals For / Inside 50's For): 10th
Offensive Efficiency For Tall players: 11th
Offensive Efficiency For Medium players: 4th
Offensive Efficiency For Small players: 17th

Overall offence stinks. Our medium players (which are mostly midfielders) do OK. Tall forwards are poor and we got nothing from smalls.

I think these two bits are extremely related. We tend to play an extra up near the contest, in 2021 when I last went to games it was usually Dan Houston about 15m to the defensive side. That meant a few things:

1. We had an extra around the ball so were more likely to win the contest than if we were just relying on even numbers footy.
2. Even if the oppo won the clearance well we still had someone applying pressure and making it hard to put a clean delivery into their forward line, helping out our undersized defenders.
3. When we went forward we were outnumbered, so we went inside 50 a lot but didn't get the same sort of value for forward entries and it usually looked like dogshit. Our plan was then to try and hold it in the 50 until we could zone up, then just repeat entry it over and over until eventually a goal fell out of the sky. Which it did a fair bit.

I'm pretty sure we were still doing that last year since commentators would mention it every now and then but you can't see if you aren't at the ground. It's a great plan against sub par teams but really good ones work their way through it and intercept mark you to death in the back half.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

You could split it like forced and unforced error in tennis. Forced turnover - pressure, forced turnover - intercpet, unforced turnover.

I'd also be interested to see it broken down by area on the ground:
D50; D-Mid; F-Mid; F50; L-Wing; R-Wing

Every time you fumble the ball, you give the oppo the chance to win it back. Some fumbles are from good or great pressure, others just skill errors. They should somehow be differentiated.

Russell Ebert used to talk about taking the ball cleanly and not fumbling, meant you had more time to dispose of the ball correctly because your opponent had less time to pressure you. Being a wonderfully skilled clean player by hands, and having those huge hands he had, where he could pick up the ball one handed, so it was easy to scoop it up with 2 hands, and practising hard, is why he was the champion he was.

Watching the finals this year, in particular the 4 finals in week 1, the Melbourne v Brisbane semi, but the standout was Sydney v Collingwood PF, the clean hands under pressure was outstanding to watch, especially the midfielders. Our players aren't as clean as what I saw in those / that game.

The other thing about scores from turnovers is they don't tell you if it was because of a dumb * up or brilliant play. Take 3 examples of kicking the ball inside 50m and is turned over and slingshot down the other end and a score achieved.

1. The dumb bomb it to a 1 v 2 or 1 v 3, simple intercept mark and off we go, or
2. A beautiful low pass to a leading forward and an oppo defender stretches and reaches and does a great spoil, or
3. A beautiful low pass to a leading forward who is 2m out in front of his defender but panics, or is just hopeless ,and drops a mark, fumbles with it when it hits the ground and the oppo whisk it away.

All considered a turnover score if it ends up at the other end, but all produced by different actions which get counted as the same under the current data recording system. which means the raw number is a bit useless.

 

[Sleezy]

Every time you fumble the ball, you give the oppo the chance to win it back. Some fumbles are from good or great pressure, others just skill errors. They should somehow be differentiated.

Russell Ebert used to talk about taking the ball cleanly and not fumbling, meant you had more time to dispose of the ball correctly because your opponent had less time to pressure you. Being a wonderfully skilled clean player by hands, and having those huge hands he had, where he could pick up the ball one handed, so it was easy to scoop it up with 2 hands, and practising hard, is why he was the champion he was.

Watching the finals this year, in particular the 4 finals in week 1, the Melbourne v Brisbane semi, but the standout was Sydney v Collingwood PF, the clean hands under pressure was outstanding to watch, especially the midfielders. Our players aren't as clean as what I saw in those / that game.

The other thing about scores from turnovers is they don't tell you if it was because of a dumb * up or brilliant play. Take 3 examples of kicking the ball inside 50m and is turned over and slingshot down the other end and a score achieved.

1. The dumb bomb it to a 1 v 2 or 1 v 3, simple intercept mark and off we go, or
2. A beautiful low pass to a leading forward and an oppo defender stretches and reaches and does a great spoil, or
3. A beautiful low pass to a leading forward who is 2m out in front of his defender but panics, or is just hopeless ,and drops a mark, fumbles with it when it hits the ground and the oppo whisk it away.

All considered a turnover score if it ends up at the other end, but all produced by different actions which get counted as the same under the current data recording system. which means the raw number is a bit useless.

I would call 1 an unforced turnover if the kicker was free, or a forced turnover - pressure if the kicker was bombing out of a pack.

2 is a forced turnover - intercept.

3 is also an unforced turnover, but caused by the the forward, not the kicker.

 

[GremioPower]

An average of an average doesn't mathematically work. A mathematician explained it to me once but I got lost half way through.

That's what they say and without any reason to doubt them I'll go along with it.

It’s actually an aggregate. I’ve just made it an average for the looks.

 

[Lawnchair Larry]

Looked at [weight/height] data for both Port and last season's premiers,Geelong.
That data is useless unless it is correlated against height, as per the plots below.
Also useless if the data is out of date.
Ive looked at the club sites, draftguru and wikipedia for this data - placing most reliance on the club data.
It's also useless unless you define what the ideal frame of an AFL player looks like to see how far off players are from ideal.
I have taken the ideal player frame as Weight (kg) = Height (cm)-100
That fits pretty reasonably, and survives the "look test" for any player - if he is underweight a player pretty much looks it, as gleaned from the plots below.
Travis Boak

10

Travis Boak

Age

35

Ht

183cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.7

5star

K

11.6

4star

HB

12.0

5star

M

3.7

4star

T

4.4

5star

CL

4.6

5star

D

22.0

5star

K

11.0

4star

HB

11.0

5star

M

2.4

3star

T

4.4

5star

CL

4.9

5star

D

16.4

4star

K

7.4

3star

HB

9.0

5star

M

5.4

5star

T

2.4

4star

fits that frame pretty much ideally, so scaling him up or down in height is what it attempts to do
Using this, an ideal [weight/height] vs height curve can be created (red curve below), and I've set some limits of acceptability as being 95% - 105% of the ideal (blue curves on the plot).
Clearly a player who has been in the system longer has an advantage in achieving something like an ideal AFL frame -as the current data for Geelong shows.
I remember the 2007 GF!
This does not have much to do with a player's ability to play AFL, although if helps to have close to an ideal frame. It probably relates more to the ability of a player to resist injury, and possibly recover from injury. It matters if players with poorer physical development come up against a team like Geelong.

For each squad I've divided the [weight/height] data into the lowest 25%, the highest 25% and the middle 50% - before plotting these data against player height. It's more to tease out the data and prevent it looking like a dog's dinner, but in Port's case it in fact isolates in the lower 25% our relative newbies, who in fact need to do more work. There are 2 exceptions to this observation who deserve criticism - Fantasia and Darcy Byrne Jones. Given his time in the system, DBJ should be better than what he is. Fantasia....well, Fantasia is Fantasia. He's there for skill when he plays.
Jase Burgoyne, as predicted is a long way from ideal. An opposition coach might suggest that a couple of solid knocks will blunt his obvious talent. Fairly of course.
The problem is that if we were to play Geelong in a final tomorrow, every one of of our lowest 25% (bar Jackson and Sinn) would be in serious contention.

As far as Geelong are concerned I look to those players who played in the 2022 final (they are the filled data points on the plots below). There is only one player - Close - who falls outside of what I regard as acceptable.

I took some interest in DeKoning. Lets assume the Wikipedia and Draftguru data is not up to date and that the GFC stats (that I used) on his height and weight are correct and up to date.
Draftguru : 86kg/201cm (possibly close to his draft dimensions?)
Wikipedia : 87kg/204cm (close to his draft year?)
GFC : 101kg/204cm (2022 data from website)
Can this be possible? He's been around for what ....2 years and gained 14 - 15kg?
Do Port have anyone like that??

In the top 25% of data Port have some impressive specimens. Wines....magnificent, SPP.....magnificent, Jones...excellent for a newbie,
and of course Dixon. We match up reasonably with Geelong there.



and of

 

[Sleezy]

Looked at [weight/height] data for both Port and last season's premiers,Geelong.
That data is useless unless it is correlated against height, as per the plots below.
Also useless if the data is out of date.
Ive looked at the club sites, draftguru and wikipedia for this data - placing most reliance on the club data.
It's also useless unless you define what the ideal frame of an AFL player looks like to see how far off players are from ideal.
I have taken the ideal player frame as Weight (kg) = Height (cm)-100
That fits pretty reasonably, and survives the "look test" for any player - if he is underweight a player pretty much looks it, as gleaned from the plots below.
Travis Boak fits that frame pretty much ideally, so scaling him up or down in height is what it attempts to do
Using this, an ideal [weight/height] vs height curve can be created (red curve below), and I've set some limits of acceptability as being 95% - 105% of the ideal (blue curves on the plot).
Clearly a player who has been in the system longer has an advantage in achieving something like an ideal AFL frame -as the current data for Geelong shows.
I remember the 2007 GF!
This does not have much to do with a player's ability to play AFL, although if helps to have close to an ideal frame. It probably relates more to the ability of a player to resist injury, and possibly recover from injury. It matters if players with poorer physical development come up against a team like Geelong.

For each squad I've divided the [weight/height] data into the lowest 25%, the highest 25% and the middle 50% - before plotting these data against player height. It's more to tease out the data and prevent it looking like a dog's dinner, but in Port's case it in fact isolates in the lower 25% our relative newbies, who in fact need to do more work. There are 2 exceptions to this observation who deserve criticism - Fantasia and Darcy Byrne Jones. Given his time in the system, DBJ should be better than what he is. Fantasia....well, Fantasia is Fantasia. He's there for skill when he plays.
Jase Burgoyne, as predicted is a long way from ideal. An opposition coach might suggest that a couple of solid knocks will blunt his obvious talent. Fairly of course.
The problem is that if we were to play Geelong in a final tomorrow, every one of of our lowest 25% (bar Jackson and Sinn) would be in serious contention.

As far as Geelong are concerned I look to those players who played in the 2022 final (they are the filled data points on the plots below). There is only one player - Close - who falls outside of what I regard as acceptable.

I took some interest in DeKoning. Lets assume the Wikipedia and Draftguru data is not up to date and that the GFC stats (that I used) on his height and weight are correct and up to date.
Draftguru : 86kg/201cm (possibly close to his draft dimensions?)
Wikipedia : 87kg/204cm (close to his draft year?)
GFC : 101kg/204cm (2022 data from website)
Can this be possible? He's been around for what ....2 years and gained 14 - 15kg?
Do Port have anyone like that??

In the top 25% of data Port have some impressive specimens. Wines....magnificent, SPP.....magnificent, Jones...excellent for a newbie,
and of course Dixon. We match up reasonably with Geelong there.
View attachment 1550679


View attachment 1550682 and of

That's great, but I can't get over Burgoyne