AFL Sabermetrics

[jefffff34]

Really the only thing that could be advantageous to what is currently looked at now is disposal under varying forms of pressure; i.e. Low, Medium, High, Severe. With the forward press becoming a dominant tactic, disposal under pressure and by extension decision making under pressure will, imo, replace disposal efficiency as the primary method of evaluating a player's usage of the ball.

Done correctly, this would also take into account the pressure on the various options a player had (i.e. loose teammate, 50/50's, etc) so as not to unreasonably disadvantage players with less options than one with more.

The main difficulty with measuring this is the difference pace and style of under age and state level football compared to AFL level.

I did that for the Hawthorn vs Sydney semi final on Michael Osborne (missed the first quarter, and he hadn't kicked the ball, so went for him)...

The data collected for him means very little when it isn't compared to any other player but anyway it went like this...

Kick 1 - Quarter 2 - Time 11:20rem - Foot Right - Play Play on from mark - Length Short - Direction Forwards - Risk Low - Pressure Low - Target Spot up Hale - Result Hale uncontested mark.

Points 6


Kick 2 - Quarter 2 - Time 0:20rem - Foot Left - Play General play off ground - Length Short - Direction Forwards - Risk High - Pressure High - Target Goals - Result Out on full

Points -2


Kick 3 - Quarter 3 - Time 4:40rem - Foot Right - Play General play off ground - Length Short - Direction Backwards - Risk High - Pressure High - Target Dribble ball to Whitecross - Result Geelong pick up contested ball - Turnover

Points -5


Kick 4 - Quarter 3 - Time 3:10rem - Foot Right - Play General play - Length Long - Direction Forwards - Risk High - Pressure High - Target Teammate down line - Result Smothered - Turnover

Points -2


Kick 5 - Quarter 3 - Time 2:30rem - Foot Left - Play General play off ground - Length Short - Direction Forwards - Risk Low - Pressure Low - Target Boundary line - Result Boundary line - Throw in

Points 4


Kick 6 - Quarter 3 - Time 1:20rem - Foot Right - Play Stationary from mark - Length Short - Direction Forwards - Risk None - Pressure None - Target Spot up Birchall - Result Birchall uncontested mark

Points 3


Kick 7 - Quarter 4 - Time 3:00rem - Foot Left - Play General play - Length Short - Direction Backwards (Inside forward 50) - Risk Low - Pressure Low - Target Spot up Smith - Result Smith uncontested mark

Points 7


Total points - 11
Average points per kick - 1.57



Obviously there is a big focus on kicking well, good kicks that go forwards, that are on the opposite foot (left for Osborne) and are high risk that hit the target will get maximum points.

My points system over time, will hopefully show up people that rack up stats and get heaps of cheapies that go from the half back flank to the back pocket with no one within 30 metres of the ball. Not many points will go to those kicks, and if they miss the target (OOB for example) they would be heavily punished.

Regardless, it is stacks of work to do, even for one match.

 

[Slattery_20]

I don't know why anyone would care about opposite foot, really. If a guy can hit targets in all directions off one foot there's no reason to be penalised for not having both.
In fact I think that's the kind of thing that the cold hard science of sabermetrics was designed to cut through.

 

[baja]

I don't know why anyone would care about opposite foot, really. If a guy can hit targets in all directions off one foot there's no reason to be penalised for not having both.
In fact I think that's the kind of thing that the cold hard science of sabermetrics was designed to cut through.

youre kidding arent ya?

kicking well on both feet is a huge asset, one footed players are easier to read you always know what way they will turn or what side to play them etc., unfortunately kids coaches dont teach it enough instead they focus more on the percentage kicks, kids are under too much pressure these days.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

youre kidding arent ya?

kicking well on both feet is a huge asset, one footed players are easier to read you always know what way they will turn or what side to play them etc., unfortunately kids coaches dont teach it enough instead they focus more on the percentage kicks, kids are under too much pressure these days.

Kicking on both feet is a completely over-rated asset.

There'd be more times a player stuffs up a kick with his non-preferred that he had time to straighten up on and kick normally - then there would a player getting out of gaol with an opposition player bearing down on them using their non-preferred to a quality level.

 

[baja]

Kicking on both feet is a completely over-rated asset.

There'd be more times a player stuffs up a kick with his non-preferred that he had time to straighten up on and kick normally - then there would a player getting out of gaol with an opposition player bearing down on them using their non-preferred to a quality level.

I said kick 'well' on both feet. It starts young and less and less these days do it, its not an overated asset at all. No 'asset' is bad actually.

 

[Slattery_20]

youre kidding arent ya?

kicking well on both feet is a huge asset, one footed players are easier to read you always know what way they will turn or what side to play them etc., unfortunately kids coaches dont teach it enough instead they focus more on the percentage kicks, kids are under too much pressure these days.

Well that's the entire point of sabermetrics, find out through statistics whether a particular stat/attribute is worth prioritising or not. I think it'd be interesting to find out if there was any statistics backing your opinion (or mine).

To me, it's not going to make a difference if one kid can make (say) 8/10 kicks on both feet compared to another who can make 9/10 on only one, if that includes all sorts of distances, targets etc.

ie, they can run around and still be able to make that kick.

Anecdotally there seems a lot less two-sided players than there used to be, so I wonder if it's actually been pushed down the priorities list or what.

 

[malpaso]

Instead of looking for heaps of other stats and comparing to the 'Moneyball' system start looking for the ONE stat in footy that is the most important. In baseball that was: On Base Percentage. It didn't matter how it was done, just that it was done.

What would be the equivalent in footy? Being part of the chain that led to a goal? Or would it simply be possessions? The more players you have that can get the ball, the more chance you have to impact the scoreboard? I don't know...

 

[joeyavalanche]

Instead of looking for heaps of other stats and comparing to the 'Moneyball' system start looking for the ONE stat in footy that is the most important. In baseball that was: On Base Percentage. It didn't matter how it was done, just that it was done.

What would be the equivalent in footy? Being part of the chain that led to a goal? Or would it simply be possessions? The more players you have that can get the ball, the more chance you have to impact the scoreboard? I don't know...

sounds like a scene from freo team meetings 1995 - 2011

 

[Slattery_20]

Instead of looking for heaps of other stats and comparing to the 'Moneyball' system start looking for the ONE stat in footy that is the most important. In baseball that was: On Base Percentage. It didn't matter how it was done, just that it was done.

What would be the equivalent in footy? Being part of the chain that led to a goal? Or would it simply be possessions? The more players you have that can get the ball, the more chance you have to impact the scoreboard? I don't know...

I know Champion data have some sort of stat like 'effective disposal' which takes into account how far they take & kick it, how difficult the kick, how accurately they kick, and ground position.
I would suspect that that would be "the" stat.

Some guys who were flat-out average technical kicks (Dempsey got into the ~2010 list IIRC) did really well in it, because they take play on and break a line more often than not and put the ball to advantage rather than pin-pointing.
EDIT: I look at a bloke like him as a better kick than a guy like Houli (they played roughly similar positions @ Essendon), Houli was & is much better technically, but does less with it - to me that says the 'technically' bit is less relevant than other factors.

Altho it obviously favours the guys who can run into space, the blokes who work in close congestion don't rate at all, 4 or 5 of those really damaging touches can have a huge effect on the match.

 

[Lawrst]

Kicking on both feet is a completely over-rated asset.

Depends really...

For a small foward/goal sneak its a huge asset.

For someone playing in the middle I would rather them they have more time than anyone else (aka Pendlebury) than be good on both feet.

 

[IanW]

Depends really...

For a small foward/goal sneak its a huge asset.

For someone playing in the middle I would rather them they have more time than anyone else (aka Pendlebury) than be good on both feet.

If I was assessing a small forward, I wouldnt care about how they kick or create goals, whether if it's off one foot or both - I'd just care about how many.

 

[Astro Bomber]

I'd like to see stats on how many times a player is second to the ball.

 

[Alfonz]

Something like "% of scoring plays that player X was involved in". Be it by possession, tackle, 1% or hitout. Compare it with all other players on the ground and normalise/scale it to take into account a side's average possessions per goal. Could also do the reverse "% of scoring plays that player X's opponent was involved in". Combine the two to get the net result. I guess the grey area is how do you define where a "scoring play" begins.

 

[old55]

For a small foward/goal sneak its a huge asset.

Hard to agree - these days they almost always kick at goal with the outside of their preferred foot rather than kick on their non-preferred foot.

 

[malpaso]

I guess the grey area is how do you define where a "scoring play" begins.

I would say a scoring play is tracked from the first possession until the score if those possession(s) remain unbroken by the opposition.

 

[doppleganger]

Really the only thing that could be advantageous to what is currently looked at now is disposal under varying forms of pressure; i.e. Low, Medium, High, Severe. With the forward press becoming a dominant tactic, disposal under pressure and by extension decision making under pressure will, imo, replace disposal efficiency as the primary method of evaluating a player's usage of the ball.

Done correctly, this would also take into account the pressure on the various options a player had (i.e. loose teammate, 50/50's, etc) so as not to unreasonably disadvantage players with less options than one with more.

The main difficulty with measuring this is the difference pace and style of under age and state level football compared to AFL level.

TedSports pressure rankings is developing these measures, and does them for TAC Cup games also.

It looks to measure pressure of obtaining possession, and then the quality of disposal in that how much pressure it puts on the opposition.

 

[doppleganger]

I know Champion data have some sort of stat like 'effective disposal' which takes into account how far they take & kick it, how difficult the kick, how accurately they kick, and ground position.
I would suspect that that would be "the" stat.

This is incorrect.

Champion Data's effective disposal ignores, difficulty, ground position, pressure etc

According to champions effective kick rating, Richmond and Melbourne had were more effective kicks compared to Collingwood in 2011.

A laughable stat.

 

[Great 2008]

I would like to see umpire influence on the score board. i.e. decision made which directly result in a score. Yes I am being stupid.

 

[Slattery_20]

This is incorrect.

Champion Data's effective disposal ignores, difficulty, ground position, pressure etc

According to champions effective kick rating, Richmond and Melbourne had were more effective kicks compared to Collingwood in 2011.

A laughable stat.

Not disposal efficiency, a different one.
I obviously can't remember the right name for it (might have just been 'best kicks' or something like that) - but the stat does exist.
They publish top 10s in the AFL prospectus, don't have it on hand.

 

[Astro Bomber]

I would like to see umpire influence on the score board. i.e. decision made which directly result in a score. Yes I am being stupid.

Nope. You're making perfect sense. I'd also like to see this broken down by umpire and team.

 

[doppleganger]

Not disposal efficiency, a different one.
I obviously can't remember the right name for it (might have just been 'best kicks' or something like that) - but the stat does exist.
They publish top 10s in the AFL prospectus, don't have it on hand.

Ah, CD tried a new stat in 2011...the 'Hit-Rate' I think was the term they gave.

That is what you are looking for.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...op-100-kick-list/story-e6frf9jf-1226060435985

This is a better attempt, and blows DE out of the water.

From the list there were a few guys with DE above 80%, Gilham, Bock, D.Fletcher...but it takes into account that the majority of their kicks are safe chips around the backline which they should be completing.

This is a good example of 'advanced sabermetrics' which could be employed by AFL clubs.

There is plenty of scope to find a competitive advantage, as detailed statistical analysis of AFL is still in its infancy.

 

[divvydan]

TedSports pressure rankings is developing these measures, and does them for TAC Cup games also.

It looks to measure pressure of obtaining possession, and then the quality of disposal in that how much pressure it puts on the opposition.

That's good to hear. Given the stats for the TAC Cup and the draft coming this week, would be interesting to find out if there are players who have excelled with these stats and see both if they're drafted higher than general consensus and how good a career they have relatively speaking.

Do you know if that information is available to the public?

 

[doppleganger]

That's good to hear. Given the stats for the TAC Cup and the draft coming this week, would be interesting to find out if there are players who have excelled with these stats and see both if they're drafted higher than general consensus and how good a career they have relatively speaking.

Do you know if that information is available to the public?

http://www.tedsport.com.au/uploads/articles/Top20U18ChampionshipPlayers.pdf

This is all that they are publishing at the moment it seems.

 

[Slattery_20]

Ah, CD tried a new stat in 2011...the 'Hit-Rate' I think was the term they gave.

That is what you are looking for.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...op-100-kick-list/story-e6frf9jf-1226060435985

Thanks, that's what I'm referring to but I know I've seen Lovett top 10, so it's been around at least 3 years

 

[joe444]

Effective clearances v clearances

Interesting. A year ago on another board I went through all of 2010's games and proved a very clear fact for that season:

Teams which won the hitouts and clearances lost most of the time. Moneyball and its ilk is an interesting illustration of how people respond to facts like these - either they embrace the possibility and ask why, or they seek to deny it or explain it away.

For mine, the theory was that goals were easier to generate from counter-attack from a turnover than from scrambling a win from a stoppage.

There is certainly room for looking at any consistent pattern which seems to lead to success - both as a league-wide trend and within teams.

When John Barnes was our ruckman at GFC, we rarely won a game he won the hitouts in, but rarely lost a game he outmarked his opponent in.