Autopsy Dogs 60 defeated by Swans 79 - Rd 17

[ScottyDogg]

Our two lowest rated defenders on the day were the ones in the votes. Sometimes ratings and impact are totally out of whack.

 

[Fossie 32]

So Hannan was our 3rd highest rated player and Lewis Young our 4th highest rated player. Who picked that!

By contrast, I certainly picked that Weightman would be near zero, and Bruce would be in negative ratings territory.


It seems every week Bont has more strapping, and is looking less fluent in his loping around. I wonder if he's carrying a quiet injury. EDIT: I see after the post I replied to a few other people speculated about Bont being injured. Sorry for the repetition.

Not sure how they worked out that Hannan was our 3rd best - the Hun had him as 13th which was harsh on Keath and Hunter below him. Lewy was 12th

 

[BEaston]

View attachment 1176924
View attachment 1176925
Our two lowest rated defenders on the day were the ones in the votes. Sometimes ratings and impact are totally out of whack.

Player ratings model does not have a good grasp on the game impact of non-rebounding defenders.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

View attachment 1176924
View attachment 1176925
Our two lowest rated defenders on the day were the ones in the votes. Sometimes ratings and impact are totally out of whack.

Obviously, it's not going to measure the value of defenders impacting the opposition's stats.

Franklin had one of his less impactful games all season matched up against Keath.

 

[Golden_6]

View attachment 1176924
View attachment 1176925
Our two lowest rated defenders on the day were the ones in the votes. Sometimes ratings and impact are totally out of whack.

Does anyone have any insight on why Hannan is rated so high? Statistically he had a poor game. 8 touches, 5 tackles, 3 score involvements. I would love to know how he is so high.

 

[maddog37]

So I’m assuming that the umpires did a good job because the swans won?

 

[dogwatch]

Does anyone have any insight on why Hannan is rated so high? Statistically he had a poor game. 8 touches, 5 tackles, 3 score involvements. I would love to know how he is so high.

In his extensive photo album Hannan has some pictures of the CD boffins.

 

[doggy_dog]

Does anyone have any insight on why Hannan is rated so high? Statistically he had a poor game. 8 touches, 5 tackles, 3 score involvements. I would love to know how he is so high.

I’m a SuperCoach/Champion Data guy but these rankings are always questionable. I remember last year Jake Riccardi kicked 4 in his first or second game and they had him ranked near the bottom

 

[BEaston]

Does anyone have any insight on why Hannan is rated so high? Statistically he had a poor game. 8 touches, 5 tackles, 3 score involvements. I would love to know how he is so high.

It does seem odd doesn't it. I looked at his output in this game compared to previous and there's nothing really that's jumping out at me about this game.

His previous best rated game this year was vs the Saints where he had 7 more disposals, kicked a goal, 5 more score involvements and about 100m extra meters gained. The only noticeable deficiency is in disposal efficiency.

Measure	v Swans	v Saints
Ranking Points	12	10.9
Disposals	8	15
De%	75%	66%
Metres Gained	253	351
Marks	2	4
Goals	0	1
Score Involvement	3	8
Tackles	5	4

Strange.

 

[BEaston]

There must be something about the game the model liked though, it's not like it picks and chooses. Just not easily identifiable.

There has been analysis done by someone at the Stats board that correlated in game statistics to ranking points for each position



These stats are the ones most highly correlated to the ranking points for medium forwards. He was worse in all 5 of those categories comparing Swans/Saints games.

 

[Mattdougie]

Does anyone have any insight on why Hannan is rated so high? Statistically he had a poor game. 8 touches, 5 tackles, 3 score involvements. I would love to know how he is so high.

Because champion data is utter bullsh!t

 

[BEaston]

Does anyone have any insight on why Hannan is rated so high? Statistically he had a poor game. 8 touches, 5 tackles, 3 score involvements. I would love to know how he is so high.

Some further info...



So it's likely to do with the effect of his possessions increasing the likelihood of scoring relative to others.

Also his Player Ratings points of 12 for this game is actually pretty low.... he's ranked 9th in this game as it was a generally low rated game all round. Usually 12 rating points has you around 13th best in the game and sometimes as low as 20th.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Some further info...

View attachment 1177503

So it's likely to do with the effect of his possessions increasing the likelihood of scoring relative to others.

Also his Player Ratings points of 12 for this game is actually pretty low.... he's ranked 9th in this game as it was a generally low rated game all round. Usually 12 rating points has you around 13th best in the game and sometimes as low as 20th.

The player ratings points can only really look at position on the ground, pressure and the nature of the ground.

Not many players actually execute 5 kicks a game to the topish of the goal square.

We can all see with our eyes that the kicks weren't as valuable as the "average" top of the square kick, those stats can't.

Fair enough. The stats also can't analyse the indirect responsibility he had regarding Swans' dominant wing and half-back players, including Dawson's BOG ground and the fact that his direct wing opponent in Florent took those two sideways kick marks I50 early in the game.

 

[bobs head soup]

As disappointing as Sunday was, I reckon the silver lining was the continued sound performance of our defensive group.

Given our horrid ball movement and regular turnovers, keeping Sydney to 11 goals was a great result.

In our 4 losses this year, we have been well exposed through the midfield, yet kept our opponents to 11, 12, 13 and 11 goals respectively. They are totals that kept us as a winning chance against the odds.

On the weekend if we had've kicked 12.8 rather than 8.12 we would've been wholly undeserved winners.

When you consider that the bulk of Sydney goals were kicked by mids, our defenders really couldn't have done much more.

I bleat on about Keath but what a player, aside from beating the oppositions best kpf, as he always does, he is constantly organising and managing

With Williams, Duryea, Cordy and Dale (all with some poor disposal on the weekend admittedly) forming a solid support unit, Richards fitting in, Daniel and Young slotting in as required, and Crozier, Wood and Gardner as viable replacement options, I feel like our defensive unit is looking a lot more solid coming into finals than most give it credit for.

 

[stefoid]

We really need to settle down the back 6 coming up to finals

 

[Munnez]

Swans will win their first semi, maybe the next week too.

Bookmark it.

When intensity goes up in finals with the Swans inability to win it at the source it will bring them undone.
We didn't have anyone who could take a mark forward of centre makes a huge difference. Naughts in IMO would have changed the whole complexion of the game

 

[Boristown]

When intensity goes up in finals with the Swans inability to win it at the source it will bring them undone.
We didn't have anyone who could take a mark forward of centre makes a huge difference. Naughts in IMO would have changed the whole complexion of the game

Naughton plays and the Bulldogs win, simple as that.

 

[Virgin Dog]

Naughton plays and the Bulldogs win, simple as that.

Sydney were close to full strength, while we're missing half our spine and two A-grade midfielders, along with Wood and Vandermeer. Melbourne are yet to truly put away a good side despite having a near full best 22. Any of Brisbane, Dogs or Geelong get their full 22 together for finals and the likes of Sydney and Melbourne won't make the grand final imo. Plus it's pretty clearly established by now that Port are a complete non-factor when facing good sides

 

[Boristown]

Sydney were close to full strength, while we're missing half our spine and two A-grade midfielders, along with Wood and Vandermeer. Melbourne are yet to truly put away a good side despite having a near full best 22. Any of Brisbane, Dogs or Geelong get their full 22 together for finals and the likes of Sydney and Melbourne won't make the grand final imo. Plus it's pretty clearly established by now that Port are a complete non-factor when facing good sides

I reckon the competition has forgotten how good Dunkley was before injury, he was the Dogs 2nd best player behind Bont up until then.

If he can recapture that form, that midfield should steamroll sides again.

 

[Dogsman16]

Naughton plays and the Bulldogs win, simple as that.

Not only does he add his usual 2-3 goal per game average, he makes Bruce a far more dangerous option.

At worst he adds about 5 goals to the makeup of this team. To me he's the most vital player on our list.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I reckon the competition has forgotten how good Dunkley was before injury, he was the Dogs 2nd best player behind Bont up until then.

If he can recapture that form, that midfield should steamroll sides again.

We might be counting too much on him getting back to form quickly

 

[bobs head soup]

We might be counting too much on him getting back to form quickly

He'll be right. Shoulder so would have kept up a running programme and is super diligent. Is a bore in type rather than a touch player so let him rip in.

 

[Virgin Dog]

Interesting to note that Sydney is still often being labelled using terms like "young", "inexperienced", "rebuilding", etc. Looking at the age/experience of the sides fielded, noting we were missing Dunkley and Naughton who would are both younger and less experienced than our average below:



Even if you account for the fact Kennedy and Buddy bring their averages up, taking them out while also taking out Libba and Bruce from our end, and you end up with two teams of the same age, but Sydney's average games closer to 88, while ours ends up around 83.5. Our profile is still younger and less experienced, AND we were missing close to a third of our best 22 while theirs was close to full fitness. I can't understand how you could label Sydney a rebuilding side - all they've done is a minor reset like we did, bringing in some young players but not going the full rebuild route that teams like North, Hawks and Freo did/are doing.

 

[josh the gent]

Our rucks are a problem