Holy those are some horrendous stats.
Fair bit of midfield emphasis.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Opinion "Help me out where I need faith!" - The Statistical Data Thread
- Thread starter Janus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Fair bit of midfield emphasis.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
The Hurling People Now folks reckon Port have made liars of them. They realised that raw stats are meaningless, you need to dig, just like PortWTF did with his different ladders for top 8/bottom 10 then when I asked him to do top 4/middle class/cellar dwellers and posted them on the previous page.
Port Adelaide have made liars of us
After round 21 there is little movement in relative rankings, but Sydney and GWS rise into our informally-defined historical “premiership” frame.
However, it’s the increasingly anomalous Port Adelaide, theoretically a contender, which we want to focus on here. The popular opinion of Port Adelaide being unable to match it with other good sides is well and truly borne out when we dig into their performance on our strength ratings by opponent. We have in the past broken up statistics by top 8 and bottom 10......... Simply put, Port Adelaide are the best side in the competition against weak opponents and they’re about as good as North Melbourne against the good teams. Below is a chart where we have calculated strength ratings through the same method as we always do using whole-of-season data, but separate ratings are derived for matches against the top half and bottom half of the competition as determined by our ratings above.
Most clubs, predictably, have done better against the bad sides than the good ones. Port Adelaide, however, take this to extremes. They rate as 120% of league average in their performance against the bottom nine sides. Not even Adelaide or Sydney look that good, over the year, in beating up on the weaker teams.
That’s why we’ve been rating Port so highly this year – their performance, even allowing for the scaling we apply for opponent sets, has been abnormally, bizarrely good to the extent that it’s actually outweighed and masked their weaknesses against quality teams. Their sub-97% rating against top sides is 13th in the league, ahead of only North, Carlton, Fremantle and the Queensland sides. This divergence is more than double the size of the variance for any other team. It appears that the problem mostly strikes the Power in between the arcs. Against bottom sides, their midfield strength is streets ahead of any other side at 141% of the league average, meaning they get nearly three inside-50s for every two conceded. This opportunity imbalance makes their decent defence look better and papers over a struggling forward line. Against quality sides, that falls apart and they get less inside-50s than their opponents.
..........................
But it really is Port Adelaide who stand out here. Their output against weaker sides is really good and shouldn’t be written off. There’s obviously quality there, and they sit in striking distance of the top 4 with a healthy percentage. However, it wouldn’t be a stretch to call their overall strength rating fraudulent given its composition and we will be regarding them with a bit of an asterisk from here. Unless they can bridge the gap and produce something against their finals peers, even a top 4 berth is likely to end in ashes.
Port Adelaide have made liars of us
Port Adelaide have made liars of us
After round 21 there is little movement in relative rankings, but Sydney and GWS rise into our informally-defined historical “premiership” frame.
However, it’s the increasingly anomalous Port Adelaide, theoretically a contender, which we want to focus on here. The popular opinion of Port Adelaide being unable to match it with other good sides is well and truly borne out when we dig into their performance on our strength ratings by opponent. We have in the past broken up statistics by top 8 and bottom 10......... Simply put, Port Adelaide are the best side in the competition against weak opponents and they’re about as good as North Melbourne against the good teams. Below is a chart where we have calculated strength ratings through the same method as we always do using whole-of-season data, but separate ratings are derived for matches against the top half and bottom half of the competition as determined by our ratings above.
Most clubs, predictably, have done better against the bad sides than the good ones. Port Adelaide, however, take this to extremes. They rate as 120% of league average in their performance against the bottom nine sides. Not even Adelaide or Sydney look that good, over the year, in beating up on the weaker teams.
That’s why we’ve been rating Port so highly this year – their performance, even allowing for the scaling we apply for opponent sets, has been abnormally, bizarrely good to the extent that it’s actually outweighed and masked their weaknesses against quality teams. Their sub-97% rating against top sides is 13th in the league, ahead of only North, Carlton, Fremantle and the Queensland sides. This divergence is more than double the size of the variance for any other team. It appears that the problem mostly strikes the Power in between the arcs. Against bottom sides, their midfield strength is streets ahead of any other side at 141% of the league average, meaning they get nearly three inside-50s for every two conceded. This opportunity imbalance makes their decent defence look better and papers over a struggling forward line. Against quality sides, that falls apart and they get less inside-50s than their opponents.
..........................
But it really is Port Adelaide who stand out here. Their output against weaker sides is really good and shouldn’t be written off. There’s obviously quality there, and they sit in striking distance of the top 4 with a healthy percentage. However, it wouldn’t be a stretch to call their overall strength rating fraudulent given its composition and we will be regarding them with a bit of an asterisk from here. Unless they can bridge the gap and produce something against their finals peers, even a top 4 berth is likely to end in ashes.
Port Adelaide have made liars of us
Last edited:
- Jun 12, 2012
- 21,636
- 69,184
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
The Hurling People Now folks reckon Port have made liars of them. They realised that raw stats are meaningless, you need to dig, just like PortWTF did with his different ladders for top 8/bottom 10 then when I asked him to do top 4/middle class/cellar dwellers and produced posted them on the previous page.
Port Adelaide have made liars of us
After round 21 there is little movement in relative rankings, but Sydney and GWS rise into our informally-defined historical “premiership” frame.
However, it’s the increasingly anomalous Port Adelaide, theoretically a contender, which we want to focus on here. The popular opinion of Port Adelaide being unable to match it with other good sides is well and truly borne out when we dig into their performance on our strength ratings by opponent. We have in the past broken up statistics by top 8 and bottom 10......... Simply put, Port Adelaide are the best side in the competition against weak opponents and they’re about as good as North Melbourne against the good teams. Below is a chart where we have calculated strength ratings through the same method as we always do using whole-of-season data, but separate ratings are derived for matches against the top half and bottom half of the competition as determined by our ratings above.
Most clubs, predictably, have done better against the bad sides than the good ones. Port Adelaide, however, take this to extremes. They rate as 120% of league average in their performance against the bottom nine sides. Not even Adelaide or Sydney look that good, over the year, in beating up on the weaker teams.
That’s why we’ve been rating Port so highly this year – their performance, even allowing for the scaling we apply for opponent sets, has been abnormally, bizarrely good to the extent that it’s actually outweighed and masked their weaknesses against quality teams. Their sub-97% rating against top sides is 13th in the league, ahead of only North, Carlton, Fremantle and the Queensland sides. This divergence is more than double the size of the variance for any other team. It appears that the problem mostly strikes the Power in between the arcs. Against bottom sides, their midfield strength is streets ahead of any other side at 141% of the league average, meaning they get nearly three inside-50s for every two conceded. This opportunity imbalance makes their decent defence look better and papers over a struggling forward line. Against quality sides, that falls apart and they get less inside-50s than their opponents.
..........................
But it really is Port Adelaide who stand out here. Their output against weaker sides is really good and shouldn’t be written off. There’s obviously quality there, and they sit in striking distance of the top 4 with a healthy percentage. However, it wouldn’t be a stretch to call their overall strength rating fraudulent given its composition and we will be regarding them with a bit of an asterisk from here. Unless they can bridge the gap and produce something against their finals peers, even a top 4 berth is likely to end in ashes.
Port Adelaide have made liars of us
tl;dr - We Are Pretty Anomalous
- Nov 6, 2014
- 70,291
- 89,052
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
I
I guess we really knew this, no matter how much our coaches tried to claim different.The Hurling People Now folks reckon Port have made liars of them. They realised that raw stats are meaningless, you need to dig, just like PortWTF did with his different ladders for top 8/bottom 10 then when I asked him to do top 4/middle class/cellar dwellers and produced posted them on the previous page.
Port Adelaide have made liars of us
After round 21 there is little movement in relative rankings, but Sydney and GWS rise into our informally-defined historical “premiership” frame.
However, it’s the increasingly anomalous Port Adelaide, theoretically a contender, which we want to focus on here. The popular opinion of Port Adelaide being unable to match it with other good sides is well and truly borne out when we dig into their performance on our strength ratings by opponent. We have in the past broken up statistics by top 8 and bottom 10......... Simply put, Port Adelaide are the best side in the competition against weak opponents and they’re about as good as North Melbourne against the good teams. Below is a chart where we have calculated strength ratings through the same method as we always do using whole-of-season data, but separate ratings are derived for matches against the top half and bottom half of the competition as determined by our ratings above.
Most clubs, predictably, have done better against the bad sides than the good ones. Port Adelaide, however, take this to extremes. They rate as 120% of league average in their performance against the bottom nine sides. Not even Adelaide or Sydney look that good, over the year, in beating up on the weaker teams.
That’s why we’ve been rating Port so highly this year – their performance, even allowing for the scaling we apply for opponent sets, has been abnormally, bizarrely good to the extent that it’s actually outweighed and masked their weaknesses against quality teams. Their sub-97% rating against top sides is 13th in the league, ahead of only North, Carlton, Fremantle and the Queensland sides. This divergence is more than double the size of the variance for any other team. It appears that the problem mostly strikes the Power in between the arcs. Against bottom sides, their midfield strength is streets ahead of any other side at 141% of the league average, meaning they get nearly three inside-50s for every two conceded. This opportunity imbalance makes their decent defence look better and papers over a struggling forward line. Against quality sides, that falls apart and they get less inside-50s than their opponents.
..........................
But it really is Port Adelaide who stand out here. Their output against weaker sides is really good and shouldn’t be written off. There’s obviously quality there, and they sit in striking distance of the top 4 with a healthy percentage. However, it wouldn’t be a stretch to call their overall strength rating fraudulent given its composition and we will be regarding them with a bit of an asterisk from here. Unless they can bridge the gap and produce something against their finals peers, even a top 4 berth is likely to end in ashes.
Port Adelaide have made liars of us
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Nov 6, 2014
- 70,291
- 89,052
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
For those who don't know the theory, it entails?
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
You can't win finals/flags when your main forward target is 171cms and there is no back up support from big blokes.
Last edited:
Forzaport
Brownlow Medallist
The problem with the stats is that they're historical and only give guidance if there are minimal changes moving forward. We have probably made more recent changes than our finals opponents and so likely to be the most unpredictable team come September. The showdown loss could really be a blessing in disguise.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
What stats aren't historical? Only real significant change since the Saints game is Jacko out and Marshall in.
- Jun 12, 2012
- 21,636
- 69,184
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Dougs has been immense in the last couple of weeks.
Doctor Feel
Shitposter In Chief
Absolute pseudoscience drivel
- Jun 12, 2012
- 21,636
- 69,184
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Dougal's immensity is cold hard true science fact like heliocentrism and stout being awesome in winter.
Forzaport
Brownlow Medallist
Forgot to mention, the top half vs bottom half data is bullshit and skewed heavily because 1) we didn't lose or didn't lose badly to a low ranked team - somehow this is a negative here; 2) Essendon thumped us and are currently sitting 8th on percentage on the ladder and 9th in the ratings, arbitrarily placing them in "top half" massively skews the differential; and 3) an umpire decision leading to a competition wide paradigm shift in shot clock adjudication cost us the game against Geelong; and 4) probably the biggest black mark, there are several non-finalists listed high up in the differential.
It's a horribly unreliable measure that doesn't mean shit. Bad statistical analysis is bad.
It's a horribly unreliable measure that doesn't mean shit. Bad statistical analysis is bad.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
I knew I forgot someone. Yes Howard for Hombsch has been an important change. The rest of the changes have been minor or predictable - Neade has played before, Ah Chee in and out, Johnson's speed replaces White's speed, Gus in and out, Pittard out injured replaced by Bonner a similar player but will play when healthy, Impey out for Wingard.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
What???
The only skewing might relate to Essendon being in or out of the top 9 and its not massive if you look at the number ie conversions for inside 50's. Did you actually look at the criteria that HPN use??. Its about relative performance. The umpires decision against Dixon didn't affect how many inside 50's we have had for the year and if he goals it makes a minor change to the offensive figure used.
The Hurling People Now folks reckon Port have made liars of them. They realised that raw stats are meaningless, you need to dig, just like PortWTF did with his different ladders for top 8/bottom 10 then when I asked him to do top 4/middle class/cellar dwellers and posted them on the previous page.
Port Adelaide have made liars of us
After round 21 there is little movement in relative rankings, but Sydney and GWS rise into our informally-defined historical “premiership” frame.
However, it’s the increasingly anomalous Port Adelaide, theoretically a contender, which we want to focus on here. The popular opinion of Port Adelaide being unable to match it with other good sides is well and truly borne out when we dig into their performance on our strength ratings by opponent. We have in the past broken up statistics by top 8 and bottom 10......... Simply put, Port Adelaide are the best side in the competition against weak opponents and they’re about as good as North Melbourne against the good teams. Below is a chart where we have calculated strength ratings through the same method as we always do using whole-of-season data, but separate ratings are derived for matches against the top half and bottom half of the competition as determined by our ratings above.
Most clubs, predictably, have done better against the bad sides than the good ones. Port Adelaide, however, take this to extremes. They rate as 120% of league average in their performance against the bottom nine sides. Not even Adelaide or Sydney look that good, over the year, in beating up on the weaker teams.
That’s why we’ve been rating Port so highly this year – their performance, even allowing for the scaling we apply for opponent sets, has been abnormally, bizarrely good to the extent that it’s actually outweighed and masked their weaknesses against quality teams. Their sub-97% rating against top sides is 13th in the league, ahead of only North, Carlton, Fremantle and the Queensland sides. This divergence is more than double the size of the variance for any other team. It appears that the problem mostly strikes the Power in between the arcs. Against bottom sides, their midfield strength is streets ahead of any other side at 141% of the league average, meaning they get nearly three inside-50s for every two conceded. This opportunity imbalance makes their decent defence look better and papers over a struggling forward line. Against quality sides, that falls apart and they get less inside-50s than their opponents.
..........................
But it really is Port Adelaide who stand out here. Their output against weaker sides is really good and shouldn’t be written off. There’s obviously quality there, and they sit in striking distance of the top 4 with a healthy percentage. However, it wouldn’t be a stretch to call their overall strength rating fraudulent given its composition and we will be regarding them with a bit of an asterisk from here. Unless they can bridge the gap and produce something against their finals peers, even a top 4 berth is likely to end in ashes.
Port Adelaide have made liars of us
It has been plain to those of us on this forum for some time of course. As you highlighted, our midfield looks great on paper and should be able to match it with any midfield in the league. The problems come up when we're up against any decent team that our midfield in general will lose contested possessions, give up too many clearances, and doesn't get clean ball into our forward line.
It is why it is always pointless to me that we have continued to drop half-forwards and half-backs after our bad performances when the problems are in the midfield.
Forzaport
Brownlow Medallist
- Neade is playing much better than before
- Wingard huge upgrade on Impey
- Also the improved form of SPP and Boak
These all significantly improve our chances of success. Couple this with the unmistakable change in coaching philosophy re selection & game day, we're looking like a completely different unit.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
You have talked about recent changes compared to historical data. Historical data includes our best games and our worst games.
* Wingard was in a few weeks ago and so was Impey. So its not that big a move over the whole season.
* SPP has gone down in output in recent weeks. Yes Boak has played 1 great game but thats it.
* Neade is playing about the same as he does in his good patches.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Banned
- #245
We also have to note that we had an absolutely horrible month from our midfield resulting in being destroyed by Adelaide and Melbourne. Take those games out and we'd look a bit better.
We can't hide from those results but our game against the bulldogs suggests we've pulled ourselves out of that rut and our midfield will be much more competitive going forward.
Not saying the statistics are wrong, but it's too early to be writing us off as pretenders. Not sure that was the conclusion the hurling guys came to of course, and there is certainly a big question mark against us when we come up against good midfields that we haven't quite shaken.
Janus
Advocatus Diaboli
- Sep 9, 2007
- 23,430
- 57,318
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
- Thread starter
- #246
Contested possession since the bye:
Vs Geelong - 147 (+2)
Vs Hawthorn - 163 (+38)
Vs Essendon - 139 (-11)
Vs Brisbane - 168 (+17)
Vs Collingwood - 142 (-3)
Vs Richmond - 166 (+28)
Vs West Coast - 134 (+6)
Vs North - 161 (+36)
Vs Melbourne - 148 (-29) (21 of which came in the first quarter and 5 minutes of the game when we sucked)
Vs St Kilda - 151 (-3)
Vs Adelaide - 135 (-46)
Vs Collingwood - 126 (-7)
Vs Western Bulldogs - 150 (-1)
Vs Geelong - 147 (+2)
Vs Hawthorn - 163 (+38)
Vs Essendon - 139 (-11)
Vs Brisbane - 168 (+17)
Vs Collingwood - 142 (-3)
Vs Richmond - 166 (+28)
Vs West Coast - 134 (+6)
Vs North - 161 (+36)
Vs Melbourne - 148 (-29) (21 of which came in the first quarter and 5 minutes of the game when we sucked)
Vs St Kilda - 151 (-3)
Vs Adelaide - 135 (-46)
Vs Collingwood - 126 (-7)
Vs Western Bulldogs - 150 (-1)
- Banned
- #247
What the **** happened after we played North? Also how did we manage to lose to Richmond!
- Banned
- #248
I remember now. ****ing woeful set shots.
Maybe we were overly focussed on our shooting accuracy after that game and dropped off in our contested ball numbers due to reduced focus in that area?
Janus
Advocatus Diaboli
- Sep 9, 2007
- 23,430
- 57,318
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
- Thread starter
- #249
Nah, it's more simple than that.
After North, we had played 9 games in succession - which is how many we had played before our bye. It was just fatigue, both mentally and physically, setting in. That, coupled with the increase in training load that every side who believes they will be competing in finals has to do, resulted in a perfect storm of crap contested performances.
- Banned
- #250
Let's hope so, because if it was a change in focus that caused it we might be in trouble!
