Analysis Inexperience watch

[luthor]

I really think we might give this one a shake.

Lions by 7 points.

 

[joshhem]

I remember the Freo game last year. I went to the game extremely optimistic because we seemed to be a bigger body side than Freo with a higher weight on average than the dockers.
I also remember leaving the game extremely heart broken.

 

[fanackapan]

Remember that time (last week) when the difference in experience didn't indicate a Lions loss, and we actually won a game? Good times.

The good news this week is that we're more experienced (by 5 games) than the last time we played Port (5 games ago). And we're coming off a win.

And that's about it. The 6 most experienced players on the ground all play for Port. Port are more experienced than last than last time we played them (by 11.2 games), and the gap, which is also greater than last time, strongly points to a Port win.


Round 13, 2017 - Lions vs. Power at Adelaide Oval

• (0 to 10 games - Lions 4 vs. Power 1)
• 0 to 24 games - Lions 6 vs. Power 2
• 25 to 49 games - Lions 3 vs. Power 3
• 50 to 99 games - Lions 7 vs. Power 8
• 100 to 199 games - Lions 6 vs. Power 6
• 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Power 3

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Lions 68.0 vs. Power 104.0 (= -36.0 games on average)
• Average age - Lions 23.0 vs. Power 24.6
• Average height - Lions 189.3cm vs. Power 187.5cm
• Average weight - Lions 87.0kg vs. Power 87.5kg

And because its a quiet Thursday night and since its only been 7 weeks since we last played them, here are the ins and outs not since last week, but since we last played:

Lions
In: Bastinac, Paparone, Mathieson, Barrett, Smith
Out: Keays, Robinson, C. Beams, Schache, Close

Port
In: Boak, Neade
Out: Amon, Pittard

 

[Jivlain]

Well, it's all looking pretty similar to last time around. Except, as fanackapan mentions, the gap has in experience has actually gotten slightly wider. One big difference I did notice is that our contributions have been building up, and our uneveness evening out (a little) - as our youngest players start to get used to the intensity of the senior game.

Still a bloody long way back though.

One really clear was of illustrating that difference is to animate it! Here's the round 6 matchup against this week. Note the rise specifically in our bottom end.

 

[fanackapan]

Way more experienced (the 4 most experienced are all Giants) than us. Way older than us. Actually taller than us, which is unusual for us, and way heavier than us. And their milestones (Shaw's 250th, Shiel's 100th) trump ours (Bastinac's 150th). I'd suggest hoping for competitiveness and effort, because a win looks like a long shot on these numbers.

Round 14, 2017 - Lions vs. GWS at The Gabba

• (0 to 10 games - Lions 5 vs. Giants 1)
• 0 to 24 games - Lions 7 vs. Giants 4
• 25 to 49 games - Lions 3 vs. Giants 1
• 50 to 99 games - Lions 6 vs. Giants 8
• 100 to 199 games - Lions 6 vs. Giants 7
• 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Giants 2

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Lions 67.2 vs. Giants 98.1 (= -30.9 games on average)
• Average age - Lions 22.9 vs. Giants 24.7
• Average height - Lions 189.0cm vs. Giants 189.1cm
• Average weight - Lions 86.4kg vs. Giants 89.0kg

Witherden's our 4th debutant for the year. Seems like a lot, and its not impossible we'll see more by the end of the year (Allison, maybe McInerney or Grewar), but its actually fewer than most years. Previous years, starting with 2004: 5, 11, 10, 4, 7, 6, 3, 11, 4, 5, 10, 5, 9. I'd advise against looking up who they all were - its not pleasant reading.

 

[Jivlain]

The difference in contributions isn't as pronounced as it usually is.

Fun fact: the only players in GWS's squad to be drafted by GWS, outside the first round, are Zac Williams (rookie) and Matt de Boer (who was drafted by GWS after being delisted by Freo). [they did pre-list a few more as part of their entry conditions]

 

[Davemonkey]

I'm considering going for a while just to stay in the running for the Hyundai.

 

[jackess]

5 with less than 10 games is too many.

 

[fanackapan]

Jivlain love these graphs, but just a quick question about the scales. Rich has 155 games, why does his dot on the first graph appear below the horizontal line for 150?

 

[Jivlain]

Jivlain love these graphs, but just a quick question about the scales. Rich has 155 games, why does his dot on the first graph appear below the horizontal line for 150?

Oooooof, good catch. Looks like I accidentally introduced a bug a couple of days ago. I updated the post with a corrected version.

 

[Dalions]

Jivlain love these graphs, but just a quick question about the scales. Rich has 155 games, why does his dot on the first graph appear below the horizontal line for 150?

I would have though that was Basti's.

 

[Jivlain]

In terms of stats, we're far closer than we usually are, and have a genuine advantage in clearances. It's pleasing to see how well we're now holding up on participation, with such a young list now a few of our more experienced and best down with injury.

 

[CarterS]

Marks

 

[Skoob]

At least one of those 300 gamers is Goddard, so that's a positive.

 

[Jivlain]

These are the sorts of graphs that have us in with a surprising chance. Big gap on the games played, but on the lower end pretty even. Geelong have a very tall team, no doubt contributing to the decision to bring Hammer in. And round-the-ground contributions are mostly pretty even, with us having advantages in disposals, contested possessions, clearances, and even (slightly) on the draft index. Indeed, Dangerwood aside, Geelong are really week on clearances. 1%ers, goalkicking and Brownlow voting are Geelong's main advantages back.

On the other hand, despite only barely matching us in stats, Geelong are a pretty darn good football team. On the third hand, they do have a habit of losing to lowly teams. So I think we should probably be competitive at least.

 

[Zammit]

I love it when objective data places us with a better chance than expected! Looking forward to watching how our lads go.

 

[Jivlain]

Not sure where fanackapan went (posting these seems to be a hazardous role), but for the sake of the record -

Round 16, 2017 - Brisbane vs. Geelong at The Gabba

• (0 to 10 games - Brisbane 2 vs. Geelong 4)
• 0 to 24 games - Brisbane 7 vs. Geelong 5
• 25 to 49 games - Brisbane 2 vs. Geelong 2
• 50 to 99 games - Brisbane 7 vs. Geelong 3
• 100 to 199 games - Brisbane 6 vs. Geelong 8
• 200+ games - Brisbane 0 vs. Geelong 4

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Brisbane 68.9 vs. Geelong 113.1 (= -44.2 games on average)
• Average age - Brisbane 23.5 vs. Geelong 26 (= -2.5 years on average)
• Average height - Brisbane 189.8cm vs. Geelong 191.5cm (= -1.7cm on average)
• Average weight - Brisbane 87.7kg vs. Geelong 91.1kg (= -3.4kg on average)

Mind you, before anyone starts thinking that we've actually got an advantage in having fewer 0-10 players, it's probably somewhat cancelled out by the fact that we've got three in the 11-12 range

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

As usual, Geelong are taller, heavier, older and more experienced. I feel a miracle coming on.

 

[Skoob]

In terms of experience and success, Geelong's make up fits right in with the sort of team that wins Premierships.
This great work that Jivlain posted a while ago, shows most premiership teams share a common theme of good numbers in the 50 to 150 games range, and a handful in the 150-300 range. Their sides are also a few years older than ours at the moment. In terms of age and experience, Geelong have the right mix to be contenders this year. No surprise they thumped us.

Sadly, to date I haven't compiled data back far enough to cover our 2001 side into my database. In lieu of doing a bunch of work to import and verify all of that, here's our named side against the last few premiers (immediately before they won a flag):

Collingwood 2010:
View attachment 364075
Geelong 2011:
View attachment 364076
Sydney 2012:
View attachment 364077
Hawthorn 2013-2015:
View attachment 364079 View attachment 364080 View attachment 364081
Bulldogs 2016:
View attachment 364082

Their sides are also a few years older than ours at the moment. In terms of age and experience, Geelong have the right mix to be contenders this year. No surprise they thumped us.

 

[Jivlain]

Round 17, 2017 - Richmond vs. Brisbane at Docklands

• (0 to 10 games - Richmond 2 vs. Brisbane 2)
• 0 to 24 games - Richmond 4 vs. Brisbane 7
• 25 to 49 games - Richmond 5 vs. Brisbane 3
• 50 to 99 games - Richmond 4 vs. Brisbane 6
• 100 to 199 games - Richmond 8 vs. Brisbane 6
• 200+ games - Richmond 1 vs. Brisbane 0

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Richmond 90.5 vs. Brisbane 66.6 (= -23.9 games on average)
• Average age - Richmond 24.7 vs. Brisbane 23.1 (= -1.6 years on average)
• Average height - Richmond 187cm vs. Brisbane 189cm (= +2cm on average)
• Average weight - Richmond 86.3kg vs. Brisbane 86.7kg (= +0.4kg on average)

Over in the preview thread, it's been pointed out that we've got four kids we selected from each of the 2016, 2015 and 2013 drafts in the side this week. Plus Premier Andrews from the 2014 draft. Over the same period, only seven of the players Richmond have drafted have found their way into this week's senior side - four of them having been drafted as rookies. Our young guns may yet be young, but they are guns, whereas Richmond's last few draft crops are, collectively, a relatively uninspiring group.

 

[Schache_off]

Looking to the future, early next year assuming we have a healthy injury list like this year, we should have 10 players in the 100-199 games group. It will be quite some time before we see any other best 22 players get to 100 games.

Next year we will see Christensen, Mayes and Taylor play their 100th game. The rest of our best 22 (players such as Berry, Schache, Mcstay etc) will have approximately 40-75 games experience by the end of next season. There is an excuse this year but next year we won't really be able to blame poor form on inexperience.

 

[Nunez]

Looking to the future, early next year assuming we have a healthy injury list like this year, we should have 10 players in the 100-199 games group. It will be quite some time before we see any other best 22 players get to 100 games.

Next year we will see Christensen, Mayes and Taylor play their 100th game. The rest of our best 22 (players such as Berry, Schache, Mcstay etc) will have approximately 40-75 games experience by the end of next season. There is an excuse this year but next year we won't really be able to blame poor form on inexperience.

I wouldn't be so sure we'll be much better than bottom four next year tbh. I reckon we'll be good for around 6-8 wins max.

 

[lionshine]

Looking to the future, early next year assuming we have a healthy injury list like this year, we should have 10 players in the 100-199 games group. It will be quite some time before we see any other best 22 players get to 100 games.

Next year we will see Christensen, Mayes and Taylor play their 100th game. The rest of our best 22 (players such as Berry, Schache, Mcstay etc) will have approximately 40-75 games experience by the end of next season. There is an excuse this year but next year we won't really be able to blame poor form on inexperience.

If the majority of our best 22 has just 40-75 games worth of experience then inexperience will be a legitimate excuse for things like inconsistency. FWIW I do expect us to improve next year though. With a full strength side including the returns of Bundy and Robinson I'd hope we could push for 8 wins.

 

[fanackapan]

Not sure where fanackapan went (posting these seems to be a hazardous role)

Hiking in Norway and Switzerland, for the curious. Thanks for stepping in

 

[M Malice]

Hiking in Norway and Switzerland, for the curious. Thanks for stepping in

No internet connection on the Matterhorn fanackapan? You need to lift your game.