Analysis Inexperience watch

[Fatcat08]

We're slowly starting to get a better spread of guys across the different games bracket now due to us having to play guys for long periods early in their careers. Going to really hold us in good stead in the next few years, with guys being more experienced than their age suggests.

 

[Jivlain]

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

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Brisbane 94 vs. North Melbourne 102.1 (= -8.1 games on average)
• Average age - Brisbane 24.6 vs. North Melbourne 25.7 (= -1.1 years on average)
• Average height - Brisbane 189.3cm vs. North Melbourne 187.9cm (= +1.4cm on average)
• Average weight - Brisbane 89.7kg vs. North Melbourne 87.8kg (= +1.9kg on average)

 

[T Rick]

View attachment 537038

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

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Brisbane 94 vs. North Melbourne 102.1 (= -8.1 games on average)
• Average age - Brisbane 24.6 vs. North Melbourne 25.7 (= -1.1 years on average)
• Average height - Brisbane 189.3cm vs. North Melbourne 187.9cm (= +1.4cm on average)
• Average weight - Brisbane 89.7kg vs. North Melbourne 87.8kg (= +1.9kg on average)

Love your work Jivlain...

 

[spotthedog1]

I still don't get the signs of the deathly hallows on the legends, but beyond that, it's awesome info.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

We are consistently taller and heavier on average than our opponents, even though we are young. Physically we could be a formidable side in a year or three.

 

[BigCat2]

We are consistently taller and heavier on average than our opponents, even though we are young. Physically we could be a formidable side in a year or three.

If I was drafted, then while I might not necessarily make the team taller, I would make us heavier.

 

[Jivlain]

I still don't get the signs of the deathly hallows on the legends, but beyond that, it's awesome info.

Those are Gini coefficients. Gini coefficients are measures of inequality, often used in economics discussions. So in some Middle Eastern petromonarchy, the Gini coefficients are really high, as the royals get all the money from the oilfields, and they don't even need to bother hiring locals - you just grab in a few foreign experts for setup and the general population lives in squalor and poverty until signing up as a suicide bomber seems like a good career move. In somewhere pleasantly Scandanavian, much lower. In Australia, somewhere between them but rising as decades of neoliberal policy achieve their intended effect.

Those things with the deathly hallows on them are showing the Gini coefficients for that stat for each team. On height it doesn't really tend to say all that much - everyone's between about 175cm and 205cm. Imagine literally everyone is earning between $175k and $205k each year - (or, for that matter, between if everyone's on between $175 and $205 each year - it makes no difference whatsoever to the Gini coefficients) not much inequality there! So the Gini coefficients are quite low.

We tend to have a much more even spread of goalkickers than other side - literally everyone in our side other than Starcevich has kicked an AFL goal, but noone has yet established themselves as a dominant goalkicker just yet. So you've got a much flatter curve than is typical for an AFL team and a lower Gini coefficient.

Or 1%ers. We pretty evenly match up against the Roos for most of the squad, but then bam! Gardiner and bam!!!! Harris Andrews. So higher inequality and thus a higher Gini coefficient.

The reason I draw deathly hallows on the Gini coefficients is all down to this terribad pun. Fantastic content there.

"It's the chance it will end up with Harry Potter."

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

If I was drafted, then while I might not necessarily make the team taller, I would make us heavier.

We'll just call you grounded.

 

[dlanod]

We'll just call you grounded.

He's in shape.

Spherical is a shape.

 

[luthor]

We are going to murder these bums.

Lions by 31

 

[Saucery]

He's in shape.

Spherical is a shape.

 

[Jivlain]

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

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Collingwood 85.5 vs. Brisbane 90.5 (= +5 games on average)
• Average age - Collingwood 25.1 vs. Brisbane 24.4 (= -0.7 years on average)
• Average height - Collingwood 188.9cm vs. Brisbane 189.5cm (= +0.6cm on average)
• Average weight - Collingwood 87.3kg vs. Brisbane 90kg (= +2.7kg on average)

Wow. +5 games and also -0.7 years. That's an interesting byproduct of where our list has been lately. Also Collingwood's tackles is oddly linear

 

[Jivlain]

These show our matchups in each line (i.e. our defenders against their forwards, etc).
Yup, their defenders look to be pretty vertically challenged. Especially if you throw McInerney in there. And that's a pretty significant experience advantage in our backline.

 

[Skoob]

Nice work Jivlain
It would be interesting to see our forward line on their backline graph, and vice versa.

 

[Jivlain]

Nice work Jivlain
It would be interesting to see our forward line on their backline graph, and vice versa.

It is our forward line vs their backline
Our backline vs their forwardline
Our midfield vs theirs

 

[Skoob]

It is our forward line vs their backline
Our backline vs their forwardline
Our midfield vs theirs

Oh yes, it does say "matchups".
I'll just shut up and go back over here.

 

[a mayes ing]

These show our matchups in each line (i.e. our defenders against their forwards, etc).
Yup, their defenders look to be pretty vertically challenged. Especially if you throw McInerney in there. And that's a pretty significant experience advantage in our backline.

View attachment 540750 View attachment 540753 View attachment 540751 View attachment 540752

Are these stats right? Just looking at our foward line vs their defence. We should have 2 200cm giants up there in Big O and Hipwood but we only have 1.

 

[Jivlain]

Are these stats right? Just looking at our foward line vs their defence. We should have 2 200cm giants up there in Big O and Hipwood but we only have 1.

This is because O is named on the bench, where we also have a height advantage.

 

[DashinD]

Is it just me or do we seem to be heavier and taller despite being younger most weeks? Looks good for the future!

 

[jackess]

Is it just me or do we seem to be heavier and taller despite being younger most weeks? Looks good for the future!

I did check the player profiles on the Lions website the other day and notice almost all players were 2-3cm taller than they had been previously. I think they've fudged the numbers a bit. Those weights aren't accurate as well.

 

[Jivlain]

I did check the player profiles on the Lions website the other day and notice almost all players were 2-3cm taller than they had been previously. I think they've fudged the numbers a bit. Those weights aren't accurate as well.

Yup, and I do just scrape the numbers for those from the club websites so it is entirely dependent on the degree to which they're accurate (or not). Same numbers as in the AFL Prospectus (I just checked).

Zac Bailey is 81kg according to our profile. According to Knightmare's preview (from March 2017) he was 66kg. While that measurement may have been somewhat out-of-date at the time, it does seem like a pretty considerable chunk of bodymass to add.

And some other clubs have figures which are also a bit suspicious. Kade Simpson is only 76kg, apparently. Granted, he's not exactly the most absolute unit, but, yeah, nah.

 

[Jivlain]

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

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Gold Coast 75.2 vs. Brisbane 88.2 (= +13 games on average)
• Average age - Gold Coast 23.9 vs. Brisbane 24.3 (= +0.4 years on average)
• Average height - Gold Coast 187cm vs. Brisbane 189cm (= +2cm on average)
• Average weight - Gold Coast 86.7kg vs. Brisbane 89.6kg (= +2.9kg on average)

 

[jackess]

That's pretty even. Swap Hodge for Cox and there'd be little difference.

 

[KissKiss]

Aside from tackles I feel like we are ahead on a lot of those different measures. Really we shouldnt lose this game

 

[Jivlain]

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

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Brisbane 93 vs. West Coast 106.2 (= -13.2 games on average)
• Average age - Brisbane 24.6 vs. West Coast 25.6 (= -1 years on average)
• Average height - Brisbane 189.2cm vs. West Coast 187.8cm (= +1.4cm on average)
• Average weight - Brisbane 89.7kg vs. West Coast 87.6kg (= +2.1kg on average)