Analysis Inside 50 Efficiency stat

[chrisdon16]

Hey guys,

This is one for the stats lovers out there. Trying to figure out how the stats folk at afl.com.au figure out this particular stat.

My understanding of the rule is, how many scores a team can have per entry inside 50. For example, Essendon score 12.10 from 45 inside 50s which would be 48.8% inside 50 efficiency (22 scores ÷ 45).

After looking at the team stats tonight, it says Gold Coast had 30 shots but only scored 13.11. I am assuming they take into account out on the full as a scoring opportunity? Did the Suns really have 6 out on the full tonight? If this is right, is there a way to find out how many out on the full a team has during a game as there is no information on the stats. Or do they calculate the efficiency for scores another way?

Cheers

 

[Teen Wolf]

Yes, a shot at goal doesn't have to result in a score. A shot that goes out-on-the-full would be an example of that, but so too a shot that falls short and stays in play. Or it bounces, or is punched etc, out of bounds.

How a shot at goal is differentiated from a pass, well, that's for Champion Data to decide. But, especially compared to some other categories, shots at goal is pretty hard to screw up.

Also should be noted that rushed behinds aren't counted as a shot at goal. This is how over the weekend Port Adelaide scored 6.9 from 14 shots, and North Melbourne's AFLW team scored 10.7 from 16 shots.

is there a way to find out how many out on the full a team has during a game as there is no information on the stats.

Not sure about pre-season games, but you might find this link useful:

AFL Goal Kickers | Player Stats | Shot Charts | Heat Maps - Stats Insider

Dig deeper into the best and worst kicks for goal at each AFL club. Investigate every goal kicked since the start of the 2018 season.

www.statsinsider.com.au

 

[chrisdon16]

Yes, a shot at goal doesn't have to result in a score. A shot that goes out-on-the-full would be an example of that, but so too a shot that falls short and stays in play. Or it bounces, or is punched etc, out of bounds.

How a shot at goal is differentiated from a pass, well, that's for Champion Data to decide. But, especially compared to some other categories, shots at goal is pretty hard to screw up.

Also should be noted that rushed behinds aren't counted as a shot at goal. This is how over the weekend Port Adelaide scored 6.9 from 14 shots, and North Melbourne's AFLW team scored 10.7 from 16 shots.

I assumed this was the case. For example, player takes mark near the behind post. Proceeds to butcher the snap at goal out on the full. This counts as a shot. Or, player runs in and kicks at goal from 50, but is marked right on the line by a defender. In your opinion, do you agree that these sorts of plays and the ones you described should be officially a shot, or should it be actual scores? North had the worst I50 efficiency on the weekend at 73% (41 shots from 56 I50s) which is ridiculous. Hawks scored 17.18 with 1 rushed so there is a difference of 7 shots there which is substantial.

Also, Richmond only scored 11.14 with 3 rushed. 22 scoring shots but Champion Data marked 30 shots, which kind of makes sense as they had a massive 64 inside 50s and only scored 80 points.