Autopsy Roos lose to Suns

[giantroo]

North Melbourne v Gold Coast​

9 Noah Anderson

15

Noah Anderson

Age

25

Ht

192cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.0

3star

K

6.0

2star

HB

6.0

4star

M

2.0

2star

T

0.0

1star

CL

0.0

1star

D

12.0

3star

K

6.0

2star

HB

6.0

3star

M

2.0

2star

T

0.0

1star

CL

0.0

1star

D

12.0

3star

K

6.0

3star

HB

6.0

4star

M

2.0

3star

T

0.0

1star

CL

0.0

1star

(GCFC)
7 Matt Rowell

18

Matt Rowell

Age

24

Ht

180cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.4

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

0.8

1star

T

5.2

5star

CL

3.8

5star

D

17.4

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

0.8

1star

T

5.2

5star

CL

3.8

5star

D

17.4

5star

K

7.6

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

0.8

1star

T

5.2

5star

CL

3.8

5star

(GCFC)
6 Ben Long

22

Ben Long

Age

28

Ht

186cm

Wt

81kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.9

3star

K

6.2

2star

HB

4.7

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

2.7

4star

G

0.7

4star

D

12.8

3star

K

6.7

3star

HB

6.2

4star

M

3.3

3star

T

2.3

3star

G

0.0

1star

D

13.4

4star

K

6.8

3star

HB

6.6

4star

M

3.2

4star

T

3.2

5star

G

0.6

3star

(GCFC)
3 Touk Miller

11

Touk Miller

Age

30

Ht

178cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

21.7

5star

K

9.5

4star

HB

12.3

5star

M

3.7

4star

T

5.4

5star

CL

4.2

5star

D

22.0

5star

K

11.4

4star

HB

10.6

5star

M

2.9

3star

T

4.8

5star

CL

4.1

5star

D

17.8

5star

K

5.8

3star

HB

12.0

5star

M

3.0

3star

T

3.8

5star

CL

3.0

5star

(GCFC)
3 John Noble

2

John Noble

Age

29

Ht

180cm

Wt

72kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.3

4star

K

9.2

4star

HB

7.1

4star

M

3.5

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

186.1

3star

D

14.2

3star

K

7.7

3star

HB

6.5

4star

M

3.2

3star

T

1.8

3star

MG

149.7

3star

D

18.8

5star

K

11.0

4star

HB

7.8

5star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.2

4star

MG

229.8

4star

(GCFC)
1 Ben King

34

Ben King

Age

25

Ht

202cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

7.2

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

2.2

2star

M

3.5

4star

T

0.5

3star

G

1.3

5star

D

7.5

2star

K

5.6

2star

HB

1.9

1star

M

3.6

4star

T

0.3

1star

G

1.5

5star

D

6.8

2star

K

4.4

2star

HB

2.4

3star

M

3.2

4star

T

0.2

3star

G

1.0

4star

(GCFC)
1 Joel Sudar-Jeffrey (GCFC)

 

[Souup]

Interesting post.

Wouldn't you remove both Sydney AND Melbourne results if you were wanted a more levelled out average?

Otherwise we're cherry picking

I did remove the Melbourne game where it was relevant. The post is about our losses and the scorelines/margins, so basically all of it is assessing the margin in losses. The only place where I adjusted or mentioned the Melbourne game was the following:
________________________________________________
R2 - Melb were -16.7, we were +13.9
Actual Final margin: 59 point win
Expected final margin: 28.4 point win
_________________________________________________
and
_________________________________________________
The league average for expected score is currently +2.3 (see below for previous year's league averages)
- Teams are currently averaging +8.9 against us. If you remove the Melbourne game (the only team who have been in the negative against us, and by a big way), teams have averaged +15.2 against us.

- We're currently averaging +4.8, remove the Melbourne game where we went +13.9 and we're averaging +3.05.
_________________________________________

If I should have adjusted for that game somewhere else, I'm happy to do it if I missed something. I also only included stats with Sydney removed in brackets; you can see the number with them included for transparency.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

There's no way you just read all of that, grasped what it meant, and came back with 'You put it down to luck, I put it down to the side being as shit as ever'.

I mean absolutely no offense when I say this but I'm genuinely not sure if you're serious.

Maybe another example:
A basketballer has a career 3pt % of .08. That is, he makes 8 shots for every 100 he takes from the 3pt line. Let's say he's had a 10 year career where he's taken 1,000 3pt shots (so he's made 80/1000)
He then comes up against your team and shoots 10/12 (83%) from 3pt and gets his team the win by 5 points.

Surely you understand that this is statistically odd and that the losing side could consider themselves unlucky to lose to a guy that caught fire from 3pt?

The thing this example doesn't take into account is the difficulty of those shots; the bloke could be hitting open 3 pointers, whereas the AFL expected score stat takes into account pressure on the player taking the shot, position on field, set shot vs. general play etc., so you can absolutely count yourself unlucky if a team scores +28 above expected (like GC did), because you can't just say 'well be better defensively'.

We’re so far beyond ‘unlucky’ it’s not funny. We’ve been (and continue to be) historically bad. That’s not luck.

I’d be more inclined to agree if we were losing by fine margins as is your example.

But we’re not. The closest we’ve been was the Dogs.

I’ll put it to you this way. Do teams winning games give a **** about expected scoring?

As an aside, which stat accounts for scoring opportunities that never happen because your captain kicks it into the man on the mark with multiple options ahead of the ball?

 

[King Corey]

North Melbourne v Gold Coast​

9 Noah Anderson (GCFC)
7 Matt Rowell (GCFC)
6 Ben Long (GCFC)
3 Touk Miller (GCFC)
3 John Noble (GCFC)
1 Ben King (GCFC)
1 Joel Sudar-Jeffrey (GCFC)

That's known in an Ancient Greek parlance as "a fisting".

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

That's known in an Ancient Greek parlance as "a fisting".

Noble got three votes for his smother.

 

[King Corey]

Noble got three votes for his smother.

Good to see their priority pick pair nail top votes while our priority picks were ex Fremantle players, one running his guts out and kicking it short of teammates and the other one puffing his guts out and struggling to land a handball.

 

[Souup]

...
I’ll put it to you this way. Do teams winning games give a **** about expected scoring?

As an aside, which stat accounts for scoring opportunities that never happen because your captain kicks it into the man on the mark with multiple options ahead of the ball?

Yeah they do - I literally gave you 2 examples. Hawthorn, where Sam Mitchell has stated on a few occasions this year in interviews that Hawthorn weren't going as well as their results were suggesting despite being flag favourites - and then we saw what happened yesterday. And Brisbane was an example of a team that was losing and cared about expected scoring - where the stats were suggesting they were performing better than their record showed at the beginning of last year and Fagan alluded to this in interviews, and they went on to win the flag.

I can tell you as someone who does some work at a football club that this is absolutely taken into consideration. You hear it when Clarko laments early misses and the other team taking their opportunities - he's done that twice this year (Dogs + GC) and he's spot on.

I actually mentioned that as the ultimate turning point and moment the game was over - so I'm not sure what you're getting at with Jy's kick.

 

[Cyber_punk]

I dispute it being an average list.

Wells
Harvey
Tarrant
Thompson
NDS, Higgins, Waite
Petrie
Goldstein
Thomas
Cunnington
Ziebell
Swallow
Hansen
Brown
Firrito
Greenwood
Wright
Grima

Plenty of core quality there.

Harvey/NDS/Waite/Petrie/Firrito were all very old

Would not call Greenwood or Grima quality exactly. Wright was ok.

Plenty of list cloggers like Atley, Garner, MacMillan, Black, Gibson. Gibson kicked some nice goals against * in that final, that's about the only good thing I remember.

Then younger players like Mcdonald, Dumont, Turner who did nothing and never reached the heights we thought they would.

We were capable of beating the best but also had many half-arsed performances (remember the Gold Coast game up there? We went in favourites with half their list injured and top 4 on the line...and lose by 10 goals)

Slightly above average overall.

 

[Uncle_Leo]

Going by expected scores where are we on the expected ladder? Any higher?

What absolute dross

 

[joegreen]

whereas the AFL expected score stat takes into account pressure on the player taking the shot, position on field, set shot vs. general play etc., so you can absolutely count yourself unlucky if a team scores +28 above expected (like GC did), because you can't just say 'well be better defensively'.

quoting a part of your post. this is interesting, i didn't realise it takes into consideration those factors. ferball I'll also have a read of Rick's latest post - thanks.

all goes towards understanding the mechanics of a loss.

i also understand the how many people can dismiss it. it's bloody hard to keep fronting up, in fact with a bit of hope and then losing it is much harder. hope is a dangerous thing. so with that i am still hopeful we see further improvement.... improvement that leads to wins.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Going by expected scores where are we on the expected ladder? Any higher?

What absolute dross

We’re super high on the ‘little wins’ ladder.

 

[apollo_creed]

Look at St Kilda. Who absolutely based on a few years ago should not be this far or even obviously ahead of us. But they are.

What's different? Drafting? Recruiting? Coaching?

Even on the weekend - yeah they lost to GWS because of a bad stretch but they still had +60 inside 50's and were more than +10 for the match in that regard. They're a much more cohesive unit than we are and look so much ahead of us which really sucks because they shouldn't be.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Look at St Kilda. Who absolutely based on a few years ago should not be this far or even obviously ahead of us. But they are.

What's different? Drafting? Recruiting? Coaching?

Even on the weekend - yeah they lost to GWS because of a bad stretch but they still had +60 inside 50's and were more than +10 for the match in that regard. They're a much more cohesive unit than we are and look so much ahead of us which really sucks because they shouldn't be.

But what’s their expected score?

 

[ChopChopDigDig]

Noble got three votes for his smother.

We played Noble so dumb. The bloke cannot kick under pressure and his only strength is his speed. So think we pressed up on him? Or just let him run 30m unpressured exiting D50? All their back half run went thru him and we just let him waltz it out.

 

[Souup]

But what’s their expected score?

I know you're taking the piss but it actually further proves how interesting and relevant the stat is, so here you go:

In Round 1 they got thumped by Adelaide, who cares

Round 2:
Actual: StK 98-91 Geel
Expected: StK 89.2-96.7 Geel
StK were +8.8
Geelong were -5.7

In other words, they could have easily been 0-2.

Round 3 they played Richmond so who cares

Round 4
Actual: StK 89-72 Port
Expected: StK 81.5-82.9 Port
StK were +7.5
Port were -10.9

So they could have easily been 1-3 after 4 rounds.

They then lost against GWS in Round 5.
You'll whinge about our 52 point loss but are talking up their 28 point loss to GWS
For the GWS Game:
Actual: 110-82
Expected: 103-80

So basically, expected scores suggest St Kilda could have easily been 1-4 after 5 games, with their only win against Richmond.

Super impressive St Kilda.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

I know you're taking the piss but it actually further proves how interesting and relevant the stat is, so here you go:

In Round 1 they got thumped by Adelaide, who cares

Round 2:
Actual: StK 98-91 Geel
Expected: StK 89.2-96.7 Geel
StK were +8.8
Geelong were -5.7

In other words, they could have easily been 0-2.

Round 3 they played Richmond so who cares

Round 4
Actual: StK 89-72 Port
Expected: StK 81.5-82.9 Port
StK were +7.5
Port were -10.9

So they could have easily been 1-3 after 4 rounds.

They then lost against GWS in Round 5.
You'll whinge about our 52 point loss but are talking up their 28 point loss to GWS
For the GWS Game:
Actual: 110-82
Expected: 103-80

So basically, expected scores suggest St Kilda could have easily been 1-4 after 5 games, with their only win against Richmond.

Super impressive St Kilda.

Was a comment made in jest, yes.

Why are you discounting getting thumped in their instance?

What’s the threshold?

Can a team with a better expected score in a grand final claim victory?

Because 1998 is calling.

 

[ChopChopDigDig]

How accurate is the predicted score stat, Soup? I assumed it was all BS but from your analysis it’s not?

(fwiw I agree it’s not all doom and gloom for nmfc. We are playing better but not good enough. Just not sure what reliance can be put on the expected score stat)

 

[apollo_creed]

I know you're taking the piss but it actually further proves how interesting and relevant the stat is, so here you go:

In Round 1 they got thumped by Adelaide, who cares

Round 2:
Actual: StK 98-91 Geel
Expected: StK 89.2-96.7 Geel
StK were +8.8
Geelong were -5.7

In other words, they could have easily been 0-2.

Round 3 they played Richmond so who cares

Round 4
Actual: StK 89-72 Port
Expected: StK 81.5-82.9 Port
StK were +7.5
Port were -10.9

So they could have easily been 1-3 after 4 rounds.

They then lost against GWS in Round 5.
You'll whinge about our 52 point loss but are talking up their 28 point loss to GWS
For the GWS Game:
Actual: 110-82
Expected: 103-80

So basically, expected scores suggest St Kilda could have easily been 1-4 after 5 games, with their only win against Richmond.

Super impressive St Kilda.

So pretty much actually in every game.

So Richmond doesn’t count? Neither does Melbourne then.

They actually won a game of football in Adelaide. And they beat Geelong who have looked good and had a hard draw to start the season. So talking down two very good wins, meanwhile we have had 0 relevant ones.

 

[Rick18]

Rick18 did that in his last shinboner blog.

Why'd you have to remind me I put myself through that

But to add an extra point to the post you're replying to...

A question then to ask is why are teams so accurate against us? Is it a lack of pressure at the time of kicking? Opposition goals seem to come so easy. The eye test says to me they appear to have all the time in the world.

So then why is there a lack of pressure? Is it work rate and effort based - are they not trying or are they fatigued and then why fatigued - not fit enough or trying to cover too much offensively then can't get back? Game plan - structural and positioning - too offensive? Leg speed and/or agility i.e. not fast enough or too tall?

You'd need someone to break down each shot on goal and how it unfolded to know why.

I'd love to see what the coaches review and be able to answer the above questions.

Part of it comes down to a bit of luck - four of the five teams have comfortably kicked over their expected score v North (except for Melbourne, of course). Long term it normally doesn't hold to that extent and should come back down to earth. Season's still early but only two teams have been 'unluckier' or whatever you want to call it with expected scores from their opponents.

This isn't supposed to claim the defence has been 'good', or 'okay', or even 'passable'. For instance a lot of shots are being allowed from the corridor (albeit not necessarily from close in) with very little being forced to acute angles; it's just opponents are converting at a higher rate than expected.

(Summary: defence bad for lots of reasons, bad luck compounding on top of that)

 

[Uncle_Leo]

Look at St Kilda. Who absolutely based on a few years ago should not be this far or even obviously ahead of us. But they are.

What's different? Drafting? Recruiting? Coaching?

Even on the weekend - yeah they lost to GWS because of a bad stretch but they still had +60 inside 50's and were more than +10 for the match in that regard. They're a much more cohesive unit than we are and look so much ahead of us which really sucks because they shouldn't be.

Players

 

[Uncle_Leo]

How accurate is the predicted score stat, Soup? I assumed it was all BS but from your analysis it’s not?

(fwiw I agree it’s not all doom and gloom for nmfc. We are playing better but not good enough. Just not sure what reliance can be put on the expected score stat)

Hey hey, don’t question him, he works at a football club. Could be Jacana 3rds by the sounds of things

 

[Souup]

Was a comment made in jest, yes.

Why are you discounting getting thumped in their instance?

What’s the threshold?

Can a team with a better expected score in a grand final claim victory?

Because 1998 is calling.

I'm not discounting the thumpings, the results are so far out of the realm of changing when taking into account expected scores that I didn't bother listing them. The point of the post was that St Kilda could easily be 1-4.

Anyway if you want the expected scores for the Adelaide and Richmond games that badly:
R1:
Actual: Adel 135-72 St Kilda
Expected: Adel 111.2-71.5 St Kilda
R2
Actual: StK 135-53 Richmond
Expected: StK 124.2-56.4 Richmond

 

[ChopChopDigDig]

Why'd you have to remind me I put myself through that

But to add an extra point to the post you're replying to...



Part of it comes down to a bit of luck - four of the five teams have comfortably kicked over their expected score v North (except for Melbourne, of course). Long term it normally doesn't hold to that extent and should come back down to earth. Season's still early but only two teams have been 'unluckier' or whatever you want to call it with expected scores from their opponents.

This isn't supposed to claim the defence has been 'good', or 'okay', or even 'passable'. For instance a lot of shots are being allowed from the corridor (albeit not necessarily from close in) with very little being forced to acute angles; it's just opponents are converting at a higher rate than expected.

(Summary: defence bad for lots of reasons, bad luck compounding on top of that)

From my non-expert eye we allow a lot of easy goals front of the pack, where the Oppo FWD is just planted front and center all alone. You’d think this would be so easy to coach - not everyone has to go up for a contested mark, and 1-2 stay down on their medium/small forwards

 

[Souup]

How accurate is the predicted score stat, Soup? I assumed it was all BS but from your analysis it’s not?

(fwiw I agree it’s not all doom and gloom for nmfc. We are playing better but not good enough. Just not sure what reliance can be put on the expected score stat)

Give it a crack next time you watch a game and see what you think. Watch the game and consciously take note of the difficulty of shots taken and make a mental call on which team you think seemed to convert difficult chances and which team missed easy ones over the course of the game.

AFL Match Stats

AFL Match Stats

www.wheeloratings.com

Just select the match and scroll down to 'Team stats', then across to xSc

I've found it to be super reliable based on my gut feel watching a game and then checking later.

 

[ferball]

Why'd you have to remind me I put myself through that

But to add an extra point to the post you're replying to...



Part of it comes down to a bit of luck - four of the five teams have comfortably kicked over their expected score v North (except for Melbourne, of course). Long term it normally doesn't hold to that extent and should come back down to earth. Season's still early but only two teams have been 'unluckier' or whatever you want to call it with expected scores from their opponents.

This isn't supposed to claim the defence has been 'good', or 'okay', or even 'passable'. For instance a lot of shots are being allowed from the corridor (albeit not necessarily from close in) with very little being forced to acute angles; it's just opponents are converting at a higher rate than expected.

(Summary: defence bad for lots of reasons, bad luck compounding on top of that)

Sorry mate. Love your work still.