Statistical Analysis of Patrick Dangerfield

[Dan87]

No player in the game gets worked on during a match like Dangerfield. Maybe Buddy.

That has to mean something

 

[weekend at bernies]

Danger>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Boak

there done, end argument. close thread.

 

[PowerForGood]

Thanks for the quick response.

I'm personally amazed at the results you've returned and inevitably leads me to think there is something is missing in the analysis. I'm not the one with the data and the analysis of course so I shouldn't make comment.

Thanks again

Sent from Alberton Oval, the centre of the football universe

 

[invinciBlues]

It is not weighting that introduces bias, but inappropriate weighting where appropriate is judged against the objective that you are trying to evaluate.

Whoa whoa whoa. Slow down egghead.

 

[Liverpower]

The stat has some merit in theory but across 18 players the effects of having someone on/off the ground is significantly reduced compared to five for basketball.

It has been done and it has been shown to clubs without much interest. Consider the following for a reason why: By this measure Gary Ablett was the worst midfielder in the competition last year. Gold Coast's points per 100 minutes with Ablett on the field was 71.3 for, 79.7 against for a margin of -8.3 points. With him on the bench, it was 97.0 for, 57.4 against for a margin of -25.7 points. His +/- differential of -48.0 points per 100 minutes was the worst of the 150 midfielders who played 10 or more games last season an over 20% worse than any other player (next worst was -39.2 points/100 minutes). This year after six games he is coincidentally running at exactly the same differential as last season (On: 67.9 v 75.3. Off: 94.0 v 53.5 for -48.0) - the eighth-worst of the 123 midfielders with four or more games.

Others in the bottom-20 (all players, not just mids) this year who you may be surprised to see there: Scott Selwood, Michael Johnson, Jared Polec, Sam Mayes, Jordan Lewis, Mathew Stokes, Cale Hooker, Brent Macaffer.

That is fascinating stuff. There is another very important difference between AFL and the NBA - the rapidity with which interchanges occur. In the NBA it is routine for players sit out of the game for significiant fractions of particular quarters. For example, Carmelo Anthony is usually scheduled to receive two long rests a game. That is less common in the AFL where rotations off the ground tend to be shorter lasting. That I think would also make the +/- stat less useful in the AFL.

Still, I am fascinated by Ablett's +/- stats. The easy thing to do is dismiss it but perhaps it tells us that when he is on the ground the Gold Coast play through him too much? Another possibility would be that when Ablett is off the ground the opposition team relaxes more. Do you know whether that differential is statistically significant? I imagine that it is but I'm curious...

 

[Liverpower]

No player in the game gets worked on during a match like Dangerfield. Maybe Buddy.

That has to mean something

Again, that ought to be something for which there is data we can look at. Presumably Champion Data, the AFL or the clubs have information on which players are subject to the most pressure acts per game...

 

[PowerForGood]

That is fascinating stuff. There is another very important difference between AFL and the NBA - the rapidity with which interchanges occur. In the NBA it is routine for players sit out of the game for significiant fractions of particular quarters. For example, Carmelo Anthony is usually scheduled to receive two long rests a game. That is less common in the AFL where rotations off the ground tend to be shorter lasting. That I think would also make the +/- stat less useful in the AFL.

Still, I am fascinated by Ablett's +/- stats. The easy thing to do is dismiss it but perhaps it tells us that when he is on the ground the Gold Coast play through him too much? Another possibility would be that when Ablett is off the ground the opposition team relaxes more. Do you know whether that differential is statistically significant? I imagine that it is but I'm curious...

I can only guess that Ablett is rested when they are winning well, or when losing badly and thet get some junk time goals.

But a good +/- analysis should take that into account.

So without the data, who knows? I"m tempted to mine /purchase the data and run the analysis myself.

Sent from Alberton Oval, the centre of the football universe

 

[loplop]

not sure what the fuss about his tackling is? if you want to use stats to rank Dangerfield, then lets compare his tackling stats at the same age to that of Ablett. Using footywire for the stats here and the difference is a measly 0.3 of an average in favor of arguably the games greatest mid of all time 4.5 v 4.2. At the age of 24 even juddy was averaging less tackles per game and behind in most other stats compared to that of danger.

Just to add to all those port fans, at the same age boak v danger, boak averages less tackles and the same clangers per game as danger. So at this stage of his career Dangerfield is doing fine and stats don't always tell the whole story on a players worth. At 24 Ablett was no where near being regarded as the player he is today.

 

[Liverpower]

Ablett is actually an outlier here. Very few players have made the "leap" that he did at the age that he did it. Progression is usually more linear than that. If I were you I would be comparing Dangerfield more to Pendlebury or Selwood when it comes to tackling at particular ages.

That said, I do agree that Dangerfield's age means that he ought to be 2 to 3 years away from his peak, so there is room for growth. It is a little troubling though that he hasn't shown any improvement (statistically) since the 2012 season.

 

[Liverpower]

Also, Judd won a Brownlow at the age of 21, so I would be a little careful about claiming that he was ahead of Judd as either a player or statistically. Average posessions per game have also increased significantly over the past decade.

 

[calyam]

The AFL player rankings have him as the third best player in the league over the past two years. That measure is vastly more complex and comprehensive than anything the OP or anyone else in this thread is going to produce.

The debate about Dangerfield shouldn't be a debate at all. He's really good and really effective and that's about all there is to it.

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

He's playing in a bottom 8 team, GAJ aside most good players struggle in a bottom 8 team...

Will be able to reach his full potential when he comes to Geelong in a couple years though