Stats - Are they misleading?

[LondonBulldog]

In our case I say yes. Look at the below and you would think we are top 4. I think the below suggests in general the work rate is there (could increase the tackles a little yet maybe that's because we have the ball a lot). It doesn't paint a good picture for our defense / game plan to dominate so many games and still be 7 wins and 6 loses. Yet it does show we have the basis of a good team, just need some tweaks in defence and we could improve. For me, Daniel should not play in defence anymore, teams have worked it out, its too costly now. I also think we need to groom a "stopper" type defender and for me that would be Khamis.

1st in Clearances
2nd in disposals
2nd in inside 50
2nd in dream team points
3rd in Goals
3rd in handballs
4th in goal assists
5th in kicks
18th in Clangers (1st)

On the opposite end
15th in Hitouts
12th in tackles
7th in Contested ball (usually in the top couple)

 

[dogwatch]

Never thought I'd paraphrase the NRA but here goes. Stats aren't the problem. People who use them are the problem.

To be more specific, listing all the stats where we shine and only listing a few where we don't will never give us the full picture. As always with stats it's the interpretation that is important.

Not having a shot at you LB. Your central argument is probably right. Defence is clearly a problem for us. If you agree with the general rule that most premierships are built on a strong defence then we aren't going far this year.

However I don't agree with your assessment of Daniel. A lot here say he's bad news in defence but every time I see him live or on TV he performs well. Against GWS he was usually the one getting us out of trouble and was nearly in my Ching votes.

I'd be interested in Oliver Gigacz 's take on the OP. Or indeed the take of any of our stats hounds.

 

[stefoid]

well - yes!

There was another thread titled - are we too offensive? But I think we have been the opposite. So many i50s, yes, but so much of them into a crowded forward line. The GWS game seemed like a real transition to a more attacking style of play, taking more risks and more players ahead of the ball, and it paid off.

Its going to be interesting to see if we can retain that offensive style for the rest of the year, and just fine tune the defence. Naughton and Bruce in the same, less clogged up forward line? That could be good.

 

[Foxman98]

Stats aren't the issue they are what they are and are factual. The overall interpretation and weight added to them all is the issue

 

[hutchy31]

Agree with the above posters re. interpretation being the issue rather than the stats themselves. Most of the ones that are focused on during/after games relate to possession and/or territory dominance, but as we know you can dominate a game in those areas and still get beaten by an efficient opponent - as in most team sports.

I'm not as across the stats and their context as I'm sure many other posters are, but as a footy watcher I feel like there is real outsized importance on two types of kicks - the one from defense/half-back into the middle of the ground, and the entry inside 50. I know that's not a revelation of any kind, but along with intercepts and clearance effectiveness (especially from centre with 6-6-6) that'll decide most games I would think. Richmond thumped Carlton to the tune of 76 inside 50s to 51, but the game was in the balance with 10 mins to go because they couldn't put it on the scoreboard - a feeling we know fairly well as dogs supporters.

So one reading of the stats would be that we're not that far off being one of the best teams in the comp given the clearance, possession, inside 50 numbers. Another reading of it is that we're obviously poor at effectively converting those advantages into scores and wins, which is a big challenge and maybe not easily fixable.

 

[Jezdog]

stats do paint a bit of a picture. We’re a good with ball in hand but no so good when the other team has control. Another stat that’s not there is intercept marking. We are ranked 15th, it makes it hard to repel opposition attacks if we’re poor at intercept marking. Easton wood

10

Easton Wood

Age

34

Ht

187cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.0

4star

K

8.0

3star

HB

6.1

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

217.0

3star

D

11.2

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

4.2

3star

M

4.3

4star

T

1.2

2star

MG

154.0

3star

D

12.8

4star

K

6.4

3star

HB

6.4

4star

M

3.0

3star

T

1.8

4star

was such a strong asset in that area we just haven’t replaced. I thought crozier might have filled that role. But he must be poor defensively I assume the reason he isn’t getting a game based on how good he’s looked in the VFL. Back in 2016 we were a contested and tackling machine, but that’s not the case anymore. I don’t know if the game plan, personnel, or work rate. Maybe all 3. And 15th for Hitouts is still a concern for me. Tim is such a good footballer but even on the weekend without their best ruck he was beaten in hitouts to advantage. We are still very capable, and have plenty of talent, but there’s a few areas, especially defensively that’s hurting us. I agree Caleb was brilliant in defensw as far as getting the ball out but at times he will get exposed for height, especially on a fast turn over. I wouldn’t say that so much as an issue if we had some better key defenders and better intercept markers.

 

[theburst]

we are 18th(the worst!) 1 vs 1 contests differentials in defense, but they know this and with our current List use other levers to prepare and apply during the game...some coaches have said they're not big on Stats, I guess rely on their large Coaching team for the numbers

 

[BEaston]

Stats can only be misleading if they're not true. Otherwise they simply say what they say.

"1st in clearances". All this says is we average the more clearances than all other teams, nothing more nothing less.
From there, people can infer whatever they like.

Regarding our own performances this year, the two main stats I'd be interested in seeing would be attacking and defensive efficiency. If I had to guess these two would align with what our eyes are telling us with our performances.

 

[BIG_BONTS]

Howard Marks (or his son) said something interesting related to metrics and investing. Everyone (myself) included wants a rule to point to a metric and say here, look this is exactly what we should do. In reality even making the decision of which metrics and rules to point to requires nuance and good judgement.

Alls to say the stats are partially misleading of how well we're traveling if they're not interpreted in the context of being 7-6 and losing to bottom 8 teams. We're not flying at the moment. I think we all believe we have another gear. Hopefully we can find it and do something big this year.

 

[Morris Major]

Very. It's even worse now because there are so many more stats in our game but such little understanding of what they do.

A pet hate of mine is using 'average' as an indicator of playing list age, when it tells a very limited story if at all. This is especially important when you need to know the spread of the player ages to know where the list actually is at.

At the very least, a stat needs to effectively tell a story and the criteria for the stat needs to be understood.

 

[BEaston]

Very. It's even worse now because there are so many more stats in our game but such little understanding of what they do.

A pet hate of mine is using 'average' as an indicator of playing list age, when it tells a very limited story if at all. This is especially important when you need to know the spread of the player ages to know where the list actually is at.

At the very least, a stat needs to effectively tell a story and the criteria for the stat needs to be understood.

Completely disagree. A stat simply tells you a fact. It's up to an individual to use that to tell a story if they wish. I think the attitude here about the expectation of what a stat should do is the reason they can be used so poorly, not the other way around.

 

[doggies ftw]

we are 18th(the worst!) 1 vs 1 contests differentials in defense, but they know this and with our current List use other levers to prepare and apply during the game...some coaches have said they're not big on Stats, I guess rely on their large Coaching team for the numbers

stats do paint a bit of a picture. We’re a good with ball in hand but no so good when the other team has control. Another stat that’s not there is intercept marking. We are ranked 15th, it makes it hard to repel opposition attacks if we’re poor at intercept marking. Easton wood was such a strong asset in that area we just haven’t replaced. I thought crozier might have filled that role. But he must be poor defensively I assume the reason he isn’t getting a game based on how good he’s looked in the VFL. Back in 2016 we were a contested and tackling machine, but that’s not the case anymore. I don’t know if the game plan, personnel, or work rate. Maybe all 3. And 15th for Hitouts is still a concern for me. Tim is such a good footballer but even on the weekend without their best ruck he was beaten in hitouts to advantage. We are still very capable, and have plenty of talent, but there’s a few areas, especially defensively that’s hurting us. I agree Caleb was brilliant in defensw as far as getting the ball out but at times he will get exposed for height, especially on a fast turn over. I wouldn’t say that so much as an issue if we had some better key defenders and better intercept markers.

18th worst for 1-on-1 and 15th worst for intercept marking - that’s unreal. You could accept losing one on ones if it meant you had lots of strong intercepting types. You can’t possibly be bad at both and expect to win many games.

What’s our defence actually good at, anyone know our ranking for scores from def50 and inside 50s from def 50? Is it high enough to make up for the above?

 

[John Smith92]

18th worst for 1-on-1 and 15th worst for intercept marking - that’s unreal. You could accept losing one on ones if it meant you had lots of strong intercepting types. You can’t possibly be bad at both and expect to win many games.

What’s our defence actually good at, anyone know our ranking for scores from def50 and inside 50s from def 50? Is it high enough to make up for the above?

Our defence is good at attacking. Dale and Daniel are AA level attacking half back flankers but not only do we not need 2, it actually unbalances us having both on the ground at the same time because it leaves us vulnerable to teams with multiple good small forwards. not only that, a third spot is filled by Richards or before him Williams/JJ who all have the same strengths and weaknesses but are less good. Add on to that that Keath is our only solid tall (and even he isn't excellent, just AFL standard), and any team with 2 good talls will give us a hell of a lot of trouble. Then, just to top it all off, we lost Wood and Crozier's form fell off a cliff halfway through 2020 so that the intercept marking/zone defence which was probably our main point of difference in 2016 has completely disappeared. So any time our midfield isn't completely dominating, which usually will be the case against good teams, we can be torn apart in a quarter (ie Geelong last week), because our defence can't defend.

Compare and contrast to 2016:
2 kpds are Hamling (good player in great form) and Roberts (solid player in good form) who were both capable of locking down on a key forward far better than Gardner/Cordy/Schache/Daniel or whoever else ends up on the Riewoldts and Camerons of the world.
Third tall - Morris - freak, competitive beast.
Intercept marker - Wood, AA when healthy at the time.
Smalls - Boyd (competitive beast who could rack up the ball at will) and JJ (slightly less good version of Dale but the only member of that back 6 who wasn't at least competent one on one).

I get the sense that Bevo didn't particularly like that mix but is a great tactical and gameday coach who made the best of what he had and, when combined with his obvious motivational abilities, it led to a flag. Imo his actual vision was a lot closer to 2021 than 2016, which is a defence which sets up extremely aggressively, relying on midfield pressure to rush opposition entries, win back the ball and hand off to aggressive users off the hbf to set up slingshot attacks, which we're generally pretty good at when given the opportunity. Unfortunately for that to work you still need good KPDs to prevent pack marks off speculative kicks, and a great intercept marking defender like Wood (and to a lesser extent Hamling) to win clean possession for said aggressive flankers, which we also no longer have. With our only good lockdown small in Duryea now gone shits about to get even worse imo.

The worst part about all of this is that if you look at our midfield and forward line, both are significantly better than the 2016 versions while our defence is comparable player for player, it's just that the balance is awful. So our best footy still looks brilliant when plan A is working, but by * do we get cut up by good teams in pressure games when it doesn't.

Thus endeth the rant.

edit: forgot to mention Biggs as a small in 2016

 

[John Smith92]

Also that is my answer to the title of the thread - our stats are misleading because our defence is s**t, so centre clearances and turnovers are worth triple to our opposition because they score off them at will.

 

[hutchy31]

Also that is my answer to the title of the thread - our stats are misleading because our defence is s**t, so centre clearances and turnovers are worth triple to our opposition because they score off them at will.

Points from our centre clearance wins compared to points for opposition from their centre clearance wins would be interesting, and the same for turnovers. I suspect you'd be proved correct here that the benefit we get from ours is smaller.

 

[Oliver G]

Points from our centre clearance wins compared to points for opposition from their centre clearance wins would be interesting, and the same for turnovers. I suspect you'd be proved correct here that the benefit we get from ours is smaller.

We're ranked equal 4th for Goals From Centre Bounce Differential...



We're ranked 1st for Scores From Stoppages Differential...



We're ranked 10th for Scores From Turnovers Differential...



We're ranked 18th for Scores From Kick-Ins Differential...



We're ranked 3rd for Avg. Score For, 1st for Avg. Expected Score For, 10th for Avg. Score Against, 6th for Avg. Expected Score Against ...



Finally here is the Expected Score Ladder after R14...

 

[Libba39]

Stats schmatz.

They're fun to look at but their importance is highly overrated.

For example the GWS game had a lot of stats that would say, boost us in certain areas such as scoring and scoring chains and goal assists.

But playing like that is not going to win you a final.

 

[ScragCity]

All the statistics in the world can't measure the warmth of a smile.

 

[LondonBulldog]

We're ranked 18th for Scores From Kick-Ins Differential..

That's an important stat and highlights an area the coaches need to work on. We are the worst for scores against from kick in. No a good stat to say backing off 5 is working, if sides are going coast to coast! Also highlights our "push up" defense can be tighten.

 

[John Smith92]

We're ranked equal 4th for Goals From Centre Bounce Differential...

View attachment 1429044

We're ranked 1st for Scores From Stoppages Differential...

View attachment 1429045

We're ranked 10th for Scores From Turnovers Differential...

View attachment 1429046

We're ranked 18th for Scores From Kick-Ins Differential...

View attachment 1429047

We're ranked 3rd for Avg. Score For, 1st for Avg. Expected Score For, 10th for Avg. Score Against, 6th for Avg. Expected Score Against ...

View attachment 1429049

Finally here is the Expected Score Ladder after R14...

View attachment 1429051

Well that would prove me mostly wrong then. Do you happen to have one for scores per inside 50?

 

[doggies ftw]

We're ranked equal 4th for Goals From Centre Bounce Differential...

View attachment 1429044

We're ranked 1st for Scores From Stoppages Differential...

View attachment 1429045

We're ranked 10th for Scores From Turnovers Differential...

View attachment 1429046

We're ranked 18th for Scores From Kick-Ins Differential...

View attachment 1429047

We're ranked 3rd for Avg. Score For, 1st for Avg. Expected Score For, 10th for Avg. Score Against, 6th for Avg. Expected Score Against ...

View attachment 1429049

Finally here is the Expected Score Ladder after R14...

View attachment 1429051

Really interesting stuff here - we’re the outlier in the scores from stoppages and CB that were high without a great ruck division compared to the other teams in the top handful.

Would you have general scores from def 50 (not kick in) or forward 50 entries from def 50?

18th in scores from kick ins differential is pretty crazy - that’s a big big issue with us the ease of which teams are moving the ball. Tells us the current system is just not working tbh

 

[dogwatch]

Well that would prove me mostly wrong then. Do you happen to have one for scores per inside 50?

It is not exactly what you're looking for but I posted this in the "Are we too offensive?" thread last week. So it won't be updated for Rd14.
Ladder position is determined by the ratio of i50sFor to i50sAgainst.

Simplistically speaking, if we won games at the rate we managed to get i50s (and prevent opposition sides doing the same) we'd be second on the ladder.

After Rd 14 our ratio fell to 119.8% so we are probably third now but we're still an outlier.

Up to and including Rd 14 we have had 755 i50s and we've kicked 179 goals and 153 behinds.
So that's a goal for 23.7% of our i50s and a behind for 20.3% of entries.
That makes a score of some description for 44% of our i50s.

I don't know what the overall AFL average is but a quick check of two clubs shows Melbourne's percentages are 21.2 (G) and 20.9 (B) for a total of 42.1. Collingwood (just above us on the ladder) are 22.5 (G) and 19.1 (B) for a total of 41.6.

So our conversion rate is quite good it would seem. Once again it implies something is wrong with our defence.

 

[John Smith92]

It is not exactly what you're looking for but I posted this in the "Are we too offensive?" thread last week. So it won't be updated for Rd14.
Ladder position is determined by the ratio of i50sFor to i50sAgainst.

Simplistically speaking, if we won games at the rate we managed to get i50s (and prevent opposition sides doing the same) we'd be second on the ladder.

After Rd 14 our ratio fell to 119.8% so we are probably third now but we're still an outlier.

Up to and including Rd 14 we have had 755 i50s and we've kicked 179 goals and 153 behinds.
So that's a goal for 23.7% of our i50s and a behind for 20.3% of entries.
That makes a score of some description for 44% of our i50s.

I don't know what the overall AFL average is but a quick check of two clubs shows Melbourne's percentages are 21.2 (G) and 20.9 (B) for a total of 42.1. Collingwood (just above us on the ladder) are 22.5 (G) and 19.1 (B) for a total of 41.6.

So our conversion rate is quite good it would seem. Once again it implies something is wrong with our defence.

Yeah that's what I thought just watching but I expected it to show up in scores against from centre bounces and turnovers ie when the ball gets in there quickly. Thought we would be relatively competent defending transition from our forward line but it looks like exactly the opposite.

 

[lachy]

Stats in themselves can never be misleading, it is how they are interpreted but also just as important how they are viewed in line with other stats.

For example which is better:
10 centre clearances followed by 3 effective kicks or
5 centre clearances followed by 5 effective kicks

clearly the second one is better and is like to have 2 more scoring shots but when they are presented in an argument they are presented separately. If the 5 effective kicks were in the backline under little pressure there value is a lot less that effective kicks from centre clearances where they are likely setting up scoring opportunities

 

[BEaston]

Really interesting stuff here - we’re the outlier in the scores from stoppages and CB that were high without a great ruck division compared to the other teams in the top handful.

Would you have general scores from def 50 (not kick in) or forward 50 entries from def 50?

18th in scores from kick ins differential is pretty crazy - that’s a big big issue with us the ease of which teams are moving the ball. Tells us the current system is just not working tbh

It's almost like ruck work has little to no correlation to scoring or winning games.

Something that has been shown in multiple analyses already.