Opinion The 'Carlton related stuff that doesn't need it's own thread' thread Part 2

[thylacine60]

* I loved sunday!! how good was it?

 

[Aphrodite]

fu** I loved sunday!! how good was it?

* *

 

[AT97]

For those who like their stats, the hearldsun purefooty 7 show has some interesting stuff on Carlton. Its going to need a more savvy type to embed the video here.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

For those who like their stats, the hearldsun purefooty 7 show has some interesting stuff on Carlton. Its going to need a more savvy type to embed the video here.

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

 

[AT97]

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

Brilliant

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

 

[therubbernub]

So Pickett is now the greatest under 21 year old player of all time. Did I hear that right?

Please tell me I heard that wrong.

Just like we could never go full Judd on Walsh after his first season, I doubt anyone takes the pickett comment that seriously. But Sam is now fully in the radar and to be doing what he is doing in his third season, is remarkable

 

[myblueroan]

In that context yes, there’s no ill

In their defence, I’d be shocked if no one has used it in that context .. If some people are interpreting it that way, chances are some people are using it that way.

Never thought of it that way. Now it's been presented I'm comfortable just going with Cheats or Ef Cult.

 

[Ash24]

View attachment 1118869

What's an expected score? Is it just a scoring shot?

 

[Arr0w]

View attachment 1118869

Interesting analysis around Cripps too

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

What's an expected score? Is it just a scoring shot?

It's a median for shots taken across the AFL from a certain spot or in a certain situation.

Basically, it's saying if we had performed to the average, we would be 6th on the ladder. So we are getting enough shots and in the right positions but we're not converting.

This suggests our game plan is working but we're not capitalising.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

It's a median for shots taken across the AFL from a certain spot or in a certain situation.

Basically, it's saying if we had performed to the average, we would be 6th on the ladder. So we are getting enough shots and in the right positions but we're not converting.

This suggests our game plan is working but we're not capitalising.

It also doesn't take into account q in the rack, game situation etc. Typical champion data 0 context stats.

The one about the injury ladder? They had us 4th best injury wise for this season. Tells you all you need to know.

My job is stats, my degrees are stats heavy. It hurts my soul watching the way they present stats.

 

[BlueTang]

It also doesn't take into account q in the rack, game situation etc. Typical champion data 0 context stats.

The one about the injury ladder? They had us 4th best injury wise for this season. Tells you all you need to know.

My job is stats, my degrees are stats heavy. It hurts my soul watching the way they present stats.

I only did a couple of stat courses and an econometrics one at uni, and I 100% agree with you. They’re just manipulating the data to write a story sad really.

Did you do the pizza shop price per suburb = pizzas sold ? Wish they made better scenarios so you can see how it works in reality better

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

I only did a couple of stat courses and an econometrics one at uni, and I 100% agree with you. They’re just manipulating the data to write a story sad really.

Did you do the pizza shop price per suburb = pizzas sold ? Wish they made better scenarios so you can see how it works in reality better

The one about score involvements as a percentage of touches was just not good stats work. That heavily relies on team gameplan. It also has 28% of touches as really good and 20% as bad. A good mid averages 25 touches, 8% of that is 2. So they're saying for a 25 touch player it's only 2 possessions difference. Which is so meaningless when you add context to a game, like were they getting tagged, was the team defense so good they didn't have to score and could play possession? Those sorts of things have enough influence to sway a mids % of touches = scores more than 2 touches.

The stat I actually did like was the down the line ladder, although I think it's not statistically significant as they only showed the top few. Which tells me the difference between the rest is not a significant amount and brings into question the analysis, again, somewhat. I would've liked to see the teams that kick most down the line, but alas, another random stat without great context.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It also doesn't take into account q in the rack, game situation etc. Typical champion data 0 context stats.

The one about the injury ladder? They had us 4th best injury wise for this season. Tells you all you need to know.

My job is stats, my degrees are stats heavy. It hurts my soul watching the way they present stats.

Well yeah, but how many games have we played where the pressure was off enough to make a difference? You can't really measure the pressure a player is under.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Also on champion data. Why did they deem score involvements as so important. If you look at recent coaching trends teams are setup more defensively than offensively. So much so the afl is changing rules. Says the coaches believe preventing scores is more important... But we all know how CD rates defenders, nfi. Just look at weits rank and scores each week compared to his direct opponent. Who he's beaten, and well, yet the metric ignores that completely.

 

[FRUMPY]

It's a median for shots taken across the AFL from a certain spot or in a certain situation.

Basically, it's saying if we had performed to the average, we would be 6th on the ladder. So we are getting enough shots and in the right positions but we're not converting.

This suggests our game plan is working but we're not capitalising.

So if we were better at executing skills we would be a better side? im shocked

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Well yeah, but how many games have we played where the pressure was off enough to make a difference? You can't really measure the pressure a player is under.

Exactly, which is why the stats meaningless. You also can't apply the average standard of goal locking across 20 odd years to Casboult. He's shown to be well below standard. Same with Cripps.

 

[FRUMPY]

Exactly, which is why the stats meaningless. You also can't apply the average standard of goal locking across 20 odd years to Casboult. He's shown to be well below standard. Same with Cripps.

bad goalkicking is like bad field kicking or bad handpassing or bad ball handling or like bad defensive work. They're all skills and if you are bad at one, a few or all then it will define how good a side you are. This ladder that was presented means SFA

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

So if we were better at executing skills we would be a better side? im shocked

Little over simplified. It is suggesting we get ourselves into better scoring positions than a lot of our opposition. That's reflective of our game plan IMO. If we start executing to an average standard, we will win more games.

To me this kind of blunts the opposition I50 count a little bit as they aren't really scoring situations for them.

 

[FRUMPY]

Little over simplified. It is suggesting we get ourselves into better scoring positions than a lot of our opposition. That's reflective of our game plan IMO. If we start executing to an average standard, we will win more games.

To me this kind of blunts the opposition I50 count a little bit as they aren't really scoring situations for them.

If you execute any part of your game better you become a better side and win more games - not rocket science is it.

How many I50's do we concede a game? Seems high to me

Also, I50's increase when you dont score goals as the ball get stuck at one end.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

If you execute any part of your game better you become a better side and win more games - not rocket science is it.

How many I50's do we concede a game? Seems high to me

Also, I50's increase when you dont score goals as the ball get stuck at one end.

The I50s against seem high but they are obviously not going to a lot of acknowledged scoring areas. Low percentage entries from our opposition it seems.

The point of the whole thing is our inaccuracy is costing us games, more so than our entries. It doesn't seem that way sometimes.

 

[FRUMPY]

The I50s against seem high but they are obviously not going to a lot of acknowledged scoring areas. Low percentage entries from our opposition it seems.

The point of the whole thing is our inaccuracy is costing us games, more so than our entries. It doesn't seem that way sometimes.

THe port game if we kicked accurately early may have put enough scoreboard pressure on them to crack but thats bad football on our behalf. Same as our lack of 4 qtr effort, lack of defensive intent, lack of skills going fwd etc. Its all nice to put it in a ladder format (for one stat) and say hats the problem but its not.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

THe port game if we kicked accurately early may have put enough scoreboard pressure on them to crack but thats bad football on our behalf. Same as our lack of 4 qtr effort, lack of defensive intent, lack of skills going fwd etc. Its all nice to put it in a ladder format (for one stat) and say hats the problem but its not.

It's not the only problem, but it is obviously one of our problems. I think you're reading far too much into this. It's really not worth the ongoing debate.

 

[FRUMPY]

It's not the only problem, but it is obviously one of our problems. I think you're reading far too much into this. It's really not worth the ongoing debate.

agree, its not worth making a ladder on it