thylacine60
Premium Platinum
- Banned
- #3,701
* I loved sunday!! how good was it?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
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.
Brilliant
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 remarkableSo 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.
In that context yes, there’s no ill
Never thought of it that way. Now it's been presented I'm comfortable just going with Cheats or Ef Cult.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.
What's an expected score? Is it just a scoring shot?
What's an expected score? Is it just a scoring shot?
It also doesn't take into account q in the rack, game situation etc. Typical champion data 0 context stats.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.
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.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.
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.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
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.