Analysis Good, Bad and Not Much Ugly

[BunjiMac]

Lions had 59 kicks inside 50 and took 3 marks. That’s a combination of good pressure and the Lions wasting a few entries, but as a few have mentioned already, many of their kicks inside 50 were shallow or wide. Sure the Lions had periods of dominance, but as the disposals showed, this game was played on our terms.

Weather and conditions played a part too, lions didn't adjust as well as we did.

 

[Bearded Clam]

It’s beautiful up in Darwin at this time of year. I go there a lot for work and mornings are actually cold atm and it’s a very pleasant temperature just after the sun goes down. The game just played was in perfect conditions for footy and I wouldn’t expect any different this week.

We played the Dees in the middle of July in 2017 at TIO stadium in Darwin..

i remember the night.. was that warm they had big kennards hire fans blowing “ice air“ on the players on the bench, they had a “cold room“ set up and the humidity made the ball like a cake of soap..

hopefully you're right..

 

[BACCS]

Another stat that highlights how good our defense was… we conceded 30 inside 50 stoppages, but from that Brisbane only scored one goal.

 

[BACCS]

Looked pretty slippery on Saturday night.
70% this sat at 7pm 80% by 9pm

I was up there last week, it’s a very pleasant temperature at night. It’s nothing like what we experienced against GWS round one, which was like a wet season climate in Darwin. May/early June are the only times of year you can play up there as it gets unbearable outside of these months.

 

[FR0GGY]

I was up there last week, it’s a very pleasant temperature at night. It’s nothing like what we experienced against GWS round one, which was like a wet season climate in Darwin. May/early June are the only times of year you can play up there as it gets unbearable outside of these months.

I didn’t say it was comparable to GWS, but it will be slippery, it always is.

 

[BACCS]

I didn’t say it was comparable to GWS, but it will be slippery, it always is.

Maybe I am just used to the climate now, but it will be no different to a night game at AO.

 

[BACCS]

Surprised by some of the negative Dawson comment by supporters. The guy is clearly our only A grader midfielder and is a Brownlow contender. He is proving to be the perfect captain.

Laird is an A grade midfielder, the only people who can’t seem to recognize that live on this board.

 

[George Kramer]

Lions had 59 kicks inside 50 and took 3 marks. That’s a combination of good pressure and the Lions wasting a few entries, but as a few have mentioned already, many of their kicks inside 50 were shallow or wide. Sure the Lions had periods of dominance, but as the disposals showed, this game was played on our terms.

And the wet slippery conditions

 

[StonesThrow]

Can we hire a traction analyst who advises which boots to wear throughout a game?

 

[MarcusP2]

Another stat that highlights how good our defense was… we conceded 30 inside 50 stoppages, but from that Brisbane only scored one goal.

That would've been Soligos missed tackle on Cameron I think.

 

[AFC979810]

what? it grades each shot with a difficulty level, and then shows what score would be "expected" from the difficulty of each shot. Then compares it to the "actual" result. when you see a quarter like 1.9... you could attribute a win to luck, rather than defensive pressure etc... but this confirms our win, by showing that the Lions would still not have won if they had kicked to the standard of the shot difficulty.

TLDR: we still would have won if the Lions had kicked well

Well isn't that just a silly concept.

 

[jamesclean]

Well isn't that just a silly concept.

It's really not man hahah

 

[AFC979810]

It's really not man hahah

Did John Who create it?

 

[baldandbroke]

what? it grades each shot with a difficulty level, and then shows what score would be "expected" from the difficulty of each shot. Then compares it to the "actual" result. when you see a quarter like 1.9... you could attribute a win to luck, rather than defensive pressure etc... but this confirms our win, by showing that the Lions would still not have won if they had kicked to the standard of the shot difficulty.

TLDR: we still would have won if the Lions had kicked well

You believe in luck?

So players like Harry McKay are just unlucky?

What a useless and bizarre statistical piece of wank that is. May as well say “if we had different players … the scores would be different”.

 

[MarcusP2]

You believe in luck?

So players like Harry McKay are just unlucky?

What a useless and bizarre statistical piece of wank that is. May as well say “if we had different players … the scores would be different”.

You know the stat they bring up on the broadcast with 'shots from this spot' - how many goals/behinds the kicker has scored from that exact location? It applies similar to every shot on goal to give an idea as to whether a team is being very inaccurate or only getting very difficult shots. Obviously limitations (doesn't take into account left foot vs right foot, etc) but that's the basic idea.

The xScore being close to the actual score with so many behinds shows that Brisbane were mostly getting difficult shots, not shanking them from directly in front. That's all.
McKay would have an xScore consistently way below average, which would demonstrate its not luck.

 

[GreyCrow]

I think it was the final comment that got the most raised Peter Capaldi eyebrows

TLDR: we still would have won if the Lions had kicked well

If I read that right - and its only a few short words so I figure its hard to mess up - if Brisbane kicked 9.1 instead of 1.9 we still would have won

 

[MarcusP2]

I think it was the final comment that got the most raised Peter Capaldi eyebrows


If I read that right - and its only a few short words so I figure its hard to mess up - if Brisbane kicked 9.1 instead of 1.9 we still would have won

Yes it should be more like 'if Brisbane were average, we still would've won'. If they performed above average we would've lost.

Here's the actual data, we were very evenly matched.


I recall looking at this a couple of years ago when everyone seemed to be snipers against us to validate my feelings.

 

[GreyCrow]

Yes it should be more like 'if Brisbane were average, we still would've won'. If they performed above average we would've lost.

Here's the actual data, we were very evenly matched.


I recall looking at this a couple of years ago when everyone seemed to be snipers against us to validate my feelings.

Certainly a lot of work gone into it - but I feel it is used - and you kinda confirmed it with your ''validate my feelings'' comment ( and nothing wrong with looking for info to base things on)

But I also wonder how much these get ignored when its on the other foot

Like how if we lose the Hawthorn game how much the narrative changes - even though its by less than a goal

 

[AFC979810]

Its a ridiculous premise.

Beginning of the 3rd quarter. Ashcroft has a shot on goal 35 metres out. He kicks that and Brisbane take the lead for the first time since the 1st quarter and the ball goes to the middle.

Instead he pushes it right and 4 kicks and 25 seconds later - FOG has the ball 15 metres out directly in front. The game goes from Crows being down 54-49 to instead the Crows up 56 to 48.

This adjusted scoring is silly.

 

[WeeBlake]

Jeez. It’s pretty straight forward.

Someone kicks a lot of points. Ok, “they kicked badly”. How badly? Here is how bad.

Or someone kicks like 16.4. Ok, “they kicked well”. How well. Here is how well, they were all from the goal square, so about par.

They are not trying to show anything more than that.

If you think the difficulty of shots taken is irrelevant to results or coaching then I can’t help you.

 

[WeeBlake]

I'm not a hater and he was playing on in the square against the Saints.

No he wasn’t

 

[baldandbroke]

You know the stat they bring up on the broadcast with 'shots from this spot' - how many goals/behinds the kicker has scored from that exact location? It applies similar to every shot on goal to give an idea as to whether a team is being very inaccurate or only getting very difficult shots. Obviously limitations (doesn't take into account left foot vs right foot, etc) but that's the basic idea.

The xScore being close to the actual score with so many behinds shows that Brisbane were mostly getting difficult shots, not shanking them from directly in front. That's all.
McKay would have an xScore consistently way below average, which would demonstrate its not luck.

I understand where the stats come from … but they are an example of using stats that mean absolutely nothing to produce a result that has no basis in reality.

Oils ain’t oils.

There are waaaaaay to many variables to try and consider to make this type of stat even slightly relevant.

 

[FR0GGY]

No he wasn’t

As discussed during that week, we can’t tell because he hadn’t played on yet.
He could have still wanted to pull back but didn’t get the chance because he was pushed slightly.

 

[GreyCrow]

If you think the difficulty of shots taken is irrelevant to results or coaching then I can’t help you.

Understand it perfectly. I even mentioned it in the Carlton game

We seemed to be controlling the middle and only giving McKay and Curnow the boundary or deep 50m out. Thats good coaching

 

[WeeBlake]

I understand where the stats come from … but they are an example of using stats that mean absolutely nothing to produce a result that has no basis in reality.

Oils ain’t oils.

There are waaaaaay to many variables to try and consider to make this type of stat even slightly relevant.

The stats are not trying to give you some kind of alternative reality (despite the person above saying ‘we still would have won’). They are showing you the difficulty of the shots each side took, and how their conversion compared to the expected result for the difficulty of each shot. Then they add it all up to show the aggregate result so you can see how well or badly each side kicked across the game, and how easy or hard their shots were. That’s it, that’s all!

Your point - if they kicked this one or that one it would have gone back to the middle and everything afterwards would be different is obviously true, but it has nothing to do with how hard each subsequent actual shot was.

The stats absolutely ‘mean’ something, they measure the difficulty of shots taken, and performance against expectation for that difficulty.