Scape Goat The Cam Guthrie Echo Chamber

[Pollywaffle]

Genuine question :

How is disposal efficiency judged?

A guy has the ball. He handballs to a guy standing still, with his opponent crowding him.

The handball hits its intended target, but the recipient loses possession because he's motionless and / or his opponent is able to spoil it.

Is it an efficient disposal because it hit its target, or is it a poor disposal because the choice of target was clearly wrong?

Good question. I dont really know. Collecting stats has become an industry these days. Many of them are flaky at best. DE is certainly one of those .I'm sure there is some sort of metric they use. Other stupid stats include 'time in forward 50' and 'metres gained' which are more easily quantified but equally useless in measuring effectiveness.
Getting to the 12man stage of having a player comfort thermometer in the jockstrap soon...

 

[Cataholic]

Good question. I dont really know. Collecting stats has become an industry these days. Many of them are flaky at best. DE is certainly one of those .I'm sure there is some sort of metric they use. Other stupid stats include 'time in forward 50' and 'metres gained' which are more easily quantified but equally useless in measuring effectiveness.
Getting to the 12man stage of having a player comfort thermometer in the jockstrap soon...

Wholeheartedly agree

 

[Warhorse]

Genuine question :

How is disposal efficiency judged?

A guy has the ball. He handballs to a guy standing still, with his opponent crowding him.

The handball hits its intended target, but the recipient loses possession because he's motionless and / or his opponent is able to spoil it.

Is it an efficient disposal because it hit its target, or is it a poor disposal because the choice of target was clearly wrong?

Sounds like you are describing a typical Guthrie possession

 

[catempire]

This thread can now quarantine spurious DE discussions too? What a winner!

 

[Cataholic]

This thread can now quarantine spurious DE discussions too? What a winner!

Why is it a spurious discussion?

It's a stat that many quote as an irrefutable summation of a player's contribution.

Understanding how that stat is collected would therefore be worthy exercise I would've thought.......

 

[catempire]

Why is it a spurious discussion?

It's a stat that many quote as an irrefutable summation of a player's contribution.

Answered your own question.

 

[Cataholic]

Answered your own question.

Can't see how.

I was asking how 'efficiency' is determined within an individual piece of play.........

 

[catempire]

Can't see how.

I was asking how 'efficiency' is determined within an individual piece of play.........

Suggesting that:

It's a stat that many quote as an irrefutable summation of a player's contribution.

Is arrant nonsense.

 

[Cataholic]

Good question. I dont really know. Collecting stats has become an industry these days. Many of them are flaky at best. DE is certainly one of those .I'm sure there is some sort of metric they use. Other stupid stats include 'time in forward 50' and 'metres gained' which are more easily quantified but equally useless in measuring effectiveness.
Getting to the 12man stage of having a player comfort thermometer in the jockstrap soon...

I don't really know either, but I would like to.

Understanding that interpretation would be useful.

 

[Cataholic]

Suggesting that:

Is arrant nonsense.

Is it?

I venture there are many, many posts here that reference DE as a key stat to a player's value and contribution.

 

[catempire]

Is it?

I venture there are many, many posts here that reference DE as a key stat to a player's value and contribution.

Backpedaling already?

 

[Cataholic]

Backpedaling already?

Huh? Where have I back-pedalled??

I said many use it as irrefutable evidence (ie key stat) about a player's contribution during a game.

Can't see any inconsistency in that.

I've simply asked, quite politely, how 'efficiency' is assessed when that stat is collected. I thought, and still think, it a reasonable question.

Not sure why you're thinking it's fake.

 

[catempire]

I said many use it as irrefutable evidence (ie key stat) about a player's contribution during a game.

Can't see any inconsistency in that.

Can’t help you then.

 

[Cataholic]

Can’t help you then.

No worries then.

I'll look elsewhere.

 

[Cataholic]

Well, enough of the spurious discussion.

From what I can gather, the AFL's definition of DE is the percentage of ball movements that are to the benefit of the team.

Guthrie is often criticised because of his ball disposal,and I've been one of those critics.

But:

a) in terms of DE, has that criticism been unfair because he has got the ball to a teammate, and they being flat-footed or under immediate pressure is irrelevant (so his DE goes up) or

b) is the teammate being flat-footed or caught NOT to the benefit of the team and therefore his DE goes down?

I suspect the definition is A.

 

[catempire]

Well, enough of the spurious discussion.

From what I can gather, the AFL's definition of DE is the percentage of ball movements that are to the benefit of the team.

Guthrie is often criticised because of his ball disposal,and I've been one of those critics.

But:

a) in terms of DE, has that criticism been unfair because he has got the ball to a teammate, and they being flat-footed or under immediate pressure is irrelevant (so his DE goes up) or

b) is the teammate being flat-footed or caught NOT to the benefit of the team and therefore his DE goes down?

I suspect the definition is A.

C. To suggest this “flat-footed” concept is relevant to the DE of a player who has had 2640 AFL disposals is spurious.

 

[Cataholic]

C. To suggest this “flat-footed” concept is relevant to the DE of a player who has had 2640 AFL disposals is spurious.

Volume doesn't necessarily equate to quality.

You've never seen him pass the ball to players under immediate pressure or standing still?

 

[Cataholic]

C. To suggest this “flat-footed” concept is relevant to the DE of a player who has had 2640 AFL disposals is spurious.

Your opinion. And you're entitled to that, just as others are entitled to a different pov.

 

[catempire]

Volume doesn't necessarily equate to quality.

You've never seen him pass the ball to players under immediate pressure or standing still?

I've seen all players do it. So what?

Your opinion. And you're entitled to that, just as others are entitled to a different pov.

This again? No one is undermining your right to post your opinion. If you don't want to have your posts questioned, don't post.

 

[David the Cat]

I really had an urge to delete the last page+...did i see a mention of Cam Guthrie?...like....anywhere?

Reminds me ...i better check the Scott thread....

 

[Cataholic]

I've seen all players do it. So what?

This again? No one is undermining your right to post your opinion. If you don't want to have your posts questioned, don't post.

Someone run over your dog today??

Yes, all players do it. It's a point of contention that Guthrie has been prone to doing it more than most.

You disagree. Fair enough.

Others don't.

I was genuinely trying to understand the interpretation of DE to better understand his output, and thereby analyse if my perception of him was fair and correct.

But you came in throwing a catch word around, and didn't even attempt to help answer the question, or try and engage in a sensible discussion.

And I've never said my posts can't be questioned. To suggest I have, or did, is wrong.

In this case I WAS asking for my perception to be questioned through a sensible answer and discussion to my question. I thought you might've led the way, but......

 

[catempire]

Someone run over your dog today??

Yes, all players do it. It's a point of contention that Guthrie has been prone to doing it more than most.

You disagree. Fair enough.

Others don't.

I was genuinely trying to understand the interpretation of DE to better understand his output, and thereby analyse if my perception of him was fair and correct.

But you came in throwing a catch word around, and didn't even attempt to help answer the question, or try and engage in a sensible discussion.

And I've never said my posts can't be questioned. To suggest I have, or did, is wrong.

In this case I WAS asking for my perception to be questioned through a sensible answer and discussion to my question. I thought you might've led the way, but......

You give me a % of how much more prone Guthrie is to disposing of the ball to flat footed players and ill happily adjust his DE accordingly. I’ll then estimate how much other players do it and adjust all other players DE as well. What will we have achieved in this exercise?

 

[Cataholic]

You give me a % of how much more prone Guthrie is to disposing of the ball to flat footed players and ill happily adjust his DE accordingly. I’ll then estimate how much other players do it and adjust all other players DE as well. What will we have achieved in this exercise?

Geez CE, you've missed the point of my question....... I'm at a complete loss as to how and why my original question - which I thought was legitimate - has aggravated you and caused such angst.

Perhaps I haven't phrased it properly? I've tried to do so a couple of times, obviously without success, so to avoid any further inflammation I'm going to leave it here.

Cheers

 

[Cataholic]

Glad you've seen the funny side, and I've done my bit to set the tone

 

[CatFan79]

Someone run over your dog today??

Criticising the Guth touches nerves.

BTW you don't need stats to prove his disposal efficiency is bottom 2 or 3 in the team.

It's obvious to anyone with half a clue.