The stats thread

[mdc]

I figure it's a good idea to start a thread with some of the less readily available season stats for Pies players. I'll add more categories as the season progresses, and if you want a particular stat for a certain player (who's not in the top/bottom 5), just ask.

For now we have (as of 29/04);
- Disposal Efficiency: The percentage of a player's disposals that are classed as "efficient". (min. 50 disposals to qualify)
- Ball winners: The percentage of a player's possies that are contested. (min. 50 disposals to qualify)
- i50 strike-rate: The percentage of a player's inside-50's that directly result in a goal. (min. 10 i50s to qualify)

 

[Rohan25]

Thanks mate, that's awesome work. Keep it up.

 

[DWil6]

Thought Ben Johnson might get a few more contested possies then that.
And as for Swan.. I wonder what percentage of his ineffective possessions are quick clearance kicks that end up with the opposition compared to good old fashioned stuff up possessions.
Finally, good to see Wood winning so much contested footy and the small, hard man of footy, Dale Thomas.

 

[smiddaz123]

Thought Ben Johnson might get a few more contested possies then that.

Personally I thought he'd be in single digits. He's roughly double what I expected.

Not surprised at all at Harry O's efficiency rate. I've said all year his disposal has improved to the point that he's one of the better kicks in our team.

 

[Parallel Andy]

I figure it's a good idea to start a thread with some of the less readily available season stats for Pies players. I'll add more categories as the season progresses, and if you want a particular stat for a certain player (who's not in the top/bottom 5), just ask.

For now we have;
- Disposal Efficiency
- Ball winners (i.e. what percentage of a player's possies are contested)

DISPOSAL EFFICIENCY

Name, Disposals, Inefficient, Disp. Efficiency
(As of 28/04, min. 50 disposals to qualify)

Heritier O'Brien,68,7,89.7%
Shane Wakelin,64,10,84.4%
Scott Pendlebury,130,23,82.3%
Cameron Wood,54,10,81.5%
Martin Clarke,59,11,81.4%
_________________________

Travis Cloke,79,24,69.6%
Dale Thomas,83,26,68.7%
Alan Didak,136,43,68.4%
Paul Medhurst,100,33,67.0%
Dane Swan,142,51,64.1%


BALL WINNERS

Name, Disposals, Contested, Percentage
(As of 28/04, min. 50 disposals to qualify)

Cameron Wood,54,29,53.7%
Dale Thomas,83,40,48.2%
Shane O'Bree,113,53,46.9%
Josh Fraser,88,40,45.5%
Nick Maxwell,58,25,43.1%
_________________________

Martin Clarke,59,16,27.1%
Alan Didak,136,36,26.5%
Tarkyn Lockyer,129,33,25.6%
Rhyce Shaw,134,31,23.1%
Ben Johnson,102,17,16.7%

Can you post the link to the site where you got these?

 

[Kirby]

The first thing that immediately comes to mind is that the percentages are fairly tight between top and bottom with the obvious exception of Ben Johnson who now appears to be almost entirely a receiver. Which such poor disposal skills this is not a good thing.

The fact that Didak, Medhurst and Thomas are in the bottom percentages for disposal efficiency does not shock due to the fact that small forwards tend to be speculative and imaginative with their kicking to try and create goals. It's not like the backmen (see Wakes and Harry) who have a whole open field in front of them.

 

[Thommo 42]

Not only that.

Backmen will have a higher efficiency rate, because they are often kicking to loose men.

Forwards will have a lower efficiency as they deliver the ball into the forward 50 more often where there will obviously be more contested situations.

Same goes for mids who have a high % of inside 50's and/or clearances - their disposal efficiency will clearly be affected as such.

Alan Didak is clearly the best kick in our side, and these numbers don't indicate as such for the above reasons.

 

[mdc]

Can you post the link to the site where you got these?

I just dumped the raw champion data numbers into excel, and it did the rest.

The fact that Didak, Medhurst and Thomas are in the bottom percentages for disposal efficiency does not shock due to the fact that small forwards tend to be speculative and imaginative with their kicking to try and create goals. It's not like the backmen (see Wakes and Harry) who have a whole open field in front of them.

I agree for the most part, although I'd add that a couple of the guys in that bottom 5 are clearly struggling with their kick. I'd be shocked if both Didak and Swan didn't greatly improve their DE in the near future.

 

[itsacakewalk]

Thanks mydarlingclementine great work. Can you do the same for the whole
team,that would be something to look forward to and make for some interesting reading.Keep up the good work.

 

[Frederlick]

Puts the idea that Thomas is soft to the sword. How does he compare to other small forwards?

 

[mdc]

Thanks mydarlingclementine great work. Can you do the same for the whole
team,that would be something to look forward to and make for some interesting reading.Keep up the good work.

Cheers.
I've now put up all the players that have enough disposals to qualify. I won't include guys that have only played 1 or 2 games, as you'd have some strange numbers.

Puts the idea that Thomas is soft to the sword. How does he compare to other small forwards?

No idea - maybe someone on another board could run the numbers so we could compare.

 

[hellfire]

Conclusions:

Thomas - midfield.

Rhyce, Johnson... handball it off before going inside 50, preferably to Pendles.

 

[Smoky]

Nice work.

Heres an interesting stat

Shane Wakelin is yet to give a free kick away this year. 6 games as a key defender... You can teach an old dog new tricks!

 

[Us3]

a couple of things mydarlingclementine

the assist stats, are they only assists from kicks outside 50?

for instance if pendles gets the ball deep in the pocket inside 50 and squares the ball to pebbles who slots the goal, does that assist count. if it does you could theoretically have an efficiency rate exceeding 100%.

i also think a better stat would be inside 50's/scoring shot. after all it's not the assisting players fault if the forward chokes/shanks his kick.

those stats are also surprising considering how much we all think o'bree massacres the ball

 

[DWil6]

i also think a better stat would be inside 50's/scoring shot. after all it's not the assisting players fault if the forward chokes/shanks his kick.

What if the player assists to the forward pocket and puts the forward on a ridiculous angle when, if they had have been more efficient, they might have set up Rocca 30 out directly in front. The forward then sneaks a behind from over the boundary on a blustery day. Is it the fault of the forward then?

 

[Palmer Stoat]

I always finding kicking efficiency (or in this case disposal efficiency) stats a little unenlightening. They don't tell you what the hurt factor of each disposal is: kick to a leading target while under pressure, or 20m chip sideways to an unmarked man?

Not surprised to see Didak and Leon down in the efficiency stats. Since he's moved into the midfield, Didak is fatiguing more (he looks so knackered I sometimes think they'll have to stretcher him to the interchange bench) and I've seen the same thing in Lockyer and Thomas. Heavy legs = more kicking errors.

Didak and Leon have more hurt factor to their disposals than just about any players in the team IMO. Leon is a bit overambitious with his kicking at times, which means he can be high-risk, high-reward. On the weekend a couple of Didak's kicks from the flanks into the centre corridor were terrific in the way they opened up the ground.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Nice work, mydarlingclementine.

I think O'Bree's numbers might surprise a few people here, and I must say I was surprised by Harry's efficiency.

 

[MarkT]

Expected to see Pendlebury high up in efficiency but I am very surprised to see Didak in the bottom 5.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Didak's probably down because he's getting more hard balls in heavy traffic in the midfield. He's the leading kickgetter in the AFL.

He's also up there in inside 50's.

Personally I'd rather Dids got 25 kicks with 40% efficiency rather than 5 kicks with 100% efficiency. I reckon Medders likes Dids bombing them in, too, even if they dont all hit the target.

And the good news, is, he'll get better in kicking efficiency as he builds his match fitness. He's too good not to.

 

[Frederlick]

Didak's probably down because he's getting more hard balls in heavy traffic in the midfield. He's the leading kickgetter in the AFL.

He's also up there in inside 50's.

Personally I'd rather Dids got 25 kicks with 40% efficiency rather than 5 kicks with 100% efficiency. I reckon Medders likes Dids bombing them in, too, even if they dont all hit the target.

And the good news, is, he'll get better in kicking efficiency as he builds his match fitness. He's too good not to.

Yes good point, some very good work may go recorded as inefficient. Example, when Didak kicked it into the fwd pocket hole and Thomas kicked a goal. What I find very interesting is Wood's numbers which auger well for the rucks. He doesn't get huge possesion, but he gets hard ball and is accurate with what he does get, which has got to hurt around the stoppages. The only area we are really in trouble in is delivery into the 50.

 

[pongo_3931]

Great work Clem!

Are you able to drag up turn over stats?

I don't think the classifying of disposals as efficient and inefficient is sufficient (hehe I had to say that - assonance ftw). Or are you able to clarifiy what constitues an efficient disposal? I know these aren't your stats so this is by no means a criticism.

In particular I'm interested in seeing turn over stats for: Heath Shaw, Shane O'Bree, Rhyce Shaw, Ben Johnson, Scott Pendlebury

In regards to what TRS said about O'Bree's stats, I'm one who is a little surprised and am interested if those figures translate in any way to turn overs?

 

[mdc]

I always finding kicking efficiency (or in this case disposal efficiency) stats a little unenlightening. They don't tell you what the hurt factor of each disposal is: kick to a leading target while under pressure, or 20m chip sideways to an unmarked man?

I also don't think that disposal efficiency is the greatest measure for the reason you've mentioned.
The i50 strike-rate is a metric that should give some indication of the "hurt factor" I guess, but more is needed. Particularly I would like to see them count the "hockey assist": i.e. if 4 players are involved in an uninterrupted chain of disposals that lead to a goal, all 4 get credited with an assist.

But unfortunately I can only work with what I have. If people want to suggest any other supplementary metrics, I'll gladly post them.

Are you able to drag up turn over stats?

I don't think the classifying of disposals as efficient and inefficient is sufficient (hehe I had to say that - assonance ftw). Or are you able to clarifiy what constitues an efficient disposal? I know these aren't your stats so this is by no means a criticism.

Unfortunately turnovers aren't kept as a separate stat as far as I know. "Clangers" are the closest you'll get, but they're not the same thing.

From the CD website:
- An effective long kick has to travel more than 40 metres to a 50/50 contested or better for the team
- Effective short kicks are less than 40 metres that result in uncontested possession to a teammate

I'm guessing an effective handball is classified the same as an effective short kick.

 

[shawthing09]

Really great thread MDC great depth and is about as accurate as the current stats can be.

I would love to see a stats system where we could see passes completed and incompleted, meters gained and turn overs but we are not privy to this information

 

[pongo_3931]

Thanks Clem

If any one has any technical stats questions I'll try and help if they pop up. I'm doing third year stats at the mo so am reasonably equiped. Most of this stuff seems pretty clear cut, but yeah my hats in the ring.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

I also don't think that disposal efficiency is the greatest measure for the reason you've mentioned.
The i50 strike-rate is a metric that should give some indication of the "hurt factor" I guess, but more is needed. Particularly I would like to see them count the "hockey assist": i.e. if 4 players are involved in an uninterrupted chain of disposals that lead to a goal, all 4 get credited with an assist.

But unfortunately I can only work with what I have. If people want to suggest any other supplementary metrics, I'll gladly post them.

Yes, that's true. I wasn't criticising. It's an interesting thread.