-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Stats - reality and perception
- Thread starter Forever Hoping
- Start date
the claw said:
Reminds me of an exercise physiology lecture I once attended, the well respected doctor of exercise physiology claimed that given a muscle biopsy, a VO2 max test, a power test and some limb measurements, he could predict within a few seconds how fast an athelete could run over a certain distance.
My response was, give me a stop watch and a running track and I will tell you EXACTLY how fast an athelete can run any distance!
Thankfully it seems that Francis can see past the stats from draft camp and we end up with players like Daniel Conners on our list.
On the other hand, I'm not so sure you should use stats simply to confirm what you already see, that would be pointless and stats have far more value than that. If we had paid more attention to draft camp stats then surely Danyle Pearce from Port would have been taken as a rookie pick. Perhaps we have learned from that in taking Gourdis last year.
Phantom uses a height chart to put together a structure of a team list, which is a good place to start, however as pointed out some players play taller or shorter than their height. So like all stats you need to keep an open mind in your interpretation. Michael Phelps is a good example, he is around 6'4 inches in height (193cm) and yet his arm span is 6'7 inches (just over 200cm!). More a ruckman in reach than a true KPI.
A good stats man will know how the stats are collected and therefore where problems in interpretation may occur.
Thanks folks A very good response in regards range and content without too much aggravation. Rosie, you could refer to this thread as an example of how a wide ranging discussion can be held allowing for humour and varied opinions without needing to stoop to personal abuse and hysterical comment lacking any basis of fact.
Yes, why let facts get in the way of 'what you want to see' ... as any good accountant would do 'use statistics to support your argument and ignore all other facts'!the claw said:
Forever Hoping said:
80% is very average for a player who is never under any pressure when disposing of the ball.
Tenacious said:
i believe geelong has created a new AFL record for the highest ever average losing margin in a season. very perculiar stat and one for the trivia buffs.
Actually it's pretty high, I'm pretty sure Sanchez was leading the AFL in kicking efficiency at least at some stage through the season (and no not at the start, was at after the mid-season break)Ian4 said:
Wouldn't be surprised if it was his handballs that bring his overall efficiency down
ZeroGame said:
His kicking under any sort of pressure is terrible. His handballs are worse. His expertise lies in transferring play to the unmarked man. Ask him to make a decision in traffic and you are looking at roadkill.
I agree with the disposal under pressure thing, but he is 2000% more attacking in his kicks from defence than Bowden and the whole point is to kick to an unmarked player. It means the player has worked hard up field to get free from an opponent.Big Cat Lover said:
McMahon's effectiveness is directionaly proportionate to the workrate of his team mates up field.
ZeroGame said:
Agree - the effectiveness of backline disposal does relate to the running ability of those upfield. That is why I'd prefer a player with some physicality to Mcmahon - he doesn't make up for his pathetic physical presence with fabulous decision making, disposal etc
Bowden can be annoying to watch when he gets it as he doesn't often take the first option and generally goes more sideways than forward.
