What stats matter?

[hopper]

A tiger mate and I always pay some attention to the Tiges and others percentages towards the end of the year. We have this theory that the "percentage ladder" is often a clearer outline of merit than the real ladder over the trip of a whole season. Sadly, we have an awful record percentage-wise over the last decade. After rnd19 here's the "percentage ladder" ...

1 Adel 148.59
2 Syd 123.76
3 St.K 118.74
4 WC 117.91
5 Coll 115.69
6 Melb 112.09
7 WB 108.79
8 Geel 100.82
9 Freo 99.53
10 Port 90.55
11 Bris 88.28
12 Kang 85.15
13 Rich 84.76
14 Ess 81.65
15 Haw 78.87
16 Carl 77.66

By this stat, we're still very much bottom 4.
Is that an accurate reflection and, if so, how much of TW's upward incline is really happening? Does this stat matter at all?
Do my mate and I have too much time on our hands?

I await your thoughts on this one.

 

[The_General]

I think it's difficult to compare year by year, you probably need to take a sample of several years to get a trend, mainly due to anomalies such as the draw. ie I think we're a better team than last year, we're still performing roughly the same, we've had a much more difficult draw, and we're playing more inexperienced players. I'd say we'll probably finish 9th (grrrr hiss boo) this year, and if we have an ok run with injury next year, we'll be about 6-8th.

My biggest concern is the drop off after richo and a couple from that era go. It'll probably mean we drop back for a year or two, unless we trade well.

 

[Phar Ace]

In agreement with you again Hippity Hopper.  Someone mentioned this to me about 20 years ago and have followed it ever since. 

I think our percentage is a fraction unkind to us, but not by much.  We lost more experience than we gained in the off season, and it has taken a lot of game time with a lot of young kids to claw back to something like last season.  It's all an investment in the future and has to happen.

Would be interested if anyone has done any comparision of premiership teams/clubs insofar as total games played for the team/list.  Port's total list had 3,034 games experience come Grand Final day in 2004 - while their opponent, Brisbane, had 3227.  Richmond had just 2614 and this would have gone even lower at by the start of 2006, Carlton had a paltry 2185.  Most teams were in the mid 2's though, with StKilda and Bulldogs a bit higher at around the 2700's.  Sydney was the only other team to exceed 3000 - and they went on to win the next flag!  I'm not saying for one minute this is the determinate, but it does seem to be one of the determinates of premiership success. 

 

[Tigerfan]

say we win the next 2

last year we lost three games to the eventual bottom 8 teams

this year we've only dropped one

that will also represent a one win improvement, with a much younger unit

 

[RemoteTiger]

I like you keep an eye on percentages - because when all said and done the only stats that really matter are those on the scoreboard at the end of each game!

However this year I have tempered this as I believe for the RFC the real stats that matter at this point of time in the clubs history is the number of senior games we can get into the younger footballers on our list that deserve to be in the senior team.

My naive way of reckoning is that once we get a group of 10 to 12 good talented young(ish) footballers with between 30 to 100 games under their belts the team will be in a position to move rapidly up the ladder.

 

[pahoffm]

I'm not so sure.
Interesting one though.

I'm not so sure that we were the 4th worst side in the comp, as a result of %age.
Although stats are extremely good for providing a barometer of activity, it's not always a balck & white answer.
The Tigers' %age was greatly affected by, was it, 3 extremely large losses.
Take those losses out and see where our %age stands.
This, I attribute to youth, and should disappear as the boys minds, bodies & skills under pressure develop.

The boys beat all of Carlton, Essendon, Kangaroos, Brisbane & Port. That would suggest that we were probably in that group just above the bottom 4.

 

[Hayfever]

I'm not so sure.
Interesting one though.

I'm not so sure that we were the 4th worst side in the comp, as a result of %age.
Although stats are extremely good for providing a barometer of activity, it's not always a balck & white answer.
The Tiger's %age was greatly affected by, was it, 3 extremely large losses.
Take those losses out and see where our %age stands.
This, I attribute to youth, and should disappear as the boys minds, bodies & skills under pressure develop.

Games won is important. We are doing fair/OK on that count, all things considered.

Games won "under pressure/ when expected to win" is vital. We have a long way to go yet.

 

[TOT70]

Our lack of percentage is more a function of a disfunctional forward line than anything else.  We are still a 10-13 goal a game team and won't improve our percentage until we kick more goals.

The only stat that really matters is the number of games that the team wins- we are a mid-table team on this measure.  Not long ago we were botton four in every respect.

TW's biggest challenge next year is to find another 3-4 goals every week.  Then we can start to look optimistically to the future.

 

[No 4]

Our lack of percentage is more a function of a disfunctional forward line than anything else.  We are still a 10-13 goal a game team and won't improve our percentage until we kick more goals.

The only stat that really matters is the number of games that the team wins- we are a mid-table team on this measure.  Not long ago we were botton four in every respect.

TW's biggest challenge next year is to find another 3-4 goals every week.  Then we can start to look optimistically to the future.

True, but also stopping the opposition getting EASY 3 to 4 goals.

 

[hopper]

Thanks for the responses. I'm also dubious about how much the "percentage ladder" tells us - but it does tell us something. I'm not sure we can just disregard the 100pnt drubbings - they are as much a part of our current make-up as any of the wins. And if we are honest with ourselves, we could have been considered lucky in some of the wins we've had. eg, Essendon.

For me, it shows we still have much work to do ... but we knew that anyway didn't we.

 

[Spirit of Jack]

IMHO The percentage ladder will tell you more about how good a team is than the win/loss ladder, especially over the long term ie multiple seasons.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Position on 'percentage ladder' and improvement/decline the following season (1984-85 to 2004-05):

Pos    #   AG/L
-6   2 -3.5
-5   1 -7.0
-4   4 -4.8
-3 11 -3.9
-2 33 -0.6
-1 50 -1.1
0 101 +0.6
+1 64 +0.7
+2 28 -0.1
+3   9 +3.3
+4   6 0
+5   1 -4.0
+6   1 +7.0

Pos - finish position on 'percentage ladder' relative to actual ladder, e.g. -2 means team finished 2 places lower on the percentage ladder than on the actual ladder, +3 means team finished 3 places higher
# - number of occurrences
AG/L - average gain/loss in actual places on the ladder in the following season.

I'm surprised that 'percentage ladder' position is actually a reasonable indicator (on average) of how a team will go the following season (ignoring the outlying values which skew the results). The bad news for us is that all negative values (we are -3 at the moment) result in a team losing ladder positions the following year. Of course every situation is different: one team finishing at -3 gained 4 places the next year, and another at -2 gained 5 places.

A bit of fun and I wouldn't go placing your 2007 premiership bets based on this stat.   

 

[GoodOne]

Our lack of percentage is more a function of a disfunctional forward line than anything else.  We are still a 10-13 goal a game team and won't improve our percentage until we kick more goals.

Interestngly Swans last year averaged 12 goals a game, and were sitting 2nd lowest average goals at the end of the season. Adelaide were 11th and kicking 13.5. Swans average last year at 2nd bottom is higher than 6 teams this year. It seems that the bottom teams are finding it harder to kick goals this year, or maybe they are employing the flood more than last year. This year the Top 8 teams are in the Top 9 for average goals scored. Adelaide, Collingwood and Bulldogs are well clear of the rest. I still have reservations about the Collingwood and Bulldogs style of game. I dont know if this wins premierships or just makes you a comptitive side.