Carlton Supporters Club

Great result and as much as I'd like to stay here on this forum, I'm off to the BlomberBlitz forum to truly basked in the glory.
Go Baggers!

We could really have put them to the sword if we wanted to but played into their hands in the third.  Knew we had it won when they pulled out the knuckle. 

Someone needs to iron out Zac merrett.   He is a dirty sniper wank stain of a human being.

Harsh, great footballer and leader.

Harsh, great footballer and leader.

On bumberblitz some of them reckon the scum were a ten goal better side.  A small minority thought that we were simply a better, cleaner side with superior ball use, which offset the scum winning just about every statistical category.

On bumberblitz some of them reckon the scum were a ten goal better side.  A small minority thought that we were simply a better, cleaner side with superior ball use, which offset the scum winning just about every statistical category.

Ha, ha, just got back from there. Talking about if their kicking was better they would've won easily and that they have no fears IF we end up playing them again. Conveniently forget about last year when we kicked 6-16 against them, in this round coincidentally,  before our enormous run into finals.
Also! Only 3 posters complained about the umpiring! (25-10) their favour of course. Go figure?
I hate em, I hate em, I hate em. May they suffer and drown in a puke of their self-denial for all eternity.

They never looked like winning and their supporters are as delusional as usual...just pretenders making up the numbers imho.

If they kicked straight I think we might be having a different conversation.

The HTB rule.... I've got no idea what's going on, neither do the players.  But she's all good maaaaate according to the sycophants in the media.

Yep , it's inconsistent and way worse IMHO.

It would have been a travesty if Weiters had been pinged when he fought through a tackle and got his kick away but, according to the new interpretation, it should have been a free to Essendon.

The excitement is that we beat Essendon. Conversation maybe different if it had been a not so despised rival.

I thought the game was pretty ordinary

Can't get the Yeo decision out of my head, if that's the new interpretation working then the game is ruined.
I preferred how it was....

Fairly hard fought win without the usual stars doing all the heavy lifting. They kicked inaccurately (20 odd more inside 50s), could have been very different.
TDK take bow, what a game.
Wins a win.

Can't get the Yeo decision out of my head, if that's the new interpretation working then the game is ruined.
I preferred how it was....

Yeo was penalised for dragging the ball under him, not for the new HTB interpretation.  The umps are hot on players trying to force stoppages to waste time.

I’m not really in agreement with some of the comments. The Cheats played as well as we let them, which, to be honest, wasn’t very good. Anyone who thinks we’re not at LEAST a 4 goal better side every day of the week doesn’t know much IMO.

3rd quarter was one of the worst of the year - from ANY side. They got the rub of the green from Umps yet the contest was pretty much over 10 mins into the last Q.  Yes, I still have residual PTSD from dropping these games consistently over last 10+ years (and not forgetting the Crows game, ugh) but, Voss is showing he’s learning to make the necessary adjustments at the right time.

Sure they missed some set shots but there were also a lot of rushed behinds because THEIR forwards chose the wrong option (a lot of shots falling just short of the goal line) and our defense effectively killed the ball by rushing it through more often than not.

Tackling still needs improving. Saw the stats of Weitering’s 2 opponents - he’s unbelievably difficult to play against.

My biggest concern at this stage is that the Swannies are looking like that ‘once in a 10 year’ side, where everything just clicks and they sustain no/few injuries. The premiership window only opens very slightly and usually for a relatively short time.

Yeo was penalised for dragging the ball under him, not for the new HTB interpretation.  The umps are hot on players trying to force stoppages to waste time.

Should have got a free for the Nth holding the ball decision imo and he had no prior when he was tackled, that was red hot and should have been a ball up. To me there are too many quick HTB's and then in the next tackle,  the player is allowed way more time than the previous and I still find it depends on the player and who he it is. Lachie Neale always seems to get double the time Joe average does for example....the other one is when the player is tackled and attempts to kick the ball, many times the player makes no contact with the ball and it should be incorrect disposal not HTB but play is allowed to go on depending on who the player is.

If we had got our fair share of free kicks we might be having a conversation about a shellacking 🙂

Prior opportunity doesn’t apply when you drag the ball in.  The umpires are instructed to pay a free as soon as the ball is dragged in. 

Yeo was trying to get a stoppage and run the clock down and it backfired.

I agree with your comments about the increased inconsistency of HTB decisions and the sooner we go back to a reasonable time to dispose of the ball, the better.

great we won BUT my concern is we allowed the opposition 20 more inside 50 ,voss and co have to work out a system that stops this from happening ( lions v carl final in 23 ) and our defence needs support run ball out not blind bomb straight to opposition hope we can make adjustments for 2nd half of season . Rapt for cincotta though.

We've now won 20 of our last 26.

Yeah nah. Free kicks dont neccessarily end up in goals, depends where they are of course.
20 more inside 50s and 11 missed shots translates to real missed opportunities in my book. Anyhow, as I said, a win's a win and despite our worst qtr for the year (apparently TDK was off for 20mins which could be an explanation?) and some defensive breakdowns, we were in control all night.

Just the style we played. Inside 50s on it's own can be a useless stat. Back in the Bolton days one game we got more inside 50s and lost by 100pts. Shallow entries don't mean alot. Inside 25s would be better guide. Then a side is under real pressure.

TDK didn't put on a tackle - he did alot right but his tackling game went AWOL cant give him BOG his endeavour was first class but tackling intent was pretty low I reckon. He has and does and should do much better next time around.

TDK didn't put on a tackle - he did alot right but his tackling game went AWOL cant give him BOG his endeavour was first class but tackling intent was pretty low I reckon. He has and does and should do much better next time around.

really?

My personal favourite highlight of his was him desperately rushing a behind on the goal line. 

TDK didn't put on a tackle - he did alot right but his tackling game went AWOL cant give him BOG his endeavour was first class but tackling intent was pretty low I reckon. He has and does and should do much better next time around.

Tackle stats are a double edged sword and largely meaningless without context, they can mean someone is hanging back hunting the player instead of being focussed on the ball, or they can mean they are first to the ball and being tackled themselves rather than making tackles.

So high numbers can be bad and low numbers can be good, or the reverse, it depends on all the other aspects of play.

Take Rowell against us for example.  He had 15 tackles and virtually no impact on the game other than forcing stoppages, most of which we won (Rowell got one free kick for the game and that may not have been for a tackle). Rowell was basically towelled up and tried to compensate by tackling at every opportunity.  He would have been more effective if he had tried to win the ball.

I did say his endeavour was first class. But if he is going to be elite which he is will be consistently his tackle numbers need to be high.

Some weeks there isn't need to tackle when others are doing that job. May not have been an opportunity to tackle for that reason. What he did with other facets of the game were simply outstanding. Other games he has had quite a few tackles so he's obviously not adverse it it. More than one way of looking at it.

Interestingly, we bemoaned the fact that for weeks we were missing Fogarty's tackle pressure in the forward 50 yet on Sunday he didn't lay one!!

Essendon laid more tackles , we had more turnovers and they even had better disposal efficiency overall...however if you cant kick straight when it matters then none of those other stats add up to much effect on the result.
We did shade them in the clearances where TDK did his best work and again we got smashed in the hitouts but those Goldstein taps had little influence at stoppages or on the result.

And that’s where the hitout to advantage statistic has little meaning. It’s the ruck-midfield combination that negates opposition hitouts and produces clearances that counts.

And that’s where the tackle myth comes in. You don’t have to tackle to put pressure on your opponents.

Just out of curiousity...

We lost the hit-outs 48-23.
What were the 'hitouts to advantage' stats

Goldstein basically blocked de Koning at every bounce - he only got penalised for it once, but it must have happened at least 10 times - turned his back on TDK and camped under the ball.  As such, his hitouts were largely rubbish.  Once the ball hit the deck, TDK massacred him.

Just out of curiousity...

We lost the hit-outs 48-23.
What were the 'hitouts to advantage' stats

Just out of curiousity...

We lost the hit-outs 48-23.
What were the 'hitouts to advantage' stats

Goldstein basically blocked de Koning at every bounce - he only got penalised for it once, but it must have happened at least 10 times - turned his back on TDK and camped under the ball.  As such, his hitouts were largely rubbish.  Once the ball hit the deck, TDK massacred him.

one more thing going by talk back on  sen ess supporters are very confident they can beat us  ,redman /draper next time. Hodge is another 1 who thinks that to ,My belief is that alot of water to go under bridge

Something you also see in the 2's. Unfortunately Mirkov doesn't have the same footy IQ and doesn't get the ball like de Koning does, but he gets shepherded out all the time.

Mirkov allows smaller lighter players to push him away from the ball,  he needs to stand his ground better and get on the angry pills and throw his weight around. Height is a great asset some really tall players just rely on too much and never expand their game.

I just replayed the first quarter and took note of the ruck contests.

Goldstein: 17 ruck contests, 2 hitouts, 0 HTA, 3 clearances
De Koning: 10 ruck contests, 3 hitouts, 0 HTA, 1 clean possession, 1 free kick, 2 clearances
Wright: 4 ruck contests, 1 hitout, 1 HTA*
McKay: 6 ruck contests, 3 hitouts, 0 HTA
Cripps: 3 ruck contests, 1 hitout, 1 HTA
Kennedy: 2 ruck contests, 0 hitouts

*This was probably a fortuitous HTA in that Wright attempted to take clean possession and the ball ricocheted to his teammate.

Cripps just shaded Wright as the most effective ruckman on the ground in the first quarter if you're judging by HTA. 

In the absence of HTAs, Goldstein was more effective in the ruck than De Koning in that he had three clearances to De Koning's two.  However, Goldstein's clearances were from second efforts after the ball had gone to ground.  De Koning's clearances were from a clean possession and a free kick in the ruck contest.

It's interesting that there were only 10 hitouts from 21 ruck contests

one more thing going by talk back on  sen ess supporters are very confident they can beat us  ,redman /draper next time. Hodge is another 1 who thinks that to ,My belief is that alot of water to go under bridge

I  noticed on the weekend, at centre bounces, his focus was on the opposition ruckman and not the ball.
Maybe he was looking to be more physical.
Not sure it worked too well though.

Im sure that this stats are all biased based on the midfield roving and their relative opposition.  When we played Sydney, we could have had Max Gawn rucking and the result would have been the same.

3 of the qtrs. they were smacked. Soon as they challenged Carlton blew them away at the start of the last qtr getting 7 goals in front. Foot went off the throat and Essendon kicked a few junk goals. If Carlton kept the foot on the throat they'd have won by anything. Once your 7 goals behind mid last qtr then you have been well and truly belted.

And Essendon supporters are particularly delusional when it comes to the ability of their team.

I just replayed the first quarter and took note of the ruck contests.

Goldstein: 17 ruck contests, 2 hitouts, 0 HTA, 3 clearances
De Koning: 10 ruck contests, 3 hitouts, 0 HTA, 1 clean possession, 1 free kick, 2 clearances
Wright: 4 ruck contests, 1 hitout, 1 HTA*
McKay: 6 ruck contests, 3 hitouts, 0 HTA
Cripps: 3 ruck contests, 1 hitout, 1 HTA
Kennedy: 2 ruck contests, 0 hitouts

*This was probably a fortuitous HTA in that Wright attempted to take clean possession and the ball ricocheted to his teammate.

Cripps just shaded Wright as the most effective ruckman on the ground in the first quarter if you're judging by HTA. 

In the absence of HTAs, Goldstein was more effective in the ruck than De Koning in that he had three clearances to De Koning's two.  However, Goldstein's clearances were from second efforts after the ball had gone to ground.  De Koning's clearances were from a clean possession and a free kick in the ruck contest.

It's interesting that there were only 10 hitouts from 21 ruck contests

You know what I'm getting from all these stats is this...
Hit out stats are totally useless.
HTA stats are also pretty useless given their low frequency.
Even clearance stats aren't that reliable unless the clearance clearly advantages your side.

The thing that really matters is the connection between your ruckman and his midfielders in terms of positioning, both attacking and defensive, and the second efforts of all players in the vicinity.

That's not something you can measure with a statistic.
It's something you observe.

If you're in any doubt about who was the most effective ruckman in our game last weekend just watch the game again.

You could probably say the same about most footy stats viewed in isolation.

If they're to be used in meaningful way all contributing stats need to be included.

You know what I'm getting from all these stats is this...
Hit out stats are totally useless.
HTA stats are also pretty useless given their low frequency.
Even clearance stats aren't that reliable unless the clearance clearly advantages your side.

The thing that really matters is the connection between your ruckman and his midfielders in terms of positioning, both attacking and defensive, and the second efforts of all players in the vicinity.

That's not something you can measure with a statistic.
It's something you observe.

If you're in any doubt about who was the most effective ruckman in our game last weekend just watch the game again.

Remember our chat about sample size of data....thats what is important.

The most important stat from the Essendon game (and all games for that matter) is the Points For v the Points Against. Carlton 96 to Essendon 70 is what I care most about. Everything else can be read in many ways to suit anyone and many times will just muddy the water.

Jinx

The most important stat from the Essendon game (and all games for that matter) is the Points For v the Points Against. Carlton 96 to Essendon 70 is what I care most about. Everything else can be read in many ways to suit anyone and many times will just muddy the water.

Sample size is important, no doubt about it.

But no matter how big the sample size, the data is garbage if the definitions used in the collection methods are flawed, and ultimately that is the problem with many of the AFL stats, the problem is in the methods.

The R&D saying, "Garbage In = Garbage Out, you can keep piling it higher but it's still garbage!"

Remember our chat about sample size of data....thats what is important.

Any individual game can be an anomoly.
Look at the same information, over weeks and years and you will get trends that 'absorb' these anomolies.

For example, look at the results this week. Look who won, who lost and the margin. Use that information to tell me who the best team is.
Now, if that is the only data you have, what information could you get out of that in terms of overall strength of any one team relative to another? Relative to last week? Last year? Last decade?

Our first 5 games of R13 were this....
North Melbourne won.
Richmond won.
Hawthorn won
Brisbane won
St. Kilda won

Based on that and that alone, you would think that those teams should be in the top half of the league (they won, same amount of teams lost, so they are top half).
Based on that, you would probably look at the margin each team won by....which would rank them in this order....
Brisbane
North Melbourne
Richmond
Hawthorn
St. Kilda

Extrapolate that out and you would assume that Brisbane and North Melbourne are the most successful in recent years as they had the best margin.

In isolation, thats all you have.

Then you look at the ladder...
12th - Hawthorn
13th - Brisbane
14th - St. Kilda
17th - Richmond
18th - North Melbourne

That paints a completely different picture.

Then go back and look at where they finished last year.
Look at average finishing position over the past 10, 20, 50, 150 years.
Look at finals made, flags won...
Eventually you will get a better understanding of who is actually good now, last year, over the past decade or 2, 50 or 150 years.

You see the point?
More data gives you a better understanding.

Don't throw out any particular stat because of their low frequency. Just get more data before using it.
There is more hitout to advantage then there are goals.
Do we deduce that Elijah Hollands is the best goal kicker in the league because he kicked 3 goals this week?
Is Charlie and Harry just average forwards because they didn't kick as many?
Is McGovern as good a forward as Harry given they kicked the same amount of goals?
No, get more data. It will show you trends and give you better information.

There are more stats the AFL used, which i've eluded to previously, that the general public does not have access to but a got a glimpse of last year.
Talks about ruck hitouts sharked etc on top of that.

Nobody is saying its perfect.
But its not black and white either.
That information is better than no information. It paints a better picture than no information.

You've argued about how the midfield does half the work for the ruckman in the past......to which i've responded with relativity in that Pittonet was consistently above TDK despite using the same midfield and same rotations.

So, don't go better your house on these stats. But if its a choice between betting your house on these stats, or 1 persons individual opinion on any given battle, i'm putting my money on the stats because the opinions vary so wildly.

Someone bagged out TDKs game this week, i think in the in-game thread, then he got BOG from both coaches.

Try this little exercise Kruds.

Go back over the last 50 years and look at our season goal tallies

I suspect what the 'extended data' will give you is a wide range of scores,

They'll be affected by

Our ability at the time
Pesonnel available
Coaches
Game plans
The way the games is played.
Rule changes.... and a host of other factors.

Each of these variables also affect the statistics of teams and individuals.
You often see a team change tack mid season and a weakness in the first half of the season becomes a strength in the second half..or at least not the same issue.

Watch Melbourne in the second half of the year....
With Petracca missing some may step up and increase their individual stats, others will find an extra burden and attention and their stats may actually drop...and that's just the effect of one player.

Football stats are more likely to have a very limited life span as variables affect the way the game is played.

And that's the flaw in your argument.  The stats that you use to determine whether Pitto is above the King are unreliable because they are poorly chosen/defined, are too simplistic, are dependent on the actions/abilities of more than one player, and are subject to the fickle bounce of the footy. 

Let's say that I spot you on the half forward flank and fire a 35m pass to your advantage.  You chose to wear short stops and lose your footing as you sprint towards the ball.  LP dashes past you, gathers the ball and boots it back over my head.  My kick goes down as an ineffective kick because you fell over and LP took advantage, not because my kick was poor or ill-directed.  LP's kick goes off the side of his boot but travels 45m to where EB and the Prof are wrestling for position.  The ball bounces off their hands and rolls out of bounds and LP is credited with an effective kick to go with his intercept.  ::)

Not suggesting otherwise lods. But that is the point. Looking at the data over a large period of time will show you these changes. As it will not just be club to club that is varying but league averages as a whole. Year to year, decade to decade.

The thing is though it will all be relative.  In the 70s all the teams were scoring more than any of the teams now. But there will be an average (afl/vfl wide) over that period and looking at the teams above that vs the teams below that will tell you a story of relative strengths to each other.

You can also analyse that to see how much better a team is vs the average at the time and that would be comparable to today.

In simplistic terms, looking at how many wins a team has will vary year to year with teams output but also amount of games in a season.
So instead look at % of game they have won.
A 18-2 team is the same as a 9-1 team, 90% win record. That eliminates the season length variable.
There are other tricks to use as well.

All data will fit on a bell curve with 99%(?) Of data fitting within 3 STD deviations of the mean. The further away from that the rarer it is....the outliers.

You compare year to year based off of that.
You could do it over a decade or 3 weeks or whatever time period you want.
But you 100% can compare and in an unbiased way.

I don't want to get bogged down in a maths lecture, suffice to say, low numbers does not make it negligible.

We should probably agree to disagree Kruds.
Neither of us are going to change our opinion

I really don't discount statistics completely.
I often use them myself...but I give them less value than I do observation, even observation that contains a bit of the occasional bias.

I guess the way I see it is you're trying to apply the "logic of mathematics" to the most illogical and unpredictable of games.
A game where things that shouldn't happen often do.
A game where things such as 'momentum' in a match can change in minutes just by a side lifting their effort.

The complexity changes in the observation and the complexity of the mathematics change along with it. Everything can be taken into consideration if you have enough time.

If mathematics can be used to help model and predict the weather, a game of afl is nothing. 😉

Yep and it's equally as likely that the opponent slips over too.

Simply put for everything that can go your way there is an equivalent that can go against you and work in your favour.

At the end of the day the sheer weight of numbers balances everything out.

Not if I’m Orazio Fantasia or Corey Durdin … and you refuse to change your boots.

The point remains that AFL statistics don’t measure independent events but attempt to quantify each of a series of interrelated events.

As mentioned previously, the list of AFL stats we are used to are just the tip of the iceberg.
Champion data have 100's of different stats that we don't ever hear about.

Have a look at David King doing some of his analysis on fox footy and listen to the stats he uses and tell me where you've seen them in print or online before.....you haven't.

@Lods...
If i had access to the amount of stats that are available (just not to the public) perhaps i could give you some winners.
But alas, i'm attempting to read the tea leaves and the force.

Perhaps Champion Data does have some meaningful stats that they are keeping to themselves.  I suspect that it’s more a case of manipulating dodgy data to promote controversy and interest.

They're a business, much like any other...
They'll put out some statistics to the general public that give half a picture.
That's a bit of a carrot
They'll sell more advanced (flashy) ones to subscribers.
The more in depth ones they'll give to the clubs and commentators...at a price.

At each level they'll probably carry a bit more weight than the previous level, but still the unpredicatbility and changing nature of the game mean they're only ever a snapshot of a point in time and record of the past.

They have little bearing on team and individuals in the games ahead, as both develop or change things up.
As a predictive tool for individuals they have limited value.
They may be useful as a review tool to initiate changes in tactics or roles but those are probably the stats we don't see.

The question that stems from that then Kruds,  is this.... if all that is true.

Should we question a coaching group, armed with University level stats, who goes with two rucks instead of one, based on our primary school level info?

Most of the time players influence the game without a stat.  That's extremely difficult to determine.

There is something you can find on the AFL app in regards to players and running.
Lists the top 5 in a few different stats, none of which appear on your traditional stat sheet, but its tracked none-the-less.

Distance covered.
Distance covered at high speed
Speed (max)
Speed (avg)
Total Sprints
Repeat Sprints
Average speed in attack
Average speed in defense


....and there is team work rate (attack and defense) and a variety of other things.

,.....and thats just some of the stuff we know about.

Carlton is a much better turnover team when De Koning is playing as a sole ruck. According to Champion Data, the team's scores from turnover differential is -5.3 when Pittonet is paired with De Koning, but +25.4 when De Koning plays alone.

The question that stems from that then Kruds,  is this.... if all that is true.

Should we question a coaching group, armed with University level stats, who goes with two rucks instead of one, based on our primary school level info?

I think thats unfair - we may not have played at the highest level but sure as hell have watched a thousand games.

It has to be about more than access to statistics. If our coaching staff have the same footy knowledge and footy IQ as a few big mouths on social media, then we are seriously wasting our time and money, and the club should pack it in and go and play in some dust bowl league out in the boonies, where the local waste collection guy is the coach, physio, high performance manager, list boss………

Yep
Of course it's more than stats....even advanced ones.
Naturally they play a part in some decisions and the coaches have access to better ones than we have but...

Our head coach has 289 playing games.
He has around 15 years experience as a senior or assistant coach.
Add the experience of our other assistants.

Then add an in depth knowledge of the playing group.

-their strengths and weaknesses
-their injury and form situation at any one time
-priorities they may be working on at any given time.
-what their training loads look like
- development plans.
-how players fit in the team structure and roles they play
-team balance considerations
- opposition strengths and weaknesses in up coming games
-proposed match-ups
-personal issues players may be dealing with (relationships and family illness)
etc  etc.

We think we might know.
We actually have little idea

Yes. I agree. Put any of us in the coaches’ box on game day and we would be found out in the first five minutes.

Few collingwood supporters on this forum it appears, everything is black and white.

Nobody is saying statistics is the be all and end all. If it was, we'd have computers as head coaches.

However, people saying statistics don't see this, or can't see this and are of no use are equally wrong.

The truth is in the middle.

When Trigg came to the club he lost his $h!t because we didn't have any kind of analytics in place with our drafting and recruiting. That is, 100% trusting peoples 'eye' and not using statistical evidence to back it up and compare.
Clearly that was wrong.....and we have our poor recruiting/development as proof.

Since then we've come on board with the modern game and have an abundance of statistical information to back our coaches up.
We;ve had a few very good 'moneyball' recruits off the back of it - Think Elijah Hollands as an example.
Alternatively, when you look at what the old fashioned 'eye' test tells us, which got Vossy undone in Brisbane, it also hasn't worked here with Fantasia......but the personal relationships got that done more than statistical.

Coaches have favourites, they are only human.
Fans too.

Players play on emotion....coaches and MC can't afford too.

As i said earlier, ignore statistics at your own peril......we have 20+ years of dark ages as evidence.

I dont think anyone said ignore the stats, but most have said beware of putting too much stock into them.

I dont think anyone said ignore the stats, but most have said beware of putting too much stock into them.

MBB posted an interesting "statistical analysis" of Tom De Koning's game against Essendon that ventured into the one or two rucks territory.

Champion Data notes De Koning has averaged 21.1 AFL Player Ratings points, 22.3 disposals, 14.7 contested possessions, 9.7 clearances, 4.7 centre-bounce clearances and 6.7 score involvements in that stretch. It ranks him No.1 among the season averages of all rucks throughout that run.

Why then does Tom not appear in the AFL's mid year All-Australian team?  I'm pretty sure that his name wasn't mentioned during the  televised All-Australian selectors' meeting.  Perhaps Stats Insider's AFL Player Ratings can shed some light.  They use a combination of votes, performance assessments and statistical data to rank players.  Tom is currently the ninth ranked ruckman in their ratings (Goldstein is 16th, one behind Pittonet).  I think that by considering factors other than statistics, Stats Insider's ratings better reflect players' performances and influence.  It could be argued that Stats Insider's ratings are less objective than Champion Data's numbers-based system but Champion Data's statistical categories, definitions, weightings, etc are subjective.

Then there's;

Carlton is a much better turnover team when De Koning is playing as a sole ruck. According to Champion Data, the team's scores from turnover differential is -5.3 when Pittonet is paired with De Koning, but +25.4 when De Koning plays alone.


If that's what the statistics tell us, then it must be true.  BUT, is there a causal relationship between scores from turnover and whether  Tom plays a lone hand or with Pitto?  Possibly, but there are other factors like the opposition, the form of other players, umpiring and our other scoring processes.  If we are dominating the clearances and scoring heavily from stoppages, there will limited opportunity to score from turnovers.  And that's where relying of football statistics can lead you astray.

As flawed as the statistical categories and their definitions may be, footy stats may help to identify trends, what's working and what's not, and where game plans or structures might need a tweak, but only if the limitations of the data are understood.  Furthermore, those statistics should not be viewed in isolation but in the context of the full range of factors that influence footballers' performances and the results of games.

Adam Saad has played eight games this season for seven wins.  He was subbed off in the game we lost.  Statistically, if Adam plays the whole game, we will win.  Let's see how that holds up  :)

Why then does Tom not appear in the AFL's mid year All-Australian team?  I'm pretty sure that his name wasn't mentioned during the  televised All-Australian selectors' meeting.  Perhaps Stats Insider's AFL Player Ratings can shed some light.  They use a combination of votes, performance assessments and statistical data to rank players.  Tom is currently the ninth ranked ruckman in their ratings (Goldstein is 16th, one behind Pittonet).  I think that by considering factors other than statistics, Stats Insider's ratings better reflect players' performances and influence.  It could be argued that Stats Insider's ratings are less objective than Champion Data's numbers-based system but Champion Data's statistical categories, definitions, weightings, etc are subjective.

the vibe i got from watching that AA TV thing, was that there wasnt a heap of stats/science put into it (maybe aside from Buckley) - there was a lot of "jeez, he has been pretty good the last couple of weeks" as the basis for putting a name up.   I am sure i heard someone say of Mac Andrew "did you see his first quarter on Curnow, last week" - if that is the basis for making the squad, then it obvious why they have so many misses