2 from 13, 18% last 2 years

[old_man_tiger]

Would love to know the win/loss with 2 or more of those players missing.

I think even we can carry one or two injuries! But I think our squad struggled when we had a couple of outside backs and one spine player on the pine.

 

[sheer64]

Stats have variables associated which could be weather conditions, position on the ladder of the opponent, opponents team strength, ground game played at etc etc. The only way to combat them is a winning culture and a never say die attitude. 😛ray: Wests Tigers please show these qualities.

 

[Geo]

They bore me to death as well

I just could not resist this one for our resident stat gurus !!

Im sure they will have the counter stats which are much better ready to go!!

Hi Eddie, how are you?

2/13 is 15.38%, even better for your one-sided argument.

Important to the conversation however is the overlooked contribution of other major players during this same two year period.

Wins WITHOUT certain players:
5/16 without Tedesco (31.25%)
0/4 without Brooks (0.00%)
1/7 without Woods (14.29%)
2/11 without Galloway (18.18%)
2/14 without Simona (14.29%)

Wins WITH these players:
16/35 when Farah plays (45.71%)
13/32 with Tedesco (40.63%)
18/44 with Brooks (40.91%)
17/41 with Woods (41.46%)
16/37 with Galloway (43.24%)
16/34 with Simona (47.06%)

Is is therefore very arguable that Tim Simona is the most important major player in the team in the past two years, as our win ratio is best and loss ratio is worst when he does / does not (resp.) play.

I think I have more win/loss player stats in my other guru backpack, which I left at home today.

Can we have a Buchanan(Plodder) stat please from the left at home backpack..?

 

[Fade_To_Black]

I was just bringing up a stat James Hooper raised today when previewing the game.

Thought it worth discussing.

I actually think we can improve on that this year, I think were becoming less Farah reliant. However the stats still say otherwise.

After all some of us on here love stats!!

Fair point. I think in our previous 18 months or so of footy Brooks and Moses have been fairly reluctant to tread on Robbie's toes too much as he is such a dominating personality and he was running the club for all intents and purposes by all reports. It was thought that he would be around for another 5 seasons or so.
Now that Robbie has effectively been shoved into the back seat by JT in regards to the running of the team and his departure from the club is now drawing ever closer, you would expect and hope that our halves would seize the opportunity to be more assertive and dominant now that our team is theirs to control.
Every single player needs to step up,our club has been so Farah-centric for so long that it has become 2nd nature for many of our players to expect him to be our shining light as he was for many seasons.

 

[bigsiro]

Wins WITHOUT certain players:
5/16 without Tedesco (31.25%)
0/4 without Brooks (0.00%)
1/7 without Woods (14.29%)
2/11 without Galloway (18.18%)
2/14 without Simona (14.29%)

Wins WITH these players:
16/35 when Farah plays (45.71%)
13/32 with Tedesco (40.63%)
18/44 with Brooks (40.91%)
17/41 with Woods (41.46%)
16/37 with Galloway (43.24%)
16/34 with Simona (47.06%)

Is is therefore very arguable that Tim Simona is the most important major player in the team in the past two years, as our win ratio is best and loss ratio is worst when he does / does not (resp.) play.

I think I have more win/loss player stats in my other guru backpack, which I left at home today.

Nice work.
So, the player with the best win % at this club is still only 47%…........EEK!

 

[jirskyr]

Nice work.
So, the player with the best win % at this club is still only 47%…........EEK!

Without double-checking, our overall win rate is only about 47% anyway, so it would be difficult for any player who has played a significant # of games to lift the win rate much past 50%. Most clubs struggle to achieve a win rate above the low 50s; Melbourne are the exception.

I know there are some blokes like Hoeter, Milone, Kurtis Rowe and Sean Meaney that almost never player in any wins during their short stints.

I'll see if I can find anyone for Tigers recently who gets > 50%.

 

[fergiefurr]

someone like mark flanagan who only played in 2010-11 might have an above average win %

andrew fifita too

 

[stevetiger]

I think that win percentage for Simona being there is also related to having Richards outside him. Simona is a gun but Richards offered next to nothing to our side taking out his kicking game. If you add a slow centre to that side the attack there is going to be non-existent.

 

[jirskyr]

How about Nofoaluma

Nofo is our "winningest" player in the last two years, 12 wins from 25 starts (48.00%).

 

[jirskyr]

Can we have a Buchanan(Plodder) stat please from the left at home backpack..?

Not great, I'm afraid. Since 2014 he is 4 wins from 16 starts (25%) and we are 14/32 of the games he missed (43.75%).

I've raised this before but of the 25 players that have taken the field for us in 2014 and 2015, only 8 of them cause us to win more when they are on the field:
Tedesco - 40.63% wins with, 31.25% without
Nofo - 48.00%, 26.09%
Simona - 47.06%, 14.29%
Pat Richards - 39.53%, 20.00%
Brooks - 40.91%, 0.00%
Woods - 41.46%, 14.29%
Farah - 45.71%, 15.38%
Galloway - 39.02%, 28.57%

During this period our overall win % was 37.5%.
WT all-time win % since 2000 is 43.30%
Since start 2005, we have the 9th best (or 8th worst) win % of 46.95% (ahead of Warriors, Knights, Titans, Panthers, Raiders, Sharks/Parra).

 

[jirskyr]

Would love to know the win/loss with 2 or more of those players missing.

I think even we can carry one or two injuries! But I think our squad struggled when we had a couple of outside backs and one spine player on the pine.

Complicated one.

Since 2014 when all of Tedesco, Simona, Brooks, Woods, Farah, Gallway have played, we are 11/18 (61.11%).

If I look at pairs of players missing, that isn't to say that additional players are not also missing, but in a nutshell:

With Tedesco out AND Simona (1/7 = 14.29%) OR Brooks (0/3 = 0%) OR Woods (0/2 = 0%) OR Farah (1/5 = 20%) OR Galloway (1/4 = 25%).

With Simona out AND Brooks (0/2 = 0%) OR Woods (0/2 = 0%) OR Farah (0/4 = 0%) OR Galloway (1/4 = 25%)

With Brooks out AND Woods (0/1 = 0%) OR Farah (0/1 = 0%) OR Galloway (0/2 = 0%)

With Woods out AND Farah (1/6 = 16.67%) OR Galloway (0/1 = 0%).

With Farah out AND Galloway (0/1 - 0%).

After writing all that out, I don't think it shows much except how much better our winning % is when the key players are in the side, and how quickly it evaporates when one or more are missing.

When you start looking at multiples of players missing, there aren't usually that many games for specific combinations - you can say the win ratios are terrible, but hard to make much more of it if only 1 or 2 games.

 

[innsaneink]

And people wanted galloway gone…..I dunno

I think the article was written last year

Bahahaha

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Pretty telling maths there. You need your best 17 on the pitch to have a good chance, especially our backline.

 

[stevetiger]

Pretty telling maths there. You need your best 17 on the pitch to have a good chance, especially our backline.

It shows how important having good outside backs is. I reckon we've been caught out there a lot.

 

[southerntiger]

Without the bloke some don't want here.

Hopefully we can improve on that record the next few weeks.

We did play really well last year against Souths last year, but sadly it was a one off.

Its a meaningless stat. Whats our record over that period with him? Not much better. And you take any regular player out of your spine, it will be a struggle particularly when you dont have a ready replacement as we didnt over that period. Iosefa, Luani and Halatau. Not exactly pressing for a first grade spot elsewhere.

 

[old_man_tiger]

Would love to know the win/loss with 2 or more of those players missing.

I think even we can carry one or two injuries! But I think our squad struggled when we had a couple of outside backs and one spine player on the pine.

Complicated one.

Since 2014 when all of Tedesco, Simona, Brooks, Woods, Farah, Gallway have played, we are 11/18 (61.11%).

If I look at pairs of players missing, that isn't to say that additional players are not also missing, but in a nutshell:

With Tedesco out AND Simona (1/7 = 14.29%) OR Brooks (0/3 = 0%) OR Woods (0/2 = 0%) OR Farah (1/5 = 20%) OR Galloway (1/4 = 25%).

With Simona out AND Brooks (0/2 = 0%) OR Woods (0/2 = 0%) OR Farah (0/4 = 0%) OR Galloway (1/4 = 25%)

With Brooks out AND Woods (0/1 = 0%) OR Farah (0/1 = 0%) OR Galloway (0/2 = 0%)

With Woods out AND Farah (1/6 = 16.67%) OR Galloway (0/1 = 0%).

With Farah out AND Galloway (0/1 - 0%).

After writing all that out, I don't think it shows much except how much better our winning % is when the key players are in the side, and how quickly it evaporates when one or more are missing.

When you start looking at multiples of players missing, there aren't usually that many games for specific combinations - you can say the win ratios are terrible, but hard to make much more of it if only 1 or 2 games.

I'd agree, but would add the take home message is 2 or more key players out has generally meant you can safely tip against us!

Although the samples are small there is nothing better than 20% with any combo.

When all were available we were 61%. That will safely net you 30 - 34 points and a top 8 finish.

Anyway, my science brain is telling me the sample size means it's irrelevant, but my footy brain thinks there is something in this. Thanks for the effort mate.

 

[jirskyr]

Without the bloke some don't want here.

Hopefully we can improve on that record the next few weeks.

We did play really well last year against Souths last year, but sadly it was a one off.

Its a meaningless stat. Whats our record over that period with him? Not much better. And you take any regular player out of your spine, it will be a struggle particularly when you dont have a ready replacement as we didnt over that period. Iosefa, Luani and Halatau. Not exactly pressing for a first grade spot elsewhere.

It's 45.71% with Farah last two years. It's hugely better with him, but you do make a point that your win ratio should be better with the major players on the field, otherwise you are paying a lot of money for someone who you do better without.

I do not agree that it's meaningless, but it has to be looked at in the context of other players as well. I was surprised when I first found out that we lose more when Simona is absent, but it correlates with last year and our worst performances occurring when the first-choice centres were out.

 

[Harvey]

They bore me to death as well

I just could not resist this one for our resident stat gurus !!

Im sure they will have the counter stats which are much better ready to go!!

Hi Eddie, how are you?

2/13 is 15.38%, even better for your one-sided argument.

Important to the conversation however is the overlooked contribution of other major players during this same two year period.

Wins WITHOUT certain players:
5/16 without Tedesco (31.25%)
0/4 without Brooks (0.00%)
1/7 without Woods (14.29%)
2/11 without Galloway (18.18%)
2/14 without Simona (14.29%)

Wins WITH these players:
16/35 when Farah plays (45.71%)
13/32 with Tedesco (40.63%)
18/44 with Brooks (40.91%)
17/41 with Woods (41.46%)
16/37 with Galloway (43.24%)
16/34 with Simona (47.06%)

Is is therefore very arguable that Tim Simona is the most important major player in the team in the past two years, as our win ratio is best and loss ratio is worst when he does / does not (resp.) play.

I think I have more win/loss player stats in my other guru backpack, which I left at home today.

Thank you, great job. This confirms importance of Smona, hopefully he will be luckier with injuries this season.

Also proves you can manipulate stats to give the result you want if you dig deep enough and look for numbers that support the arguement you are trying to make.

 

[jirskyr]

Also proves you can manipulate stats to give the result you want if you dig deep enough and look for numbers that support the arguement you are trying to make.

How cynical.

Take for example the fact that we have loss most when Simona is absent 2014-15\. It's not an argument at all, I didn't look at the numbers with any angle in mind, just curious who we fared worst without.

Don't be afraid of stats, unless you are naive and/or lazy. Anyone can cherry pick data, sure, but they can also lie, stretch truth, mislead, misrepresent with anything that comes out of their mouth. Listen to what they say, do some research and make up your mind.

The alternative to stats is… gossip? Opinions? Hearsay?

The world is too big and complicated and full of dimwits, you gotta be able to try and quantify things. Speaking to almost anyone in public service, finance, gambling, science.

 

[Harvey]

Also proves you can manipulate stats to give the result you want if you dig deep enough and look for numbers that support the arguement you are trying to make.

How cynical.

Take for example the fact that we have loss most when Simona is absent 2014-15\. It's not an argument at all, I didn't look at the numbers with any angle in mind, just curious who we fared worst without.

Don't be afraid of stats, unless you are naive and/or lazy. Anyone can cherry pick data, sure, but they can also lie, stretch truth, mislead, misrepresent with anything that comes out of their mouth. Listen to what they say, do some research and make up your mind.

The alternative to stats is… gossip? Opinions? Hearsay?

The world is too big and complicated and full of dimwits, you gotta be able to try and quantify things. Speaking to almost anyone in public service, finance, gambling, science.

Not having a go, you have produced a load of stats with a number of variables & people can draw their own conclusions. The title of the thread…..