Stats and footy speak
- Thread starter Swordy
- Start date
@JoshColeman99 said in [Stats and footy speak](/post/1132023) said:
I will learn about stats when you learn to read. As I posted, stats only mean something in context of what you are trying to say. Spewing out random stats means nothing. Most stats collected by clubs these days are used in the context of how they serve that tea, against another team where the same stats can be compared. Sure, this may be a competitive advantage.
But to randomly say we should keep player X in the top grade because he is the 5th in the NRL in post contact metres between the 50th and 55th minute of the game is just pointless.
@Swordy said in [Stats and footy speak](/post/1132140) said:
Yaris Sims is an absolute grub. Probably doesn’t feature in the top 10, 50 maybe, of the elite stat groups season after season.
Given how irrelevant you believe these ‘stats’ to be - it’s important to people with jobs (statisticians) and some incredibly gifted analytical minds within the game - I’m just glad that you aren’t in charge of Dally M voting.
Although, that’s still somewhat a joke...
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@Sart0ri said in [Stats and footy speak](/post/1132156) said:
How does that work when the sun shines from my ass
innsaneink
Well-known member
@Swordy said in [Stats and footy speak](/post/1131775) said:
Haha... Love it.
They assist with every facet of the game. And even from an entertainment perspective. Like tonight’s game..
JT ran hard in the first half - Cool..
JT ran 190+ metres in the first half - Big difference to ran hard..
They add more perspective to the game. I don’t mind hearing meaningful stats. When they aren’t, I tune out/don’t read.
JT ran hard in the first half - Cool..
JT ran 190+ metres in the first half - Big difference to ran hard..
They add more perspective to the game. I don’t mind hearing meaningful stats. When they aren’t, I tune out/don’t read.
jirskyr
Well-known member
@Geo said in [Stats and footy speak](/post/1132133) said:
I'm curious to understand how Huth accrued 152 kick-return metres?
What interests me is if Huth averages 93.5 metres gained per match, in a currently unknown number of minutes (let's say around 40, because he usually comes off the bench), I think those are pretty solid stats. His post-contact is high-ish, he tackles well. Tackle breaks weren't covered, but that would be interesting, because the next-level forwards make metres AND break tackles. Line breaks almost certainly nil or close to that. I think Huth is a decent forward and the stats back it up.
I do agree with a previous sentiment that some folks rely entirely on what appears in front of them, so if Huth looks slow, and he's not busting tackles and decimating defences, then he is deficient, and to hell with stats that might say otherwise. Plodder by sight perhaps and not by quantifiable output.
@jirskyr said in [Stats and footy speak](/post/1132485) said:
It's from returning a kick off line drop out etc..he was also a starter most of the season certainly in the first half of the year ..I would say he ave 60 to 65mpg on ave throughout the year..
12 tackle breaks..9 offlaods
jirskyr
Well-known member
@Geo said in [Stats and footy speak](/post/1132486) said:
Taumololo has 12 TBs in 2 matches!
I think all this comes down to is that some people are really keen to understand how the game works and others really just want to be entertained.
The problem is that stats are either tiny parts of the whole story or end up being very oblique. Like, metres after contact - this is probably useful but I don't think anyone would suggest that a player with a higher metres after contact number is definitively better than one with a lower one. It's just part of the story. Then in baseball they've attempted to combine lots of numbers together to come up with a single stat: wins above replacement. The problem there is that people who aren't into stats don't understand how it's calculated and tend to form the opinion that if I say Mike Trout has a 9 WAR and Mookie Betts has a 7 WAR I'm just making up some voodoo that doesn't apply to real life.
As with more or less everything, we'd probably be better off if we were able to accept that we get different things out of the game. It's not that easy, though. You might think Josh Reynolds should be first name on the team sheet because he always gives 110%, whereas I know he should be in reserve grade because the numbers demonstrate that he can't do half the things a playmaker needs to be good at. We're never not going to argue about that, and when half the people arguing disagree with the fundamental basis on which the other half has built its argument we're probably not going anywhere positive.
The problem is that stats are either tiny parts of the whole story or end up being very oblique. Like, metres after contact - this is probably useful but I don't think anyone would suggest that a player with a higher metres after contact number is definitively better than one with a lower one. It's just part of the story. Then in baseball they've attempted to combine lots of numbers together to come up with a single stat: wins above replacement. The problem there is that people who aren't into stats don't understand how it's calculated and tend to form the opinion that if I say Mike Trout has a 9 WAR and Mookie Betts has a 7 WAR I'm just making up some voodoo that doesn't apply to real life.
As with more or less everything, we'd probably be better off if we were able to accept that we get different things out of the game. It's not that easy, though. You might think Josh Reynolds should be first name on the team sheet because he always gives 110%, whereas I know he should be in reserve grade because the numbers demonstrate that he can't do half the things a playmaker needs to be good at. We're never not going to argue about that, and when half the people arguing disagree with the fundamental basis on which the other half has built its argument we're probably not going anywhere positive.
old_man_tiger
Well-known member
@Swordy said in [Stats and footy speak](/post/1132307) said:
Hi mate, I was being smart on the first page.
Serious answer is there are probably some stats that correlate with winning. Only one stat shows the score though (interestingly it's called "the score") so I see what you mean.
The old fashioned stats that channel 10 or the ABC probably showed decades ago (possession, penalties, errors) probably still tell you more than a lot of the fancier stuff, which I feel is more about KPIs for individual roles or players.
In other words I agree it can be overdone and yet still like seeing things like Mikaele attracting more defenders or Twal hitting and sticking better than most. To me it helps me watch for little things in the game I wouldn't usually notice and explains why some players seem to go unnoticed but are very valuable.
gallagher
Well-known member
I find it strange that someone looks at players tats then states they had a good game. Can't you tell if someone had a good game by watching?
And fans that rate a player due to SuperCoach points. Why?
And fans that rate a player due to SuperCoach points. Why?
Staff online
-
DempsModerator