Goal Accuracy

[Lunchtime]

Not sure if anyone has noticed, but on the AFL app/website, there is a new addition and I have only noticed it in the past day or so, I assume this new addition was implemented maybe at the start of the season or the past few weeks??

Anyway let me explain: Goal kicking accuracy.

For as long as I've known it, goal kicking accuracy was a simple case of looking at goals kicked and behinds kicked, there wasnt a numerocal figure to reflect shots on goals thst were not goal or behinds such as out of bounds on the full and/or shots not making the distance etc etc.

But now on the AFL app/website they show total shots on goal. So from this we can see how many goals/behinds a player has kicked (using this website: https://afltables.com/afl/afl_index.html), and then on the AFL app/website from the total shots on goal we can see how many shots failed to score (non goals).

Let's look at Lance Franklin as an example, see screenshots:

Lance Franklin: 354 Games
Shots on Goal: 2054
Goals: 1066
Behinds: 742
No Score: 246
Goal Accuracy: 51.8%

AFL Tables - Lance Franklin - Stats - Statistics

This now gives us a much more accurate reflection of Franklin's goal kicking accuracy, where as before all we had to go on was the 1066 goals/742 behinds = 58.9%. We now have (thanks to the AFL app/website) his total shots on goal so we can work out how many shots on goal weren't goals or behinds but instead..."no score" shots which equate to missed shots on goal anyway.

For those interested as there's probably quite a few stats people on here like myself. I know goal kicking accuracy won't interest everyone on here and that's fine, I get it, but just thought I'd create this thread for discussion anyway.

If only total shots on goal was recorded for Tony Lockett

Tony Lockett

Age

58

Ht

191cm

Wt

108kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.2

3star

K

8.4

3star

HB

1.8

2star

M

6.3

5star

T

0.5

3star

G

4.8

5star

No current season stats available

D

8.2

2star

K

5.6

3star

HB

2.6

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

0.0

1star

G

1.4

5star

's career because all we have is this: https://afltables.com/afl/stats/players/T/Tony_Lockett.html

Plugger 1360 goals/590 behinds = 69.7% accuracy. Assuming that Plugger also had some "no score" shots then that figure of 69.7% might drop to what.....let's say 60-ish% or 61% as a very rough guess.....we will never know. What we do know is that for modern players or at least players who appear on the AFL app/website... their goal kicking accuracy will be reflected in a more accurate manner which is good. It basically makes the "goals kicked/behinds kicked" stat redundant for players when it comes to their goal kicking accuracy.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Do Ty Vickery’s you’ll be surprised how good it is.

 

[Lunchtime]

Do Ty Vickery’s you’ll be surprised how good it is.

According to the AFL app, his career accuracy:

Shots on Goal: 269
Goals: 160
Behinds: 87
No Score: 22
Goal Accuracy: 59.5%

Goals & Behinds

AFL Tables - Ty Vickery - Stats - Statistics

 

[Cleansweep17]

According to the AFL app, his career accuracy:

Shots on Goal: 269
Goals: 160
Behinds: 87
No Score: 22
Goal Accuracy: 59.5%

Goals & Behinds

AFL Tables - Ty Vickery - Stats - Statistics

Yeah 59.5% I think it beats all of Buddy, J Riewoldt, Carey, Hawkins, Lethal, Richo and GAS if I’m not mistaken. Pretty wild.

 

[Lunchtime]

Yeah 59.5% I think it beats all of Buddy, J Riewoldt, Carey, Hawkins, Lethal, Richo and GAS if I’m not mistaken. Pretty wild.

But even then, we say "gee 59.5%" is good. Yet an outsider or should I say....a new fan to the game might say something along the lines of "59.5%.....that doesn't seem very good" yet in "AFL terms" 59.5% is above average - its good.

You mention a few names above....so according to the AFL app:

Lance Franklin: 354 Games
Shots on Goal: 2054
Goals: 1066
Behinds: 742
No Score: 246
Goal Accuracy: 51.8%

Tom Hawkins: 353 Games
Shots on Goal: 1397
Goals: 790
Behinds: 444
No Score: 163
Goal Accuracy: 56.5%

Jack Riewoldt: 347 Games
Shots on Goal: 1474
Goals: 787
Behinds: 480
No Score: 207
Goal Accuracy: 53.4%

Josh Kennedy: 293 Games
Shots on Goal: 1264
Goals: 723
Behinds: 393
No Score: 151
Goal Accuracy: 57.1%


You mention Carey, Ablett Snr and Richo...we only have their goals and behinds recorded on afltables.com...not total shots on goal (not on AFL app). So we don't know 100% their goal accuracy figure - only Goals and Behinds ratio....but no info on "no score" shots which effectively are "no Goal" shots.

As for Vickery - yeah 59.5% is good. But here's a player who was better accuracy wise:

Tory Dickson......see screenshots:

Tory Dickson
Shots on Goal: 283
Goals: 181
Behinds: 61
No Score: 41
Goal Accuracy: 63.9%

AFL Tables - Tory Dickson - Stats - Statistics

Here is another one...Jay Schulz...again, see screenshots...

Jay Schulz
Shots on Goal: 549
Goals: 333
Behinds: 160
No Score: 56
Goal Accuracy: 60.6%

AFL Tables - Jay Schulz - Stats - Statistics

 

[My Tilly]

Yeah 59.5% I think it beats all of Buddy, J Riewoldt, Carey, Hawkins, Lethal, Richo and GAS if I’m not mistaken. Pretty wild.

You have a higher probability of scoring at a successful rate if your sample size is small such is the case for Vickery with 160 career goals.

Look at Lockett's first 170 goals for example. He probably went at 70% or something like that.
Likewise a lot of players during their first 150-200 goals.

 

[SC_Power]

Not sure if anyone has noticed, but on the AFL app/website, there is a new addition and I have only noticed it in the past day or so, I assume this new addition was implemented maybe at the start of the season or the past few weeks??

Anyway let me explain: Goal kicking accuracy.

For as long as I've known it, goal kicking accuracy was a simple case of looking at goals kicked and behinds kicked, there wasnt a numerocal figure to reflect shots on goals thst were not goal or behinds such as out of bounds on the full and/or shots not making the distance etc etc.

But now on the AFL app/website they show total shots on goal. So from this we can see how many goals/behinds a player has kicked (using this website: https://afltables.com/afl/afl_index.html), and then on the AFL app/website from the total shots on goal we can see how many shots failed to score (non goals).

Let's look at Lance Franklin as an example, see screenshots:

Lance Franklin: 354 Games
Shots on Goal: 2054
Goals: 1066
Behinds: 742
No Score: 246
Goal Accuracy: 51.8%

AFL Tables - Lance Franklin - Stats - Statistics

This now gives us a much more accurate reflection of Franklin's goal kicking accuracy, where as before all we had to go on was the 1066 goals/742 behinds = 58.9%. We now have (thanks to the AFL app/website) his total shots on goal so we can work out how many shots on goal weren't goals or behinds but instead..."no score" shots which equate to missed shots on goal anyway.

For those interested as there's probably quite a few stats people on here like myself. I know goal kicking accuracy won't interest everyone on here and that's fine, I get it, but just thought I'd create this thread for discussion anyway.

If only total shots on goal was recorded for Tony Lockett's career because all we have is this: https://afltables.com/afl/stats/players/T/Tony_Lockett.html

Plugger 1360 goals/590 behinds = 69.7% accuracy. Assuming that Plugger also had some "no score" shots then that figure of 69.7% might drop to what.....let's say 60-ish% or 61% as a very rough guess.....we will never know. What we do know is that for modern players or at least players who appear on the AFL app/website... their goal kicking accuracy will be reflected in a more accurate manner which is good. It basically makes the "goals kicked/behinds kicked" stat redundant for players when it comes to their goal kicking accuracy.

Doesn’t seem to be available in the iPad app version, but it is technology and I am…. not.

 

[Mr Meow]

But even then, we say "gee 59.5%" is good. Yet an outsider or should I say....a new fan to the game might say something along the lines of "59.5%.....that doesn't seem very good" yet in "AFL terms" 59.5% is above average - its good.

You mention a few names above....so according to the AFL app:

Lance Franklin: 354 Games
Shots on Goal: 2054
Goals: 1066
Behinds: 742
No Score: 246
Goal Accuracy: 51.8%

Tom Hawkins: 353 Games
Shots on Goal: 1397
Goals: 790
Behinds: 444
No Score: 163
Goal Accuracy: 56.5%

Jack Riewoldt: 347 Games
Shots on Goal: 1474
Goals: 787
Behinds: 480
No Score: 207
Goal Accuracy: 53.4%

Josh Kennedy: 293 Games
Shots on Goal: 1264
Goals: 723
Behinds: 393
No Score: 151
Goal Accuracy: 57.1%


You mention Carey, Ablett Snr and Richo...we only have their goals and behinds recorded on afltables.com...not total shots on goal (not on AFL app). So we don't know 100% their goal accuracy figure - only Goals and Behinds ratio....but no info on "no score" shots which effectively are "no Goal" shots.

As for Vickery - yeah 59.5% is good. But here's a player who was better accuracy wise:

Tory Dickson......see screenshots:

Tory Dickson
Shots on Goal: 283
Goals: 181
Behinds: 61
No Score: 41
Goal Accuracy: 63.9%

AFL Tables - Tory Dickson - Stats - Statistics

Here is another one...Jay Schulz...again, see screenshots...

Jay Schulz
Shots on Goal: 549
Goals: 333
Behinds: 160
No Score: 56
Goal Accuracy: 60.6%

AFL Tables - Jay Schulz - Stats - Statistics

Cleansweep17 interesting about Hawkins and Kennedy vs Riewoldt. I always figured he was a dead eye. Had a lot more "no score" shots than the others. So he had a tendency to spray it a bit more.

 

[BF Tiger]

You have a higher probability of scoring at a successful rate if your sample size is small such is the case for Vickery with 160 career goals.

Look at Lockett's first 170 goals for example. He probably went at 70% or something like that.
Likewise a lot of players during their first 150-200 goals.

Hmmm... what's your logic behind this thinking?

 

[Lunchtime]

Doesn’t seem to be available in the iPad app version, but it is technology and I am…. not.

As you'll see throughout this thread...my screenshots....they are from the AFL app.

 

[Lunchtime]

You have a higher probability of scoring at a successful rate if your sample size is small such is the case for Vickery with 160 career goals.

Look at Lockett's first 170 goals for example. He probably went at 70% or something like that.
Likewise a lot of players during their first 150-200 goals.

But still to have a pretty good accuracy rate for 100+ shots on goal is I think a good effort.

You mention Lockett....and his first 170 goals.....how many shots on goal was it from? That's the part we don't know...not available on the AFL app/website.

Afltables.com only has his goals and behinds.

 

[Lunchtime]

And now we get to some players who's accuracy......wasn't so good.. in fact it was terrible. Sorry Pies and Bulldogs fans.......Travis Cloke...

See screenshots...

Travis Cloke: 256 Games
Shots on Goal: 996
Goals: 452
Behinds: 369
No Score: 175
Goal Accuracy: 45.3%

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/players/T/Travis_Cloke.html

...umm.....45.3%......that isn't good.....its quite bad actually = a goal every 2.2 shots...

 

[My Tilly]

But still to have a pretty good accuracy rate for 100+ shots on goal is I think a good effort.

You mention Lockett....and his first 170 goals.....how many shots on goal was it from? That's the part we don't know...not available on the AFL app/website.

Afltables.com only has his goals and behinds.

I have never seen the shots on goal statistic displayed before but it's probably mostly out of bounds on full which at least goes down as a disposal.

 

[My Tilly]

Hmmm... what's your logic behind this thinking?

If you were a talented junior as a forward. You are likely getting a game first and foremost in the AFL because of your ability to kick a goal.
But a forward will inadvertently go through droughts no different to what we see with basketball 3 point shooters.

Also have to factor in the way the opposition slowly try to defend a Dunstall or a McKenna after their first 3-4 years in the VFL/AFL. Pressing them further up the ground or wide to the pockets as they become the focal point of the forward half. Naturally, you are going to be taking low percentage shots at goal and in time, that would dip, rise, whatever.

 

[Lunchtime]

I have never seen the shots on goal statistic displayed before but it's probably mostly out of bounds on full which at least goes down as a disposal.

It's a new addition I think to the AFL app/website. Shots on goal which are "no score" is probably - out of bounds, out of bounds on the full, didn't make the distance....these are all probably deemed as "missed shots on goal"

 

[budge27]

And now we get to some players who's accuracy......wasn't so good.. in fact it was terrible. Sorry Pies and Bulldogs fans.......Travis Cloke...

See screenshots...

Travis Cloke: 256 Games
Shots on Goal: 996
Goals: 452
Behinds: 369
No Score: 175
Goal Accuracy: 45.3%

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/players/T/Travis_Cloke.html

...umm.....45.3%......that isn't good.....its quite bad actually = a goal every 2.2 shots...

Maybe you need to go 1 step further and look at distance - Cloke was crap at 30m out from goal but alot better at 50m.. go figure.

 

[Lunchtime]

Maybe you need to go 1 step further and look at distance - Cloke was crap at 30m out from goal but alot better at 50m.. go figure.

Still though, that accuracy for a KPF needed to be better. It's rubbish.

 

[BF Tiger]

If you were a talented junior as a forward. You are likely getting a game first and foremost in the AFL because of your ability to kick a goal.
But a forward will inadvertently go through droughts no different to what we see with basketball 3 point shooters.

Also have to factor in the way the opposition slowly try to defend a Dunstall or a McKenna after their first 3-4 years in the VFL/AFL. Pressing them further up the ground or wide to the pockets as they become the focal point of the forward half. Naturally, you are going to be taking low percentage shots at goal and in time, that would dip, rise, whatever.

So no data, just a theory.

 

[Lunchtime]

What the data shows on the AFL app/website is that if a player is in the 50s range for percentage in regards to accuracy (including no score shots) then that's probably deemed as "good".

If only we had the same info (total shots on goal) for players that played 20+ yrs ago.

 

[joe444]

As for this year, players who've scored over two goals a game on average:

N Larkey (15) 68%
S Bolton, O Henry (15,15) 65%
B King, J Hogan (19,22) 63%
B Fritsch, J Waterman (18,22) 62%
K Langford (17) 61%
L McDonald (16) 59%
C Curnow, J Cameron (23,19) 56%
H McKay, J Stringer (18,15) 50%

So, perhaps, rumours of McKay's dramatic improvement (a) show how bad things got and/or (b) are exaggerated. A bit surprised to see Curnow and Cameron that low.

edit: Indeed, McKay(29) was 38% last year and Cameron(53) was 51%. McKay is back to where he was in 2022 (51%)

 

[My Tilly]

So no data, just a theory.

No data BF.

 

[maskmcgee]

You have a higher probability of scoring at a successful rate if your sample size is small such is the case for Vickery with 160 career goals.

This is completely false. It's the law of large numbers. Any benefit you could theoretically get from a smaller sample size is offset by the fact that any misses would be more damaging to your accuracy. And in probability, 160 is not a small sample size. Even if your statement was true, the sort of benefit you could gain from it would be statistically insignificant, within a rounding error of 0.

 

[Mr Meow]

This is completely false. It's the law of large numbers. Any benefit you could theoretically get from a smaller sample size is offset by the fact that any misses would be more damaging to your accuracy. And in probability, 160 is not a small sample size. Even if your statement was true, the sort of benefit you could gain from it would be statistically insignificant, within a rounding error of 0.

It's more likely that Vickery took shots from easier positions on average or something like that. Maybe when he was forward he was more of a goal square merchant rather than mixing it up with 50m shots on the run.

 

[My Tilly]

Any benefit you could theoretically get from a smaller sample size is offset by the fact that any misses would be more damaging to your accuracy.

How so?

 

[faible]

But even then, we say "gee 59.5%" is good. Yet an outsider or should I say....a new fan to the game might say something along the lines of "59.5%.....that doesn't seem very good" yet in "AFL terms" 59.5% is above average - its good.

FWIW

In Basketball, Steph Curry goes at ~ 42.6% and is renowned as an incredible shooter.
In Baseball, going at > 0.300 is considered excellent, > 0.400 is unheard of.
In NFL, Brady went at 64.3% pass completions and I assume everyone knows who he is. (Brees higher with 67.7%)