Analysis Season 2023 - Statistics and Analytics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
M Malice said:
Brenton Sanderson put up some stats on SEN this morning >

In our 8 wins we average 104 marks.

In our 2 losses we average 73 marks.

We are 18th in the competition for tackles.
______________________________________

He said that being last in tackles could be a worry against the really good sides:think::rolleyes:, obviously he mustn't rate the Magpies and Demons as "really good sides". He tipped the Crows to win on Sunday.

Being 18th for tackles is not a worry and a consequence of our game style IMO.
Click to expand...

I think the damming stat he didn’t consider was that in our two losses this year we didn’t even manage to outscore our opponents once. Really makes you think.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
buttermuffs said:
I think the damming stat he didn’t consider was that in our two losses this year we didn’t even manage to outscore our opponents once. Really makes you think.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
They should've stopped the count! It was rigged, Crooked Gil and Sleepy Andrew Dillon!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Tom14 said:
Feels like enough time has passed to clown on this opinion piece: Why Brisbane is one of the biggest losers of the 2022 Trade Period

My favourite bits that have aged terribly:







I remember the author doing a self-congratulatory re-post of the article on twitter the night we lost to the Dogs in Round 3 too :laughing:
Click to expand...


Posted the above article in the trade thread but there is a follow up from the same author that deserves a laugh at in this thread:
Here's the genius follow up after we beat the pies: Big scalps are great but Brisbane's style is cause for concern

The wins were good. The Lions were met with big pressure heading into both fixtures and controlled the games at vital times to win.

The losses were bad. Like, “not even a contender” bad.

Now, met with a fortnight of fixturing that’ll likely result in big wins and an elevation into the top four and after taking a big scalp, it seems an appropriate time to judge the Lions.
Click to expand...

However, seeing a drop-off in offensive output that is paired with similar defensive woes is a genuine concern that results shouldn’t mask.

In 2022, the Lions averaged 55.7 inside 50s per game, ranked sixth in the competition, and scored in 43.99% of their entries. They ranked fifth for metres gained, sixth for marks inside 50 and averaged 6.22 disposals per inside 50, which was the third-lowest ratio in the league, indicate directness.

Through the opening month of the season, Brisbane is averaging 50.2 inside 50s, good for 14th. They’re only scoring 42.03% of the time they go forward, which is comfortably worse than West Coast and North Melbourne for reference.
Click to expand...

They’re ranked 16th for metres gained, 10th for marks inside 50 and they’re ratio has only slipped marginally to 6.38 disposals per inside 50, but this is around the mark of most good teams this season with the majority of the competition playing more direct to kick off 2023.
Click to expand...

If we were concerned about Brisbane conceding 89.11 points per game in the second half of 2022, we’re probably concerned with the similar figure this season too.

They conceded a score in 43.82% of inside 50s last year, this season it’s 43.3%, but they’re conceding five more inside 50s per game. In 2022, they conceded 11.2 marks inside 50 per game, ranked seventh. This season, it’s 13.8, ranked fourth.
Click to expand...

We can’t let results mask the way teams are actually playing and despite a couple of scalps, something has to change at Brisbane to be a true premiership contender in 2023 as they’d aimed for to start the season.

They have a soft fixture to the bye which will likely see them sitting in the top four, but wins don’t matter if not done the right way.
Click to expand...


A few points:
  • All the stats in this were junk at the time (too small a number of games for a proper sample size) and look even more junk now as the first 4 opponents we had respectively sit 3rd, 4th, 6th and 1st on the ladder. Of course if you compare that to season long stats it is going to look worse.
  • The port loss being 1 quarter of the statistical output for the period massively skews things as it is one of the worst statistical performances you'll see.
  • We have the third most inside 50s in the comp after 10 rounds, not 14th after 4 - its funny what happens when the port result isn't one quarter of the data you are measuring.
  • Points against are now down to 77.2. If you want to argue that we've had a soft draw since round 4 that is probably fair - but in total we've played 9 teams ranked 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th in points for (we can't play the third ranked team as that is us).
  • We've only played one of the 3 teams that have scored 100 points less than everyone else across the season so far (norf, eagles, hawks), and are averaging 2 points per games more than the vaunted Dees defence who have played all 3 already.
Basically this guy has written two pieces about how he didn't like our trade period on the basis that our stats were bad in round 4, and we should have recruited Blake Acres, Aaron Francis and Sam Weideman - and Dunkley wasn't required as 'the midfield wasn't the problem.'
 
Tom14 said:
Posted the above article in the trade thread but there is a follow up from the same author that deserves a laugh at in this thread:
Here's the genius follow up after we beat the pies: Big scalps are great but Brisbane's style is cause for concern












A few points:
  • All the stats in this were junk at the time (too small a number of games for a proper sample size) and look even more junk now as the first 4 opponents we had respectively sit 3rd, 4th, 6th and 1st on the ladder. Of course if you compare that to season long stats it is going to look worse.
  • The port loss being 1 quarter of the statistical output for the period massively skews things as it is one of the worst statistical performances you'll see.
  • We have the third most inside 50s in the comp after 10 rounds, not 14th after 4 - its funny what happens when the port result isn't one quarter of the data you are measuring.
  • Points against are now down to 77.2. If you want to argue that we've had a soft draw since round 4 that is probably fair - but in total we've played 9 teams ranked 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th in points for (we can't play the third ranked team as that is us).
  • We've only played one of the 3 teams that have scored 100 points less than everyone else across the season so far (norf, eagles, hawks), and are averaging 2 points per games more than the vaunted Dees defence who have played all 3 already.
Basically this guy has written two pieces about how he didn't like our trade period on the basis that our stats were bad in round 4, and we should have recruited Blake Acres, Aaron Francis and Sam Weideman - and Dunkley wasn't required as 'the midfield wasn't the problem.'
Click to expand...
Surprise surprise, people at the club new more about the clubs requirements than he did.
 
I was thinking today about the old footy saying you are only as strong as the bottom 6 players on your team, so that got me wondering who are the bottom 6 players of our nominal best 22? Personally I wouldn't have Richy or Gunston in but IMO this is who the club look like they are going with at the moment as their best side.

Brandon Starcevich, Jack Payne, Ryan Lester.
Conor McKenna, Harris Andrews, Kiedean Coleman.

Oscar McInerney, Josh Dunkley, Lachie Neale.
Hugh McCluggage, Jarrod Berry, Will Ashcroft.

Charlie Cameron, Joe Daniher, Cam Rayner.
Lincoln McCarthy, Eric Hipwood, Jack Gunston.

Darcy Wilmot, Zac Bailey, Dayne Zorko, Daniel Rich.
______________________________________________

Bottom 6 is bloody extremely difficult to name, gun to my head I would go with > Lester, Berry, Rayner, McCarthy, Gunston, Rich.

If I could give myself an out I would say these 6 are replaceable to a decent degree if out injured, they are not necessarily who I see as our "worst" 6. On the other hand finding replacements for the likes of Payne, Andrews, Cameron, Daniher is a lot more difficult.
 
Tom14 said:
Posted the above article in the trade thread but there is a follow up from the same author that deserves a laugh at in this thread:
Here's the genius follow up after we beat the pies: Big scalps are great but Brisbane's style is cause for concern












A few points:
  • All the stats in this were junk at the time (too small a number of games for a proper sample size) and look even more junk now as the first 4 opponents we had respectively sit 3rd, 4th, 6th and 1st on the ladder. Of course if you compare that to season long stats it is going to look worse.
  • The port loss being 1 quarter of the statistical output for the period massively skews things as it is one of the worst statistical performances you'll see.
  • We have the third most inside 50s in the comp after 10 rounds, not 14th after 4 - its funny what happens when the port result isn't one quarter of the data you are measuring.
  • Points against are now down to 77.2. If you want to argue that we've had a soft draw since round 4 that is probably fair - but in total we've played 9 teams ranked 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th in points for (we can't play the third ranked team as that is us).
  • We've only played one of the 3 teams that have scored 100 points less than everyone else across the season so far (norf, eagles, hawks), and are averaging 2 points per games more than the vaunted Dees defence who have played all 3 already.
Basically this guy has written two pieces about how he didn't like our trade period on the basis that our stats were bad in round 4, and we should have recruited Blake Acres, Aaron Francis and Sam Weideman - and Dunkley wasn't required as 'the midfield wasn't the problem.'
Click to expand...

I think anyone who with the opinion of ‘the midfield wasn’t the problem’ can be laughed at for eternity for such a horrible take. While I wouldn’t necessarily describe it at a ‘stop Neale and you stop the Lions’ problem, it was definitely a defensive problem in the midfield which gave the opposition quality entries that made it easy to score.

It’s like saying the Blues issue isn’t their midfield, despite giving up an abundance of inside fifties to the opposition while delivering poor and predictable entire themselves expecting their two talls to just do the rest afterwards. Sure, they had other issues like we did (not great quality small forwards vs no pace off halfback) but it’s by far a small issue in comparison to the midfield.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
M Malice said:
I was thinking today about the old footy saying you are only as strong as the bottom 6 players on your team, so that got me wondering who are the bottom 6 players of our nominal best 22? Personally I wouldn't have Richy or Gunston in but IMO this is who the club look like they are going with at the moment as their best side.

Brandon Starcevich, Jack Payne, Ryan Lester.
Conor McKenna, Harris Andrews, Kiedean Coleman.

Oscar McInerney, Josh Dunkley, Lachie Neale.
Hugh McCluggage, Jarrod Berry, Will Ashcroft.

Charlie Cameron, Joe Daniher, Cam Rayner.
Lincoln McCarthy, Eric Hipwood, Jack Gunston.

Darcy Wilmot, Zac Bailey, Dayne Zorko, Daniel Rich.
______________________________________________

Bottom 6 is bloody extremely difficult to name, gun to my head I would go with > Lester, Berry, Rayner, McCarthy, Gunston, Rich.

If I could give myself an out I would say these 6 are replaceable to a decent degree if out injured, they are not necessarily who I see as our "worst" 6. On the other hand finding replacements for the likes of Payne, Andrews, Cameron, Daniher is a lot more difficult.
Click to expand...
Rich
Gunston
McInerney
Lester
Berry
McCarthy
 
briztoon said:
Rich
Gunston
McInerney
Lester
Berry
McCarthy
Click to expand...
Could argue on pure output Rayner?
Hipwood? Like his goal assists though.
Even kiddy based on this season.
It’s a good sign it’s hard to clearly define it. Nobody is getting an easy game these days*

*insert your favourite pet here
 
Tom14 said:
Posted the above article in the trade thread but there is a follow up from the same author that deserves a laugh at in this thread:
Here's the genius follow up after we beat the pies: Big scalps are great but Brisbane's style is cause for concern












A few points:
  • All the stats in this were junk at the time (too small a number of games for a proper sample size) and look even more junk now as the first 4 opponents we had respectively sit 3rd, 4th, 6th and 1st on the ladder. Of course if you compare that to season long stats it is going to look worse.
  • The port loss being 1 quarter of the statistical output for the period massively skews things as it is one of the worst statistical performances you'll see.
  • We have the third most inside 50s in the comp after 10 rounds, not 14th after 4 - its funny what happens when the port result isn't one quarter of the data you are measuring.
  • Points against are now down to 77.2. If you want to argue that we've had a soft draw since round 4 that is probably fair - but in total we've played 9 teams ranked 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th in points for (we can't play the third ranked team as that is us).
  • We've only played one of the 3 teams that have scored 100 points less than everyone else across the season so far (norf, eagles, hawks), and are averaging 2 points per games more than the vaunted Dees defence who have played all 3 already.
Basically this guy has written two pieces about how he didn't like our trade period on the basis that our stats were bad in round 4, and we should have recruited Blake Acres, Aaron Francis and Sam Weideman - and Dunkley wasn't required as 'the midfield wasn't the problem.'
Click to expand...
First article is at least an interesting take.

Second one reeks of doubling down for the sake of it.

I am tempted to post a comment but then we’ll lose to the crows for sure
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

KissKiss said:
Id probably throw Wilmot into the bottom 6 as well. His potential is great and improving each week. But realistically he is currently at the bottom end of the 22
Click to expand...
Sad No Way GIF by Sixt
 
Having a look at the handball stats for this year so far.

We are ranked 17th for most handballs at an average of 117.1 per game.... Suns 18th 114.4.

Magpies 156.5 and Demons 156.6 per game, I don't think their high handball game will stand up against our best pressure game in a big final, we will score big on turnover.

Interesting to note that Port are ranked 16th but still a way in front of us at 134.5 handballs per game.

Hawks and Giants the most handball happy sides with both averaging 172 per game.
 
www.afl.com.au

Maximum impact: AFL's most damaging inside 50 kicks revealed

Who's the most feared player with ball in hand heading into attack? Sarah Black looks at the numbers
www.afl.com.au www.afl.com.au

Zorko joins Miers as the only player on all three lists. Danger and Lukosius are on two of them. Clugs makes the first one as well which is great considering his slump in the early rounds.

Certainly interesting to see. Of course, Zorko is probably the last on the list out of our three oldies that everyone would want dropped but obviously the idea he’s past it isn’t backed up here.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
M Malice said:
Having a look at the handball stats for this year so far.

We are ranked 17th for most handballs at an average of 117.1 per game.... Suns 18th 114.4.

Magpies 156.5 and Demons 156.6 per game, I don't think their high handball game will stand up against our best pressure game in a big final, we will score big on turnover.

Interesting to note that Port are ranked 16th but still a way in front of us at 134.5 handballs per game.

Hawks and Giants the most handball happy sides with both averaging 172 per game.
Click to expand...
Yes. We will get another great audit on our handball intercept game next Saturday. Hawthorn are even having more handballs than kicks a lot of the time. The change since Round 4 has been stark, simply looking at the numbers, it really jumps off the page:

Round 1: 224 kicks v 146 handballs
Round 2: 206-144
Round 3: 275-149
Round 4: 191-121

Round 5: 201-178
Round 6: 185-167
Round 7: 219-176
Round 8: 191-183
Round 9: 181-205 (!)
Round 10: 233-215
Round 11: 210-214 (!)

They are often low turnover tho which indicates they often go back or sideways to go forward. They aren't exactly exploding forward with aggressive handballs Richmond-style:

Screenshot_20230601_233458_Twitter.jpg

So if I'm coaching against that I'm basically drowning them in honey. Give them the boundary, hold our numbers infield, and if they want to stay out wide, fine, shoot from distance in the pockets. If they want to come back inside, overwhelm them with our numbers, force turnovers, spread quickly and get em out the other side.

Their game against Port this week will be very interesting. Port are much more of a kicking team, a bit like us, but they like to use the corridor more than we do. The way Hawthorn set up they may get the chance to do just that. I'll be watching closely to see how Port defend their ball movement, and also how Hawthorn try to defend Port's.
 
T Rick said:
Lions are top of the table for free differential (+48) after 15 rounds - can't ever remember such an amazing situation in the past...ever!
Click to expand...

It's because we don't tackle as much in an era where umps look to **** the tackler more than ever.
 
Nunez said:
It's because we don't tackle as much in an era where umps look to * the tackler more than ever.
Click to expand...
The corralling works well if and only if you're also putting pressure on their outlet players. If you don't it's basically an easy transition from one end to the other, and in previous years when we'd corral we didn't have the backup from other players. In our best games you can see the difference - the corralled player takes the "easy" out, who is immediately wrapped up.

Tackling has a lot more good results but a lot more bad results too (free kick, broken tackle given how poor some of our players are at it, player given 30 seconds to dispose of the ball even after hitting the ground allowing an overlap to form)...
 
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

G
Analysis Season 2024 - Statistics and Analytics Thread
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
293
Views
22K
Nathan Barley
Nathan Barley
Mr Ripper
Training 2025 Pre-Season Thread
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
irel
irel
MSB ROYS
Women's Footy Non-Lions AFLW Discussion 2023 (Season 8)
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
126
Views
13K
BuntonRules
BuntonRules
The Flying Belgian
Women's Footy Lions AFLW 2023 (Season 8) Discussion
19 20 21 22 23
Replies
557
Views
48K
Grasshopper17
G
Dalions
Training 2023 Pre-season thread
121 122 123 124 125
Replies
3K
Views
184K
SpecialBruce
SpecialBruce
JasRulz63
List Mgmt. List changes, contract status and key dates - 2023
Replies
18
Views
4K
ems_darling
E
AllHart
AFL Grand Final Brisbane players in the 2023 Grand Final Parade:
Replies
1
Views
1K
PowerfulPies2023
PowerfulPies2023

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top