Rumours and Stuff

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Obviously stats are important because they give easily measurable metrics of performance in particular areas, they are a far more reliable source than opinion ( which will vary ) or memory ( recollection ) which is unreliable at best.

Problems arise with a lack of depth, and interpretation, I'd imagine, given they'd pay for them, Nrl coaches would get a hell of a lot more depth than us merkins will see for free on the interwebz, and make interpretations that are far more informed than those we can make based upon a dozen or so of the most prominent measurements.

You can measure anything in a game statistically, you just need to know what to look for.

Yep. They get stats of a lot greater depth (and disaggregation). I used to know the bloke who did stats for the Eels back in the B Smith era, and the level of detail collected then was quite extraordinary.

Doesn't mean that base all of your decisions (or many decisions) on this data. But, at the very least, detailed stats provided an objective set of data with which you can seek corroborating evidence of your intuition about how particular players are going etc. Sometimes you can get the feeling that a player is doing worse / better than they are because they do something dumb/great at a particular time in a game.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Sure, that's awesome, but it won't tell you why, and will lead to super coach like comments such as "which ever team scores the most points will win'"

Edit


It also leads in a roundabout sort of way to clangers like selecting Nathan Merritt for origin.

Well no system is perfect but yes, mine does suggest that teams should be selecting more wingers as they seem to score more than the average number of 'points'.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Sorry, deleted worthless contribution. Carry on merkins.

Is that all you've got?

 

[strider]

Well no system is perfect but yes, mine does suggest that teams should be selecting more wingers as they seem to score more than the average number of 'points'.

Brilliant

 

[Gary Gutful]

Yep. They get stats of a lot greater depth (and disaggregation). I used to know the bloke who did stats for the Eels back in the B Smith era, and the level of detail collected then was quite extraordinary.

Doesn't mean that base all of your decisions (or many decisions) on this data. But, at the very least, detailed stats provided an objective set of data with which you can seek corroborating evidence of your intuition about how particular players are going etc. Sometimes you can get the feeling that a player is doing worse / better than they are because they do something dumb/great at a particular time in a game.

Chimpmunk should read this post at least 10 times before posting again.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Remember the time Kenny Edwards started in 9 and the Roosters put 50 on us and the reason was because Edwards wore jersey 9?

 

[Bandwagon]

Well no system is perfect but yes, mine does suggest that teams should be selecting more wingers as they seem to score more than the average number of 'points'.

I thought we had all agreed that you can never have too many fullbacks?

It'll take me some time to get my head around this selecting more wingers thing you speak of.

 

[Bandwagon]

In the end, you watch a game and stats aren't there to be used to form an opinion, but they sure as hell are there to test it.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I thought we had all agreed that you can never have too many fullbacks?

It'll take me some time to get my head around this selecting more wingers thing you speak of.

I'm not sure which team would be better tbh. I'd need to watch a game where one team has more wingers and the other is all fullbacks, then add up the 'points'.

 

[Bandwagon]

I'm not sure which team would be better tbh. I'd need to watch a game where one team has more wingers and the other is all fullbacks, then add up the 'points'.

The problem will be whether or not any of the wingers are merely a fullback awaiting their shot. Or a fullback that shoulda stuck to wing.

We'll need more stats for that.

 

[strider]

I'm not sure which team would be better tbh. I'd need to watch a game where one team has more wingers and the other is all fullbacks, then add up the 'points'.

What about a team of wingers, all playing fullback ... sure thing

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

What about a team of wingers, all playing fullback ... sure thing

And some idiots think this stuff is complicated.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It's a simple game.

 

[Chipmunk]

You are dribbling shit.

Stats are used. Of course, it comes down to how they are interpreted, but they are used.

Of course their used, but primarily everyone has their own use for them, but primarily its about seeing what everyone achieved individually, but what does an individual stat mean if their is no benchmark to compare it against.

Like a hooker made 32 tackles in a match, but how do you know that stat is high or low if you don't start with a benchmark.

 

[84 Baby]

Remember the time Kenny Edwards started in 9 and the Roosters put 50 on us and the reason was because Edwards wore jersey 9?

Well he didn't wear 9 earlier this year when Rorters didn't quite put 50 on us so it seems a reasonable conclusion to draw

Edit - unless he wore 19, if so, who's ducking brilliant idea was that?!?

 

[Chipmunk]

Chimpmunk should read this post at least 10 times before posting again.

Why, because it will tell me coaches use stats for various reasons...which i already indicated was the case.

Just like the "Team on Paper", stats don't always make you win.

 

[Soren Lorenson]

Is that all you've got?

Yep. Got no hope of adding anything meaningful to this lot tonight. I know when to shut up.

 

[Eelogical]

It's a simple game.

On the surface, you're right. The problem is that footballers are too smart for the game.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Of course their used, but primarily everyone has their own use for them, but primarily its about seeing what everyone achieved individually, but what does an individual stat mean if their is no benchmark to compare it against.

Like a hooker made 32 tackles in a match, but how do you know that stat is high or low if you don't start with a benchmark.

That's why I use stats to compare players. Like when I say the only NRL hookers who make less than 0.5 tackles per minute are Hodgson and Luke (both key attackers in their teams), Levi (whose team is running last) and Cameron King.

 

[Chipmunk]

On my point of statistics...one of Pou Bears great reasons why we lose games is because we had no possesion.

So the team leading the comp has only won the possession stat 4 times the entire season and has in fact won games when they're opponents have had 59% of possession.

I'm sure heaps of other teams have won when they've lost the possesion count.

So what does the actual statistic of possession actually tell us in relation to winning games?