Rumours and Stuff

[Happy MEel]

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.

According to NRL stats Cameron Smith's work rate in defence isn't much better at 0.51. There's only so many tackles to go around. As long as someone is able to make them, it doesn't really matter.

 

[Chipmunk]

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.

Ok, let's play compare individual stats.

So none of those other three players play in teams that are in the top 8, yet one of them has one a Premiership (lets concede his team would've won that day if he was in the team) and another played in a Top 4 team last season and our player is yet to be beaten at the NRL level.

So what proof do you have that particular stat is a determinate for success or failure?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

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

I've never let that be a hindrance.

 

[Bandwagon]

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?

"heaps" is statistically vague.

 

[Soren Lorenson]

I've never let that be a hindrance.

Most don't.

 

[Chipmunk]

"heaps" is statistically vague.

Heaps just emphasises that losing the possession doesn't mean you don't lose games...

So is it a statistic again that means anything?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

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?

I haven't looked at the possession stats too much because it generally doesn't interest me. But when I notice one team has all the ball I often check possession to see how much.

Obviously this tells you more early in the game than later.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

According to NRL stats Cameron Smith's work rate in defence isn't much better at 0.51. There's only so many tackles to go around. As long as someone is able to make them, it doesn't really matter.

But he is at greater than 0.5 despite playing 80 minutes just about every week.

I would expect more tackles per minute from the limited minutes players (e.g. Kritchard and Mannah) and fewer from the 70-80 minute players like Hodgson, Luke and Nathan Brown.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Ok, let's play compare individual stats.

So none of those other three players play in teams that are in the top 8, yet one of them has one a Premiership (lets concede his team would've won that day if he was in the team) and another played in a Top 4 team last season and our player is yet to be beaten at the NRL level.

So what proof do you have that particular stat is a determinate for success or failure?

I've already told you the determinant - it's only acceptable if the player is a high contributor in attack LIKE HODGSON AND LUKE. These guys play long minutes and run the ball often. So their teams can (sometimes, it would seem) afford to carry them in defence.

I already told you this. Don't fixate on the statistic without grasping the context WHICH I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED FOR YOU.

 

[Chipmunk]

I haven't looked at the possession stats too much because it generally doesn't interest me. But when I notice one team has all the ball I often check possession to see how much.

Obviously this tells you more early in the game than later.

Still doesn't provide sufficient evidence whether you win or lose games apparently... so what is the purpose of the stat in relation to being successful?

 

[Chipmunk]

I've already told you the determinant - it's only acceptable if the player is a high contributor in attack LIKE HODGSON AND LUKE. These guys play long minutes and run the ball often. So their teams can (sometimes, it would seem) afford to carry them in defence.

I already told you this. Don't fixate on the statistic without grasping the context WHICH I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED FOR YOU.

And what is the stats difference in these particular areas between these players and King?

Is running the ball often a determinate of success? If I'm not mistaken, Lichaa is second on this stat and also a good defender. Where's the Dogs success?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I've already told you the determinant - it's only acceptable if the player is a high contributor in attack LIKE HODGSON AND LUKE. These guys play long minutes and run the ball often. So their teams can (sometimes, it would seem) afford to carry them in defence.

I already told you this. Don't fixate on the statistic without grasping the context WHICH I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED FOR YOU.

Blah blah blah... I just wish someone would tell us why it's ok for some hookers to be lazy in defence yet for others it's deemed unacceptable? IT'S JUST LIKE THAT OTHER f**kING THING THAT NO ONE WILL TELL US ABOUT!!

 

[Bandwagon]

Heaps just emphasises that losing the possession doesn't mean you don't lose games...

So is it a statistic again that means anything?

Could you perhaps more clearly define "heaps"?

Like is more than one "heaps" or is "heaps: heaps more than one?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Still doesn't provide sufficient evidence whether you win or lose games apparently... so what is the purpose of the stat in relation to being successful?

I'm sure the team with more possession wins significantly more often than the team without.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I'm sure the team with more possession wins significantly more often than the team without.

I would think that's typically true. But teams who are really good at kicking to the corners and beating up the opposition running it out from there probably register lower possession stats than you think Particularly if they kick early. Souths back in the year that they won were particularly good at it (no idea what the possession stats were).

 

[Poupou Escobar]

And what is the stats difference in these particular areas between these players and King?

They get more LBAs, TAs and runs per minute and more tackle breaks, linebreaks and metres per run.

Is running the ball often a determinate of success?

Only if they're good at it. If they're not good at running they need to provide something else - either playmaking (measured in LBAs and TAs) or a high defensive workrate.

If I'm not mistaken, Lichaa is second on this stat and also a good defender. Where's the Dogs success?

His metres per run are great but he doesn't run often, and his LBAs and TAs are way down this year, as is the Dogs' form.

 

[Chipmunk]

I'm sure the team with more possession wins significantly more often than the team without.

Yet the team who has won more games than any other this season shows that this is wrong. So although more possession might make some teams win do you need more possesion to win games...the fact the best team in the comp by a country mile hardly wins the possession surely shows thay this possession means little to overall success.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I would think that's typically true. But teams who are really good at kicking to the corners and beating up the opposition running it out from there probably register lower possession stats than you think Particularly if they kick early. Souths back in the year that they won were particularly good at it (no idea what the possession stats were).

The possession table tends to mirror the competition table with one exception; the Storm are 15th with 48% (Newcastle last with 46%). The Cowboys are top with 54%, Sharks and Broncos with 52% and everyone else is between 49% and 51%

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yet the team who has won more games than any other this season shows that this is wrong.

One example never disproves a trend. Discard outliers.

So although more possession might make some teams win do you need more possesion to win games...the fact the best team in the comp by a country mile hardly wins the possession surely shows thay this possession means little to overall success.

It just means they have other advantages.

 

[Chipmunk]

They get more LBAs, TAs and runs per minute and more tackle breaks, linebreaks and metres per run.

Only if they're good at it. If they're not good at running they need to provide something else - either playmaking (measured in LBAs and TAs) or a high defensive workrate.

His metres per run are great but he doesn't run often, and his LBAs and TAs are way down this year, as is the Dogs' form.

If I'm not mistaken Lichaa runs second on most total metres from dummy half runs.

So wouldn't one of the few teams that tactically attacks away from the middle (whether this tactic is right or not) have their 9 automatically have less LBAs, TAs, etc.than other teams?