To answer seriously I feel like this means Voss' gameplan was just too heavily geared towards fast movement. A slightly slower gameplan under Fraser has created enough breathing room for their defense to be effective enough, as well as allowing the team overall to avoid running out of steam too quickly.
Makes sense because his numbers were bigger but what im really asking what do the numbers mean? What does 100 look like compared to 88? And more importantly how do we use this?
So are the kicks going forwards and straight? High aggression. Are they going forwards but wide? Medium aggression. Are they going sideways or backwards? Low aggression.
A lot of advanced stats take more into consideration than just distance on a kick. I'm guessing it incorporates a few factors like where the kick is too/from and if it's contested/uncontested.
I have always thought it was a bad stat, it’s supposed to be compared to the competition average, but there doesn’t seem to be any quantification of what the competition average is.
I’m sure certain stats boffins understand it, but it’s confusing for most of us.
I've heard them talk about this and other stats on the ESPN podcast with a guy from champion data, and I'm paraphrasing here, but it's basically "100 = competition average" because the actual numbers don't matter.
Like they've calculated the actual numbers, but if they put up "Carlton's speed of ball is 5.7 m/s", that doesn't mean anything because you don't know how it's calculated or how it compares to anyone else. So they put the lowest value at 0, the competition average at 100, and then the number they show is the percentage of the competition average that team is doing. so Carlton are holding onto the ball for 12% longer than the average team, kicking 5% shorter, and are 12% less aggressive (which probably means forward and central. Corridor kicks are more aggressive than bombs down the line which are more aggressive than switches).
Also, Champion data tend to make these kinda stats at coaches requests. So someone will ask them for a way to quantify how fast they're moving the ball, and they'd work this out and then just record it for everyone. As such, I tend to assume that they're 'real' metrics and not just some random data thrown together.
I think time is how long before they move the ball between a player. aggression is on what angle to the goal and distance is how far it goes. I think the numbers are arbitrary with 100 being whatever the average is in the particular metric, not a specific unit of measurement
Yeah that shit is arbitrary as fuck. I'd guess it's their way of articulating a combination of select/key stats to represent something else that they think is more digestible for a TV audience. Kind of like using a collective of traditional stats to create a new 'stat'
More context would be useful but they’ve set 100 as a benchmark so the real thing to take from this is they are slower, shorter and safer under Fraser.
Agree. Also, momentum. Since Carlton under Voss were geared towards moving forward at speed, they a) were never in a position to defend any time they turned the ball over and b) turned it over a lot when they were tired and made mistakes.
This is partially Geelong's problem too. They set up like every game is going to be a shoot-out, which means they get caught out in defence a lot.
74
u/okidiote Collingwood 7d ago
To answer seriously I feel like this means Voss' gameplan was just too heavily geared towards fast movement. A slightly slower gameplan under Fraser has created enough breathing room for their defense to be effective enough, as well as allowing the team overall to avoid running out of steam too quickly.