| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: D/E doesn't mean much - but we are the best. |  |
|
I see this stat referenced a fair bit, and to me as a general stat it means almost nothing, either for an individual player or a team. For those who do place importance on it, the good news is that we are better than the rest of the comp this year:
1. Collingwood - 74.3%
2. St Kilda - 74.1%
3. Hawks - 73.8%
4. Fremantle - 73.6%
5. West Coast - 73.4%
I think even the top 5 shows that this stat is of no real importance. Definitely not helping the Saints or Dockers.
Looking at the bottom 5 reinforces the point, another mixture of good and bad teams:
14. Richmond - 71.7%
15. Giants - 71.5%
16. Carlton - 68.9%
17. Kangaroos - 67.5%
18. Suns - 65.9%
And one final point. In 2017 Richmond were dead last:
18. Richmond - 70.2%
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
 |
Cam 
Nick's BB Member #166
Joined: 10 May 2002
Location: Springvale
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If you are kicking backwards to safe options behind you it will be high. If you are daring then it can be low. But if you look after the ball AND take the game on... well, then you can be premiers.
_________________
Get back on top. |
|
|
|
|
Abdul The Bull
Joined: 02 Aug 2017
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'd suggest Scharenberg has single-handedly improved our disposal efficiency stats. Although a high D/E is desirable, as Cam alludes to, it's what you are doing with the ball that really counts.
_________________
There are 10 types of people in this world, those that understand binary and those that don't. |
|
|
|
|
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
A more interesting stat for me is the WCE kick to handball ratio. They kick it twice as much as handballing, a total opposite to the way most other teams are playong.
They are opening games up with precise use of the ball by foot.
Will be a very interesting game when we meet them in July to see which method is more dominant.
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Abdul The Bull wrote: | | I'd suggest Scharenberg has single-handedly improved our disposal efficiency stats. Although a high D/E is desirable, as Cam alludes to, it's what you are doing with the ball that really counts. |
Limiting turnovers in certain areas is definitely desirable, but a high DE efficiency overall means almost nothing and is not to be aimed for. The Tigers were terribly inefficient last year with 70.2%.
The stat is far too contextual to have any meaning at all. Hawthorn will always have a high DE because of how they play, with their chipping style. Richmond are more direct and hit fewer targets because of it. Then you need to take into account the number of handballs to kicks. We handball a lot which probably helps our DE.
Any playstyle can be effective, so DE does not tell us anything about how well a team is doing and the stats show that clearly - a mix of good and bad teams near the top and bottom. All it could possibly do is give some indicator as to how a team is playing.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The win/loss stat is the only important measure.  |
|
|
|
|
Invigoration
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Cam wrote: | | If you are kicking backwards to safe options behind you it will be high. If you are daring then it can be low. But if you look after the ball AND take the game on... well, then you can be premiers. |
This. We wax the ball backwards between our defenders all the damn time.
_________________
Brown re his GF omission:
"It’s not about me & it never has been. It’s about the team & it’s about Collingwood & it’s about the 22 other blokes out there on the park. That’s all that matters to me" |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I disagree that D E doesn’t mean much.
You absolutely need good D E to work the ball from your back line to your forward line. Then what you do with the ball once it’s in your forward line determines your ability to score from the disposal chain.
Believe me, you would much rather have a high D E percentage than not.
Tigers did win a flag with virtually worst disposal efficiency in the league last year. The difference was that no one could get a return on the scoreboard anywhere like what they could once it was trapped in their own forward fifty. They didn’t need a high D E because even when they bulldozed it in with no precision, it don’t come out until they scored.
What ultimately improves your ladder position is how you maintain and then use the ball inside your own scoring arc. |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Hawthorn's most recent 3 Premierships were produced on the back of elite disposal efficiency. |
|
|
|
|
Duff Soviet Union
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Invigoration wrote: | | Cam wrote: | | If you are kicking backwards to safe options behind you it will be high. If you are daring then it can be low. But if you look after the ball AND take the game on... well, then you can be premiers. |
This. We wax the ball backwards between our defenders all the damn time. |
Honestly, we're not nearly as bad as some teams. Freo, today, damn near put me to sleep in the first quarter. Essendon did it a lot more than us. Carlton too. We didn't do it any more than the Saints and Dogs. It's just part of the game these days.
At least our switches generally tend to work pretty well.
_________________
"We ain't gotta dream no more" |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: Disposal Efficiency - We're Number 1. | |
|
Does this prove that stats are meaningless, or are we all wrong. Is our disposal crap or is it great? Or are we collectively making better decisions than we used to?
Are we being coached by a genius?
What else can explain the turnaround?
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| It proves your first point that stats are meaningless, when you have in your team, Crisp, Greenwood, Adams and Langdon and we are the number 1 for D/E. |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | | It proves your first point that stats are meaningless, when you have in your team, Crisp, Greenwood, Adams and Langdon and we are the number 1 for D/E. |
You are sounding a lot like Arthur Fonzarelli!
Although there are elite kicks in competition, no doubt about it - we have one of the all time greats in Wells - i actually think disposal efficiency is a stat that reflects decision making nearly as much as the actual skill (and the role played by that person).
A defender with good disposal efficiency - like Scharenberg - is sound in technique, but his real brilliance is his ability to pick the right option. Adams is actually not awful as a kicker, but i think he has been guily in the past of choosing an option that is probably only samrt if you have Daniel Wells level disposal skills (and he doesn't have those). if you study Adams game against Freo, he was a lot smarter with his use of the ball this week.
Of course smart decisions making is often inversely proportional to pressure so its not necessarily wise to judge this when we are playing the bruise free football we were allowed to play against Freo.
I am super keen to see how our efficiency holds up against one of the top 4 sides in the comp (and maybe one of the 2 most in form sides).
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
WhyPhilWhy?
WhyPhilWhy?
Joined: 09 Oct 2001
Location: Location: Location:
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Good stat, but there must be teams out there too painful to watch. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
We improved again on Sunday, taking our season average to 74.6% with the Saints next best at 74.1%.
| Pies2016 wrote: | I disagree that D E doesn’t mean much.
You absolutely need good D E to work the ball from your back line to your forward line. Then what you do with the ball once it’s in your forward line determines your ability to score from the disposal chain.
Believe me, you would much rather have a high D E percentage than not.
Tigers did win a flag with virtually worst disposal efficiency in the league last year. The difference was that no one could get a return on the scoreboard anywhere like what they could once it was trapped in their own forward fifty. They didn’t need a high D E because even when they bulldozed it in with no precision, it don’t come out until they scored.
What ultimately improves your ladder position is how you maintain and then use the ball inside your own scoring arc. |
Using the ball well is important, especially at the right time and in limiting back half turnovers. The overall DE stat does not measure this though. If it did we'd have to say the Saints and Dockers are using it well while the Tigers and Roos are not. I've watched these teams play and the Tigers and Roos move the ball much better than the other two. The Dockers and Saints chip indecisively a lot and that helps their average.
Also, what are the lowest efficiency disposals in the game? Contested disposals and disposals into the forward 50. These however are both desirable. You want to win the contested ball and get it forward as much as possible. This will hurt your DE but increase your chances of winning. Attacking football of any kind will hurt DE, but again is desirable.
A high overall DE doesn't tell me anything about how well a team is playing, but only hints at how. It's correct that the Hawks had a high DE in their flag years and that's because they played a high possession game with a lot of chip kicks. This is not necessarily better than a more direct and adventurous style, just one that worked for them. The Saints were best last year and are second this year but it's not helping them win many games.
Using the ball well is important, but analysing any team's ball use takes far more context than is provided by the general DE stat. This is so for a team and an individual. We know for instance that Martin and Dangerfield are not DE kings whereas our players like Langdon, Appleby, Cox and Scharenberg are all above 80% and in the top 40 in the comp (Mayne is our 5th best btw).
For me it's simple: you have bad teams with high DE and let's say "players who are far from stars" with high DE (actually, most of the better players are not near the top). This says clearly that as a general stat it does not strongly correlate with player or team success.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
