One-Eyed Richmond Forum

Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: mightytiges on August 26, 2005, 06:31:21 AM

Title: Scoreboard Impact
Post by: mightytiges on August 26, 2005, 06:31:21 AM
The Herald-Sun has done a "scoreboard impact" summary of every club.  Apparently they do this stat in Ice Hockey. If a player is on when his team scores he gets a plus while if the opposition score he gets a minus.  Only two Tigers come in positive - Tambling and Browny. 

It seems to be only telling the obvious unless I'm missing something - if you have lots of ground time in a winning/losing side then  you end up with a positive/negative scoreboard impact score  ???.
Title: Re: Scoreboard Impact
Post by: julzqld on August 26, 2005, 07:55:06 AM
Why Tambling and not Deledio or Tuck? :-\
Title: Re: Scoreboard Impact
Post by: cub on August 26, 2005, 09:12:18 AM
what a load of krapola  :help
Title: Re: Scoreboard Impact
Post by: mightytiges on August 26, 2005, 04:35:50 PM
Why Tambling and not Deledio or Tuck? :-\

Tambling's only played 11 games (6 wins 5 losses) while the other two have played all 21 (10 wins 11 losses). Like Browny, Tambling has played in more victories than losses so his score is in the black.

To me this a meaningless and useless stat for judging individual players as it's so heavily affected by how the whole side goes.
Title: Re: Scoreboard Impact
Post by: DallasCrane on August 26, 2005, 06:26:28 PM
The only "scoreboard impact" stat that really means anything;

1.     Matthew Richardson     63     
2.    Nathan G. Brown    34
3.    Kayne Pettifer    30
4.    Andrew Krakouer    21
5.    Troy Simmonds    18
6.    Greg Stafford    16
7.    Brett Deledio    14
8.    Wayne Campbell    12
9.    Shane Tuck    10
10.    Rory Hilton    8
Title: Re: Scoreboard Impact
Post by: Tiger Spirit on August 27, 2005, 10:21:38 PM
You can sort of see where it’s going, but not really.  As MT says, if a player is in a winning side then he’s more than likely to have a + score, although not always, which is tricky bit.  While this system measures players’ effectiveness in their time on the ground, what do the stats really tell, if anything, and who are they supposed to be meaningful to?

I only had a brief look in the paper yesterday and it seemed that some of the best players at various clubs were rated at the bottom of their team’s list (if that makes sense).  Not sure if I’m reading it right but, effectively, it seems that the better players, who generally spend the most time on the ground and are dominant players, can be penalised just by being out there when the team's losing.  Wonder if they realise that they would actually do their score a whole lot more good if they sat the odd quarter out, especially the losing quarters.  And if the team’s having a bad trot, maybe they could fake a hammy or something every now and then.  I don’t think I get it.
Title: Re: Scoreboard Impact
Post by: the_boy_jake on August 27, 2005, 10:31:42 PM
Its pretty meaningless really.

So if we concede 30 points in 10 minutes, and the ball is down the other end, Richo gets docked 30 points? Likewise if the ball is tied up in our forward line and we kick a couple of goals, Gas gets the points if he is standing, hands on hips, at the other end, but not if he is warming the pine?

I can see how this sort of thing is useful in ice hockey, where there are only 5 or 6 players from each team on the ice, all of them involved at any one stage, as well as large interchange benches.
Title: Re: Scoreboard Impact
Post by: Tiger Spirit on August 27, 2005, 10:48:54 PM
I can see how this sort of thing is useful in ice hockey, where there are only 5 or 6 players from each team on the ice, all of them involved at any one stage, as well as large interchange benches.

That does make a whole lot more sense in that sort of situation.  Doesn't seem so easy to see how its relevant to footy though.