Clangers

[WilliamPowell]

As part of the updating of the OER stats page I was reading the HUN and taking a particular interest in our clangers stats for the game against the Pies.

On the stats page I posted this:

"Clangers: what is a clanger? The Herald Sun (which uses Champion Data for its stats) lists a clanger as "a blatant unforced error including out on the full". I was at the game against Collingwood and I am sure that Greg Tivendale had more than 2 clangers against the Pies. The stats from the Herald Sun list Ray Hall and Troy Simmonds as having the most clangers against the Pies with 4 each. Confused?"


See link: http://oneeyed-richmond.com/stats/stats.htm

This isn't a thread that is about bagging Tivva or any other player for that matter but for the life of me I cannot understand how the people at Champion Data record clangers.

If we use Tivva as an example here - he had a number of kicks that didn't hit a target, either the kicks bounced in front of a team mate or went over their heads. Obviously these weren't recorded as clangers.

IMHO this method is flawed because if a player is in the clear and they turn the ball over by hand or foot or don't hit a target it is a clanger in my book.

Is my view to simplistic or am I too harsh?

Views

[Tiger Spirit]

Glad you brought this up WP.  Not really in response to your query, but one thing that I don’t understand is why they even highlight the number of clangers per player.

To me, it’s a useless stat, on its own.  The real relevant stat is the percentage of effective disposals.  I’m sure this exists somewhere, but for some reason there seems to be a need to highlight how many clangers a player has.  What purpose does it serve, other than to give people another reason to bag a player?

I haven’t studied it at all really, so maybe I’m missing something, but what does it really tell you if one player averages 22 possessions per game and another player averages 15 possessions per game.  How can it be a true reflection of anything if the player with less possessions has less clangers against his name?  So he should, shouldn’t he?

[letsgetiton!]

i was there , seen the reply 4 times, tiv definately had the most ineffective disposals on the day and hall i have him a vote, he played his best game 4 the yr

[Tiv]

To me, it’s a useless stat, on its own.  The real relevant stat is the percentage of effective disposals.  I’m sure this exists somewhere, but for some reason there seems to be a need to highlight how many clangers a player has.  What purpose does it serve, other than to give people another reason to bag a player?

I'm with you. I am certain that the stat "effective disposal" has been shown on the screen, but can not exactly recall where I've seen it, may be on "Foxtel Active".

"Clanger"? If a player handballs/short passes to his team mate and that player manages to picks it up on the bounce, its a clean disposal. Whereas if that team mate does not pick up the handball/short pass on the bounce, it is deemd as a clanger. Grey area.
What is a kick to space deemed as? Or when one incorrectly disposes of the ball when tackled is it noted as a clanger even if the umpire does not award a free against that player??

Or when a player kicks out targeting a team mate but to have the opposition player mark it instead, 50 meters out, is that a clanger? Bit harsh if it is. Fine line.

[the_boy_jake]

To me, it’s a useless stat, on its own.  The real relevant stat is the percentage of effective disposals.  I’m sure this exists somewhere, but for some reason there seems to be a need to highlight how many clangers a player has.  What purpose does it serve, other than to give people another reason to bag a player?

I'm with you. I am certain that the stat "effective disposal" has been shown on the screen, but can not exactly recall where I've seen it, may be on "Foxtel Active".

"Clanger"? If a player handballs/short passes to his team mate and that player manages to picks it up on the bounce, its a clean disposal. Whereas if that team mate does not pick up the handball/short pass on the bounce, it is deemd as a clanger. Grey area.
What is a kick to space deemed as? Or when one incorrectly disposes of the ball when tackled is it noted as a clanger even if the umpire does not award a free against that player??

Or when a player kicks out targeting a team mate but to have the opposition player mark it instead, 50 meters out, is that a clanger? Bit harsh if it is. Fine line.

Good points. In reference to WP's comments, what about if the receiving player runs under the ball/does not lead hard enough. This is a general comment on clangers, I haven't seen Tivendale's kicks from the weekend.

[letsgetiton!]

tiv had a bad day with th eboot but he still did enough to keep his spot, his confidence is growing and thats a bonus 4 us

[WilliamPowell]

"Clanger"? If a player handballs/short passes to his team mate and that player manages to picks it up on the bounce, its a clean disposal. Whereas if that team mate does not pick up the handball/short pass on the bounce, it is deemd as a clanger. Grey area.
What is a kick to space deemed as? Or when one incorrectly disposes of the ball when tackled is it noted as a clanger even if the umpire does not award a free against that player??

Exactly Tiv, that's why for the life of me I cannot work out how the determine a clanger.

Another example if Richo has a shot for goal (note how I said "shot for" not "shot on") 35 metres out directly in front and he sprays it - is that a clanger? What about a shot, same distance but on the boundary?

Again I use Tivendale against the Pies as example (and let me stress again this isn't about bagging Tivva) - there were kicks that didn't hit targets or  fell short of targets - which ones were deemed by the stats experts as his 2 clangers? It just doens't make sense to me

Every week we see disposals like that and then when I look at the stats in the paper and they don't seem to correlate to what we see at games

To me, it’s a useless stat, on its own.  The real relevant stat is the percentage of effective disposals. 

I agree, I have said many times that the quantity of possesssion is not as important as the quality of those possessions.

I wonder if when they talk of clangers -v- effective disposals it actaully a case of 3 stats rather than 2, that is:

Effective disposals, ineffective disposals and clangers. I get the feeling that an ineffective disposal is different from a clanger

[mightytiges]

Effective disposals, ineffective disposals and clangers. I get the feeling that an ineffective disposal is different from a clanger

Here's Champion Data's explanation of how they do their player rankings:

How the AFL Player Rankings are calculated

The Player Rankings formula is based on the Official AFL Statistics, and is calculated by computer.

The rankings formula is weighted in favour of effective use of the ball (loaded in favour of good kicking) and various types of possession gainers (loaded in favour of winning disputed ball).

Evidence based on extensive research into winning and losing factors in AFL games (1,110 games in total from 1999 to 2003) by Champion Data and the Swinburne Univerisity School of Mathematics is unequivocal   effective kicking and winning disputed ball in critical situations is what counts most.

Accordingly, the AFL Players Rankings are geared to reward these winning factors. The formula is scientifically derived and objective.

Rankings samples

 An effective long kick has to travel more than 40 metres to a 50/50 contested or better for the team. The computer adds four rankings points for each effective long kick.

If the long kick goes to a teammate for an uncontested possession, research shows this is very valuable for the team and the computer adds five rankings points to the players tally.

Effective short kicks are less than 40 metres that result in uncontested possession to a teammate. The computer also adds four rankings points for these.

Clanger kicks are when the kick goes down the throat of the opposition and the computer deducts eight rankings points from the players tally because this hurts the team badly.

Ineffective kicks occur most often where players kick short to a contest and the computer ignores these by giving a zero rankings value.

A goal receives eight ranking points in addition to the four ranking points for the effective kick, and the points awarded for the possession type resulting in the kick and goal.

Another example of weighing in favour of game breaking statistic is contested marking. A contested mark results in four rankings points to the player.

A contested mark from an opposition kick is very important and the computer adds eight rankings points for these.

Publishing formula policy

The rankings value for each statistical category has been endorsed by the AFL and the Swinburne University School of Mathematics.

There are a total of 57 individual statistics categories where the computer attributes either a positive or negative value.

Several of these categories, such as  marks from opposition kicks  ranking points, are derived from the computer linking a series of composite statistics.

Given the unique intellectual property contained in the rankings formula and the degree of underlying computer logic applied, Champion Data does not publish the full rankings formula.

http://www.championdata.com.au/files/rankings.pdf