Surprising Manly Stats 2016

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
Simple stats tell you what happened not why,when and how along with not displaying the quality,skill factor and difficulty of each number gained.

Standard deviation needs to be applied also.

The only stats/opinions that matter i own so let's end this thread ok.....

Over and out.
 
Simple stats tell you what happened not why,when and how along with not displaying the quality,skill factor and difficulty of each number gained.

Standard deviation needs to be applied also.

The only stats/opinions that matter i own so let's end this thread ok.....

Over and out.

What a load of simplistic dribble. Whilst not a stats junkee, they do provide information that can be wisely used by a good coaching team. One piece of information or stat I recall was that old Joe G was at one point manly's leading player in making metres after impact. No biggee, but it does tell a story, and raises the issue for a real technical coach to ask why, is it his running style, does he impact between players, is it his weight to height ratio, leg drive, poor hygiene,whatever then try to improve the yardage of other players.

The quantitative fiqures provide the experienced (technically minded) coach the information he requires to form qualatative opinions on the individual roles and contibutions of each player.

I am struggling to understand what possible application Standard deviation could have that a simple glance at the data and experience wouldn't make bleeding obvious.
 
To make that simple, If you are taking the ball from the kick-off you will be getting 15/20 metres every time, good for the stats.

If you hit the line hard from 3m out and score a try, bad for the stats.
Some people seem to have reservations about looking at stats at all. What's the purpose of stats? They are:
1. A tool
2. Not an answer
So they are a starting place, not a destination.

Same with looking at economic growth, jobless rates, etc, etc. No one figure is an answer. All figures are distorted, simplistic and misleading. And even all the figures combined are never the answer. That's the nature of figures and models. But it would be irresponsible to run an economy without considering these figures, wouldn't it? I'd argue the same applies here.

The only stat that comes close to an answer is the footy scoreboard. Having said that, stats can open the eyes to patterns that weren't seen before. And, for me at least, these stats do that in some ways.

Re your comments, Woodsie, most variations are swings and roundabouts so they tend to even out. But agree that on the minus side, kick return metres can be easier metres. On the plus side, being selected for kick returns is a positive assessment of that player's power running. Didn't want to complicate matters with the first set of figures provided. But FYI, in 2016 Vave has 122 metres, Lussick 75, Jake 52, Starling 46, Nate 34, Burgess 14, and Lawrence 3 metres. The average between these 7 players is about 50 metres, so that's the standard for comparison. So the possible distortion in prop stats primarily applies to Vave (72 metres variation) and Lawrence (-47 metres variation). So overall, not really a whole lot in it. Unfortunately NRL only provide totals, not even weekly figures, and no indication of how many runs were kick return runs. So a bit hard to determine with more precision how much of a distortion it may be. I'll bet they have this data they just don't publish it.

If only they openly let us access all of their player statistics raw data - a simple export option is all that is needed - extremely simple to program - and essentially cost-free to the NRL - then some real good analysis might possibly be done.
 
What a load of simplistic dribble. Whilst not a stats junkee, they do provide information that can be wisely used by a good coaching team. One piece of information or stat I recall was that old Joe G was at one point manly's leading player in making metres after impact. No biggee, but it does tell a story, and raises the issue for a real technical coach to ask why, is it his running style, does he impact between players, is it his weight to height ratio, leg drive, poor hygiene,whatever then try to improve the yardage of other players.

The quantitative fiqures provide the experienced (technically minded) coach the information he requires to form qualatative opinions on the individual roles and contibutions of each player.

I am struggling to understand what possible application Standard deviation could have that a simple glance at the data and experience wouldn't make bleeding obvious.
Re your point on joe g (made meters after impact). That is a really good indicator. Vic Mauro also scored well on that figure. He looked like a plodder on tele, but live I was always amazed at how he would keep going with tacklers on him. He would never step anyone or pass it, but also rarely made errors and made tough meters. He is the type of bench player that helps win a premiership.
 
What a load of simplistic dribble. Whilst not a stats junkee, they do provide information that can be wisely used by a good coaching team. One piece of information or stat I recall was that old Joe G was at one point manly's leading player in making metres after impact. No biggee, but it does tell a story, and raises the issue for a real technical coach to ask why, is it his running style, does he impact between players, is it his weight to height ratio, leg drive, poor hygiene,whatever then try to improve the yardage of other players.

The quantitative fiqures provide the experienced (technically minded) coach the information he requires to form qualatative opinions on the individual roles and contibutions of each player.

I am struggling to understand what possible application Standard deviation could have that a simple glance at the data and experience wouldn't make bleeding obvious.
Biggest out-loud laugh I've had in a while. Poor hygiene ...
 
Biggest out-loud laugh I've had in a while. Poor hygiene ...

I have learnt over many years of attempting to educate the unwilling, that you must first get their attention.

Which coincidentely, is step 1 of the German Shepherd training manual.
 
No but a trimmed mean is probably a better indicator of their average capabilities.
Trimming means is an excellent way to cause you to value very average players.

That would be like ignoring Walker's hit and step on Fergo for his try in assessing his performance. Or Tom T's regather and pass for Lyon's try. Or Jorge's dropped ball leading to the Roosters' try... Sorry, that last one was a poor example of an outlier.

Also, I'd suggest that Lussick's line-break is indicative of an extra talent not shared in similar measures by say Burgess or Starling, and it would be ludicrous to simply ignore it to make a curve look more even.
 
Trimming means is an excellent way to cause you to value very average players.

That would be like ignoring Walker's hit and step on Fergo for his try in assessing his performance. Or Tom T's regather and pass for Lyon's try. Or Jorge's dropped ball leading to the Roosters' try... Sorry, that last one was a poor example of an outlier.

Also, I'd suggest that Lussick's line-break is indicative of an extra talent not shared in similar measures by say Burgess or Starling, and it would be ludicrous to simply ignore it to make a curve look more even.
Well if those runs aren't an outlier he'll do it again to negate lopping one off
 
Well if those runs aren't an outlier he'll do it again to negate lopping one off
In the long run swings and roundabouts handle any outliers just fine. There's no need for any manipulation.

If you want people to break the line, you don't ignore it when they do.
 
In the long run swings and roundabouts handle any outliers just fine. There's no need for any manipulation.

If you want people to break the line, you don't ignore it when they do.
I definitely didn't ignore it. Just hope to see it more often.
 
  • 🤝
Reactions: Rex
Trimming means is an excellent way to cause you to value very average players.

That would be like ignoring Walker's hit and step on Fergo for his try in assessing his performance. Or Tom T's regather and pass for Lyon's try. Or Jorge's dropped ball leading to the Roosters' try... Sorry, that last one was a poor example of an outlier.

Also, I'd suggest that Lussick's line-break is indicative of an extra talent not shared in similar measures by say Burgess or Starling, and it would be ludicrous to simply ignore it to make a curve look more even.
If we value talent and highlight it, then some less talented players will feel bad and get upset. Best to value them all equally, and give everyone a turn at playing for Australia.
 
If we value talent and highlight it, then some less talented players will feel bad and get upset. Best to value them all equally, and give everyone a turn at playing for Australia.

They do that with limited success in rugby union.
 
What are you on about Woodsie, what you just stated is basically what i said, if you don't ask the right questions while analysing the stats they only tell you what happened.

No doubt all stats help but the better coaches add their own and analyse the performance and reasons in more depth.(Melb lead the way and Hasler at Manly also in this department)

If player X has 1000mtrs over say 10 games(average 100mtrs per game) yet in one of these games has an exceptional 300m gain a coach shouldn't expect this player to hit 100 regularly with such a wide variation.

In saying that you could then look deeper and see if this player has many exceptional games (relative to others) that would create such a large deviation and ask why, be it physical attributes, running style, running lines, periods in the game, etc etc or off the back of certain structures, when was the hitup (tackle count wise) and field position, was it off the back off a certain player that sucked in more players into the tackle or bent the line. (the list goes on and on the best coaches filter what is less useful data and what matters most along with the knack of knowing what works)


So i have no idea what angle your post is taking when it backs up what i initially said, i keep it simple and get called simplistic i elaborate with 5000 word posts and get called a dribbler you can't win.
 
What are you on about Woodsie, what you just stated is basically what i said, if you don't ask the right questions while analysing the stats they only tell you what happened.

No doubt all stats help but the better coaches add their own and analyse the performance and reasons in more depth.(Melb lead the way and Hasler at Manly also in this department)

If player X has 1000mtrs over say 10 games(average 100mtrs per game) yet in one of these games has an exceptional 300m gain a coach shouldn't expect this player to hit 100 regularly with such a wide variation.

In saying that you could then look deeper and see if this player has many exceptional games (relative to others) that would create such a large deviation and ask why, be it physical attributes, running style, running lines, periods in the game, etc etc or off the back of certain structures, when was the hitup (tackle count wise) and field position, was it off the back off a certain player that sucked in more players into the tackle or bent the line. (the list goes on and on the best coaches filter what is less useful data and what matters most along with the knack of knowing what works)


So i have no idea what angle your post is taking when it backs up what i initially said, i keep it simple and get called simplistic i elaborate with 5000 word posts and get called a dribbler you can't win.

Sorry, you said absolutely none of that in your earlier post. But this post is an artful regurgitation of what @Rex and I have posted since.

Your comment "The only stats/opinions that matter i own so let's end this thread...

Is not indicative of anything other than I repeat dribble.
 
Re your point on joe g (made meters after impact). That is a really good indicator. Vic Mauro also scored well on that figure. He looked like a plodder on tele, but live I was always amazed at how he would keep going with tacklers on him. He would never step anyone or pass it, but also rarely made errors and made tough meters. He is the type of bench player that helps win a premiership.
Not all metres after impact are as good as each other. Does a slow forward with strong leg drive who gets hit after making 5mtrs but struggles through with leg drive to make another 3-4m while never looking like going through the line or bending the line at any stage create a fast play the ball or not.(lots of opportunity for upright slow wrestle and time for the defence to still get back even though the mark slowly changes)

Other times it might draw in an extra defender and still create a fast play the ball so it is not just a simple case of mtrs after impact.
 
Sorry, you said absolutely none of that in your earlier post. But this post is an artful regurgitation of what @Rex and I have posted since.

Your comment "The only stats/opinions that matter i own so let's end this thread...

Is not indicative of anything other than I repeat dribble.
"Simple stats tell you what happened not why,when and how along with not displaying the quality,skill factor and difficulty of each number gained."

I never stated the actual measurements used it was a simple post outlining that you have to ask more questions of the stats to give them worth.

Does the above not mean anything to you.....
 
It was meant to be simplistic that was the point to show that coaches look at stats with more depth than the initial post and will have their own benchmarks for performance.

You are just being a dropkick for no reason but hey do as you please mate, whatever makes you feel good.
 
It was meant to be simplistic that was the point to show that coaches look at stats with more depth than the initial post and will have their own benchmarks for performance.

You are just being a dropkick for no reason but hey do as you please mate, whatever makes you feel good.

OK I'll drop off. I don't usually reach dropkick level.
 
OK I'll drop off. I don't usually reach dropkick level.
I'm sure you will reach this level more often as the stats suggest an improvement in this area of performance.

Secondly i don't read every post and was replying to the initial post after skimming over the next few---i wasn't trying to be groundbreaking or setting a new "benchmark" in this thread but making a simplistic observation and being a dropkick at the same time for a more Robotic effect to the tune of my post.(as other posters refer to my comments as having this robotic lack meaning style)

All good continue on your way.
 

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
4 3 1 28 6
3 2 1 10 6
4 2 2 39 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom