Good Game or Bad Game: Riley Bonner vs Essendon

[mjp]

Question for the Stat heads.

Last week vs Essendon, Riley Bonner had (I believe) a record number of turnover possessions. 19.

Think about that. 17 of his possessions ended up in oppo hands. Now - they weren't all direct to the oppo (kick to a pack, oppo win that contest etc) but AFLTables have him listed with 19 Clangers.

He also had > 1000m gained.

Impactful or not impactful.

I would prefer people who watched the game don't comment...I just want to know what you think purely based on those simple numbers.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Question for the Stat heads.

Last week vs Essendon, Riley Bonner had (I believe) a record number of turnover possessions. 19.

Think about that. 17 of his possessions ended up in oppo hands. Now - they weren't all direct to the oppo (kick to a pack, oppo win that contest etc) but AFLTables have him listed with 19 Clangers.

He also had > 1000m gained.

Impactful or not impactful.

I would prefer people who watched the game don't comment...I just want to know what you think purely based on those simple numbers.

Sounds like JJs norm smith medal game.

To me the good offsets the bad and vice versa.

With that said, I didn't know kicking to a pack that resulted in a turnover was considered a clanger. That's very harsh.

[bulldogtragic]

As I watched the game I will recuse myself.

[GVGjr]

We will know more on how the club see's it around 5pm as he's been named on an extended bench.

It's both impactful and poor form but I'd lean to the latter given the team lost.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Question: how is metres gained measured? If you kick it straight to the oppo does it count towards metres gained? What about kicking it to a contest?

[Bulldog Joe]

This is why stats are over-rated.

To really comment you need to watch the game.

Where the turnovers completely due to him or was he left with no option but to kick to a pack etc.

Circumstance is actually important. A player under pressure who kicks the ball 50 metres away from the goal he is defending probably gives his team a chance to reset, but a missed transition to a clear team-mate that goes to an opponent leading to opposition score is a different scenario.

[azabob]

Metres Gained: Net metres gained with the ball by a player, by running, kicking or handballing, combining measures towards attacking goal and away from defensive goal.

Metres Gained (Effective): Total metres gained by a player or a team from effective disposals.

Metres Gained (Assisted): Total metres gained by a teammate that receives an uncontested possession from your disposal

Clanger: An error made by a player resulting in a negative result for his side. Disposal clangers are any kick or handball that directly turns the ball over to the opposition. Frees and 50-metre penalties against, No Pressure Errors, Dropped Marks and Debits are all included in clangers.

https://www.championdata.com/glossary/afl/

[bornadog]

Metres Gained: Net metres gained with the ball by a player, by running, kicking or handballing, combining measures towards attacking goal and away from defensive goal.

Metres Gained (Effective): Total metres gained by a player or a team from effective disposals.

Metres Gained (Assisted): Total metres gained by a teammate that receives an uncontested possession from your disposal

Clanger: An error made by a player resulting in a negative result for his side. Disposal clangers are any kick or handball that directly turns the ball over to the opposition. Frees and 50-metre penalties against, No Pressure Errors, Dropped Marks and Debits are all included in clangers.

https://www.championdata.com/glossary/afl/

You forgot to add:

Turnover: Losing possession to the opposition in general play. General play excludes events that happen between a stoppage and the clearance.

[hujsh]

Question for the Stat heads.

Last week vs Essendon, Riley Bonner had (I believe) a record number of turnover possessions. 19.

Think about that. 17 of his possessions ended up in oppo hands. Now - they weren't all direct to the oppo (kick to a pack, oppo win that contest etc) but AFLTables have him listed with 19 Clangers.

He also had > 1000m gained.

Impactful or not impactful.

I would prefer people who watched the game don't comment...I just want to know what you think purely based on those simple numbers.

Scores from turnovers is pretty much the main avenue to goal now. If you're aimlessly bombing it down the line for an intercept posession you're probably doing a lot to start their scoring chains. There are usually other options (buy space, work the ball around, go back to go forward) so while you might excuse it a few times a game, 19 is too many.

That's my best go at context-less judgement.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Does the answer require having insight into each circumstance he was in when disposing of the ball, as well as where he turned it over and the outcome of those turnovers?

Maybe each of his disposals were earned under extreme pressure, in a specific role and he was mainly instructed that in worst case scenario its okay to turn ball over in this section of the ground, as we should in theory have protection via the way our game plan positions players.

I mean some turnovers are instant kills...ala in the middle against flow, etc, but others like toward a boundary often can be coralled, and maybe they result more teams being able to stabilise their defensive positioning around such a turnover?

I have no idea, I'm just trying to engage in the interesting topic posed by Mike. Great thread idea.

[mjp]

Circumstance is actually important.

OK. You know I 100% agree with all of what you wrote and this in particular...

But I would love you to put all this sensible stuff that muddies the waters aside for a second.

19 Clangers.
1000+ metres gained.

Same player.
Same game.

Good or Bad??
Gut feel.

Would it help if I told you the 2x main stats for determining the winner of a game in 2024 (so far) have been:

1/. Number of EFFECTIVE kicks.
2/. Total metres gained.

It's a very interesting stat line and one I have never seen before.

[Happy Days]

If I hadn’t seen the game I would’ve assumed it was one of those Brendan McCartney specials where the player in question kicked it to Michael Johnson 1000 times. So I’m gonna say bad game.

[Scorlibo]

Bad game.

Would be interesting to see a metres gained with possession retained stat, because that's what matters.

He registered a player rating of 4.4 which was the 5th lowest for the Saints.

[Grantysghost]

Good game. It's all about territory.

Get it in, keep it in.

That's why it's a team game.

[mjp]

Bad game.

Would be interesting to see a metres gained with possession retained stat, because that's what matters.

He registered a player rating of 4.4 which was the 5th lowest for the Saints.

AHA. So...player ratings are important?

Do player ratings include metres gained?

[Go_Dogs]

In some ways it depends on conditions too. A stat line like that in the sopping wet would be quite good I imagine. But under Marvel, maybe less good.

Ultimately double digit clangers kills the good for me. That’s like 4-5x an acceptable level. Meters gained is like 2x a high archived level.

[jeemak]

Neither good nor bad.

Territory is important and you can only get the footy to whoever is presenting and I'd much rather a long/ up the ground turnover than a short one in the pressure zone.

If you're crowding your own defensive half then options further afield are going to be a bit limited. If team mates aren't running for you or presenting wide then you're going to turn it over long.

A mixed result is OK, good or bad is a bit too linear for mine. Stop being linear MJP!

[Hotdog60]

Metres gain on how they present it is poorly defined in that it should be the player would runs and takes the game on without kicking it.
Metres gained from dodging and waving through traffic and the old one two would be a more affective metres gained.
A player who can roost a ball would have more of an advantage over distance. Lukosius could out gain Caleb Daniel even if Caleb ran more.

But in saying all that its no good gaining a 1000 metres if you gift the oppo with 5 or 6 goals from turnover. So the question needs to asked how bad was the clangers and how many of them resulted in goals. That will tell you if its a bad game or not.

[Mofra]

I didn't see the game. I have one question.

Was it wet, or dry?
It's perhaps way off, but I feel like metres gained on a wet day matter far more than a dry day.

[Scorlibo]

AHA. So...player ratings are important?

Do player ratings include metres gained?

If you could only look at one stat to assess a player's performance, it 100% should be player ratings.

Metres gained is a component of player ratings, but not as part of a weighted compilation (as you'd see in Supercoach points).

Player ratings assess the change in game situation, specifically the change in probability of the next score.

Example >

The starting situation is a centre bounce. The ball is in the middle of the ground and not in either team's possession. Therefore the probability of either team scoring is 50%, and the probability of either team scoring a goal is something like 30%.

Possible outcomes are:

Team A scores a goal - 30% chance - 6 points - 0.3*6 = 1.8
Team A scores a behind - 20% chance - 1 point - 0.2*1 = 0.2
Team B scores a goal - 30% chance - 6 points - 0.3*6 = 1.8
Team B scores a behind - 20% chance - 1 point - 0.2*1 = 0.2

Average of all outcomes for each team is 0.

Now let's say that Team A's ruckman manages to grab the ball out of the ruck, brush a tackle and handball to their wingman who has run forward of centre and is in clear space. The ball is now in Team A's possession, not under any pressure (also measured), and forward of centre. Let's say that Team A's chance of scoring next is now 75%. Possible outcomes are:

Team A scores a goal - 45% chance - 6 points - 0.45*6 = 2.7
Team A scores a behind - 30% chance - 1 point - 0.3*1 = 0.3
Team B scores a goal - 15% chance - 6 points - 0.15*6 = 0.9
Team B scores a behind - 10% chance - 1 point - 0.1*1 = 1

Average of all outcomes is now that Team A scores 2 points. (2.7 + 0.3 - 0.9 - 0.1). So the ruckman is credited with 2 player ratings points for changing the game situation in his team's favour.

Tied up in the ruckman's play is a centre clearance, a contested possession, a broken tackle, an effective handball and maybe 20 metres gained. The player rating is not the sum of these parts but rather the scoreboard impact of the player's involvement.


Coming back to Bonner's game. I'd guess that the probability of the Saints scoring a goal when Bonner has uncontested possession in defensive fifty is going to be pretty similar to the probability of them scoring a goal from a contest on the wing. So if he's bombing long to a contest, that's not improving his team's chance of scoring next. His stat sheet reads like he was doing this all game, with a few clangers thrown in. It would be different if he was winning his own footy but 21 uncontested possessions says that wasn't the case. The player ratings clarify all those factors into one helpful number, which if you haven't watched the game is the best starting point (imo).

[jeemak]

You're dead now MJP. I took on Scorlibo on this topic twelve years ago and still have the burn marks to prove it.

[Topdog]

For me I'd have to dive into how many of those "clangers" were kicks to packs as opposed to just piss poor turnovers but I feel like nothing I look at can turn this into a good game. As hujsh said so many goals come from turnovers now so giving it away 19 times in a game is criminal.

[Topdog]

Bad game.

Would be interesting to see a metres gained with possession retained stat, because that's what matters.

He registered a player rating of 4.4 which was the 5th lowest for the Saints.

Which site gives this player rating? (Asking this after reading your detailed overview got me interested)

[Bulldog Joe]

OK. You know I 100% agree with all of what you wrote and this in particular...

But I would love you to put all this sensible stuff that muddies the waters aside for a second.

19 Clangers.
1000+ metres gained.

Same player.
Same game.

Good or Bad??
Gut feel.

Would it help if I told you the 2x main stats for determining the winner of a game in 2024 (so far) have been:

1/. Number of EFFECTIVE kicks.
2/. Total metres gained.

It's a very interesting stat line and one I have never seen before.

I am saying bad game.

On the metres gained to the deduct what is cost by the clangers?

1000 metres gained is huge but not if it has cost something similar in rebound.

[Scorlibo]

Which site gives this player rating? (Asking this after reading your detailed overview got me interested)

You can access it via the afl.com.au match day under 'player stats', but you have to go to the 'my stats' tab and setup your preferred stats. There's a bunch of stats only accessible this way including ground ball gets, pressure acts, hitouts to advantage.

Alternatively a hobbyist footy statistician named Andrew Whelan runs this third party site which is nicely formatted and great for historical ratings: https://www.wheeloratings.com/

[mjp]

The player ratings clarify all those factors into one helpful number, which if you haven't watched the game is the best starting point (imo).

Player ratings are a solid starting point, we can 100% agree on that.

[Topdog]

I still think AFL stats overall are quite immature and at times struggle to believe/understand some of them.

This Bonner game is a good example. 32 disposals, 21 of them effective disposals yet 17 turnovers with 6 clangers.

[Scorlibo]

I still think AFL stats overall are quite immature and at times struggle to believe/understand some of them.

This Bonner game is a good example. 32 disposals, 21 of them effective disposals yet 17 turnovers with 6 clangers.

There's definitely something awry with the public relations around AFL stats. It being such a complex game (compared to cricket for instance) makes it tough.

One oddity that is probably not widely known is that long kicks to a contest are counted as effective kicks. Bonner's stats you've listed above only make sense if you happen to know this.

32 disposals

10 either retained possession or were long kicks to a contest where the oppo didn't win the ball back straight away (effective disposals)
5 short kicks or handballs to a contest (ineffective disposals)
11 long kicks to a contest where the oppo won the ball back straight away (effective disposals, turnovers)
6 pure turnovers (clangers, turnovers, ineffective disposals)

[Topdog]

Brilliant, thanks Scorlibo!

[Mofra]

Bonner is a defender?
I still think 32 touches in the wet would be a better game, but if he represents 32 times the opposition forwards don't have the ball, well, he's done his primary job. I'm fairly certain he's not their 'escape plan' from opposition congestion.

[Go_Dogs]

So what was the answer mjp???

[mjp]

So what was the answer mjp???

LOL. I don't know what they were asking him to do!

I thought it was an excellent performance in terms of commitment to the contest and taking the game on with run. His disposal stats were skewed somewhat but he needed to kick it better. I haven't seen him attack the game like that for a couple of years so I am hopeful we see more of this player and less of the hyper conservative defender of 2023.

[Ozza]

Question for the Stat heads.

Last week vs Essendon, Riley Bonner had (I believe) a record number of turnover possessions. 19.

Think about that. 17 of his possessions ended up in oppo hands. Now - they weren't all direct to the oppo (kick to a pack, oppo win that contest etc) but AFLTables have him listed with 19 Clangers.

He also had > 1000m gained.

Impactful or not impactful.

I would prefer people who watched the game don't comment...I just want to know what you think purely based on those simple numbers.

Did not see the game and only seeing thread now. But seems a fun game!!

Okay, so whilst not seeing the game I saw that he had 19 clangers....but on that same list of 'all time clangers per game' - Bont's 15 against v Brisbane last year was on there - BUT I know Bont was influential that night, so the stat can be misleading.

However, given the role Bonner plays across half back as a bit of a designated kicker, my leaning is that he didn't have a postive/impactful game in that circumstance.

Sidebar, which probably works against me - is that I'm not sure how many clangers JJ had in the 2016 GF, and he had hige metres gained. And I know we all watch the game back now and see JJ's kicking errors - BUT - at the game, watching it live, I felt it was a game that was CRYING out for metres gained and trying to win the territory game and press up. At the game, live, before the announcement was made I honestly thought JJ would win the medal and I'm happy he did. I've watched the game probably 15-20 times and I come up with a different Norm every time....but JJ WAS impactful in a big way.

But I tend to think at Marvel those clangers can really kill you.

[Mofra]

Did not see the game and only seeing thread now. But seems a fun game!!

Okay, so whilst not seeing the game I saw that he had 19 clangers....but on that same list of 'all time clangers per game' - Bont's 15 against v Brisbane last year was on there - BUT I know Bont was influential that night, so the stat can be misleading.

However, given the role Bonner plays across half back as a bit of a designated kicker, my leaning is that he didn't have a postive/impactful game in that circumstance.

Sidebar, which probably works against me - is that I'm not sure how many clangers JJ had in the 2016 GF, and he had hige metres gained. And I know we all watch the game back now and see JJ's kicking errors - BUT - at the game, watching it live, I felt it was a game that was CRYING out for metres gained and trying to win the territory game and press up. At the game, live, before the announcement was made I honestly thought JJ would win the medal and I'm happy he did. I've watched the game probably 15-20 times and I come up with a different Norm every time....but JJ WAS impactful in a big way.

But I tend to think at Marvel those clangers can really kill you.
There are clangers, and there are Clangers.

If he's a defender and getting the ball, the opposition isn't.
If he's copping those clangers as quick kicks out of a 50/50 contest and he buys his team and extra 10 seconds to rush back and fill leading lanes, those clangers are a net positive.

mjp has, if anything, shown how important context is when talking about the stats sheet.

[bulldogtragic]

I’ve bit my tongue long enough. I thought he was putrid that game. Said the same in the other games thread during the game. They were desperate for composure and every time he touched late he turned it over and missed some key targets.

[hujsh]

There are clangers, and there are Clangers.

If he's a defender and getting the ball, the opposition isn't.
If he's copping those clangers as quick kicks out of a 50/50 contest and he buys his team and extra 10 seconds to rush back and fill leading lanes, those clangers are a net positive.

mjp has, if anything, shown how important context is when talking about the stats sheet.

What if he's receiving the ball/taking kick ins though? In that case the team has won the ball back and trusted him with starting their move forward and he's not fulfilling his role.