General Your 2025 team

[Wrighty]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not disputing that point. I don't think players or coaches would make serious decisions over stats

Yes but this has come up before on the forum. You don't think Stats are useful. I love taking a statistical lens on contrary. So I think as you say each to his own. Sounds like Inruin likes a bit of stats analysis too and if nothing else they start up a good discussion as you say.

 

[John Nick]

As I said everyone to their own takes.
Too many variables to be of much value to make major decisions imo and experience.
Cricket stats EG are more measurable.

 

[Inruin]

Yes but this has come up before on the forum. You don't think Stats are useful. I love taking a statistical lens on contrary. So I think as you say each to his own. Sounds like Inruin likes a bit of stats analysis too and if nothing else they start up a good discussion as you say.

Like you say Wrighty the warriors and every other side has a team of statisticians and analysts for a reason. Every team and player has game reviews. Every player is gps tracked on the field. Even AW talks about the key stats they are trying to achieve, completion rates, position in the field, territory, etc etc. they even talked about the four key stats that gave teams in the NRL the best chance of winning. You can best believe they are making decisions based on these to give them the best chance at winning.

 

[John Nick]

Like you say Wrighty the warriors and every other side has a team of statisticians and analysts for a reason. Every team and player has game reviews. Every player is gps tracked on the field. Even AW talks about the key stats they are trying to achieve, completion rates, position in the field, territory, etc etc. they even talked about the four key stats that gave teams in the NRL the best chance if winning. You can best believe they are making decisions based on these to give them the best chance at winning.

 

[John Nick]

Even stats on missed tackles one of the easiest stats for analytical reasons is flawed.
We saw a number of times last season a centre being stranded in the backline with nobody moving on support players.
From memory Mr Frank showed a snippet of this exact same thing on one of our centres.
Does this stat go against his name??
Or the lazy defense.
Does a middle performing a hit up off his own line get as much credit as a middle making a hit on the attacking line??
Too many variables to be of much value for me

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

I think stats have a place but they need context.

Wins for a playmaker ties directly into their role. Wins for a battering ram prop are somewhat irrelevant.

Wins where your attack struggles points to playmakers. Wins where your struggling for dominance and defensive steel is somewhat unrelated to the playmakers and more investigation needs to be around the props.

Stats on their own are meaningless without a bigger understanding of the ‘why’.

 

[Inruin]

Some people arguing at shadows here. It's patently obvious that stats are part of the game, utilised by coaches and training staff, and decisions made using them. And that's for all clubs.

 

[John Nick]

I think stats have a place but they need context.

Wins for a playmaker ties directly into their role. Wins for a battering ram prop are somewhat irrelevant.

Wins where your attack struggles points to playmakers. Wins where your struggling for dominance and defensive steel is somewhat unrelated to the playmakers and more investigation needs to be around the props.

Stats on their own are meaningless without a bigger understanding of the ‘why’.

You have explained this well

 

[John Nick]

Some people arguing at shadows here. It's patently obvious that stats are part of the game, utilised by coaches and training staff, and decisions made using them. And that's for all clubs.

I guess I am your "some people ".
Not arguing at all. Just explaining my thoughts and experiences.
Feel free to call me John Nick anytime you want

 

[roguei]

I think a lot of the issues brought up here have plagued stats for as long as they've been a tool. Stats are a great tool, and it saddens me when people disregard them so quickly. But, as usual, the problem seems to lie with the questions being asked of the stats.

Using the missed tackles example because it's being brought up: I agree that if you're asking, "Is X a bad defender?" and replying with just the missed tackle count as a stat, then you're not matching the stat with the question, for the reasons already mentioned. However, if you used missed tackles to show that a team overall isn't good at defending, then I think that's matching the right stat to the right question. Obviously, there's more to defending, of course, but it’s a very useful stat to support or disregard a hypothesis. For example, if, over a season, one team had significantly more missed tackles than average, then they’re probably bad at defending. It doesn't tell you why, though. You'd need different stats for that.

Being ultra-critical of stats and whether they answer the question effectively is a great mindset to have, IMO. Knowing what stats you need to answer your question is always 20-40% of the work (depending on how hard it is to get that info). Of course, there are things stats can't answer or provide context for—that could be due to resource limitations or just the way things are. So, yeah, there’s always going to be a massive misuse of stats, just like with any tool. It wouldn’t be such a massive field of study, or as useful as it is, if it weren’t so important.

 

[John Nick]

I think a lot of the issues brought up here have plagued stats for as long as they've been a tool. Stats are a great tool, and it saddens me when people disregard them so quickly. But, as usual, the problem seems to lie with the questions being asked of the stats.

Using the missed tackles example because it's being brought up: I agree that if you're asking, "Is X a bad defender?" and replying with just the missed tackle count as a stat, then you're not matching the stat with the question, for the reasons already mentioned. However, if you used missed tackles to show that a team overall isn't good at defending, then I think that's matching the right stat to the right question. Obviously, there's more to defending, of course, but it’s a very useful stat to support or disregard a hypothesis. For example, if, over a season, one team had significantly more missed tackles than average, then they’re probably bad at defending. It doesn't tell you why, though. You'd need different stats for that.

Being ultra-critical of stats and whether they answer the question effectively is a great mindset to have, IMO. Knowing what stats you need to answer your question is always 20-40% of the work (depending on how hard it is to get that info). Of course, there are things stats can't answer or provide context for—that could be due to resource limitations or just the way things are. So, yeah, there’s always going to be a massive misuse of stats, just like with any tool. It wouldn’t be such a massive field of study, or as useful as it is, if it weren’t so important.

Appreciate your intervention rogues.
Thanks
Your complicated response has explained perfectly the difficulty in aligning stats with the player performance.
Would be much easier if the game was played on a spreadsheet.
PS I am not being sarcastic.
Thanks again

 

[Inruin]

I think a lot of the issues brought up here have plagued stats for as long as they've been a tool. Stats are a great tool, and it saddens me when people disregard them so quickly. But, as usual, the problem seems to lie with the questions being asked of the stats.

Using the missed tackles example because it's being brought up: I agree that if you're asking, "Is X a bad defender?" and replying with just the missed tackle count as a stat, then you're not matching the stat with the question, for the reasons already mentioned. However, if you used missed tackles to show that a team overall isn't good at defending, then I think that's matching the right stat to the right question. Obviously, there's more to defending, of course, but it’s a very useful stat to support or disregard a hypothesis. For example, if, over a season, one team had significantly more missed tackles than average, then they’re probably bad at defending. It doesn't tell you why, though. You'd need different stats for that.

Being ultra-critical of stats and whether they answer the question effectively is a great mindset to have, IMO. Knowing what stats you need to answer your question is always 20-40% of the work (depending on how hard it is to get that info). Of course, there are things stats can't answer or provide context for—that could be due to resource limitations or just the way things are. So, yeah, there’s always going to be a massive misuse of stats, just like with any tool. It wouldn’t be such a massive field of study, or as useful as it is, if it weren’t so important.

The funny thing is everyone uses stats and makes decisions off them all the time regardless of if they realize it or not.

"We don't have enough speed in our team."

That's based on an observation that other teams are quicker. And a conclusion drawn that we need faster players. You could drill that down and measure it more accurately to confirm whether that is the case. And then you would need to look at whether speed is a critical component to winning by looking at the faster teams and their winning % or even look at a team like us with pretty much the same team last year and this year with quite different results but the same or similar speed levels each year.

 

[Damo]

"We don't have enough speed in our team."

That's based on an observation that other teams are quicker. And a conclusion drawn that we need faster players. You could drill that down and measure it more accurately to confirm whether that is the case. And then you would need to look at whether speed is a critical component to winning by looking at the faster teams and their winning % or even look at a team like us with pretty much the same team last year and this year with quite different results but the same or similar speed levels each year.

This observation always gets me, as I don't see Penrith having crazy speedsters over their successful years.. yet results speak for themselves.
Again, cannot prove they are faster or slower than anyone else though. My guess would be they are crazy fit and that can make them "appear" faster

 

[roguei]

The funny thing is everyone uses stats and makes decisions off them all the time regardless of if they realize it or not.

"We don't have enough speed in our team."

That's based on an observation that other teams are quicker. And a conclusion drawn that we need faster players. You could drill that down and measure it more accurately to confirm whether that is the case. And then you would need to look at whether speed is a critical component to winning by looking at the faster teams and their winning % or even look at a team like us with pretty much the same team last year and this year with quite different results but the same or similar speed levels each year.

lol, I can see this getitng a bit more physpohical... But yeah there are mountains of data we are just using our eyes to process, that we then make many conclusions from. It'd be awesome if we had access into some of the same data the professinoals do. For example i wish there was public access into the NRL datajam. But it seems that is now only given to consultants and some betting company's. Or to get access via Prozone Sport it's about 50k aud (quoted i think 8 years ago). Outside of fantasy relevent stats, it's real dire out here to try and get relevent data for good questions.

 

[france]

being on the same page allows them to react faster as to whats happening around them in any given situation i guess lol

 

[Wrighty]

Even stats on missed tackles one of the easiest stats for analytical reasons is flawed.
We saw a number of times last season a centre being stranded in the backline with nobody moving on support players.
From memory Mr Frank showed a snippet of this exact same thing on one of our centres.
Does this stat go against his name??
Or the lazy defense.
Does a middle performing a hit up off his own line get as much credit as a middle making a hit on the attacking line??
Too many variables to be of much value for me

It is in the way you use stats to avoid the disadvantages you mention

1) if someone posts a 50% tackle efficiency in one game no need to ring the alarm bells as it could be data anomalies or problems inherent in the missed tackle percentage that you explain above. So firstly they would look to see if the low stats are repeating themselves game after game before taking notice.
2) Any one stat will probably be ignored. They should ideally have a raft of two or three statistical indicators for any dimension they wish to measure and will take the pattern of all the statistical variables into account as it is problematic to rely on just one variable like you point out with tackle efficiency stats.
3) Stats should only ever be conversation starters. OK SJ has a winning record of 4 wins and 14 losses this year let's talk about that as a coaching staff. How much of that was on SJ or was it the whole team? How well did SJ play according to our observations and the eye test.
4) Stats per one of my stats professor should tell a story that makes common sense once you listen to what they say. SJ went 4 wins and 14 losses (or whatever he actually went for) and then ask does that sound right. And yes it does make common sense as he himself said he was hampered when he was injured plus he never really got into form.
I want to pause here on one of my favourite tangents about common sense. You must use common sense correctly as a tool both in the business world, sporting world, or your personal life. Start with understanding the world based on sound values and principles or statistical data. Do not begin and end your pursuit of good decisions with what common sense tells you alone as common sense can often be wrong given the complexities of the world we live in.

Great discussion, Thanks John for kicking us off.

 

[John Nick]

It is in the way you use stats to avoid the disadvantages you mention

1) if someone posts a 50% tackle efficiency in one game no need to ring the alarm bells as it could be data anomalies or problems inherent in the missed tackle percentage that you explain above. So firstly they would look to see if the low stats are repeating themselves game after game before taking notice.
2) Any one stat will probably be ignored. They should ideally have a raft of two or three statistical indicators for any dimension they wish to measure and will take the pattern of all the statistical variables into account as it is problematic to rely on just one variable like you point out with tackle efficiency stats.
3) Stats should only ever be conversation starters. OK SJ has a winning record of 4 wins and 14 losses this year let's talk about that as a coaching staff. How much of that was on SJ or was it the whole team? How well did SJ play according to our observations and the eye test.
4) Stats per one of my stats professor should tell a story that makes common sense once you listen to what they say. SJ went 4 wins and 14 losses (or whatever he actually went for) and then ask does that sound right. And yes it does make common sense as he himself said he was hampered when he was injured plus he never really got into form.
I want to pause here on one of my favourite tangents about common sense. You must use common sense correctly as a tool both in the business world, sporting world, or your personal life. Start with understanding the world based on sound values and principles or statistical data. Do not begin and end your pursuit of good decisions with what common sense tells you alone as common sense can often be wrong given the complexities of the world we live in.

Great discussion, Thanks John for kicking us off.

Thanks Wrighty.
A coach at half time might go to a player who has missed ( say) 3 tackles in the first half and say. "Come on mate you only missed 3 for the entire of last season."
No I have never heard that.

 

[Wrighty]

Thanks Wrighty.
A coach at half time might go to a player who has missed ( say) 3 tackles in the first half and say. "Come on mate you only missed 3 for the entire of last season."
No I have never heard that.

Won't be at half time. It would be at the weekly meeting that you have with the coach in professional sports to review each players performance in detail.

 

[John Nick]

Won't be at half time. It would be at the weekly meeting that you have with the coach in professional sports to review each players performance in detail.

Tbf every coach would be having a chat with any player who has missed 3 tackles asap. Then sitting him down to watch the video over and over
Explaining what he needs to address

 

[Wrighty]

Exactly 5 weeks to Warriors pre-season match vs Sharks