Fancy Stats for Sharks 2022 Season

[Sparkles]

Did some work on this one @Sparkles.

Here are 9 of the 11 top middles as far as NRL.com "average metres" is concerned. I had to skip Klemmer (his profile has disappeared) and Matterson (he doesn't always play in the middle).

These are quick versions of the model which just use metres/minute and doesn't adjust for possession rates (Parra and Penrith guys probably show a bit high because those teams have the ball a LOT).

The graph looks VERY different to the Sharks graph. What it tells me is that your big-minute middles get through a mountain of work in attack, but are not as busy in attack. This makes sense from my PoV. If you have a big unit who you know will be out there for 60 minutes it is all about efficiency. Hold your position and make your tackles, travel when you need to, but otherwise stay in your lane. That's very different than how the Sharks middles play. On the Sharks you either have Hunt/BHU out there or everyone is playing lock

Kaufusi compares well to that bunch in terms of output (but for less minutes).

View attachment 28010
View attachment 28011


View attachment 28018

View attachment 28017

Fitz knows what the fans want to see

Do you think that data supports our style? Not sure I can see in that if we need to move towards a bigger, grinder pack or if we're pioneering something better..?

 

[BurgoShark]

Well at least it makes sense to one of us

I actually noticed that and thought I’d already edited it. Will fix it now.

 

[BurgoShark]

Bravo on the stats Burgo! Love it !! Did you use BI for assemble them?

Thanks mate.

Nah. I'm not that smart. Just excel and lots of time.

I know that the EyeTest guy talks about being able to get stats from Fox exported. I need to look in to that.

 

[bort]

Fitz knows what the fans want to see

Do you think that data supports our style? Not sure I can see in that if we need to move towards a bigger, grinder pack or if we're pioneering something better..?

His top 10 is
1x Panthers
0x Sharks
1x Cowboys
2x Eels
0x Storm
0x Roosters
0x Rabbitoh
1x Raider
2x Broncos
0x Dragons
0x Seagles
0x Bulldogs
1x Titans
1x Knights*
1x Warrior
0x Tigers

So there is no particular correlation between having one of these big meter middle guys and success.

If you compare to outside backs in the top 50 for meters (number to right of chart is backs, to left updated for all middles in top 50)

2x Panthers 5
0x Sharks 3
1x Cowboys 5
2x Eels 2
0x Storm 1
0x Roosters 3
2x Rabbitoh 2
2x Raider 2
2x Broncos 1
0x Dragons 1
0x Seagles 1
1x Bulldogs 1
1x Titans
1x Knights*
1x Warrior
1x Tigers

It probably suggests that having outside backs who can start your sets well is theoretically a better strategy than having multiple middles who run all game. Of course it should also be unsurprising that the betters teams backs make more meters. Loads of variables. And it's a team game.

But I think the main point is having a couple of standout forwards meter makers in the middle isn't specifically an indicator of success.

Data tweaks a bit if you go by average but too many low game players join the list and kind of spoil the data. Nobody cares Dragons Jonathan Reuben was 5th for meters made on average as he played one game.

 

[BurgoShark]

Fitz knows what the fans want to see

Do you think that data supports our style? Not sure I can see in that if we need to move towards a bigger, grinder pack or if we're pioneering something better..?

I think it demonstrates that the Sharks play differently. Whether that is better or worse is open to interpretation.

I would guess that Sharks forwards would do more "non-offload" passes than most teams too. That is something that I personally really like, and it's how I think teams should aspire to play, but it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with having a couple of tall timbers just banging it forward and getting quick ptbs.

 

[BurgoShark]

His top 10 is
1x Panthers
0x Sharks
1x Cowboys
2x Eels
0x Storm
0x Roosters
0x Rabbitoh
1x Raider
2x Broncos
0x Dragons
0x Seagles
0x Bulldogs
1x Titans
1x Knights*
1x Warrior
0x Tigers

So there is no particular correlation between having one of these big meter middle guys and success.

If you compare to outside backs in the top 50 for meters (number to right of chart is backs, to left updated for all middles in top 50)

2x Panthers 5
0x Sharks 3
1x Cowboys 5
2x Eels 2
0x Storm 1
0x Roosters 3
2x Rabbitoh 2
2x Raider 2
2x Broncos 1
0x Dragons 1
0x Seagles 1
1x Bulldogs 1
1x Titans
1x Knights*
1x Warrior
1x Tigers

It probably suggests that having outside backs who can start your sets well is theoretically a better strategy than having multiple middles who run all game. Of course it should also be unsurprising that the betters teams backs make more meters. Loads of variables. And it's a team game.

But I think the main point is having a couple of standout forwards meter makers in the middle isn't specifically an indicator of success.

Data tweaks a bit if you go by average but too many low game players join the list and kind of spoil the data. Nobody cares Dragons Jonathan Reuben was 5th for meters made on average as he played one game.

Yeah this.

Note that the list wasn't my top ten. I took the NRL's top 11 for average metres and ran my model over them. I didn't look at player's 12 and below. If there are any specific players you'd like me to add to that quadrant let me know.

Also re: outside backs, I could use my model to compare outside backs, but it wouldn't tell you much more than the averages - because unless they are injured they always play 80. The only thing it would do is exclude games played in the forwards (e.g. Sifa rounds 1 and 3), and for some players the number would go up or down by up to 10% by accounting for possession.

My model is specifically to compare players who don't play 80, with a balancing effect for team possession.

 

[Jaz]

Love your work Burgo

 

[Sparkles]

His top 10 is
1x Panthers
0x Sharks
1x Cowboys
2x Eels
0x Storm
0x Roosters
0x Rabbitoh
1x Raider
2x Broncos
0x Dragons
0x Seagles
0x Bulldogs
1x Titans
1x Knights*
1x Warrior
0x Tigers

So there is no particular correlation between having one of these big meter middle guys and success.

If you compare to outside backs in the top 50 for meters (number to right of chart is backs, to left updated for all middles in top 50)

2x Panthers 5
0x Sharks 3
1x Cowboys 5
2x Eels 2
0x Storm 1
0x Roosters 3
2x Rabbitoh 2
2x Raider 2
2x Broncos 1
0x Dragons 1
0x Seagles 1
1x Bulldogs 1
1x Titans
1x Knights*
1x Warrior
1x Tigers

It probably suggests that having outside backs who can start your sets well is theoretically a better strategy than having multiple middles who run all game. Of course it should also be unsurprising that the betters teams backs make more meters. Loads of variables. And it's a team game.

But I think the main point is having a couple of standout forwards meter makers in the middle isn't specifically an indicator of success.

Data tweaks a bit if you go by average but too many low game players join the list and kind of spoil the data. Nobody cares Dragons Jonathan Reuben was 5th for meters made on average as he played one game.

That's really interesting, Cheers Bort.
I guess the real takeaway is just to design your gameplay around the strengths of your team. If both are good enough you'll find success.

 

[bort]

Yeah this.

Note that the list wasn't my top ten. I took the NRL's top 11 for average metres and ran my model over them. I didn't look at player's 12 and below. If there are any specific players you'd like me to add to that quadrant let me know.

Also re: outside backs, I could use my model to compare outside backs, but it wouldn't tell you much more than the averages - because unless they are injured they always play 80. The only thing it would do is exclude games played in the forwards (e.g. Sifa rounds 1 and 3), and for some players the number would go up or down by up to 10% by accounting for possession.

My model is specifically to compare players who don't play 80, with a balancing effect for team possession.

They are your players just because they are the ones you used I was referring back to
Obviously these guys are the standouts as some of the premier props but also as some of the highest meter eaters, but do most of the other props on these teams sit somewhere more like the Sharks guys?

How much of a hassle would one graph be with Sharks, Panthers, Roosters & maybe Cowboys (or Eels?) all plotted in different colours?
Could probs leave names off if it overcrowds as the interest is more what the squad provides than which players do what.

 

[BurgoShark]

They are your players just because they are the ones you used I was referring back to
Obviously these guys are the standouts as some of the premier props but also as some of the highest meter eaters, but do most of the other props on these teams sit somewhere more like the Sharks guys?

Yeah - all good. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't misinterpreted as "I've looked at everyone and these are the top 10".

How much of a hassle would one graph be with Sharks, Panthers, Roosters & maybe Cowboys (or Eels?) all plotted in different colours?
Could probs leave names off if it overcrowds as the interest is more what the squad provides than which players do what.

The graph wouldn't be hard. Would just need to decide on exactly what data we are choosing to include. There is no stat for "front rowers from team X" so you have to pick where you draw the line. Something like "the player who appeared in the most games wearing #13, and the 4 middles who appeared in the most games".

For the Sharks that would give you Finucane + McInnes, Rudolf, Hunt and BHU - which I believe would be a fair representation (you exclude Williams + any part time middles).

 

[bort]

The graph wouldn't be hard. Would just need to decide on exactly what data we are choosing to include. There is no stat for "front rowers from team X" so you have to pick where you draw the line. Something like "the player who appeared in the most games wearing #13, and the 4 middles who appeared in the most games".

For the Sharks that would give you Finucane + McInnes, Rudolf, Hunt and BHU - which I believe would be a fair representation (you exclude Williams + any part time middles).

Yeah that'd probably work, or at least that breakdown looks right for our team.

 

[BurgoShark]

Yeah that'd probably work, or at least that breakdown looks right for our team.

Cool. Will look in to it at some stage. Might need to skip multi-position players. Matterson is one. If you want Melbourne I'll have to skip Cheese. Incorporating hookers and edge players will skew the numbers unless I do individual game by game numbers. I did that for the Sharks guys, but I'm not doing it for 20 blokes from other teams.

 

[bort]

Cool. Will look in to it at some stage. Might need to skip multi-position players. Matterson is one. If you want Melbourne I'll have to skip Cheese. Incorporating hookers and edge players will skew the numbers unless I do individual game by game numbers. I did that for the Sharks guys, but I'm not doing it for 20 blokes from other teams.

Yeah I left Storm off my list as Welch was out, Cheese moves around, NAS moved around, less relevant but Kamikamica missed the start of the year too.
Wasn't sure about Eels as figured their might be a bit more likely to be different due to having two top props and as you say Matterson was in and out of middle.

 

[BurgoShark]

Yeah I left Storm off my list as Welch was out, Cheese moves around, NAS moved around, less relevant but Kamikamica missed the start of the year too.
Wasn't sure about Eels as figured their might be a bit more likely to be different due to having two top props and as you say Matterson was in and out of middle.

So Sharks, Panthers, Roosters, Eels (no Matterson). Maybe Bunnies too?

 

[bort]

So Sharks, Panthers, Roosters, Eels (no Matterson). Maybe Bunnies too?

Yeah 4-6 teams is probably ideal. Any more I expect it is overcrowded.
Would give us a bit of an idea if our main guys overall sit in a roughly similar workload area to these other good teams, or we have something quite different going on (or a mix of the two, like some teams, unlike others).

 

[Matty C of the Shire]

Thanks mate.

Nah. I'm not that smart. Just excel and lots of time.

I know that the EyeTest guy talks about being able to get stats from Fox exported. I need to look in to that.

Hah don’t sell yourself short. I used to say that myself, but now I am studying data analysis, learning Power BI, and other data systems.
you have done an fantastic job! Very nicely layout and well presented!
keep up the good work! It gives a new look at what players are doing and .. aren’t doing

 

[BurgoShark]

Hah don’t sell yourself short. I used to say that myself, but now I am studying data analysis, learning Power BI, and other data systems.
you have done an fantastic job! Very nicely layout and well presented!
keep up the good work! It gives a new look at what players are doing and .. aren’t doing

Thanks mate. Glad to hear people appreciate it.

 

[BurgoShark]

It probably suggests that having outside backs who can start your sets well is theoretically a better strategy than having multiple middles who run all game. Of course it should also be unsurprising that the betters teams backs make more meters. Loads of variables. And it's a team game.

But I think the main point is having a couple of standout forwards meter makers in the middle isn't specifically an indicator of success.

Data tweaks a bit if you go by average but too many low game players join the list and kind of spoil the data. Nobody cares Dragons Jonathan Reuben was 5th for meters made on average as he played one game.

The other thing you'd probably say there is that the use of outside backs also becomes a lot about the cattle available, and coaching tactics. Lighter fullbacks (Kennedy, Campbell, Laurie) will take less runs out of trouble, so you'd expect the #2-5 on those teams to get through a bit more work than if you have a 95kg+ fullback. That's not to say the fullback isn't involved in those plays. He just might be the guy throwing the pass or running the decoy instead.

There are also some really interesting tactics you see in those situations. The Titans went through a period where they would basically have Anthony Don play as a first receiver inside their 40, and he'd either use a short runner or throw a long ball to someone else in the back 5 who would hit it up. That got them away from the markers and to the middle of the field quickly. It didn't do much for Anthony Don's stats though.

 

[BurgoShark]

Here are the first two teams @bort. Can make this prettier later on.

This is the Sharks 5 guys mentioned above versus the Eels 5 guys. I included Matterson because I looked through and I reckon he played 70-80% of his time in the middle.

Paulo, RCG, Kaufusi, Niukore, Matterson

 

[bort]

That probably is the side I thought we’d be the most different from, but we will see