A stats overview 2004-2007.

[HarveysDeciple]

Gonna post some stats from the last 4 seasons, quarter by quarter, should add to the debate over when our best football was played, and also when we perhaps started the decline..
From my interpretation 2005 was our best season by far. eclipsing 2004 in most areas, 2006 we started to lose our potency despite our defence tightening up and we tended to play in bursts, relying on a big quarter here or there to win us games, where as the 2005 machine tended to take control of games and not relinquish.

It reveals a lot of what we already new already, but it does give a different angle to what some of us might have thought.


Average Scores.
For Agst Difference
2004 108 89 +19
2005 109 81 +24
2006 93 79 +14
2007 82 87 - 5

what this shows is that going back to 2004/2005 our defence is about the same, conceeding similar scores, however we are kicking on average 4 or 5 less goals a game.
Which is ultimately the difference.
Last year our scoring dropped by about 2 goals a game, (kicked 47 less goals then the year before). and this year has dropped by about 2 more goals a game.
We also seemed to peak defensively in 2006, conceeding just 79 points a game.



Times we scored over 100.

2004 13
2005 14
2006 9
2007 4

Again showing the decrease in our scoring potency.


Quarter by Quarter.

Total Quarters won.

Year Played Won Lost Draw %
2004 100 57 37 6 57
2005 96 63 31 2 66
2006 92 46 40 6 50
2007 76 34 39 3 45

This showed that we peaked in 2005 winning 2/3's of our quarters, a figure which dropped to 50% last season.
This shows that the quality of footy we played last year did not match 2005, obviously factors contribute to this.. for much of last year we had no Koschitzke or Hayes, and Ball was on one leg, but all im giving at this stage is this stats, to allow people to make their own assesments.
This year we have dropped further, we are getting beaten in more then half our quarters which suggests we have not put solid 4 quarter efforts in really at any stage, and we are winning the game on the back of a few strong bursts of footy. Last year the same could be said.

I would also clear that 2005 is the only season where our quarter percentage was better then our game percentage....(won 66% of quarters, and won 64% of games.)
The rest of those seasons say we have won more games then we should have according to the quarter by quarters.



Lets now break it down quarter by quarter.

First Quarters.
P W L D %
2004 25 14 11 - 56
2005 24 14 10 - 58.3
2006 23 13 10 - 56.5
2007 19 6 12 1 32


Second Quarters
P W L D %
2004 25 18 7 - 72
2005 24 17 7 - 71
2006 23 10 11 2 43
2007 19 12 6 1 63


Third Quarters

P W L D %
2004 25 13 9 3 52
2005 24 18 5 1 75
2006 23 12 10 1 52
2007 19 10 9 - 53

Final Quarters
P W L D %
2004 25 12 10 3 48
2005 24 14 9 1 58
2006 23 11 9 3 48
2007 19 6 12 1 32


Final quarters across the whole have been very poor for us.
We have won less then 50% of our last quarters in the last 4 years. This year it has reached crisis.

One interesting thing is that our first quarters in 2007 have been equally poor.

A lot of people have suggested that our gameplan is taxing and it could be the reason we are running out of legs in the last term, but it does not explain our poor starts.

This year we have led at quarter time on 6 occasions. we have won 4 of those and lost 2 (Sydney and Essendon).

Out of the 12 times we have trailed at quarter time, we have ended up winning on 5 of those occasions.

We are also a very strong second/third quarter side. tending to take control in the middle stages of games rather then charging out of the blocks, or coming home with a rush.

Average Win vs Average Loss.
Ave. Win Ave. Loss Times Won over 60 Times Lost over 60
2004 47 37 5 1
2005 52 22 6 0
2006 38 26 3 1
2007 24 35 0 1

Most of the stats shown indicate we peaked in 05, despite the brilliance of 04, and last year the decline began. Some have said this quite often.

[Dan Warna]

just wondering how much the loss of hamill and injuries to lenny hayes, two of our biggest contributors affected us in 06.

when hamill did play in 06 it was quite a limited return. he has returned about 2 goals a game for us prior to that.

also lenny hayes was pretty much our clearnance king for some time which affected our drive to some degree.

another stat that was published recently was how much possession our 'forwards' were getting outside the F50.

[Mr X from the West]

Those stats confirm that we are not a serious finals contender and are really a fair way off the pace.....we are average at best, which is what our position on the ladder would suggest.

We need some major transformation ala Manchester City.

[Dan Warna]

I believe we have the tools we just need to play together more.

when we played carlton I felt we just bludgeoned them down on sheer talent without any real strategy or plan.

even in 06 we played as a team, in 07 we showed glimpses of team play (mid way through the freo game, wce, adelaide, parts of the hawks game, 1/4 of the game v collingwood) the rest of the time we look lost or like a collection of individuals.

Im glad we beat carlton but tbh they played team football and we just beat htem down with too much talent.

we have the talent its up to the coach to adequately drill them and train them.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

Final Quarters
P W L D %
2004 25 12 10 3 48
2005 24 14 9 1 58
2006 23 11 9 3 48
2007 19 6 12 1 32

diferance beint in 04 and 05 we were genrally 7-10 goals up going into the final qtr this year we cant protect 3-4 goal leads

[meher baba]

Average Scores.
For Agst Difference
2004 108 89 +19
2005 109 81 +24
2006 93 79 +14
2007 82 87 - 5

what this shows is that going back to 2004/2005 our defence is about the same, conceeding similar scores, however we are kicking on average 4 or 5 less goals a game.
Which is ultimately the difference.

Interesting, but I would have interpreted these stats as meaning that our defence improved in 2005-06 and has now deteriorated again.

It seems as if our endeavours to become a much more defensive side, which have certainly reduced our ability to score goals, have paradoxically also resulted in our conceding more as well.

Taken as a whole, HD, your report is the sort of presentation that in most boardrooms would lead to a CEO being sacked or at least being stripped of his or her performance bonuses!!

[BAM! (shhhh)]

The above is a fascinating post, and I will take some time to crunch some number and respond in more detail than this... However I would like to address one thing that rises out of all the numbers above that comes up quite a bit.

The Saints are doing no better defensively than they were in 2004-2006

I crunched some numbers on this earlier in the year because I was curious. Not very detailed, but to discount the blowouts where St. Kilda rolled a Carlton, and had no relevance vs. a WCE, here are the avg scores against when the Saints lost.

2004- 111
2005- 107
2006- 101
2007- 94

The criticism on the defensive side of the GT style wasn't that the Saints avg points against wasn't impressive, but that if the Saints weren't dominant, it left the door wide open.

So if we juxtapose against the avg points against in a win:

2004- 75
2005- 70
2006- 65
2007- 79

There's an implication that while the numbers may skew to imply the Saints defense hasn't improved, one can say that in games where they are outscored, the opposition scores less than in years previous, which from a defensive standpoint is the desired result.

IMO, it does point to a defensive improvement.

[meher baba]

The above is a fascinating post, and I will take some time to crunch some number and respond in more detail than this... However I would like to address one thing that rises out of all the numbers above that comes up quite a bit.

The Saints are doing no better defensively than they were in 2004-2006

I crunched some numbers on this earlier in the year because I was curious. Not very detailed, but to discount the blowouts where St. Kilda rolled a Carlton, and had no relevance vs. a WCE, here are the avg scores against when the Saints lost.

2004- 111
2005- 107
2006- 101
2007- 94

The criticism on the defensive side of the GT style wasn't that the Saints avg points against wasn't impressive, but that if the Saints weren't dominant, it left the door wide open.

So if we juxtapose against the avg points against in a win:

2004- 75
2005- 70
2006- 65
2007- 79

There's an implication that while the numbers may skew to imply the Saints defense hasn't improved, one can say that in games where they are outscored, the opposition scores less than in years previous, which from a defensive standpoint is the desired result.

IMO, it does point to a defensive improvement.

Not necessarily. It might be more of a sign of our poor fourth quarter performances where we have been run over at the end of close games that we would have won in previous years.

Anyway, your belief that you should "discount the blowouts where St. Kilda rolled a Carlton, and had no relevance vs. a WCE" is extraordinarily arbitrary. We absolutely destroyed the Eagles in 2004 and, more recently, beat them by a bigger margin at Subi than that by which we subsequently beat the Blues in Melbourne. The reason that you have felt the need to leave out the "blowouts" from previous years is because we haven't had any this year.

I prefer HD's analysis.

[HarveysDeciple]

The quarter stats were the ones I found most interesting.

2004 and 2006 we won more games then these stats say we should have, 2005 for the one year we truelly dominated entire games yet we won less games then 04.

this year we are winning just 45% of quarters....so perhaps premiership aspirations are a bit far fetched.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

IMO, it does point to a defensive improvement.

Not necessarily. It might be more of a sign of our poor fourth quarter performances where we have been run over at the end of close games that we would have won in previous years.

Anyway, your belief that you should "discount the blowouts where St. Kilda rolled a Carlton, and had no relevance vs. a WCE" is extraordinarily arbitrary. We absolutely destroyed the Eagles in 2004 and, more recently, beat them by a bigger margin at Subi than that by which we subsequently beat the Blues in Melbourne. The reason that you have felt the need to leave out the "blowouts" from previous years is because we haven't had any this year.

I prefer HD's analysis.

Well, first off, I certainly wouldn't credit the numbers I threw up as an "analysis", where I would give that term to HD.

However, on "throwing out" the blowouts, I'm not suggesting they be "thrown out" in analysing the team as a whole, I am hypothesising that in measuring defensive capabilities, a big win's defensive result would quantify an outlier... Part of the reason I wouldn't call mine an analysis is that I don't go into depth to prove this.

To really prove it, I would need to show a correlation between big wins and defensive results that would be considered outliers (more than 2 sigmas variation from the normally distributed range of results). I could then conclude that these results are affecting the average numbers for the GT era offensive oriented Saints, and recalculate the averages without them to give us a much better indication of the reasonable defensive expectations.

Of course, this would be a derivative statistic, and I mistrust derivative stats. I do believe that method would provide a better measure than raw averages however, which are also a derivative statistic, and should my hypothesis be correct, a flawed one.

The reason I "felt the need" to discount these blowouts is because I strongly suspect they put up results that are not reflective of actual defensive skill. To credit you point though, their lack this year, IMO, is a reflection of poor offense rather than defense. However, I believe that proving this would be done after the above (and a similar analysis of offense), not before.

As to your original speculation, I cannot see how one might prove a link between the increase in 4th quarter fadeouts and the decrease in avg. points against during a loss.

[rogerwa]

if its possible to get up inside 50's for each yr
score's from those inside 50's
may give us an indication of our defensive efforts inside 50 each yr,who was playing not only forwards but midfielders
what out midfielders give us on the scoreboard

[hAyES]

Boy we were good in 04. I miss that.

[HarveysDeciple]

if its possible to get up inside 50's for each yr
score's from those inside 50's
may give us an indication of our defensive efforts inside 50 each yr,who was playing not only forwards but midfielders
what out midfielders give us on the scoreboard

will chase it up.

[Teflon]

You can argue all day long about yr v yr blah blah.... mean scores and generally get excited by any set of numbers BUT...what I find irrefutable is that on whole these stats point to a STEADY DECLINE in performances. Started the rise probably in 03 in real terms.....ramped up in 04....peak 05....slip slidin in 06....still slippin 07..........although just as easy as we point to defensive game plan for 07....one could also mount a solid arguement as to the level of mature, experience the 07 side has lost - effectively Powell, Peckett, Voss, Thompson, Hamill (last 3 still playing....or are they?)

Its not good enough - succesfull clubs sustain themselves far longer than that - how often you seen Essendon bottom out? Crows?...how long Swans/Eagles been "up" ??...it seems we fire our shot for 3 yrs......Id really like to know why?

We are not flag contenders thats for certain - the question that will be intriguing over summer is what do we need to do to become genuine flag contenders again.

[ausfatcat]

it's 2007 not 2004 it wont be 2004 ever again..... So move on.

[Apu]

mods, please delete this post...... Its depressing me

[BAM! (shhhh)]

For the record, I was wrong:

Having given an outline yesterday on a hypothesis that blowout wins effected defensive statistics significantly, and hence should be disregarded when trying to measure the defensive acumen of a team, and then outlined a method by which this could be proven, I've spent some time on the spreadsheet during lunch today, and concluded the following.

While winning - and margin - does impact on defensive averages, barring sampling errors, these wins cannot be considered outliers and disregarded from the mean.

To show that winning does impact on defensive averages is quite straightforward, Avg GA during W should be lower than GA during L. Furthermore, to show that margin impacts, that Avg. GA should be even lower when the win is greater than the average margin.

2004 - Avg GA - 86.77, Avg GA W - 76.5, Avg GA M>24.27 - 74.58
2005 - Avg GA - 82.09, Avg GA W - 69.78, Avg GA M>27.32 - 66.91
2006 - Avg GA - 79.63, Avg GA W - 66.57, Avg GA M>14.63 - 66.52
2007 - Avg GA - 86.68, Avg GA W - 79.55 (Avg M = -5, not going to give a positive effect)

For accuracy, it would be better to use winning margin than simply margin, but given a positive margin, I believe the tendency illustrated (though not proven due to lack of sample size, control group, etc.)

However, given further data, my original hypothesis that big wins would constitute defensive outliers is blown out of the water by the Saints numbers for the last few years.

An outlier is a number within a set that doesn't fit (WARNING: THIS PARAGRAPH CONTAINS MATH!)- e.g. if the average margin is 14, then a one off 100 point margin is probably an outlier, which effects the mean by raising it measurably and throwing off the accuracy of statistical projection (which would be folly to do with footy, but that's another discussion). One can measure an oulier using standard deviation, and the principal that approx 66% of results will fall between +/- 1 sigma (std. D), 95% within 2, 99% within 3. It is generally considered fair to call a result an outlier if it has a 2 sigma variance.

We can compare the results by assuming these numbers are outliers and removing them from our calculations.

(THOSE WHO DON"T WANT THE MATH SKIP TO THE RESULTS)

I've compared the results for not only high margins (including considering possible outliers here), but for high offensive results, and for high defensive results. If anyone doubts or is curious, PM me and I'm happy to share the data. Point of post is this:

The only case where the impact was significant was when looking at the at games outside the avg margin +/- a single std dev. as outliers. In that situation, the 2004 defense rates as the best of the last 4 years. Otherwise, results support the idea that margin will have a minimal effect (less than a goal).

Of course, any and all results are subject to sampling errors, 22 games is a wildly insufficient pool to draw strong conclusions from, however, the main conclusions would have to be that I was incorrect.

[HarveysDeciple]

Thats a very interesting piece of info BAM.

Top read.