Ebersohn the best performing SA 12?

I read comments like "Ebersohn is easily the best SA 12 this season". Really? Well this is the kind of question stats can throw a light on.....after 7 matches some trends should be observable.

So here is a quick take;

Ebersohn has run for 20, 40, 4, 48, 45, 39 and 32 metres this season. An average of 32.57 metres per game.

Jean de Villiers against the Chiefs, Brumbies and Crusaders ran for 72,48 and 45 metres....for an average of 55 metres against the best teams in the competition. He beat 8 defenders in those games, offloaded 3 times and made 5 clean breaks. His average metres per game was 55 metres against the top 3 foreign teams.

Oddly his average drops to 36.1 metres against all opponents, still better than Ebersohn but significantly lower. Why we may ask? Well maybe because he is 32 years old, is the Bok captain  and has a long season ahead of him. All the older test greats keep something in reserve. But show him some top opposition and he gets fully motivated.

So is it so obvious that Ebersohn, a fine player, is really the best 12 so far. Maybe, but the numbers don't support the notion.

A question Moz. wouldn't you rate a 12 that runs alot of metres as maybe hogging tha ball a bit? or maybe bieng a crash ball specialist? Just a thought. Stats don't tell the whole story or maybe tell you what you want to see? Those running stats could actually be a negative, depending on how you want to see it.

Possibly Ek but I also calculated the runs per match stat. Jean has a slightly lower number at 6.83 runs per match....vs Ebersohn at 6.85 runs per match. So the metres per match average is a very good indicator of their running productivity.

This crash ball criticism Jean and Steyn pick up reflects fans' frustration. But the truth is, in big matches 12s never have space....you have to break through the tackles. I personally think Jean still steps through that first tackle better than any centre in the country.

Yes I must agree, Ek.

Running with the ball doesnt tell you what he did with it in the end. Did he kick it out on the full ... did he knock it on ... did he off load in the tackle and get his outsude man into the gap or was he caught holding on and penalized. 

There are many additional stats that need to be added to the running stat to show us if it was one of quality or not.

OK moz so your big statistical evidence is based on a difference of 0.02 runs per match. How statistically significant is that? What does that actually tell you. one guy ran so much more with the ball and achieved so much less metres without looking at the bigger picture.

Who has scored the most tries? Who has assisted in the most tries. Who has the most offloads?

Your stats show nothing Moz.

You cannot show how good Ebersohn has been all season with numbers. watch the game.

Ek what I was trying to say is, the number of runs per match...6.85 for Ebersohn vs 6.83 for Jean.....is not significantly different. So the metres per game of 36.1 for Jean vs 32.57 for Ebersohn can be compared.

Said another way, running productivity is best measured in metres per run.....Jean is at 5.285 metres per run....and Ebersohn is at 4.75 metres per run. Both are respectable and fairly similar.

To me the main take away of this little analysis is that Jean lifts his performance against the best teams......not that Ebersohn isn't playing well.

Mozart is a great believer in stats - but only if it fits his argument.   The stats he now provided is actually selective - he is an expert in that type of stats usage, but when stats does not provide the answers he seeks he just ignores it.

In this case he for instance left out criticial components - like the number of tries scored, the number of ssuccessfull off-loads  and  the number of effective contributions to tries   So you get a garbled version of actual performances on the field of play and not the real picture at all.

However Mozart left out the defensive stats - deliberately I believe - because that paints an altogether unfavourable picture as well.  The following stats are applicable:-

De Villiers - Tackles made 43 Tackles missed 11

Ebersohn - Tackles made 82 Tackles missed 12

The number of games played differ so lets get it down to averag stats per game:-

De Villiers - Tackles made  8,6 Tackles missed   2,2

Ebersohn - Tackles made   13,6 Tackles missed  2

That reveals that De Villiers missed well over 22% of attempted tackles, while Ebersohn miss circa 14%

Taking into above the information provided and also the above additional information - it is evident that Ebersohn comprehensively outplayed De Villiers in both attacking ad defensive play as Centers.   If the latter is taken into account - De Villiers is nowhere in the picture at all.

 If the stats are taken from ESPN, they should have some related stats to accompany them such as tackle broken, offloads, tries, defenders beaten, try assists, etc etc.

This would help provide more context over the season.

Just using the amount of metres gained is like measuring the performance of a donkey pulling a cart in the field. What about other contextual factors like how many carrots were put in front of donkey to make it pull the plow.

Sharkbok - see my posting above.  The stats came from ESPN Scrum

Oom Maaik......the case for Ebersohn over Jean is an attacking one....so I examined the attacking stats available. Jean has proved over 12 years of test rugby that he can defend his channel very effectively....to assume a small chap like Ebersohn will be a better defender in 12 channel is naive.

SB the numbers are gross indications....although I did add Jean's numbers for clean breaks and defenders beaten against our big three opponents. You are welcome to expand the analysis to all sorts of other calculations. My only purpose was to say that there doesn't appear to be a strong statistical case that Ebersohn is performing better than Jean.

Stats are not dispositive, to use a favourite American legal term.  But over a lot of matches they become much more reliable. And given we can't compare incidents quantitatively...we have leave that to judgement, and, unfortunately, bias creeps in. So statistics add a dimension of even handedness to the debate.

There are missed tackles and missed tackles....Jordaan's miss on Fruean was far more significant than the miss when an opponent steps inside his man and bang into the traffic.

Mozart

If you talk anout attacking rugby - why not add the number of tries scored, the number of ssuccessfull off-loads and the number of effective contributions to tries.

"Jean has proved over 12 years of test rugby that he can defend his channel very effectively:   His defensive stats this year was not very effective - we are not talking about 12 years ago - or even last year.  We are talking about this year.

As per normal - caught out again because of selective stats.   My friend - I have warned you before - you normally gets caught out by trying to do that trick.

Well OOM Mike Ebersohn has scored three tries.....to Jean's zero. On the other hand Jean has 4 offloads to Ebersohn's one. One offload strikes me as a little meagre for a player who is supposedly creating all these opportunities......thanks for steering me in that direction.

Mozart

Not really convinced about the off-loads issue.  The stats does not reflect the effectiveness of off-loads.   I know the one off-load of Ebersohn let to a try scored under the posts by Rhule - but cannot recollect whether any off-loads by De Villiers was really effective.   The Stormers scored 10 tries in three games - 4 against the Brumbies and three against the Chiefs - two against the Cheetahs and 1 against the Bulls.   As far as I can recollect - none of the tries actually orginiated from an off-load by De Villiers.   I believe that the number of off-loads should not be the issue - rather the effectiveness of off-loads should be a factor.   Normally I ignore off-loads because of the latter situation.

Oom Maaik, I ignore the offloads.....you grumble about me ignoring the offloads.....I produce the offloads....you tell me how you normally ignore the offloads. Are you going barking mad?

Oom Maaik, I ignore the offloads.....you grumble about me ignoring the offloads.....I produce the offloads....you tell me how you normally ignore the offloads. Are you going barking mad?

Does anyone else find it strange that the person on this board who clearly knows the least about statistics and who consistently draws the most idiotic conclusions from whatever statistics are available is the one who is forever banging on about statistics?

LMAO!

 But unlike you RooiAas .....I do know it's not  1,2,3 er 5? Nor is 13 minus 9 equal to 6. And after a half of rugby, more than 20 minutes have elapsed. So who knows the least about numbers?

Hahaha.....talk about leading with a weak chin.

Mozart

My problem is that I am looking for effective plays  - in other words efffective is the key.   It is unfortunately not possible by looking at the stats only - when it comes to effectiveness.  One has to watch the game a couple of times after the stats come out to determine where and how the off-loads occurred and only after that can one normally say that an off-load is effective or not.

An effective off-load means the game can be carried further in a movement and leads to sunstantial territorial gain  or even scoring of tries,    Poor off-loads can even be detrimental and a negative for the team.   

A while ago there was a big argument about the off-loads affected  by Francois Steyn in the Kings game.   Afterwards I went through the off-loads and found they were shockingly poor.  In such cases the off-loads are a negative - not a positive. That is why I emphasized effectivenes in such cases.   I did not specifically study the off-loads of De Villiers - I clearly remember the off-load of Ebersohn against the Rebels - a real work oof art.

I could not recollect any details about the De Villiers off-loads - if they were really effective I would have jotted them down in the notes I keep during games,  I had nothing and was hoping that you may hsve something to add to the issue of effectiveness of the De Villirs off-loads..

Unless you spemt hours watching games repeatedly - you really can have problems as to what is considered effective off-loads so maybe a person should just ignore it when evaluating stats.

Fair points Mike and I'm sure over time the statistics will become more refined. But we work with what we have, using observation and stats.

My guess is, rangy types like SBW and many tall loosies are among the best off loaders. In SA rugby my vote for off loading would go to Bekker.

 @MOZ-  I agree with quantative data, just it should have other quantative stats for contextual and cross analysis. 

This helps with qualitative analysis and interprations. 

-

However- it just seemed that you made the comparison of the two players with only the amount of metres gained.  

Other quantative stats are probably more important like try assists, line breaks, defenders beaten, tries scored etc etc. For a inside center it would be less about scoring tries, and more about try assists, offloads, line breaks.

 Guilty as charged......I could have added defenders beaten and line breaks.