Modeling the Quality of Player Passing Decisions in Australian Rules Football Relative to Risk, Reward, and Commitment

The value of player decisions has typically been measured by changes in possession expectations, rather than relative to the value of a player’s alternative options. This study presents a mathematical approach to the measurement of passing decisions of Australian Rules footballers that considers the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bartholomew Spencer, Karl Jackson, Timothy Bedin, Sam Robertson
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-08-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01777/full
Description
Summary:The value of player decisions has typically been measured by changes in possession expectations, rather than relative to the value of a player’s alternative options. This study presents a mathematical approach to the measurement of passing decisions of Australian Rules footballers that considers the risk and reward of passing options. A new method for quantifying a player’s spatial influence is demonstrated through a process called commitment modeling, in which the bounds and density of a player’s motion model are fit on empirical commitment to contests, producing a continuous representation of a team’s spatial ownership. This process involves combining the probability density functions of contests that a player committed to, and those they did not. Spatiotemporal player tracking data was collected for AFL matches played at a single stadium in the 2017 and 2018 seasons. It was discovered that the probability of a player committing to a contest decreases as a function of their velocity and of the ball’s time-to-point. Furthermore, the peak density of player commitment probabilities is at a greater distance in front of a player the faster they are moving, while their ability to participate in contests requiring re-orientation diminishes at higher velocities. Analysis of passing decisions revealed that, for passes resulting in a mark, opposition pressure is bimodal, with peaks at spatial dominance equivalent to no pressure and to a one-on-one contest. Density of passing distance peaks at 17.3 m, marginally longer than the minimum distance of a legal mark (15 m). Conversely, the model presented in this study identifies long-range options as have higher associated decision-making values, however a lack of passes in these ranges may be indicative of differing tactical behavior or a difficulty in identifying long-range options.
ISSN:1664-1078