Every Wednesday of the 2022 season, ESPN will combine with Champion Data to provide an in-depth analysis on a particular hot topic in the AFL.
Bad kicking is bad footy.
It's the old adage used to this day to give a team peace of mind that what they're doing on the field might not be all that 'bad', but rather their conversation has let them down.
We get it. 'Should've, would've and could've'. But what if there was a way of knowing for sure which teams are really costing themselves a game through goal kicking inaccuracy?
We're four rounds into the season and already it's Melbourne that look a level above the rest, last year's premiers the lone wolf as the league's only undefeated team after the opening month.
The Dees are deserved flag favourites; they blitzed past the Dogs in the opening game of the season, held off gallant Suns and Bombers outfits, and then capped off their perfect start with a Port Adelaide thumping.
Are they firing on all cylinders? Probably not, but the important part is when they've been faced with in-game obstacles, they've found a way to win - as good teams tend to do.
But despite the early-season results, Champion Data's 'expected accuracy' stats show that there should only be one currently undefeated team after four games, and it isn't the Demons.
Expected accuracy is a way of measuring the likelihood of a player scoring a goal, taking into account the shot type -- such as set shots, snaps, and on the run -- location on the field, and the pressure at the point of the kick.
Every shot gets compared to the competition average across the same shots attempted since 2013, with the lower the expected accuracy the more difficult a player's shot is - a shot from directly in front would have a higher expected accuracy than an Eddie-Betts style checkside that defies the odds from the stands.
By using expected scores we can determine how accurate teams and players are (expected conversion rates compared to real conversion rates, and expected score from shots taken vs. a team's actual score).
It's a metric used to reveal to fans, and even coaches, which teams are playing the brand of footy that creates better opportunities at goal, which teams have been lucky or unlucky, and whose game style appears unsustainable with a reliance on accurate kicking in front of the big sticks.
If every team had kicked to their expected accuracy this season, Collingwood would be the only team with a 4-0 record, while it also reveals the Suns should be 3-1.
In fact, Carlton and Sydney (who appear the luckiest side in terms of conversion) both wouldn't be sitting inside the top eight despite their impressive starts to 2022, and the Eagles should be the only winless team.
The Pies have an average expected score of 96.5 points per game which is higher than any other team. It's perhaps a nod to Craig McRae's new energetic, handball-heavy game style which sees the side trying to surge the ball forward with weight of numbers. They're 2-2 despite taking the 'second-easiest' kicks for goal (expected accuracy 49.7% per shot) in the competition.
But it could be the Dogs who we consider the 'unluckiest' team so far.
Luke Beveridge's men have kicked a combined 16.36 in the past two rounds and butchered seven chances at goal in the last quarter against the Blues in Round 2. On average, the Bulldogs are taking the hardest shots on goal, with an expected accuracy of 43.9% per shot.
Yet again, it should serve as peace of mind for Beveridge and Dogs supporters across the country that maybe the magnets don't need furious shuffling and the game plan doesn't need to be entirely forsaken.
The Swans are the most accurate (or lucky) team in the competition, with an expected score of just 78.5 points per game but an actual score of 91.3, leaving them with a handy +12.8 difference.
So what about players?
As the AFL evolves with every new season, there's one thing that stays the same: the deteriorating art of goal kicking and fans constantly complaining about a players' lack of polish in front of goal.
Well, the cat's out of the bag with Champion Data also revealing which players are starring or misfiring in 2022.
With at least eight shots at goal used as a minimum requirement, Carlton captain Patrick Cripps is the top-ranked player for scoring above expected accuracy this season, kicking from an average expected accuracy range of 44.9% but converting at 87.5% (+42.6%).
West Coast's Willie Rioli (+39.6%), Sydney's Isaac Heeney (+32.1%) and GWS' Harry Himmelberg (+31.0%) round out the top four and can also consider themselves a dead-eye.
On the other end of the spectrum, North Melbourne's Cam Zurhaar (11.1% accuracy) and Brisbane's Cam Rayner (22.2%) are ranked at the bottom for expected accuracy, while it's unsurprising to see Collingwood marksman Brody Mihocek scoring a total of 53 points from an expected 72 this season, leaving him with the worst differential in the AFL.
So whenever you hear a fan crying out for their team to spend more time fine-tuning their goal kicking, there may actually be merit to the passionate whining.
After all, golfers spend most of their time practicing putting for a reason. Now we know which players need to spend more time on footy's putting green.
EXPECTED SCORE LADDER
1. Collingwood (4-0, 129.16%)
2. Melbourne (3-1, 147.63%)
3. St Kilda (3-1, 129.24%)
4. Fremantle (3-1, 127.85%)
5. Gold Coast Suns (3-1, 122.83%)
6. Geelong (3-1, 121.54%)
7. Brisbane Lions (2-2, 132.68%)
8. Western Bulldogs (2-2, 102.70%)
9. Hawthorn (2-2, 101.75%)
10. Carlton (2-2, 96.91%)
11. Richmond (2-2, 91.62%)
12. North Melbourne (2-2, 73.32%)
13. Sydney Swans (1-3, 87.40%)
14. GWS Giants (1-3, 87.37%)
15. Adelaide Crows (1-3, 86.54%)
16. Port Adelaide (1-3, 82.79%)
17. Essendon (1-3, 78.20%)
18. West Coast Eagles (0-4, 60.13%)
MOST ACCURATE TEAMS
Sydney Swans - (expected score: 78.5, actual score: 91.3, difference: +12.8)
Richmond - (80.9, 92.0, +11.1)
Carlton - (76.9, 84.8, +7.8)
St Kilda - (94.6, 102.3, +7.6
Brisbane Lions - (93.7, 100.8, +7.1)
West Coast Eagles - (61.7, 68.3, +6.5)
Geelong Cats - (95.0, 99.8, +4.8)
Hawthorn - (82.7, 86.0, +3.3)
Essendon - (77.3, 80.0, +2.7)
Adelaide Crows - (81.5, 83.8, +2.2)
Fremantle - (83.1, 82.0, -1.1)
Melbourne - (88.1, 86.5, -1.6)
GWS Giants - (77.2, 75.5, -1.7)
Collingwood - (96.5, 91.8, -4.8)
Western Bulldogs - (78.4, 73.3, -5.2)
North Melbourne - (70.0, 63.8, -6.20
Port Adelaide - (70.6, 63.3, -7.3)
Gold Coast Suns - (91.7, 81.3, -10.5)
WHICH TEAMS TAKE THE HARDEST SHOTS?
1. Western Bulldogs (expected accuracy per shot: 43.9%)
2. Port Adelaide (44.3%)
3. West Coast Eagles (45.0%)
4. Carlton (45.4%)
5. Melbourne (46.2%)
6. Richmond (46.7%)
7. Fremantle (47.0%)
8. North Melbourne (47.0%)
9. Adelaide Crows (47.1%)
10. Geelong Cats (47.3%)
11. Essendon (48.1%)
12. St Kilda (48.3%)
13. GWS Giants (48.4%)
14. Sydney Swans (48.7%)
15. Brisbane Lions (49.2%)
16. Gold Coast Suns (49.4%)
17. Collingwood (49.7%)
18. Hawthorn (54.7%)
PLAYERS SCORING ABOVE EXPECTED ACCURACY
1. Patrick Cripps (Carl) - (matches: 4, shots: 8, expected accuracy: 44.9%, actual accuracy: 87.5%, difference: +42.6%)
2. Willie Rioli (WCE) - (3, 9, 49.3%, 88.9%, +39.6%)
3. Isaac Heeney (Syd) - (4, 13, 52.5%, 84.6%, +32.1%)
4. Harry Himmelberg (GWS) - (4, 11, 59.9%, 90.9%, +31.0%)
5. Josh Kennedy (WCE) - (3, 11, 37.1%, 63.6%, +26.5%)
6. Archie Perkins (Ess) - (4, 8, 49.9%, 75%, +25.1%)
7. Zac Bailey (Bris) - (4, 11, 41.8%, 63.6%, +21.8%)
8. Luke Breust (Haw) - (3, 9, 67.7%, 88.9%, +21.2%)
9. Ben Brown (Mel) - (2, 8, 41.4%, 62.55, +21.1%)
10. Todd Marshall (Port) - (4, 8, 54.8%, 75%, +20.2%)
PLAYERS SCORING BELOW EXPECTED ACCURACY
1. Cam Zurhaar (NM) - (matches: 4, shots: 9, expected accuracy: 39.3%, actual accuracy: 11.1%, difference: -28.2%)
2. Cam Rayner (Bris) - (4, 9, 48.3%, 22.2%, -26.1%)
3. Ben Ainsworth (GC) - (4, 10, 53.6%, 30%, -23.6%)
4. Liam Ryan (WCE) - (3, 11, 50.5%, 27.3%, -23.2%)
5. Michael Walters (Freo) - (4, 10, 41.1%, 20%, -21.1%)
6. Brody Mihocek (Coll) - (4, 18, 62.8%, 44.4%, -18.4%)
7. Mitch Georgiades (Port) - (4, 11, 52.9%, 36.4%, -16.5%)
8. Jack Lukosius (GC) - (4, 9, 49.3%, 33.3%, -16%)
9. Karl Amon (Port) - (4, 8, 27.2%, 12.5%, -14.7%)
10. Max Gawn (Mel) - (4, 10, 41.5%, 30%, -11.5%)
PLAYERS WITH MORE POINTS THAN EXPECTED
1. Isaac Heeney (Syd) - (matches: 4, shots: 13, expected points: 45, actual points: 66, difference: +21)
2. Willie Rioli (WCE) - (3, 9, 30, 49, +19)
3. Patrick Cripps (Carl) - (4, 8, 25, 43, +18)
4. Harry Himmelberg (GWS) - (4, 11, 43, 61, +18)
5. Charlie Curnow (Carl) - (4, 14, 43, 59, +16)
6. Joe Daniher (Bris) - (4, 19, 61, 76, +15)
7. Tom Hawkins (Gee) - (4, 21, 71, 86, +15)
8. Steven Motlop (Port) - (4, 5, 15, 30, +15)
PLAYERS WITH FEWER POINTS THAN EXPECTED
1. Brody Mihocek (Coll) - (matches: 4, shots: 18, expected points: 72, actual points: 53, difference: -19)
2. Liam Ryan (WCE) - (3, 11, 37, 21, -16)
3. Cam Zurhaar (NM) - (4, 9, 24, 9, -15)
4. Ben Ainsworth (GC) - (4, 10, 35, 21, -14)
5. Josh Dunkley (WB) - (4, 6, 17, 4, -13)
6. Cam Rayner (Bris) - (4, 9, 29, 17, -12)
7. Michael Walters (Freo) - (4, 10, 29, 17, -12)
8. Jake Riccardi (GWS) - (3, 4, 14, 3, -11)