My team in spring 1991 (Nationals the previous two years) completed* (7000 passes total)
95% backhand
92% forehand
92% "other" (primarily hammers but would include push passes or lefties or scoobers or whatever) (only one guy threw scoobers and a different guy occasionally dumped lefty)
94% overall on non-long
60% hucks
1.64 ratio of backhands to forehands
*1.8% of passes were dropped but were recorded as completions for the thrower.
1992 team, lost in finals of Nationals:
96% backhand
94% forehand
91% hammer
95% overall on non-long
61% long
1.5% drop
1.43 backhand to forehand
Note that man defenses were almost exclusively force middle then. Almost all dumps were backhands. But there were no cross-body backhands to the forehand side because the marker was closer and the throw couldnt' get off.
I'd point out that hammers are probably dropped more frequently than flat passes, especially fast ones, especially ones with a defender closing. I wouldn't have been surprised if that second clip wasn't caught (though not sure if it would have been classified a drop or a throwaway; in most cases where the disc contacts the receiver and isn't caught, there is a mix of blame between thrower and receiver. I/Os are also probably "dropped" more than average since they can come in fast and with the opposite spin in front of (vs directly at) a player in stride and the player can't use the body to cushion.).
Yea I was thinking it's worth noting that hammers are dropped more frequently because not everyone is used to catching them. So even if you have practiced your hammer and can throw dimes, if you're playing with weaker receivers, maybe holster it. Or add it to the list of things to practice...
It's not just weaker receivers and being unfamiliar with hammers. A lot of the hammers shown here were easy to catch, but the second clip and one of the last clips where the receiver laid out, even good pro or club receivers would fail to catch, I dunno, 10% of those.
Pen and paper. Someone not in that point would jot down the sequence in a notebook as it happened, e.g., Tom f Fred b Joe bL Jeff G, 1-0. After the tournament, a couple of us would get a grid and put tally marks in each relevant box, then enter it into a spreadsheet.
One of the reasons we started forcing forehand was that we noticed forehands were several percentage points lower than backhands, though at some point we realized that some or all of that difference is due to higher-percentage dumps being almost always backhands. Also stats brought self-awareness and accountability. Nothing says, "Maybe I don't got that throw" more than a 4 for 16 in the stat book.
it's funny that while we have tons of data now that we didn't have then (and tons of video to collect that data), one thing i've never really seen elsewhere is a breakdown of forehands vs backhands (vs other). lots of cool stuff you can do if you track all those details for individual throws (was it a break throw? etc) but these days we're spending more time focused on the video review. would be fun to go through and count these stats though
Fun, sure, but useful? The 4 for 16 guy's response to being shown this was, "stats are stupid". Another guy had more like a 10:1 bh/fh ratio but the stats just acknowledged what we all knew and he didn't work on his forehand or look to throw it more. For me, what helped was the forced introspection. I looked back at each turnover and realized a lot of them were just dumb or risky but not that useful so I tried to remove them (though sometimes they still pop up because I don't play enough to keep that part of my brain at a top level).
Anyway, back to hammers. Another benefit I don't think LT pointed out is that some of them get there quicker and give the D less time to reset.
My team in spring 1991 (Nationals the previous two years) completed* (7000 passes total)
95% backhand
92% forehand
92% "other" (primarily hammers but would include push passes or lefties or scoobers or whatever) (only one guy threw scoobers and a different guy occasionally dumped lefty)
94% overall on non-long
60% hucks
1.64 ratio of backhands to forehands
*1.8% of passes were dropped but were recorded as completions for the thrower.
1992 team, lost in finals of Nationals:
96% backhand
94% forehand
91% hammer
95% overall on non-long
61% long
1.5% drop
1.43 backhand to forehand
Note that man defenses were almost exclusively force middle then. Almost all dumps were backhands. But there were no cross-body backhands to the forehand side because the marker was closer and the throw couldnt' get off.
I'd point out that hammers are probably dropped more frequently than flat passes, especially fast ones, especially ones with a defender closing. I wouldn't have been surprised if that second clip wasn't caught (though not sure if it would have been classified a drop or a throwaway; in most cases where the disc contacts the receiver and isn't caught, there is a mix of blame between thrower and receiver. I/Os are also probably "dropped" more than average since they can come in fast and with the opposite spin in front of (vs directly at) a player in stride and the player can't use the body to cushion.).
That said, I think you're on the right track.
Yea I was thinking it's worth noting that hammers are dropped more frequently because not everyone is used to catching them. So even if you have practiced your hammer and can throw dimes, if you're playing with weaker receivers, maybe holster it. Or add it to the list of things to practice...
It's not just weaker receivers and being unfamiliar with hammers. A lot of the hammers shown here were easy to catch, but the second clip and one of the last clips where the receiver laid out, even good pro or club receivers would fail to catch, I dunno, 10% of those.
how did you all track these stats? was somebody counting them during live gameplay?
Pen and paper. Someone not in that point would jot down the sequence in a notebook as it happened, e.g., Tom f Fred b Joe bL Jeff G, 1-0. After the tournament, a couple of us would get a grid and put tally marks in each relevant box, then enter it into a spreadsheet.
One of the reasons we started forcing forehand was that we noticed forehands were several percentage points lower than backhands, though at some point we realized that some or all of that difference is due to higher-percentage dumps being almost always backhands. Also stats brought self-awareness and accountability. Nothing says, "Maybe I don't got that throw" more than a 4 for 16 in the stat book.
that's awesome, thanks for sharing.
it's funny that while we have tons of data now that we didn't have then (and tons of video to collect that data), one thing i've never really seen elsewhere is a breakdown of forehands vs backhands (vs other). lots of cool stuff you can do if you track all those details for individual throws (was it a break throw? etc) but these days we're spending more time focused on the video review. would be fun to go through and count these stats though
Fun, sure, but useful? The 4 for 16 guy's response to being shown this was, "stats are stupid". Another guy had more like a 10:1 bh/fh ratio but the stats just acknowledged what we all knew and he didn't work on his forehand or look to throw it more. For me, what helped was the forced introspection. I looked back at each turnover and realized a lot of them were just dumb or risky but not that useful so I tried to remove them (though sometimes they still pop up because I don't play enough to keep that part of my brain at a top level).
Anyway, back to hammers. Another benefit I don't think LT pointed out is that some of them get there quicker and give the D less time to reset.
The Austin Sol would be super interesting to study for this too. More one-throw field reversals in general!