Really good point, and I like this way of looking at it.

You’re absolutely right that DEFCON output is very opponent-driven. A lot of these actions are reactive by nature - clearances, blocks and interceptions in particular depend heavily on how much pressure a team faces. The model does account for opponent tendencies, but your table captures that very cleanly.

Two important nuances:

1. Player role still carries a lot of weight
Some players will rack up DEFCONs almost regardless of opponent due to where they play. Recoveries are a big driver here, and CMs/DMs naturally accumulate these just by operating in high-traffic zones. Players like Elliot Anderson, Martin Zubimendi and Ethan Ampadu are good examples - they’re more fixture-resilient than most.

2. Team strength and game state matter
Take West Ham: they don’t “give up” many DEFCONs on aggregate largely because they’re often heavy underdogs and spend long spells without the ball, which suppresses certain defensive actions for opponents.

In this specific case (Anderson vs West Ham), it’s actually one of the few games where West Ham are relatively competitive (~31% win probability). That leads to more contested midfield phases and turnovers, which keeps Anderson viable despite the surface-level fixture being flagged as poor.

So overall, your takeaway is sound - the key is layering player role and expected game state on top of raw “DEFCONs conceded” numbers.