Top 50 players 2017
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
qldmagpie67
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Just for fun name the 4 Collingwood players who have finished in the top 10 in voting for the AFLPA MVP voting since it became the Leigh Matthews trophy in 2002 ? |
|
|
|
 |
Born to Pie
Born to Pie
Joined: 20 Sep 2011
Location: Tolga FNQ
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It's a ranking system but what is it worth?
In the top 100 Collingwood has 7 players Richmond has 4. We are better than the premiers?
In the top 200 Collingwood has 9 players Richmond has 9. We are the equal of the premiers?
In the top 300 Collingwood has 15 players Richmond has 18. We are worse than the premiers and their on field team is better than ours according to rankings.
In the top 400 Collingwood has 24 players Richmond has 20. We are better than the premiers? We can field a team including inter-change, overall better than the premiers!
We can pick a whole team of better "rated" players than the reigning premiers, but we finished 13th.
It is what it is, the "team" still greater than the individual.
A champion team will always beat a team of champions
_________________
In the end, it's not going to matter how many breaths you took, but how many moments took your breath away |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
/\/\/\
Well, introducing Richmond just muddies the waters, I think. For example, I've stated elsewhere my belief that they have a huge Fab Four and not much else.
But if you want to compare all the teams like that, probably the best way to do so would be to take the actual teams (the 22 players on each side) that play in a game and sum their individual ratings. If the sums for the two competing teams are highly predictive of the actual result of the game, that would be a big tick for the ratings. If not, then not. |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| qldmagpie67 wrote: | | Just for fun name the 4 Collingwood players who have finished in the top 10 in voting for the AFLPA MVP voting since it became the Leigh Matthews trophy in 2002 ? |
Just a guess but I will say Buckley, Swan. Burns and Pendlebury. Thomas and Cloke close.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
qldmagpie67
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ronrat wrote: | | qldmagpie67 wrote: | | Just for fun name the 4 Collingwood players who have finished in the top 10 in voting for the AFLPA MVP voting since it became the Leigh Matthews trophy in 2002 ? |
Just a guess but I will say Buckley, Swan. Burns and Pendlebury. Thomas and Cloke close. |
Close Ron you got 3 Buckley Swan & Pendles were no brainers really the last one is harder |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^ DB? |
|
|
|
|
qldmagpie67
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Give the man a prize
Pendles Buckley Swan Beams it is
All finished inside the top 5 since 2002 |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | | My argument with the champion data is not the data itself but how the data is applied. For instance, if we're talking about Sidey, it all comes down to the coach and the player. Did he do what the coach told him to do on the day? Did he effect what his opponent did on the day? Was the coach happy with his performance after the game? ... |
I think an important point to keep in mind is that the coaches are influenced by the data (to varying extents). Buckley has always given the impression that he cares a lot about data. Doesn't it seem as if he's always going on about some stats in his after-game presser? (It's I guess possible that coaches say stuff they actually think is rubbish to feed the media.) Clarkson reportedly is influenced by data a lot, so it's not per se a problem; in principle, surely it's a good thing. The question is whether he's using appropriate data in an appropriate manner. You may recall we've had an example or two of alleged controversial stat-based arguments being used to justify equally controversial decisions... |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Once you take out the most obvious stats, which is the contested ball numbers (positive or negative and by how much) the rest of the stats are interpretable any number of different ways. For instance, take tackles. After the initial tackles by us and tackles by them, then comes which area of the field did tackles take place and how many missed tackles were there? How clean were the tackles and how many of the tackles went to our advantage. You could go on forever analysing each stat and my guess is each coach puts a different emphasis on particular stats. Buckley is different to Clarkson who is different to Longmire who is different to Ross Lyon. There is no right or wrong application of the stats as far as the coaches go, who have been in the game a long time. The fans are the ones who pick up the stats from the morning paper and then make blanket interpretations of the player performances based on their limited knowledge of the game. That's ok for the fan to have his own opinion of the game, but it's a bit tough on a player, who may be doing everything the coach is asking him to do, but is being jeered by the supporters after the game if we lose. |
|
|
|
|
Geek
geek
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Location: Jacana
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yep.
IIRC they used to just do the ratings over the prior 2 years but they actually mention the last 40 games a player has played. This explains why Martin is ranked below Dangerfield as Martin's 2017 was a real step up for him.
While I'm here and since someone mentioned it earlier, the system that CD uses weights against defenders because it is hard for CD to determine who a player is playing on. Said it themselves. A 35 possession midfielder might be kept to 25 and someone should be in the votes for a blanketing job but the number of players rotating through him makes it impossible for them to accurately tell who did what. CD only has a few people watch a very fast game afterall.
I'd like to see general and tall defenders given better weighting for their work but a lot of what they do just isn't statistical. Now CD has examined thousands of games and developed their formula around "performing this sort of act has this much proportional influence on a game" and then another algorithm that accounts for certain acts being more important at different phases of a game. The first goal in the run that gets the come from behind victory scores better than the guy who kicks a junk time goal for instance.
While spoils and tackles can be counted and points allocated, defending is so much more than this. It's scragging, getting in space, harassing, engaging the forward to allow the 3rd man up. You just don't get stats for much, if any of that and I don't know how they would go about tracking it. They're flat out determining whether a hit out was to advantage or not
I love CD's stats. Clubs do too, considering how many of them actually buy CD's data. It all has to be taken in context, like any stat, but they do a fair job of ranking players' output - even with the issues affecting defenders' scoring |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Geek wrote: |
Yep.
IIRC they used to just do the ratings over the prior 2 years but they actually mention the last 40 games a player has played. ...
...
I love CD's stats. Clubs do too, considering how many of them actually buy CD's data. It all has to be taken in context, like any stat, but they do a fair job of ranking players' output - even with the issues affecting defenders' scoring |
Yeah, I think it's the last 40 games, but only in the last two years (because finals appearances, suspensions and injuries affect how many games most play in those two years [see the quote from their pdf in a previous post]).
I'm guessing every club buys their data, because they have no other choice. Do you know any info on this? I'm curious to know (e.g.) if they get all the data for all the players or only for their own players. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | | Once you take out the most obvious stats, which is the contested ball numbers (positive or negative and by how much) the rest of the stats are interpretable any number of different ways. For instance, take tackles. After the initial tackles by us and tackles by them, then comes which area of the field did tackles take place and how many missed tackles were there? How clean were the tackles and how many of the tackles went to our advantage. You could go on forever analysing each stat and my guess is each coach puts a different emphasis on particular stats. Buckley is different to Clarkson who is different to Longmire who is different to Ross Lyon. There is no right or wrong application of the stats as far as the coaches go, who have been in the game a long time. ... |
Well, they do record not just total tackles but also broken tackles and missed tackles. (Hmm... I would like clarification about whether those two are not just the mirrors of each other, i.e. that a broken tackle for one team is not exactly equivalent to a missed tackle for the other team.)
Actually, one does need to be careful about the definition of contested ball. It's not necessarily the image that first comes to mind.
Some coaches think stats are beneath them. MM was allegedly disdainful of stats. Perhaps that's why he's no longer an AFL coach. You have to keep refreshing your approach if you want to stay in the game into old age.
What you describe sounds more like different game plans. Of course there is no single correct game plan. But by "correct" and "incorrect" use of stats, I mean more that the stat you look at really does mean what you think it means. |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | | Once you take out the most obvious stats, which is the contested ball numbers (positive or negative and by how much) the rest of the stats are interpretable any number of different ways. For instance, take tackles. After the initial tackles by us and tackles by them, then comes which area of the field did tackles take place and how many missed tackles were there? How clean were the tackles and how many of the tackles went to our advantage. You could go on forever analysing each stat and my guess is each coach puts a different emphasis on particular stats. Buckley is different to Clarkson who is different to Longmire who is different to Ross Lyon. There is no right or wrong application of the stats as far as the coaches go, who have been in the game a long time. ... |
Well, they do record not just total tackles but also broken tackles and missed tackles. (Hmm... I would like clarification about whether those two are not just the mirrors of each other, i.e. that a broken tackle for one team is not exactly equivalent to a missed tackle for the other team.)
Actually, one does need to be careful about the definition of contested ball. It's not necessarily the image that first comes to mind.
Some coaches think stats are beneath them. MM was allegedly disdainful of stats. Perhaps that's why he's no longer an AFL coach. You have to keep refreshing your approach if you want to stay in the game into old age.
What you describe sounds more like different game plans. Of course there is no single correct game plan. But by "correct" and "incorrect" use of stats, I mean more that the stat you look at really does mean what you think it means. |
stats are a very important component of assessing performance (it helps to remove biases that might taint perception but have no basis in fact). Identifying which stats are meaningful is even more important (baseball changed as a sport once people realized that there is no difference between a hit and a walk and so on base percentage became much more important than average). However, understanding the limitations of stats is perhaps the most important thing of all in assessing performance.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
/\/\
Indeed, E. Baseball, though, is one of the easiest non-trivial sports from the point of view of data collection and analysis. (The easiest of all would be one-player games, and then two-player --- you and your opponent --- games.) And there's been a huge mythology built up around baseball, largely the result of a particular guy who apparently has a large gift for story-telling but not an equally large desire to let facts get in the way of a good story. Cue movies with Hollywood A-listers, etc. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-03/the-true-elites-which-clubs-have-got-them
| Quote: |
... according to Champion Data's latest rankings.
...
Those in the 'elite' category are classified as the top 10 percent of players in their position over the past two seasons.
...
Marcus Bontempelli hasn't been branded as elite, but instead has been given the tag of 'above average'.
...
Champion Data rated Richmond's list as the ninth best in the competition...
Collingwood
Jeremy Howe
Scott Pendlebury
Jack Crisp
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
