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 |
Albert Parker
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^Yes had read that and wondered how that was the case. Treloar and Sidebottom's average the past 2 years would have been top 10% amongst mids I would expect. Joel Selwood also rated as above average, rather than Elite was a surprise.
Not sure how they arrive at these classifications
_________________
One team, one dream - the Pies and this year's premiership |
|
|
|
 |
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The statisticians are embarrassing themselves with their over-reach, now. They should stick to counting things and leave people who understand the game to identify the good players. |
|
|
|
|
qldmagpie67
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Albert Parker wrote: | ^Yes had read that and wondered how that was the case. Treloar and Sidebottom's average the past 2 years would have been top 10% amongst mids I would expect. Joel Selwood also rated as above average, rather than Elite was a surprise.
Not sure how they arrive at these classifications |
It's funny as champion data themshelves rated Treloar the 9th best player in ranking points but not classed elite ?
Not surprised by Pendles at all Howe the past 2 years has been fantastic so not surprised there but Crisp ?
I thought Grundy may have rated elite in his position surely his 2017 was that among true ruckman.
I've said for ages we have 1 and only one truely elite player and that's Pendles
We need other players to become or push closer to being elite for us to be a true premiership threat
As for p4S comments about statisticians embarrassing themselves I don't agree.
It's how the stats are interrupted as we've debated during this thread.
Simply put if Pendles hadn't missed 6 or 7 games he wins yet another Copeland
As I said stats don't always tell the full or true story in regards to a players role within the team. His role may change from year to year and that could affect there stats but doesn't reflect there role within the team.
I know P4S will push for Sidey to be elite and in his eyes maybe he is but in my eyes he isn't but neither are Howe or Crisp or Treloar or any other magpie player with the exception of maybe Grundy
If you listen to TV commentators there's around 8000 elit players in the comp as anyone who has a remotely decent game gets talked up big time it makes good TV but really isn't accurate
It's all subjective |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| qldmagpie67 wrote: | | Albert Parker wrote: | ^Yes had read that and wondered how that was the case. Treloar and Sidebottom's average the past 2 years would have been top 10% amongst mids I would expect. Joel Selwood also rated as above average, rather than Elite was a surprise.
Not sure how they arrive at these classifications |
It's funny as champion data themshelves rated Treloar the 9th best player in ranking points but not classed elite ?
Not surprised by Pendles at all Howe the past 2 years has been fantastic so not surprised there but Crisp ?
I thought Grundy may have rated elite in his position surely his 2017 was that among true ruckman.
I've said for ages we have 1 and only one truely elite player and that's Pendles
... |
Yes, that occurred to me too. From the ("ratings-explained") link I gave on the first page, we see the positions are as follows.
| Quote: | Key forward: Plays predominantly as a tall marking target in the forward line ...
Small-medium forward: Plays predominantly in the forward half of the ground but with more freedom than a key forward ...
Midfielder: Spends the majority of time playing on the ball or on the wing ...
Midfielder-forward: Splits time equally between the forward line and the midfield. Often lines up on the half-forward flank but plays a significant amount of time in the midfield ...
Key defenders: Plays on opposition key forwards with the primary role of nullifying his opponent ...
Small-medium defender: Plays a role on opposition small-medium forwards and usually helps create play from the backline ...
Ruck: Has the primary role of competing for hit-outs at a stoppage ... |
They give Zorko (as well as Gray) as an example of a mid-forward. Thus, on the list in QM67's opening post, Treloar is 9th with, it seems, 3 non-midfielders ahead of him, which would then mean 6th in the midfielder category. From this, it appears that they must have categorized fewer than 60 players in the competition as midfielders, so Treloar doesn't make the top 10%, which is the criterion for "elite". That would be not much more than 3 players on average per club. If all that's correct, it's kind of interesting that it's not more. Is it true (for example) that most wingmen are now not permanently so, but rotating between wing and half-forward? (For us, for example, WHE and Sidebottom??) But if Zorko is actually now classified as pure mid (i.e. if the link text is out of date) then Treoloar is 7th on the list and there need to be fewer than 70 midfielders for it all to be consistent.
I wonder how they deal with changing positions (according to their own assessment of position). I wonder whether that helped Crisp slip through the cracks into "elite" status. It could be he was classified as a midfielder in 2016, but a small-medium defender in 2017, and was in the top 10% of the latter category because they didn't do anything to adjust for the presumed boost to his numbers from the midfield time in 2016.
If we think about possible total numbers in that vein, maybe there are not much more than two ruckmen on average per club, and Grundy was not in their top three and thus not labelled "elite". Let's see... I'm now looking at the listed players (in the most recent ["true-elites"] link), and I see only McEvoy, Goldstein, & Nic Nat... Yeah, it seems to be the case. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| qldmagpie67 wrote: | | Albert Parker wrote: | ^Yes had read that and wondered how that was the case. Treloar and Sidebottom's average the past 2 years would have been top 10% amongst mids I would expect. Joel Selwood also rated as above average, rather than Elite was a surprise.
Not sure how they arrive at these classifications |
It's funny as champion data themshelves rated Treloar the 9th best player in ranking points but not classed elite ?
Not surprised by Pendles at all Howe the past 2 years has been fantastic so not surprised there but Crisp ?
I thought Grundy may have rated elite in his position surely his 2017 was that among true ruckman.
I've said for ages we have 1 and only one truely elite player and that's Pendles
We need other players to become or push closer to being elite for us to be a true premiership threat
As for p4S comments about statisticians embarrassing themselves I don't agree.
It's how the stats are interrupted as we've debated during this thread.
Simply put if Pendles hadn't missed 6 or 7 games he wins yet another Copeland
As I said stats don't always tell the full or true story in regards to a players role within the team. His role may change from year to year and that could affect there stats but doesn't reflect there role within the team.
I know P4S will push for Sidey to be elite and in his eyes maybe he is but in my eyes he isn't but neither are Howe or Crisp or Treloar or any other magpie player with the exception of maybe Grundy
If you listen to TV commentators there's around 8000 elit players in the comp as anyone who has a remotely decent game gets talked up big time it makes good TV but really isn't accurate
It's all subjective |
I’m not commenting on anything other than the ridiculous suggestion that one can identify “elite” players statistically. The stats are whatever they are - the over-reach lies in pretending that one can determine the standing of a player statistically. If one looks at the player comparison data, eg, it’s obvious that the stats of the players that we know are or were great are not much different from the stats of average or poor players. There are probably a couple of exceptions, such as goalkicking and marking (overall - not “contested”). I have, I think, jokingly put up player comparisons between Tommy Langdon and Peter Daicos and Tommy Langdon and Guy McKenna in the past to try to illustrate the point. Yes, I think Langdon is a first-22 player but no, of course I don’t think he comes near Daicos or Guy McKenna.
To take 2 pertinent examples discussed in this thread, Treloar is obviously a fine player but he is not in the top 10. The anomaly arises because some days when he isn’t really influencing the game, he still works his butt off and keeps getting to the contest and scrambling out another handball. If he has a 25 disposal game with 16 kicks, he’s probably done well, whereas there have been days when he’s had 11 kicks, 20 handballs - the disposal stat looks average in the first case and “elite” in the second but the second typically reflects a day when our team couldn’t clear the ball from the contest effectively enough often enough. In the same vein, I don’t think too many people doubt that Sidebottom was best on ground against Brisbane the day he tore Beams a new one and had about 19 disposals before he went off injured. Yet, that was, “statistically”, an average game.
What we do know, irrespective of whether they are “elite” or not, is that if all our guys played their roles as well as Grundy, Pendlebury, Treloar and Sidebottom, Collingwood would be an unbackable favourite for the flag. Unfortunately, we haven’t in recent seasons consistently fielded a team with more than about 15 good-average or better players. Too many weak links kills a team in our game. The other thing that kills teams is players who star all season and then play poorly in finals. A couple of those cost us badly a few times over the years. More pointedly, it’s the reason I rate players who turn up when it matters and am sceptical about those who don’t. Our present obsession with stats, of course, reflects that we haven’t had much opportunity recently to assess whether guys stood up for us when it mattered - because it’s a very long time since we played a game that mattered. Still, Pendlebury, Thomas, Sidebottom and Swan all did that on occasion. It’s why they’ll be remembered and other players who take the soft option, racking up possessions in poor teams, won’t.
Anyway, the Reigning Club Champion and Vice Captain has about another 200 games in him, yet, so there will be plenty of time to consider Sidey’s standing in the future. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | qldmagpie67 wrote: | ...
As for p4S comments about statisticians embarrassing themselves I don't agree.
It's how the stats are interrupted as we've debated during this thread.
... |
I’m not commenting on anything other than the ridiculous suggestion that one can identify “elite” players statistically. The stats are whatever they are - the over-reach lies in pretending that one can determine the standing of a player statistically. If one looks at the player comparison data, eg, it’s obvious that the stats of the players that we know are or were great are not much different from the stats of average or poor players. There are probably a couple of exceptions, such as goalkicking and marking (overall - not “contested”). I have, I think, jokingly put up player comparisons between Tommy Langdon and Peter Daicos and Tommy Langdon and Guy McKenna in the past to try to illustrate the point. Yes, I think Langdon is a first-22 player but no, of course I don’t think he comes near Daicos or Guy McKenna.
To take 2 pertinent examples discussed in this thread, Treloar is obviously a fine player but he is not in the top 10. The anomaly arises because some days when he isn’t really influencing the game, he still works his butt off and keeps getting to the contest and scrambling out another handball. If he has a 25 disposal game with 16 kicks, he’s probably done well, whereas there have been days when he’s had 11 kicks, 20 handballs - the disposal stat looks average in the first case and “elite” in the second but the second typically reflects a day when our team couldn’t clear the ball from the contest effectively enough often enough.
... |
Much can be said about this, but for starters let me say that, no, statistically Langdon won't look good compared with McKenna. QM67 quoted in the past the goals conceded per game, which apparently was startlingly high for Tommy.
And your example of Treloar suggests how one could use stats badly, which is not the same as showing that it's impossible to use stats well (and is not how their ratings, however good or bad, were determined --- see previous links for that). |
|
|
|
|
qldmagpie67
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | qldmagpie67 wrote: | | Albert Parker wrote: | ^Yes had read that and wondered how that was the case. Treloar and Sidebottom's average the past 2 years would have been top 10% amongst mids I would expect. Joel Selwood also rated as above average, rather than Elite was a surprise.
Not sure how they arrive at these classifications |
It's funny as champion data themshelves rated Treloar the 9th best player in ranking points but not classed elite ?
Not surprised by Pendles at all Howe the past 2 years has been fantastic so not surprised there but Crisp ?
I thought Grundy may have rated elite in his position surely his 2017 was that among true ruckman.
I've said for ages we have 1 and only one truely elite player and that's Pendles
We need other players to become or push closer to being elite for us to be a true premiership threat
As for p4S comments about statisticians embarrassing themselves I don't agree.
It's how the stats are interrupted as we've debated during this thread.
Simply put if Pendles hadn't missed 6 or 7 games he wins yet another Copeland
As I said stats don't always tell the full or true story in regards to a players role within the team. His role may change from year to year and that could affect there stats but doesn't reflect there role within the team.
I know P4S will push for Sidey to be elite and in his eyes maybe he is but in my eyes he isn't but neither are Howe or Crisp or Treloar or any other magpie player with the exception of maybe Grundy
If you listen to TV commentators there's around 8000 elit players in the comp as anyone who has a remotely decent game gets talked up big time it makes good TV but really isn't accurate
It's all subjective |
I’m not commenting on anything other than the ridiculous suggestion that one can identify “elite” players statistically. The stats are whatever they are - the over-reach lies in pretending that one can determine the standing of a player statistically. If one looks at the player comparison data, eg, it’s obvious that the stats of the players that we know are or were great are not much different from the stats of average or poor players. There are probably a couple of exceptions, such as goalkicking and marking (overall - not “contested”). I have, I think, jokingly put up player comparisons between Tommy Langdon and Peter Daicos and Tommy Langdon and Guy McKenna in the past to try to illustrate the point. Yes, I think Langdon is a first-22 player but no, of course I don’t think he comes near Daicos or Guy McKenna.
To take 2 pertinent examples discussed in this thread, Treloar is obviously a fine player but he is not in the top 10. The anomaly arises because some days when he isn’t really influencing the game, he still works his butt off and keeps getting to the contest and scrambling out another handball. If he has a 25 disposal game with 16 kicks, he’s probably done well, whereas there have been days when he’s had 11 kicks, 20 handballs - the disposal stat looks average in the first case and “elite” in the second but the second typically reflects a day when our team couldn’t clear the ball from the contest effectively enough often enough. In the same vein, I don’t think too many people doubt that Sidebottom was best on ground against Brisbane the day he tore Beams a new one and had about 19 disposals before he went off injured. Yet, that was, “statistically”, an average game.
What we do know, irrespective of whether they are “elite” or not, is that if all our guys played their roles as well as Grundy, Pendlebury, Treloar and Sidebottom, Collingwood would be an unbackable favourite for the flag. Unfortunately, we haven’t in recent seasons consistently fielded a team with more than about 15 good-average or better players. Too many weak links kills a team in our game. The other thing that kills teams is players who star all season and then play poorly in finals. A couple of those cost us badly a few times over the years. More pointedly, it’s the reason I rate players who turn up when it matters and am sceptical about those who don’t. Our present obsession with stats, of course, reflects that we haven’t had much opportunity recently to assess whether guys stood up for us when it mattered - because it’s a very long time since we played a game that mattered. Still, Pendlebury, Thomas, Sidebottom and Swan all did that on occasion. It’s why they’ll be remembered and other players who take the soft option, racking up possessions in poor teams, won’t.
Anyway, the Reigning Club Champion and Vice Captain has about another 200 games in him, yet, so there will be plenty of time to consider Sidey’s standing in the future. |
P4S we actually agree on this. I started this thread to simply illustrate what the commentators and so called footy experts like King always ramble on with quoting champion data.
I highlighted the faults of the system the way I see it being the changing roles players play over what they call the 40 game rolling cycle.
Stats only ever tell part of the story and can be twisted or viewed many different ways.
The Langdon stat for one is interesting because does the goals charged against him come from his direct opponent at the bounce of the ball ? What happens if that attacking player is handed over due to our positioning of our defenders to suit our team ? I've seen many times players work inside and outside the forward 50 and defenders often hand over that assignment to a different defender so which player is charged with a goal,given away under those circumstances ?
Look at it this way if the swans play tigers and Rance is on Franklin deep inside 50 when Franklin goes on those long leads up to the wing Rance doesnt follow him he stays inside the defensive 50 playing his role. Is Rance charged with Franklin kicking a goal from 60 out ?
Would I prefer to have Tom Mitchell getting 50 touches or Sidey getting 25 ? Sidey every day of the week because Mitchell's 50 won't hurt you were Sidey getting 25 can hurt you a dozen times for various reasons but stats show Mitchell is rewarded for those 50 more handsomely than a 25 touch game in most instances
Grundy for mine is an elite big man after 2017.
Pendles is elite
Wells could be if he ever plays enough games
Treloar isn't yet his disposal is to up and down at times
Sidey has moments but his consistency stops him short of elite.
Howe has become an elite intercept mark but not an elite player |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| qldmagpie67 wrote: | ...
P4S we actually agree on this. I started this thread to simply illustrate what the commentators and so called footy experts like King always ramble on with quoting champion data.
I highlighted the faults of the system the way I see it being the changing roles players play over what they call the 40 game rolling cycle.
...
Would I prefer to have Tom Mitchell getting 50 touches or Sidey getting 25 ? Sidey every day of the week because Mitchell's 50 won't hurt you were Sidey getting 25 can hurt you a dozen times for various reasons but stats show Mitchell is rewarded for those 50 more handsomely than a 25 touch game in most instances
... |
Their Equity Ratings system is supposed to judge that sort of comparison (and the Treloar scenario P4S raised). From the link on the first page (where Swanny is their whipping boy rather than Mitchell)...
| Quote: | ... But rather than his score being a simple tally of his possessions, marks, tackles, hit-outs, free-kicks and scores, his performance is measured using a system called Equity Ratings. The system determines where and how a player influences a contest and whether the player's effort then results in a positive result for his team. Equity Ratings includes what coaches love to describe as "pressure acts". As a result, players are rewarded for interrupting opposition passages of play as well as setting up scores for their own team.
Players who consistently produce positive contributions are rewarded more highly than players with a high volume of stats. As an example, a 20-disposal game by Cyril Rioli, where 17 disposals are positive and only one is negative, can have the same impact as a 40-disposal game by Dane Swan, where 25 are positive and nine are negative.
|
How well it does so is the question, not whether it blindly ignores effect on the score. |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'm thinking some of Mitchell's 50 stats did hurt us that day, one in particular was a goal he kicked. The jester that Treloar directed at Mitchell wasn't at the goal he kicked, but from memory one of his useless handballs. Buckley's after match comments about Mitchell were more about the fact that he had him under our control and he wasn't a match winner for them. It doesn't mean he wasn't Hawthorn's best player. I'm sure he got 5 votes in the coaches award.
Certain players break the game open and destroy an opposition side. We've had our problems in the past with players like Bontempelli, who if it wasn't for him, we might have beaten the Bulldogs. Those are the players you admire because they bring out their best against you and they set the mark you aspire to if you want to get better. You don't need a stat sheet to tell you who those players are. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ I don't think Buckley should have said that, however innocently intended.
On player rankings, I don't imagine they'd be all that useful for actual game strategy and coaching, but only for list management. (e.g. "Who should we recruit? Who can we trade? How much should we pay them?")
Of course, it's different for the AFL draft, where the clubs are ranking all the kids somehow. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
|
|
|
|
Born to Pie
Born to Pie
Joined: 20 Sep 2011
Location: Tolga FNQ
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Statistically speaking maybe Dave, however an elite list missing a few, like a half decent 18 (to name a few) of the following that might be considered elite:
D. Beams
B. Gibbs
M. Murphy
P. Cripps
Z. Merrett
D. Heppell
J. Selwood
J. Kelly
D. Shiel
T. Mitchell
M. Gawn
B. Brown
O. Wines
T. Cotchin
S. Ross
J. Billings
A. Gaff
M. Bontempelli
In the end it's just a list!
_________________
In the end, it's not going to matter how many breaths you took, but how many moments took your breath away |
|
|
|
|
MagpieBat
Joined: 27 Nov 2010
Location: Brooding in a cave... somewhere... maybe...
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Reminder: these are a list of players who are elite by position, not by actual talent or accomplishment. And by elite, they mean "in the top 10% of the competition" by that position. Often gets forgotten.
On the other hand, like most things in this game, they are an indicator of something, not a predictor or talisman of everything.
The ranked list of 18 clubs:
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/01/31/champion-data-ranks-your-club's-list-for-2018/
_________________
I am vengeance. I am the night. I am MagpieBat. |
|
|
|
|
qldmagpie67
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MagpieBat wrote: | Reminder: these are a list of players who are elite by position, not by actual talent or accomplishment. And by elite, they mean "in the top 10% of the competition" by that position. Often gets forgotten.
On the other hand, like most things in this game, they are an indicator of something, not a predictor or talisman of everything.
The ranked list of 18 clubs:
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/01/31/champion-data-ranks-your-club's-list-for-2018/ |
Bat sir the link has gone missing ?
Did P4S steal it because it didn't rank Sidey the greatest pie ever ??? |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MB’s link doesn’t work but if you search Champion Data on the SEN site, it’s one of the early results. The list tends to reinforce the idiocy of the calculations being performed. For example, there are players who aren’t in their team’s best 22 in the view of their own selection panel who are allegedly “elite”. Goldstein and Daniel Menzel are examples. There are other players that do one thing well enough but wouldn’t even be discussed by sensible people if they were up for trade, like Daniel Rich. There are probably others in both categories but life is too short to assess such a silly list name by name. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
