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 |
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^^^
Judd is really keen on this idea. He talked about it at some length on Footy Classified just then. Apparently, the greatest increase in TWI in 2017 was for Richmond, and the greatest decrease for Collingwood. Pressed about Carlton by the other panelists, he said they now needed stability.
https://www.9now.com.au/footy-classified/2018/episode-6 [around 30:34-33:15]:
2018
Highest TWI increase/decrease: WCE/Port Adelaide +14.59%/-13.29%
Since 2000 (established clubs)
Lowest/Highest ave. TWI: Carlton/Geelong |
|
|
|
 |
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | ... | Quote: | ...
There are two particular examples that Darwin cites as irrefutable proof of his theory of cohesion.
One is Manchester United's famous Class of 92 – a group of unremarkable pimply teenagers that included David Beckham. As kids they got thumped by Leeds United in the FA Youth Cup.
"They were just a normal bunch of kids with great attitudes –that became was the most dominant side in the history of the English Premier League"
And Celtic's Lions of Lisbon – a team in which 14 out of the team of 15 were born within 10 miles of its home ground in Glasgow but became European football champions in 1967.
Darwin challenges anyone in the field of sports data to explain how a band of locals could beat a continent.
...
"Was there are some form of amazing footballer going around Glasgow rooting women in the 1940s?"
...
|
|
While cohesion is clearly important, I have no idea why anyone would think Ben Darwin qualified to talk about analytics, and his own words reveal his confusion.
The Class of '92 consisted of: David Beckham, Nicky Butt, Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, Phil and Gary Neville.
Does Darwin really believe that they were not highly skilled individually? He simply does not understand how there can be a concentration of talent like that, so he just ignores it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_M2TouFOA
Darwin's colourful talk about "rooting women" shows his ignorance about how randomness manifests itself. His whole business is thus based on ignorance. The Lions of Lisbon is just a benevolent version of a cancer cluster, a topic that comes up in the news with some regularity.
For example:
"The cancer cluster that attracted the most recent attention was the 2006 Brisbane ABC case. Of the 550 female staff, ten women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 1994 and 2006 – a six-fold increase over the number of cases that might have been expected.
The precise cause of those cancers remain uncertain, and the result being due to "chance" is still considered likely. The investigation did, however, lead to the building of a new ABC complex in Brisbane.
...
Uncertainty remains the most common outcome of cancer cluster investigations. A group in the United States examined the outcome of 428 cancer clusters investigations over two decades in that country and found* no real increase in cancer cases above what might have been expected in 87% of "clusters". "
( https://www.cancer.org.au/news/blog/risks/what-are-cancer-clusters.html )
As the American Cancer Society says,
"As with any random pattern, there will be more cases than expected in some spots, and fewer cases than expected in others. The areas with more cases than expected are more likely to be noticed. But many of these will be due to the “bull’s-eye effect” (which is something like drawing a target on the wall after the darts have been thrown). Suppose you took a map of the United States and started drawing circles of different sizes in different locations. You would find that some of the circles would contain more cancers than expected, and some would have less. Some of the circles with more cases might be clusters caused by a single carcinogen, but most would be due to chance.
You can see this more clearly on a smaller scale if you look at balls on a pool table. Even if the balls are randomly distributed, there are sections of the table with more and other sections with fewer balls than the average for the whole table."
( https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/cancer-clusters.html )
* It seems the study referred to was this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3408895/pdf/btxc42-474.pdf |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies2016 wrote: | ...
Speaking of stats ..., C D recently reviewed every stat in their 2018 data and came up with the one single stat that would most likely determine the winner of the game ( at 86.7 % likelihood )
That information becomes a great tool in understanding where the game is headed.
And that stat > METRES GAINED. The team that returns the highest metres gained in the game, wins that match 86.7 % of the time in 2018 ( end of round 11 )
If you want to win the modern game, you need to move the ball FORWARD and QUICKLY. And if you can do that with a high D E, that’s even better 😉 |
| K wrote: | | ^ That's interesting, P16. I'll probably quote & respond ... |
| Pies2016 wrote: | | Cheers K. My only concern is that any Pies player who fails to return over 200 metres + in any future game he plays, will be eternally chastised for life on here. 😉 |
This reminded me of earlier T. Mitchell discussion.
| Johnno75 (26/3/18 ) wrote: | I wonder if any other "coach" would have let Mitchell run riot.
The only difference to last year Mr Buckley was that last year his meters gained was under 400m where as this time it was over 700m so it effectively doubled.
Plus Roos makes another good point what about those handballs he gives to outside mids e.g. Issac Smith that pile up the meters gained.
... |
| K (26/3/18 ) wrote: | | ^ Yes, at the very least you need to look at possession chains and scoring chains. e.g. no one would mind if you handball backwards every single time, if every single time that is to your superboot team-mate who can drill 55m passes. |
30/3/18:
Snappy Tom: Quick hands, huge tank make Mitchell hard to stop
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/tom-mitchell-quick-hands-tank-afl-20180330-p4z74l.html
| Quote: | ...
Clarkson admitted he'd prefer his midfielders to have a more even spread of disposals, but conceded Mitchell's dominance "worked well" on this occasion.
Mitchell's performance reignited the debate about his impact - do his touches hurt the opposition and is it worth tagging him?
Clarkson said one way he judged Mitchell's influence was by examining "whether he is involved in [scoring] chains, and how many of those possessions is part of the catalyst for us to be able to score." By that measure Mitchell is extremely damaging.
Since 2017, Mitchell ranks ninth in the AFL for player involvement in their team's scoring chains. Mitchell has been involved in 30.7 per cent of all of Hawthorn scores, which puts him in the company of Lance Franklin (36.6 per cent, ranked No.1), Josh Kennedy, Nat Fyfe, Dustin Martin and Patrick Dangerfield.
Over the same period, Mitchell is top three in the competition for contested possessions (third), uncontested possessions (second), hardball gets (third), gathers from hitouts (second), first possessions (first) and disposals (first).
...
Mitchell's quick hands and his swift reaction time at stoppages are his biggest asset. He is considered extraordinarily strong in this area by the AFL industry.
"He is just a natural reader of the game, particularly off hands and around stoppage ... he's got a very, very quick reaction time to hunt the ball," Clarkson said.
...
One AFL club analyst told The Sunday Age it was unlikely Mitchell would cop a hard tag because they are rare in modern footy and because inside midfielders don't usually receive such attention.
...
|
TBC |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
21/7/18:
Tom Mitchell: How much is too much?
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/tom-mitchell-how-much-is-too-much-20180721-p4zst9.html
| Quote: | ...
And coaches clearly rate him too, because at the end of round 17 he stood fifth in the AFL coaches’ association player-of-the-year standings.
At face value, he is an out-and-out star of the game.
Yet for all this, Hawthorn’s record when Mitchell has more than 40 disposals, is poor.
...
Since arriving at Waverley, Mitchell has played every game for the Hawks. The side’s record in that time stands at 19 wins, 18 losses, and a draw. Yet when he has more than 40 disposals, it’s two wins, and seven defeats.
How can this be?
...
The opinion on whether Mitchell should be tagged varies from club to club. Just look at the last two rounds. The Western Bulldogs sent Josh Dunkley to Mitchell, and limited him to 27 disposals, but the Hawks won by more than 10 goals. Last weekend the Lions took a much more hands-off approach, and while Mitchell’s numbers were more impressive, the four points went back to the Gabba.
The view at one club is that score involvements should be used as a key statistic when determining whether to tag a player.
Mitchell, for all his “leather poisoning”, ranked only 20th for score involvements among midfielders in the league to the end of round 17.
That in part has to do with where he’s getting the ball.
“Look at his heat map, where he gets his possessions, you’ll find the majority of them are back half,” an assistant coach at an AFL club, who did not want to be named, told The Sunday Age.
“If you’re keeping him in the back half and not hurting you, so be it.”
The coach also noted that 20 disposals from Smith could bring a side twice as many metres gained than 50 from Mitchell. Not that he thought Mitchell should be hung out to dry.
“[Mitchell] is more a handballer and distributor,” the coach said.
“If his role is to distribute the ball, that’s what his role is. He shouldn't be villainised because of the fact he’s playing his role for the team. It says a little bit about Hawthorn’s midfield, not Tom Mitchell.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | ...
... yes, there needs to be a major list cleanout. Easier said than done though. The players are out there though if our recruiters are good enough to find them.
I really hope our recruiters have read an article that appeared in the New York Times about 10 years ago. It was entitled "The No Stats All Star" and was about the recruiting of perceived battler Shane Battier by the Houston Rockets.That article illustrated two things. First, by comparison how bad sports reporting on AFL football is. Second, how the Rockets, a team with very little money to spend identified and recruited a player of seemingly little ability and had that player make an enormous difference to the team. The main lines I remember were about how he was a limited player, how his opponents could never believe that they had played so poorly against him (again) but every team he ever played on had a magical ability to win. The Rockets identified that then got him.Then they started winning. They are out there for us too - we should be the club finding them, not just scrolling through the list of FA's and making a choice from that pool. |
| RudeBoy wrote: | Agree with most of that 5ftwod....except I'm not sure what your last paragraph is alluding too, other than suggesting that we should keep doing what we have done in recruiting 'outliers' like Mihocek, Madgen, Sier and Cox.
... |
| 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | ...
The article that I referred to probably explained it more clearly. The article was about identifying players already in the NBA system that were undervalued, whereas Mihocek, Madgen, Sier and Cox are from outside the AFL system. Hence, my comment about not just looking at FA's but being far more diligent than that. I am not saying that our recruiters are not doing that already but they haven't been successful. Hawthorn is a club that seems to have the best record of recruiting non top tier players from other clubs then they develop. Apart from Crisp and Dunn I can't think of that occurring recently with us. |
| K wrote: | ...
I read that article at the time too. You should realize that it's written by Lewis, who is an entertaining but unreliable popular author. I think, if anything, AFL guys have read too much of his stuff --- or at least have read it too uncritically. |
| 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | ...
I don't know whether your comments about the author Lewis are true or not but I don't see any criticism of the article that I referred to as being justified. It is factual,well written, and correct. And even if it was all BS, the underlying premise of identifying and obtaining the undervalued player is what all recruiters should be doing. |
Here is the article:
The No-Stats All-Star
By MICHAEL LEWIS FEB. 13, 2009
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html
Perhaps I'll reread it some time, but my main memory of it from (coming up to) a decade ago was the statement that, with the clock about to run down and the ball in hand in the back court, basketballers would selfishly not take the shot, because they knew it would likely miss and slightly drag down their shooting percentages and market value. Instead, they might pretend to take the shot, delaying enough so that the ball release happened after the buzzer.
I didn't mean that the article was "all BS", just that I'd prefer to be able to rely on an article to be (roughly) entirely accurate. If my life depended on it, I wouldn't want to be unsure what the author embellished or either conveniently or carelessly overlooked. We should now be able to check the main contentions of this particular article, though, because we have the benefit of over 9 years' hindsight and can (e.g.) look up the whole of Battier's career if we want to. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | Pies2016 wrote: | ...
Speaking of stats ..., C D recently reviewed every stat in their 2018 data and came up with the one single stat that would most likely determine the winner of the game ( at 86.7 % likelihood )
That information becomes a great tool in understanding where the game is headed.
And that stat > METRES GAINED. The team that returns the highest metres gained in the game, wins that match 86.7 % of the time in 2018 ( end of round 11 )
If you want to win the modern game, you need to move the ball FORWARD and QUICKLY. And if you can do that with a high D E, that’s even better 😉 |
| K wrote: | | ^ That's interesting, P16. I'll probably quote & respond ... |
| Pies2016 wrote: | | Cheers K. My only concern is that any Pies player who fails to return over 200 metres + in any future game he plays, will be eternally chastised for life on here. 😉 |
This reminded me of earlier T. Mitchell discussion.
| Johnno75 (26/3/18 ) wrote: | I wonder if any other "coach" would have let Mitchell run riot.
The only difference to last year Mr Buckley was that last year his meters gained was under 400m where as this time it was over 700m so it effectively doubled.
Plus Roos makes another good point what about those handballs he gives to outside mids e.g. Issac Smith that pile up the meters gained.
... |
| K (26/3/18 ) wrote: | | ^ Yes, at the very least you need to look at possession chains and scoring chains. e.g. no one would mind if you handball backwards every single time, if every single time that is to your superboot team-mate who can drill 55m passes. |
30/3/18:
Snappy Tom: Quick hands, huge tank make Mitchell hard to stop
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/tom-mitchell-quick-hands-tank-afl-20180330-p4z74l.html
| Quote: | ...
Clarkson admitted he'd prefer his midfielders to have a more even spread of disposals, but conceded Mitchell's dominance "worked well" on this occasion.
Mitchell's performance reignited the debate about his impact - do his touches hurt the opposition and is it worth tagging him?
Clarkson said one way he judged Mitchell's influence was by examining "whether he is involved in [scoring] chains, and how many of those possessions is part of the catalyst for us to be able to score." By that measure Mitchell is extremely damaging.
Since 2017, Mitchell ranks ninth in the AFL for player involvement in their team's scoring chains. Mitchell has been involved in 30.7 per cent of all of Hawthorn scores, which puts him in the company of Lance Franklin (36.6 per cent, ranked No.1), Josh Kennedy, Nat Fyfe, Dustin Martin and Patrick Dangerfield.
Over the same period, Mitchell is top three in the competition for contested possessions (third), uncontested possessions (second), hardball gets (third), gathers from hitouts (second), first possessions (first) and disposals (first).
...
Mitchell's quick hands and his swift reaction time at stoppages are his biggest asset. He is considered extraordinarily strong in this area by the AFL industry.
"He is just a natural reader of the game, particularly off hands and around stoppage ... he's got a very, very quick reaction time to hunt the ball," Clarkson said.
...
One AFL club analyst told The Sunday Age it was unlikely Mitchell would cop a hard tag because they are rare in modern footy and because inside midfielders don't usually receive such attention.
...
|
TBC |
there is a better stat than this to measure success. The team that scores the most points wins 100% of all games played.
seriously, these stats are all dumb. of course the team that wins is likely to have out gained the opponent. Actually it shows that meters gained isnt the be all and end all. You can still win 14% of games even if you get outgained by your opponent.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Just to expand on what E says, it’s goals you stop at the other end of the ground that are just as important. We stop the Sheed goal in the GF, or Cox kicks the goal instead of a point in the last quarter. Either way we win they lose, or they win we lose. That’s high level intensive competitive sport for you. The stats are really for people who pretend they know something about the game of footy. They don’t. The coaches do. Malthouse was right walking out on post match interviews. The draft has evened out the competition on skill level. It all comes down to mental edge through experience and mental application and following the coach’s instructions that delivers the club a premiership. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| And then what happened. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MatthewBoydFanClub wrote: | | ... The stats are really for people who pretend they know something about the game of footy. They don’t. The coaches do. ... |
It's pretty well documented that e.g. Clarkson cares a lot about stats. (NB maybe does too. Does he?) MM probably didn't, and it's probably because he had age-related biases. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E wrote: | | Quote: | | <very long quote, most of it not related to the comment> |
<short comment>
|
| E (previously) wrote: | | Based on the posts above (which I was careful not to "quote" - credit please mods) it sounds like ... |
Cough, cough, ...
* On E's comment, see below. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K. Jackson, CD (28/3/17) wrote: |
Any single metric can be irrelevant when considered in isolation. Metres Gained gives context to a player’s disposal count. It doesn’t take into account quality, but it still adds value. Disposal count + Metres Gained + Retention/Efficiency will give you a better idea of a player’s impact. Better yet, take into account where the player won the ball, how they won it, the end result and how that influenced the position of the team. That’s essentially how AFL Player Ratings work. NBA is the only other sport with a comparable system (EPV). Full disclosure: I created the system.
Clubs look at Metres Gained at chain level to measure the effectiveness of ball movement. eg. Defensive 50 stoppage chains: metres gained minus reply metres (what the opposition gained after a turnover).
Player numbers are also used by clubs, as the raw Metres Gained number, Effective Metres Gained (effective disposals only), Assisted Metres Gained (metres gained by teammates after you get the ball to them uncontested), and Net Metres Gained (Metres Gained + Assisted Metres Gained).
Metres Gained is also measured as metres gained towards goal, not just distance of kick, so you can lose metres by kicking/handballing backwards or sideways.
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | ...
Hence, my comment about not just looking at FA's but being far more diligent than that. I am not saying that our recruiters are not doing that already but they haven't been successful. Hawthorn is a club that seems to have the best record of recruiting non top tier players from other clubs then they develop. Apart from Crisp and Dunn I can't think of that occurring recently with us. |
| RudeBoy wrote: | | ... I recently heard Malthouse point out that not a single team using that recruiting method has won a trophy. It seems to be a good approach for making a team competitive, but not good enough to win the main prize. |
| K wrote: | | ... Mick's claim is interesting when you consider Hawthorn won 3 premierships in a row... |
| MightyMagpie wrote: | ...
It was originally Sandy Alderson at the A’s, followed by Billy Beane at the As. When Beane accepted and then rejected the BoSox offer they hired Theo Epstein who brought the same pretty simplistic economic concept (albeit he had a much bigger budget than the A’s) of buying under-recognised and therefore underpriced assets. Buy low and sell high. It isn’t a recruiting strategy as such it is about maximising scarce (particularly in a salary capped AFL) economic resources. ...
You can't really fault the logic of the concept- the tricky bit is correctly identifying what assets (players) are undervalued in the marketplace and correctly assessing the values.
The A’s will always need a healthy dose of luck to compete with the much bigger budget Yankees and BoSox in the AL a East. It’s different in AFL because there is a salary cap.
... |
What was the story behind the flirtation between Beane and the Sox? The Red Sox seems a much more solid example, because they actually won, and have done so repeatedly, after such a long drought. There are stories out there claiming that Lewis basically made up Beane -- not that a person by that name does not exist, of course, but that Lewis mythologized him for the sake of a good yarn. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Once Again, Billy Beane's (Stuff) Doesn't Work In The Playoffs ...
Oct 4, 2018
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybeach/2018/10/04/once-again-billy-beanes-stuff-doesnt-work-in-the-playoffs-for-the-hard-luck-oakland-athletics/
| J. Beach wrote: |
When Athletics general manager Billy Beane declared his “…(stuff) doesn’t work in the playoffs” while speaking to ... Michael Lewis in 2002, it sounded like a moment of self-pity from a tortured genius.
Turns out Beane was prescient.
The mind-boggling postseason misfortunes of Beane’s Athletics continued Wednesday night, when the Yankees ended Oakland’s season by cruising to a 7-2 win in the AL wild card game.
Since this was just a one-game playoff, there were no series leads to blow for the Athletics, as they did with 2-0 leads in the best-of-five AL Division Series in 2001 and 2003 and with 2-1 leads in the ALDS in 2002 and 2013. And since the Yankees went ahead for good ... before recording an out against “opener” Liam Hendriks, there was no big advantage to blow in the wild card game, a la in 2014, when the Athletics were four outs away from victory with a four-run lead before falling to the Royals in 12 innings.
And at least an Oakland player didn’t get tagged out at home plate as the potential tying run because a Yankees shortstop streaked across the field and back-handed an errant cutoff throw to the catcher. Can you imagine that?
But what there was, for the eighth straight winner-take-all game dating back to 2000, was heartbreak for the Athletics, another night in which all of their excellence over 162 games — their 97 wins were tied for the second-most by a second wild card team since the wild card game was implemented in 2012 — didn’t matter in the smallest yet most important sample size of all.
...
It never is their day in October and there’s no logical explanation why. The Athletics have tried everything, from bludgeoning offenses to dominant starting pitching to, this year, a bullpen so deep and effective it was relied upon for the entire game.
...
So how are the constantly retooling Athletics 188 games over .500 since 2000 yet the winners of just one postseason series (the 2006 AL Division Series)? How have other small-market teams, or teams that act as if they’re in a small market, such as the Royals, Rockies, Rays and Mets made World Series runs while the Athletics haven’t even gotten to the doorstep in more than a decade?
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I can imagine all sorts of things like that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
