How much longer can Priddis be debated?

[Public Enemy No1]

Thank you. I didn't even bother replying to it.

you mean you got nothing

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Oh you mean its unreliable when it does not suit his agenda and bias

No, it's unreliable because it has some inherent flaws.

 

[Public Enemy No1]

No, it's unreliable because it has some inherent flaws.

Inherent flaws consistent with every player.
Re read his post. He is suggesting these flaws somehow favor Priddis's DE, but is a negative to everyone else.

But but he has a highly biased edited video...lol

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Inherent flaws consistent with every player.
Re read his post. He is suggesting these flaws somehow favor Priddis's DE, but is a negative to everyone else.

But but he has a highly biased edited video...lol

No, he's suggesting that DE is unreliable and giving the example that Priddis has a higher DE than Cotchin, Kennedy etc despite it being obvious to people watching the game that they're better kicks than him.

You seem to be suggesting that if a statistical measure is flawed but treats all players equally then it will still produce correct results. That's just not the case

 

[kranky al]

Inherent flaws consistent with every player.
Re read his post. He is suggesting these flaws somehow favor Priddis's DE, but is a negative to everyone else.

But but he has a highly biased edited video...lol

Please explain in what way its biased.

Am i leaving his good bits out?

A can imagine how it seems that way to a pro priddis person - unfortunately for you - that aint the case - there just isnt that many good bits


But just supposing you arent happy with my video editing - why dont you go to the clubs own editing and watch the whole years highlights video for matt. See how totally underwhelming it is for yourself - watch pendles vid and jjk's vid - and whinge to the eagles about their biased editing


Everyone is editing biased vids of your beloved matt - or matt doesnt do five fifths of heck all.......

 

[ZergMinion]

Inherent flaws consistent with every player.
Re read his post. He is suggesting these flaws somehow favor Priddis's DE, but is a negative to everyone else.

But but he has a highly biased edited video...lol

I'm one of the bigger Priddis fans on this board, and I've never chosen to use the D/E argument vs Cotchin, Kennedy and Dangerfield (despite being a stat junkie and noticing it immediately) because those players do cop a tag pretty often and that does affect their D/E most likely. A kick under extreme pressure is more likely to miss a target. Plus they kick more often and kicks are judged harder against D/E. It's what makes Pendlebury so good. Tagged almost every week, kicks more than he handballs and has a D/E of 76. Phenomenal.

 

[kranky al]

 

[kranky al]

Not sure about Danger, but I have seen a bit of Kennedy, and I am not sure he is much better at disposal. He does have a more penetrating kick, but he handballs to feet, and behind players etc just as much as Priddis in my opinion. If DE counts disposals that raech, but do not advantage the target as effective disposals, and for it to be ineffective it has to go to the opposition or no one?, then Kennedy completely misses the target over a third of the time he gets the ball. Are you arguing the rest of the time it is lace out, sorry, but that just isnt the case.

His better penetration gets him the advantage over Priddis, but despite what you think you see, the difference in disposal between Priddis and Kennedy is minimal.

Oh and heres a collection of josh kennedy goals from around fifty metres or more - please dont ever put him and matt priddis together in a kicking comparo- its embarrassing




Edit:ios8 cut and paste blows goats

 

[The Dodger]

****, I hate this thread. That I keep reading it says something disturbing about me, and that I am going to post in it again is worse.
I do not usually post here as I consider myself a Priddis agnostic.

However, in response to something that keeps coming up. Variously referred to as evidence that other teams do not rate Priddis, such as Lyons sfellowing when asked if he would tag him, and doubts about the correctness of Simpson saying the Hawks put a lot of time into Priddis on the basis that it didn't look like it when they played. Also the comment, he must be crap, they do not tag him argument in general.

There exists an equally valid explanation for all those things rarely mentioned. Priddis is ordinary when in space, he is not a spread and carry player. If any aspect of his game is elite, it is when he is standing at the fall of the ball in congestion. That is, when he is standing with at least 1, and usually 2 or 3 opposition players in touching distance.

I think Lyon sfellowed at the suggestion he would send someone to tag Priddis, when he would basically have to push Freo players out the way just to get to him (in those situations he is at his best).

The time put into Priddis is in working out his positioning, having their inside mids cut his access to the ball, and trying to make sure he isnt first hands on, stopping him getting the ball out when he is. Stopping him laying his 'turtle tackles', when he isnt first hands on. That is, in having their inside mids beat him.
The more a player is a pure inside mid, the less point there is in tagging them. Why tag a player that is doing there work shoulder to shoulder with your inside mids already?

I have no doubt that the Hawks do put a lot of work into Priddis, and that the posters here cannot tell they have done so is why he is rated by the coaches.

Whatever his overall standing in the game and the value of his contribution to the Eagles midfield, coaches do not just let opposition players get the ball in the hope they give it back with poor disposal. Have no doubt they are trying really hard to stop him getting the ball in the first place.

That is a valid argument but it has been countered. That has been my question about it the whole time. If he is as good as everyone believes he is in close you at least try and get a man between him and the ball at stoppages...as a bare minimum. The evidence shows they don't. And in the 1 recent game we have of Cross tagging him he did exactly that and it worked a treat. So my question to you is how dumb do you think all of the other coaches that have not done this are for not doing it? The Simpson / Hawks argument you raise is one I have made based on what I wrote above. You yourself say it would be preventing him to get access to the ball but when you look at 2013 (the last year Simpson was at the Hawks) Priddis was allowed to walk up to stoppages on many occasion without a man and then when Sewell was on him for periods he wouldn't go into the stoppage with him preferring to wait back.

Sydney this year...for 1 qtr did what I thought most teams would. Have a man approach the stoppage with him shoulder to shoulder and then once the ball hits the deck he run off of him and Bird did that for a very limited time. Other than that...

The other coaches can't be that dumb (Buckley & Sanderson aside ) to not have a plan for him can they?

 

[The Dodger]

The sort of comment that is the reason I hate this thread. His disposal efficiency compares well to players that play the same sort of role he does. Priddis disposal gets talked down constantly because it is not great, and as a consequence becomes under rated, like Hurn, who has great disposal gets talked up, and has become over rated.

Priddis' grubber kick in space into our F50 against Essendon would have been considered a efficient disposal. It travelled 40m+ to a contest. Even though he had 3 options and was in space and due to poor skill execution fluffed the kick. But it got to Hill eventually and it was a 50/50 so = efficient kick. Watching the game you knew you had just seen a big play burnt by poor skill but the stats would not have reflected that.

 

[Public Enemy No1]

No, he's suggesting that DE is unreliable and giving the example that Priddis has a higher DE than Cotchin, Kennedy etc despite it being obvious to people watching the game that they're better kicks than him.

You seem to be suggesting that if a statistical measure is flawed but treats all players equally then it will still produce correct results. That's just not the case

Im suggesting that if the flaws or error reading is a constant then the variable (DE stat) is in fact a reliable measure.(actually its fairly basic maths)

Under the exact same criteria Priddis compares favorably with other midfielders.

Im not suggesting its full proof but it is a legitimate stat. It accounts for every minute of every game. Its certaintly more reliable than someone who watches some games with an obvious agenda and bias.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Im suggesting that if the flaws or error reading is a constant then the variable (DE stat) is in fact a reliable measure.(actually its fairly basic maths)

But it's not a constant. The flaw being talked about is that it counts certain disposals, such as high up and under kicks to a contest, as "efficient" even though they're not of great assistance to the team going forward. If a player has a propensity to those sort of disposals then his DE will be overinflated compared with another player that doesn't have the same propensity.

That's actually fairly basic maths.

 

[Public Enemy No1]

But it's not a constant. The flaw being talked about is that it counts certain disposals, such as high up and under kicks to a contest, as "efficient" even though they're not of great assistance to the team going forward. If a player has a propensity to those sort of disposals then his DE will be overinflated compared with another player that doesn't have the same propensity.

That's actually fairly basic maths.

No that's actually a theory based on your logic and opinion

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

No that's actually a theory based on your logic and opinion

Whether it applies to Priddis is a matter of logic and opinion. I'm just explaining the argument to you.

 

[Public Enemy No1]

Whether it applies to Priddis is a matter of logic and opinion. I'm just explaining the argument to you.

I understand the argument, I just don't agree that DE is not a legitimate and reliable stat

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I understand the argument, I just don't agree that DE is not a legitimate and reliable stat

You clearly don't understand the argument then. Or you think that high up and under kicks to a contest are just as good as lace out low passes to a leading forward, because DE treats them the same.

Putting all that aside, surely you can't argue that Priddis is as good a kick of the footy as Dangerfield or Cotchin.

 

[jatz14]

You just got to laugh


So your saying Kennedy, Cotchin and Dangerfield's DE are accurate but Priddis is not ?
Priddis works under a different set of rules does he ?

If Kennedy handballs to a team mates feet it reduces his DE but its different for Priddis ??

I pretty sure every player in the league stats are recorded the same. They are all afforded the same margin of error. Under the EXACT same criteria Priddis DE is better than the players mentioned. Time for you to put your 'Priddis Goggles' on and watch any other inside mid in the game..IT Might be quite educational

How do you tie yourself in knots like that to misinterpret something? I am saying that stats are not the whole story, that Priddis poor disposal IS as much shown in the kicks that are effective as in the kicks that are not. However, stats ARE part of the story. To say that Kennedy can have a worse disposal efficiency than Priddis, yet argue he is much better is bizarre if you look at his games, that argument would need Kennedy to be completely s**t a third of the time and great two thirds.

I will say it again, simpler. The argument that the similarity in DE between a player like Priddis and a player like Kennedy is not the whole story is something I AGREE with. But anti Priddis posters by implication take it further and seem to be saying it is NO part of the story. For this to be true, then Kennedy in the 64% of effective disposals needs to be really precise and reliable, but he isnt, as most would assume given his DE. He handballs at feet, he does quick kicks out of packs at no one in particular, he sits the ball up.

It is you making the argument that a handball at feet by Kennedy does not matter, but makes Priddis a plodder. Kennedy just roosts one forward from a pack, gun, Priddis does it, trade him, you say ignore the DE, stats do not tell the story.

The difference between Priddis and other inside mids in disposal is vastly overstated, and I can say that without being a Priddis fan.

 

[jatz14]

Inherent flaws consistent with every player.
Re read his post. He is suggesting these flaws somehow favor Priddis's DE, but is a negative to everyone else.

But but he has a highly biased edited video...lol

Un ******* believable

 

[jatz14]

Oh and heres a collection of josh kennedy goals from around fifty metres or more - please dont ever put him and matt priddis together in a kicking comparo- its embarrassing




Edit:ios8 cut and paste blows goats

I compared them by saying Kennedy is better, I am not sure how that is emabarrasing, but I also said that the DE stat while flawed, isnt pulled out of someone's a-hole, it does have some basis in fact.

 

[The Dodger]

How do you tie yourself in knots like that to misinterpret something? I am saying that stats are not the whole story, that Priddis poor disposal IS as much shown in the kicks that are effective as in the kicks that are not. However, stats ARE part of the story. To say that Kennedy can have a worse disposal efficiency than Priddis, yet argue he is much better is bizarre if you look at his games, that argument would need Kennedy to be completely s**t a third of the time and great two thirds.

I will say it again, simpler. The argument that the similarity in DE between a player like Priddis and a player like Kennedy is not the whole story is something I AGREE with. But anti Priddis posters by implication take it further and seem to be saying it is NO part of the story. For this to be true, then Kennedy in the 64% of effective disposals needs to be really precise and reliable, but he isnt, as most would assume given his DE. He handballs at feet, he does quick kicks out of packs at no one in particular, he sits the ball up.

It is you making the argument that a handball at feet by Kennedy does not matter, but makes Priddis a plodder. Kennedy just roosts one forward from a pack, gun, Priddis does it, trade him, you say ignore the DE, stats do not tell the story.

The difference between Priddis and other inside mids in disposal is vastly overstated, and I can say that without being a Priddis fan.

Kennedy actually turns it over more than Priddis. He is by no means a better kick at hitting a target, however the kicks he doesn't turn over are damaging. For roughly identical disposals and both usually being the start of the chain Kennedy was involved directly in 8 more goals to his team. But the more interesting thing is that once you take direct turnovers out of it how do you explain Priddis' DE%. He doesn't have the clangers that Kennedy does so he lives somewhere in not turning the ball over but somehow still being efficient with it. Just before someone mentions they count Frees against as a clanger they have very similar frees against stat.

Kennedy had 41 more CP and still had a similar DE. Priddis had 17 more UP and still had a similar DE...its there if you look at the raw figures. Kennedy had more I50's which is probably a harder kick to execute do to the amount of pressure put on that kick. Those are all reasons why his DE could be legitimately worse but it isn't. In the end with those figures he still had 17 more effective disposals and I watched quite a bit of Sydney this year and I dont recall a grubber off a knee in space that went to a teammate. When Kennedy f's up its like Fyfe a direct turnover to the opposition or OOTF.

This is identical when you compare Priddis to Fyfe. He gets more CP, turns it over more but still has the same efficiency as Priddis.

 

[Public Enemy No1]

How do you tie yourself in knots like that to misinterpret something? I am saying that stats are not the whole story, that Priddis poor disposal IS as much shown in the kicks that are effective as in the kicks that are not. However, stats ARE part of the story. To say that Kennedy can have a worse disposal efficiency than Priddis, yet argue he is much better is bizarre if you look at his games, that argument would need Kennedy to be completely s**t a third of the time and great two thirds.

I will say it again, simpler. The argument that the similarity in DE between a player like Priddis and a player like Kennedy is not the whole story is something I AGREE with. But anti Priddis posters by implication take it further and seem to be saying it is NO part of the story. For this to be true, then Kennedy in the 64% of effective disposals needs to be really precise and reliable, but he isnt, as most would assume given his DE. He handballs at feet, he does quick kicks out of packs at no one in particular, he sits the ball up.

It is you making the argument that a handball at feet by Kennedy does not matter, but makes Priddis a plodder. Kennedy just roosts one forward from a pack, gun, Priddis does it, trade him, you say ignore the DE, stats do not tell the story.

The difference between Priddis and other inside mids in disposal is vastly overstated, and I can say that without being a Priddis fan.

Where do I say its the whole story ? I just stated it can't be completely ignored because it does not suit some posters arguments. Interpreting any stat in isolation is fool's gold. I never stated otherwise.

We basically agree. You can't completely ignore the stat but in turn you can't make it the sole basis of your argument either.

 

[jatz14]

Where do I say its the whole story ? I just stated it can't be completely ignored because it does not suit some posters arguments. Interpreting any stat in isolation is fool's gold. I never stated otherwise.

We basically agree. You can't completely ignore the stat but in turn you can't make it the sole basis of your argument either.

Sorry, i didnt read all the posts in order, and took yours out of context.

 

[jatz14]

The disposal efficiency argument has been done to death.

You can quote and compare his DE% to anyone you like and it won't mean a thing. We watch the games. We know that when JK has put 10m on his opponent and Priddis decides to helicopter a skyball on his head rather then kick it to his advantage, doesn't mark down his DE. Nor do handballs to teammates who already have an opponent on them and are subsequently tackled, as well as handballs to teammates feet.

It is a flawed stat and shouldn't be used to prove a point.

Matt's 65% DE puts him ahead of Josh Kennedy (64%), Cotchin (63%) and Dangerfield (61%) <---- Yet they are all much better kicks.

My point is that I agree they are better kicks, but that the degree is overstated. Even the highlights of Kennedy prior to the GF showed him butchering the ball. As you would expect occasionally from someone who has a DE of 64% Danger is especially interesting, as he has line breaking speed, and an ability to break away from congestion before passing, along with a really penetrating boot, his DE should be much better than both Priddis and Kennedy.

 

[Smotie]

Let me sum it up for you.

1. Priddis' effective kicks are less effective than others.
2. Others effective kick are more effective than priddis' even if they have the same amount or less.
3. If Kennedy or others has less DE than priddis, his effectiveness in reality is higher than priddis' due to the nature of his effective kicks.
4. Other mids have more damage with less disposals and DE than priddis.

Not too hard to understand really.

Edit: 5. Priddis is the reason the blood moon wasn't really visible or very bloody.

 

[Godfather32]

Let me sum it up for you.


Not too hard to understand really.

Edit: 5. Priddis is the reason the blood moon wasn't really visible or very bloody.

Because his kicks were getting in the way?