Roast AFL Player Ratings Appreciation Thread

[The Punter]

Considering we have a thread for bashing Purple, I thought the AFL Player Ratings deserved similar attention.

BEHOLD THE FORMULA!

R4 v Collingwood

According to the ratings, the five best players on the ground were Collingwood players (Scott Pendlebury was best), and Dylan Roberton was St Kilda's seventh best player on the day (behind Montagna, Ross, Webster, Membrey, Gresham & Geary).

Specifically on our most promising young key forward, Nick Riewoldt is now up to the 12th best key forward in the competition according to the player ratings (behind Franklin, Lynch GC, Kennedy, Westhoff, Hawkins, Walker, Gunston, Cameron, the other Riewoldt, Jenkins and Lobb). Keep it up young Nick!

 

[Diehard Saint]

Considering we have a thread for bashing Purple, I thought the AFL Player Ratings deserved similar attention.

BEHOLD THE FORMULA!

R4 v Collingwood

According to the ratings, the five best players on the ground were Collingwood players (Scott Pendlebury was best), and Dylan Roberton was St Kilda's seventh best player on the day (behind Montagna, Ross, Webster, Membrey, Gresham & Geary).

Specifically on our most promising young key forward, Nick Riewoldt is now up to the 12th best key forward in the competition according to the player ratings (behind Franklin, Lynch GC, Kennedy, Westhoff, Hawkins, Walker, Gunston, Cameron, the other Riewoldt, Jenkins and Lobb). Keep it up young Nick!

.., gobsmacked!

 

[Armitage2Riewoldt]

The Riewoldt one I can kinda deal with due to his transition to the wing in the last year and a bit.

But Robbo our 7th best, and Pendles the Pies best?

I love me some Pendles but he was well held on the weekend, injured or not.

 

[The Punter]

Pendles wasn't just the Pies best.

 

[Sausage Fingers]

Cannot believe Riewoldt so low down. His start to the season reminds me of Richardson in 08 when he was one of the Brwonlow favourites. He speads as much time up the ground as Tom Lynch (Crows), Franklin, Westhoff.

Those ratings always seem to favour the likes of Pendlebury

 

[The Punter]

Yeah, but if Riewoldt is suffering because of comparison to other tall forwards and how they play the game suiting the formula better, then Riewoldt should look better compared to players who play in other positions.

Excluding Brandon White (who played one game only), based on average rating score per game, Nick Riewoldt was St Kilda's seventh best player in 2016 (Steven, Armitage, Hickey, Ross, Montagna, Newnes, Riewoldt).

 

[saint_]

AFL's ranking system is a bit like the dream team fantasy. Useless.
Inside Football Rankings is way better.

 

[The Punter]

Hey, I have as much problem with the Inside Football Ranking for accuracy as anyone else, but they are a person attending the game giving a score out of 10. It's always going to be some level of subjective.

 

[MacMcMurphy]

Is this a feature on the AFL website / app ? I haven't seen this before, but then again, from a quick look, will not bother again...

Four (4 !!!) Collingwood players in the team of the week ? Yeah, right !

 

[gringo2011]

I have never got their formula, it's like it designed to be manipulated into confirming the players they want to be up are held there. They make very little sense. Shade was pretty solid and so was Howe but not the second and fourth best player on the ground. The only reason the were near the ball was the absolute raft of forward 50 entries we sent their way. I hate the way guys who play 1 game can be on top all year too. Ablett was always topping it when he wasn't playing and Fyfe blitzed with his broken leg.

 

[CHBench]

Wouldn't have thought Hickey was amongst the most improved players in the comp either

 

[Periphery]

Wouldn't have thought Hickey was amongst the most improved players in the comp either

That's possibly more a reflection of the fact that the ratings factor in the past 2 years of games (weighted towards the more recent games) so it's starting to replace his 2015 games with ones from 2017. So even if his 2017 is worse than his 2016 it's still a lot better than his 2015. As such, his rating would be going up at the moment.

At least that's my understanding of how this s**t is figured out.

 

[St Kilda Death]

A joke, that system.

 

[CHBench]

That's possibly more a reflection of the fact that the ratings factor in the past 2 years of games (weighted towards the more recent games) so it's starting to replace his 2015 games with ones from 2017. So even if his 2017 is worse than his 2016 it's still a lot better than his 2015. As such, his rating would be going up at the moment.

At least that's my understanding of how this s**t is figured out.

That's alot of sense for this non-sense

Is this a feature on the AFL website / app ? I haven't seen this before, but then again, from a quick look, will not bother again...

Four (4 !!!) Collingwood players in the team of the week ? Yeah, right !

It's funny how if we kicked straight those Collingwood players, particularly the defenders wouldn't be anywhere near anything called a team of the week. But because WE can't kick accurately, THEY are perceived to have done a better job, when in reality they had nothing to do with it (a 1pt outcome vs a 6pt outcome). It's been like this forever, but it's interesting how we just accept it.

 

[Phoenix_9]

* their ratings. Supercoach for me, even if we don't know exactly how scaling works.

Based on SC scores:
1. Roberton
2. Ross
3. Webster
4. Geary
5. Billings and Riewoldt

Which is pretty much like I'd have it from purely a viewing and quick stats check point of view.

 

[Brains Trust66]

Is this a feature on the AFL website / app ? I haven't seen this before, but then again, from a quick look, will not bother again...

Four (4 !!!) Collingwood players in the team of the week ? Yeah, right !

Imagine if they won, the whole team would be there . Which Collingwood supporters write this pile of garbage?


Sent via HAL

 

[Armoooo]

**** their ratings. Supercoach for me, even if we don't know exactly how scaling works.

Based on SC scores:
1. Roberton
2. Ross
3. Webster
4. Geary
5. Billings and Riewoldt

Which is pretty much like I'd have it from purely a viewing and quick stats check point of view.

Agreed, although some players do get "star factor" scaling you can usually guess who the best scorers will be from watching the game.

My old statistics professor worked on the scoring system with Champion Data, there are so many unadvertised components it would blow your mind. Even having said this there is still a subjective element to it all as some of the multipliers can be entirely changed to create a more accurate reflection of the game both during and after the fact.

The fact that the people making these subjective calls are all over the advanced stats makes it less noticeable.

Next time you see a player score huge from a statistically impressive, yet ineffective quarter watch how hard they have to work in the next quarter to get points. I really noticed it with Will Hoskin-Elliott against Sydney. He got a heap of cheap possies on the outside and did nothing with them, but because of the scoring system he was on 40 something at quarter time. His multipliers were then set so low that he couldn't buy a point for the rest of the game, even the winning goal was scaled down!!

 

[holllywood]

Is this a feature on the AFL website / app ? I haven't seen this before, but then again, from a quick look, will not bother again...

Four (4 !!!) Collingwood players in the team of the week ? Yeah, right !

That was for round 3. They only had Howe in this week while we had Geary, Robbo and Ross.

 

[Phoenix_9]

Agreed, although some players do get "star factor" scaling you can usually guess who the best scorers will be from watching the game.

My old statistics professor worked on the scoring system with Champion Data, there are so many unadvertised components it would blow your mind. Even having said this there is still a subjective element to it all as some of the multipliers can be entirely changed to create a more accurate reflection of the game both during and after the fact.

The fact that the people making these subjective calls are all over the advanced stats makes it less noticeable.

Next time you see a player score huge from a statistically impressive, yet ineffective quarter watch how hard they have to work in the next quarter to get points. I really noticed it with Will Hoskin-Elliott against Sydney. He got a heap of cheap possies on the outside and did nothing with them, but because of the scoring system he was on 40 something at quarter time. His multipliers were then set so low that he couldn't buy a point for the rest of the game, even the winning goal was scaled down!!

Cheers for the inside info, it would be interesting to see their code/spreadsheets that they use to get the final scores. And see a video of them go through the subjective scaling process. Will never happen though!

 

[Phoenix_9]

Coaches votes - SC
9 Seb Ross - 100
5 Jarryn Geary - 98
5 Dylan Roberton - 126
4 Jimmy Webster - 99
3 Taylor Adams - 113
2 Jeremy Howe - 130
1 Jack Billings - 97
1 Brodie Grundy - 113

 

[WeaselWJ]

**** their ratings. Supercoach for me, even if we don't know exactly how scaling works.

Based on SC scores:
1. Roberton
2. Ross
3. Webster
4. Geary
5. Billings and Riewoldt

Which is pretty much like I'd have it from purely a viewing and quick stats check point of view.

What if I told you that the AFL Player Ratings have a better predictive ability than SC and are statistically the best rating method currently devised? Is your opinion still more valid?

As for the OP, St Kilda had more total ratings points than Collingwood. Collingwood had the best 5 players on the ground, but they also had 10 of the worst 14. Turns out, football is a team game and Collingwood had a lot of passengers. There is no law in the universe that says the best players on the ground are always on the winning team. What you'll find though, is that very, very rarely (much less than SC or any other system) does the losing team having more total ratings points.

Anyway, I know St Kilda fans will never like the Player Ratings because it doesn't rate their beloved Nick as highly as they themselves do. So, carry on.

 

[Joffaboy]

What if I told you that the AFL Player Ratings have a better predictive ability than SC and are statistically the best rating method currently devised? Is your opinion still more valid?

As for the OP, St Kilda had more total ratings points than Collingwood. Collingwood had the best 5 players on the ground, but they also had 10 of the worst 14. Turns out, football is a team game and Collingwood had a lot of passengers. There is no law in the universe that says the best players on the ground are always on the winning team. What you'll find though, is that very, very rarely (much less than SC or any other system) does the losing team having more total ratings points.

Anyway, I know St Kilda fans will never like the Player Ratings because it doesn't rate their beloved Nick as highly as they themselves do. So, carry on.

Yes Riewoldt is a spud.

Piss off idiot.

 

[saintsrfreak]

What if I told you that the AFL Player Ratings have a better predictive ability than SC and are statistically the best rating method currently devised? Is your opinion still more valid?

As for the OP, St Kilda had more total ratings points than Collingwood. Collingwood had the best 5 players on the ground, but they also had 10 of the worst 14. Turns out, football is a team game and Collingwood had a lot of passengers. There is no law in the universe that says the best players on the ground are always on the winning team. What you'll find though, is that very, very rarely (much less than SC or any other system) does the losing team having more total ratings points.

Anyway, I know St Kilda fans will never like the Player Ratings because it doesn't rate their beloved Nick as highly as they themselves do. So, carry on.

lmao, who were these 5 players then? I'll give you Grundy and probably Howe being in there, but who else?

 

[Phoenix_9]

What if I told you that the AFL Player Ratings have a better predictive ability than SC and are statistically the best rating method currently devised? Is your opinion still more valid?

As for the OP, St Kilda had more total ratings points than Collingwood. Collingwood had the best 5 players on the ground, but they also had 10 of the worst 14. Turns out, football is a team game and Collingwood had a lot of passengers. There is no law in the universe that says the best players on the ground are always on the winning team. What you'll find though, is that very, very rarely (much less than SC or any other system) does the losing team having more total ratings points.

Anyway, I know St Kilda fans will never like the Player Ratings because it doesn't rate their beloved Nick as highly as they themselves do. So, carry on.

Look, generally, I don't mind the AFL rankings, but when Pendlebury gets rated best on ground you know it has issues... he would have been top 10, maybe.
And yes, they do rate Riewoldt far too lowly. Anyone from any supporter base would make that argument.

 

[The Punter]

What if I told you that the AFL Player Ratings have a better predictive ability than SC and are statistically the best rating method currently devised? Is your opinion still more valid?

As for the OP, St Kilda had more total ratings points than Collingwood. Collingwood had the best 5 players on the ground, but they also had 10 of the worst 14. Turns out, football is a team game and Collingwood had a lot of passengers. There is no law in the universe that says the best players on the ground are always on the winning team. What you'll find though, is that very, very rarely (much less than SC or any other system) does the losing team having more total ratings points.

Anyway, I know St Kilda fans will never like the Player Ratings because it doesn't rate their beloved Nick as highly as they themselves do. So, carry on.

Cheers for stopping by Luffy.