- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,390
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Yes, it does.
It tells us, for instance, that the MC only gave 6 out of our 35 players a 50% pass mark for the season.
Carji Greeves 2015
- Thread starter Pawel
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Yes, it does.
It tells us, for instance, that the MC only gave 6 out of our 35 players a 50% pass mark for the season.
Mate, nice work.
But you can't drop those 3 after 19 eligible games.
That's like saying if I score 100 on Boxing Day and never play again, I'm better than Bradman.
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
Glad you gleaned that. How did that compare with 2011?
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,390
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
No way- did you see him v Adelaide? A poor shadow of the DM we saw the week before.
It's not an average votes per game rather it is average of votes per eligible games, you're welcome to interpret anyway you wish, even if you think there is no meaning. I naturally disagree. I'm not suggesting that the best and fairest should be decided by an average score or that Dan Menzel was in our best 10 players for the year(his small number of games help him push up this ranking, had he played only his first game he'd probably be number 1 by average). It just away to compare how the match committee rated players who played a different number of games from each other. Ideally we'd know what players scored in every game they played but we don't so this is next best thing.
The system isn't really that complex, it can be explained in two sentences.
Well that's the problem of using just one thing and sticking to it very strictly. I'd be congratulating you on a great test debut and be disappointed that your never going to be on the field again. Like with any stat. If there is a small number of games, you take it with a grain of salt. I don't read too much into Menzel's average since it doesn't tells us a lot. However when you look at the bottom end at Smedts, Simpson for example it might indicate the the match committee wasn't happy with there output given that they scored the minimum value in every week they played. Which is why they didn't play that many games for the year.
By cutting out the bottom two games you actually raise there averages not decrease it. What this system unfairly effects is those who didn't play more games then the cut off. For example Bartel has his round 2 game when he played 10% game time count while some who had played 20 games wouldn't have had his equivalent game count towards his average.
I thought about including it as a %, but didn't since I didn't agree with what it implied.
.
Sorry lana, I think it's complete BS that you used those numbers and flipped them.
Last edited:
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
Great stuff.
All that matters is Blicavs won and deserved B&F. The rest is spak-filla at this point. In my humble pov.
But I'm more than happy that this is getting analysed and broken down post season.
So that means best on ground every second game and then dud game every second game. That should put him right up near the top.
I'd say it's completely idiotic.
It's not difficult; award players votes per game - either 3, 2, 1, or 5 players out of 10, or whatever. Then guess what? The player with the most votes at the end of the season wins. Whether they've played 12 games or 22.
The ability and willingness of football clubs to make simple things difficult is remarkable.
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
For a 2 week season, sure.
