Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nailed it, ODNThey are review stats from the previous season, not a preview for the upcoming season. The word talent shouldn't come into it.
When we break out, this method won't identify it until after it has happened. It's fairly meaningless.
Well, I'd strongly disagree with that. The data is great. It's the interpretation and application that sucks arse here.That Data just plain sucks arse.
Well I'm confused. I was under the impression the data said we have the shitest list.Well, I'd strongly disagree with that. The data is great. It's the interpretation and application that sucks arse here.
Well I'm confused. I was under the impression the data said we have the shitest list.
Their data works best when it has players with more than 50 games played.http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-01-16/revealed-the-afls-most-talented-list
Carlton's list is rated the least talented, while Fremantle has the weakest best 22, with captain Nat Fyfe rated as the club's only 'elite' player.
Well I'm confused. I was under the impression the data said we have the shitest list.
No, the person interpreting the data has made that conclusion. Doesn't mean they're right.
You could rank teams on any number of data points, and pre-existing form is about the simplest approach you could take for a junk article. In-depth analysis and forecasting doesn't sell papers though, while "Carlton has the worst list" riles up Blues fans and tickles the fancy of everyone else.
those things are a load of rubbish, they never forecast what the players will be like in coming yearshttp://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-01-16/revealed-the-afls-most-talented-list
Carlton's list is rated the least talented, while Fremantle has the weakest best 22, with captain Nat Fyfe rated as the club's only 'elite' player.
The actual ranking itself doesn’t take age into account. If you look at who we have on our list who would rate on this it is easy to see why we would rate poorly.The champion data numbers are what the clubs and media outlets use. It's good. BB's comment is also very true. This is an article; it's meant to get some kind of a reaction. They want people to talk about it and for it to be shared across social media platforms.
The guy who wrote the article for afl.com.au, Nathan Schmook, was probably given a basic table from Champion Data that's been pulled from their upcoming 2018 Prospectus (which is mentioned at the bottom) and been instructed to make something out of it. He's decided that the sum of a list worth of individual in-game output is a measure of talent.
He also talks about grouping players into elite, above average, average and below average categories. That stuff is fine as the players are grouped by a ridiculous number of measurable events. A possession/disposal is rated on being contested/unconstested, if it was effective (hit the target/to advantage), the distance and direction of the disposal (long kicks forward rated much higher than short handballs back), plus added factors like was it a clearance, etc. It's far from the basic stats you see on the afl app. Find the little Vice mini-documentary thing on the stats Champion Data does, it's actually pretty interesting.
As for a little explanation of how you can take a basic form of the CD numbers and extrapolate them different ways...
If you extrapolate the average of every 2017 Carlton and Adelaide players supercoach score (uses a basic CD number set) Carlton actually has a higher number than Adelaide; 54 to 52.
If you consider that Adelaide used substantially less players than we did and deduct the 'did not play' scores of 0 from those averages all of a sudden it's Carlton 64 - Adelaide 73.
So do we have the better full list because when factoring in every player we had a higher average contribution? Or is it Adelaide because the players that didn't contribute aren't measureable and should be deducted from the comparison?
Anyone with excel, some free time and a basic stats understanding will probably be able to create a set of factually accurate results that can prove that any of the teams has the 'least talented' list or vice versa.
Totally agree. All this scientific crap and stats they go on about is starting to ruin the "essence" of the best game in the world.
North’s list isn’t as bad as people are making out. Their 25 and overs are way better than ours (and teams like GC and Brisbane). Brown, Higgins, Waite, Cunnington, Ziebell, Tarrant, Thompson, Goldstein. That’s a pretty handy older age bracket.I initially read the link and thought "oh, this is from 2016 - clearly wrong". Then I read it was from yesterday... Nathan Schmook has zero ideal obviously... anyone who can't see that the Roos have the least talented list has little idea.
I'm guessing his metric includes games played, because we have more talented and exciting young players on our list than at least 15 other clubs. I would expect him to change his tune by the end of 2018 (and again in 2019) once these kids have another 30-40 games under their belt.
Only if you let it .
A terrific example of why you shouldn't put much emphasis on what the "stats" come up with .
Trust your eyes and knowledge of the game , if you need "stats" to help you you're in trouble ...
The actual ranking itself doesn’t take age into account. If you look at who we have on our list who would rate on this it is easy to see why we would rate poorly.
Williamson, Fisher, SPS, Marchbank, Cuningham, Curnow, SOS, Pickett and even McKay are all probably best 22 now but haven’t played the required 40 games to be ranked appropriately (and that’s not even mentioning Macreadie, Polson etc.). That and the fact that our playing list over the age of 25 is the worst in the league. It’s not really very surprising that Champion Data rate is the worst.
The champion data numbers are what the clubs and media outlets use. It's good. BB's comment is also very true. This is an article; it's meant to get some kind of a reaction. They want people to talk about it and for it to be shared across social media platforms.
The guy who wrote the article for afl.com.au, Nathan Schmook, was probably given a basic table from Champion Data that's been pulled from their upcoming 2018 Prospectus (which is mentioned at the bottom) and been instructed to make something out of it. He's decided that the sum of a list worth of individual in-game output is a measure of talent.
He also talks about grouping players into elite, above average, average and below average categories. That stuff is fine as the players are grouped by a ridiculous number of measurable events. A possession/disposal is rated on being contested/unconstested, if it was effective (hit the target/to advantage), the distance and direction of the disposal (long kicks forward rated much higher than short handballs back), plus added factors like was it a clearance, etc. It's far from the basic stats you see on the afl app. Find the little Vice mini-documentary thing on the stats Champion Data does, it's actually pretty interesting.
As for a little explanation of how you can take a basic form of the CD numbers and extrapolate them different ways...
If you extrapolate the average of every 2017 Carlton and Adelaide players supercoach score (uses a basic CD number set) Carlton actually has a higher number than Adelaide; 54 to 52.
If you consider that Adelaide used substantially less players than we did and deduct the 'did not play' scores of 0 from those averages all of a sudden it's Carlton 64 - Adelaide 73.
So do we have the better full list because when factoring in every player we had a higher average contribution? Or is it Adelaide because the players that didn't contribute aren't measureable and should be deducted from the comparison?
Anyone with excel, some free time and a basic stats understanding will probably be able to create a set of factually accurate results that can prove that any of the teams has the 'least talented' list or vice versa.
Schmook = Schmuck[/QUOT
He’s talking out his schmookhole.
North’s list isn’t as bad as people are making out. Their 25 and overs are way better than ours (and teams like GC and Brisbane). Brown, Higgins, Waite, Cunnington, Ziebell, Tarrant, Thompson, Goldstein. That’s a pretty handy older age bracket.
I’m not saying it’s an elite grouping, I’m just saying they aren’t as bad as people are making out. Higgins was excellent this season and I think he is a gun. Tarrant is pretty much elite. These 2 may be nearing the end but they are still very, very good players, I’m not talking about in 3 years time I am talking the here and now. Their 25 and overs are far better than ours and it isn’t even close imo.Not so sure about that, i rate Brown highly, Cunnington and Ziebell as solid, the rest are past their best.
The actual ranking itself doesn’t take age into account. If you look at who we have on our list who would rate on this it is easy to see why we would rate poorly.
Williamson, Fisher, SPS, Marchbank, Cuningham, Curnow, SOS, Pickett and even McKay are all probably best 22 now but haven’t played the required 40 games to be ranked appropriately (and that’s not even mentioning Macreadie, Polson etc.). That and the fact that our playing list over the age of 25 is the worst in the league. It’s not really very surprising that Champion Data rate is the worst.
Higgins and Waite hardly have a good history of playing a season out due to injury and/or suspension and the ol' Goldstein just ain't what she used to be for whatever reason... maybe it's Preuss being there, maybe he's been hampered by lingering injuries. Still reasonably handy though, I'll give the big man that.North’s list isn’t as bad as people are making out. Their 25 and overs are way better than ours (and teams like GC and Brisbane). Brown, Higgins, Waite, Cunnington, Ziebell, Tarrant, Thompson, Goldstein. That’s a pretty handy older age bracket.
I think NM fans would appreciate your optimism PM - the roos are locked for the wooden spoon this season in my view, and still have some more pain to feel thereafter.I’m not saying it’s an elite grouping, I’m just saying they aren’t as bad as people are making out. Higgins was excellent this season and I think he is a gun. Tarrant is pretty much elite. These 2 may be nearing the end but they are still very, very good players, I’m not talking about in 3 years time I am talking the here and now. Their 25 and overs are far better than ours and it isn’t even close imo.