Opinion The 'Carlton related stuff that doesn't need it's own thread' thread Part 2

[Jabba73]

And Saad has done **** all on the field for the Blues so far.

When was training considered elite?

 

[BigBreakfast]

What is the formula/ae for determining elite or is this makey uppy stuff? Really questionable names there. Does any side base a game plan on Oscar Allen

12

Oscar Allen

Age

26

Ht

196cm

Wt

96kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.8

2star

K

6.6

3star

HB

3.2

3star

M

3.8

4star

T

2.4

4star

G

1.1

4star

No current season stats available

D

8.6

3star

K

5.8

3star

HB

2.8

3star

M

3.8

4star

T

2.0

4star

G

1.2

4star

. Nice player but... Data doing data things.

 

[athensblue]

Living in the past but these guys were super elite
SOS, Bruce, Big Nick, Jezza, R Dale Barassi, Diesel
6 in the last ToC (Barassi may be Melbourne through and through but really changed the Blues when he arrived)

Don't think we'd have 1 player in the 21st century side to date, Crippa maybe in the squad of 40.
Still alot of work to do and it could turn around real quick. Talent and potential need to take centre stage from this year. Enough of this BF BS.
Time is NOW.

 

[Gethelred]

I do not know why people care about Champion data's characterization of a player as elite or not, given a) the absence of their specific definitions/metrics by which each player is graded, and b) when AFL is not a simple game to analyze from a statistical point of view. 360 degree movement, genuine difference in play between positions and body types, 18 players a team on the ground at once, stop plays (ball ups, throw ins, marks, free kicks) and free play.

CD coughs up weird results because media like Triple M go digging for dumb shit that looks like an outlier. The AFL statistics game is a work in progress. People give them shit for it, when there's such a colossal difference between 5 possessions between Eddie Betts and Tom Mitchell, or 9 marks for Levi Casboult

30

Levi Casboult

Age

35

Ht

199cm

Wt

104kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.9

3star

K

6.5

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

5.3

5star

T

1.7

4star

G

1.1

4star

D

10.1

3star

K

7.6

3star

HB

2.6

2star

M

5.9

5star

T

1.3

2star

G

1.3

5star

D

9.2

3star

K

6.2

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

5.2

5star

T

2.2

4star

G

1.4

5star

and Tom Hawkins

26

Tom Hawkins

Age

37

Ht

197cm

Wt

105kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.2

3star

K

7.9

3star

HB

4.4

3star

M

5.5

5star

T

1.9

4star

G

2.1

5star

D

12.7

3star

K

8.6

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

5.1

5star

T

2.1

3star

G

1.6

5star

D

7.8

2star

K

5.6

3star

HB

2.2

2star

M

4.2

4star

T

1.0

3star

G

2.2

5star

, or 21 hitouts between Mason Cox

46

Mason Cox

Age

34

Ht

211cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

F/R

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.7

2star

K

5.2

2star

HB

3.5

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.6

4star

G

1.2

4star

D

6.0

1star

K

3.0

1star

HB

3.0

2star

M

2.3

2star

T

0.3

1star

G

1.0

4star

D

9.0

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

2.4

4star

G

1.8

5star

and Max Gawn

11

Max Gawn

Age

33

Ht

209cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.1

4star

K

7.4

3star

HB

6.7

4star

CL

2.8

4star

HO

35.3

5star

D

18.5

4star

K

11.5

4star

HB

7.0

4star

CL

3.5

4star

HO

29.2

5star

D

8.4

3star

K

3.6

2star

HB

4.8

4star

CL

1.0

3star

HO

15.6

5star

, etc.

Think of it this way: when you see a science story in the Herald Sun, what does it look like? Is it a direct copy-paste of the conclusions of a study from an academic journal, or is it 'Tiny octopus could hold the key to immortality!'? Champion Data has a ****load of definitions and rules for their statistical accumulation, yet we don't see them when people criticize them. Why? Because it's boring to all those who are not statistics buffs, and because there's something crawling through the back of the Australian character to not trust the nerds.

"I trust what my eyes tell me!" and all that.

 

[CJMB]

I do not know why people care about Champion data's characterization of a player as elite or not, given a) the absence of their specific definitions/metrics by which each player is graded, and b) when AFL is not a simple game to analyze from a statistical point of view. 360 degree movement, genuine difference in play between positions and body types, 18 players a team on the ground at once, stop plays (ball ups, throw ins, marks, free kicks) and free play.

CD coughs up weird results because media like Triple M go digging for dumb sh*t that looks like an outlier. The AFL statistics game is a work in progress. People give them sh*t for it, when there's such a colossal difference between 5 possessions between Eddie Betts and Tom Mitchell, or 9 marks for Levi Casboult and Tom Hawkins, or 21 hitouts between Mason Cox and Max Gawn, etc.

Think of it this way: when you see a science story in the Herald Sun, what does it look like? Is it a direct copy-paste of the conclusions of a study from an academic journal, or is it 'Tiny octopus could hold the key to immortality!'? Champion Data has a fu**load of definitions and rules for their statistical accumulation, yet we don't see them when people criticize them. Why? Because it's boring to all those who are not statistics buffs, and because there's something crawling through the back of the Australian character to not trust the nerds.

"I trust what my eyes tell me!" and all that.

I think (?) I read three of the major areas for the small forward was pressure ratings, tackles inside 50 and score involvements.

I imagine they're looking at similar things for other positions; midfielders might be total effective disposals, inside 50s, score involvements, etc. Defenders looking at 1v1 win percentage, intercept marks/possessions, metres gained, etc.

At the end of the day it's a really arbitrary nomination of a label though, as you'll get players who happen to rate highly in the categories that have a higher weight of value in the ranking yet are terrible in the low/non-weighted areas.

Cox probably has a great contested mark completion rate due to his height and he probably has a good scoring shot percentage as he's often marking the ball fairly close to goal, he's not a long kick but fairly accurate. They're probably not looking too much at the defensive side of his game - pressure, tackles, ability to do something if the ball doesn't land on top of your head - so those gaping chasms in his game are more or less overlooked and don't really affect his rating.

 

[Gethelred]

I think (?) I read three of the major areas for the small forward was pressure ratings, tackles inside 50 and score involvements.

I imagine they're looking at similar things for other positions; midfielders might be total effective disposals, inside 50s, score involvements, etc. Defenders looking at 1v1 win percentage, intercept marks/possessions, metres gained, etc.

At the end of the day it's a really arbitrary nomination of a label though, as you'll get players who happen to rate highly in the categories that have a higher weight of value in the ranking yet are terrible in the low/non-weighted areas.

Cox probably has a great contested mark completion rate due to his height and he probably has a good scoring shot percentage as he's often marking the ball fairly close to goal, he's not a long kick but fairly accurate. They're probably not looking too much at the defensive side of his game - pressure, tackles, ability to do something if the ball doesn't land on top of your head - so those gaping chasms in his game are more or less overlooked and don't really affect his rating.

I really think that people need to treat CD as 1) it's actual purpose, which is to provide clubs with statistics collected around the game which might be useful to them, as well as creating other revenue streams like fantasy football, and 2) their marketing, which is used to create puff pieces about individual players for aggrandizement in the media and to have a giggle at the anomalies spotted.

I don't think an actual set of statisticians are going to sit there are categorize a player as 'elite' full stop; they'd say 'this player's input in this statistical category is elite', or 'this player is elite in these areas', with there being definitions for each statistic category and for what the word 'elite' connotates. That's where the marketing and the media comes in; CD don't challenge the bullshit in the newspapers/radio, because it enshrines their position as the weird but useful AFL statisticians, and they just keep doing what they'd be doing anyway.

As stated, I really do not care about the players they declare to be 'elite', because it's not really about those players or their contributions. What it's about is the weird anomalies Triple M has unearthed from the formula, and CD not saying anything because it's free press.

 

[Aphrodite]

 

[CJMB]

I really think that people need to treat CD as 1) it's actual purpose, which is to provide clubs with statistics collected around the game which might be useful to them, as well as creating other revenue streams like fantasy football, and 2) their marketing, which is used to create puff pieces about individual players for aggrandizement in the media and to have a giggle at the anomalies spotted.

I don't think an actual set of statisticians are going to sit there are categorize a player as 'elite' full stop; they'd say 'this player's input in this statistical category is elite', or 'this player is elite in these areas', with there being definitions for each statistic category and for what the word 'elite' connotates. That's where the marketing and the media comes in; CD don't challenge the bullshit in the newspapers/radio, because it enshrines their position as the weird but useful AFL statisticians, and they just keep doing what they'd be doing anyway.

As stated, I really do not care about the players they declare to be 'elite', because it's not really about those players or their contributions. What it's about is the weird anomalies Triple M has unearthed from the formula, and CD not saying anything because it's free press.

Bingo.

That stats aren't bullshit. If they were, the clubs wouldn't use them and CD would probably cease to exist.

What's frustrating it the method application of some of these numbers to teams and/or individuals in a crude, shallow & simplistic attempt to categorise, rank, differentiate, or generate my favourite: the 'top 5 list'.

When it's kept to a simple format, ie Player X is elite at Stat Y, then it works and it's great. You can't deny that Cripps is elite at contested possession, or that Shannon Hurn has an elite disposal efficiency, that Luke Ryan is an elite interceptor, Hugh Greenwood an elite tackler, Liam Jones elite for 1%ers, or Jake Lloyd is elite when it comes to total effective disposals.

When there's some mystery formula going on that involves several key statistics mashed together to classify a player as elite in a possession then it's really clutching at straws as there are too many variables to factor for any outcome that could actually be taken seriously.

 

[CJMB]

Good by Cox there haha

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Some good ordinary footballers on that list

Champion Data's weird obsession with creating niche 'markers' for niche roles to determine whether a player is "elite" is stupid.

 

[Arr0w]

Champion Data's weird obsession with creating niche 'markers' for niche roles to determine whether a player is "elite" is stupid.

Completely agree, but that's the nature of stats alone, rather than also applying vision to analysis

 

[Jabba73]

Completely agree, but that's the nature of stats alone, rather than also applying vision to analysis

Tom Mitchell won a Brownlow with more possessions than metres gained. Go figure

 

[Sector 7G]

The issue with the CD player ratings is that they are too harsh on players turning the ball over/making mistakes. Just as good to have 10 possessions and make no mistakes as having 30 but make 10 mistakes( 20 positive possession - 10 negative possessions = net 10 positive possession). Doesn't take into account that while a ineffective kick forward may not result in anything positive for the team but actually winning the ball in the first place stopped an opponent getting the ball and start a chain of play closer to goals.

Cox is rated elite because he doesn't do much wrong as well as not doing much in general.

 

[thylacine60]

Damn autocorrect.

Fixed.

Auto-correct, Aph......

 

[Aphrodite]

Auto-correct, Aph......

FFS

 

[Ash24]

The boys

 

[Accidental genius]

Have we really improved enough to be confident of a win against ferals round 1? The way they turned the cats on their heads in the gf was super impressive. Imo they are still a very dominating side. There is currently no match against their style of play. In another year or so maybe but atm they will be clear favourites imo. Anyway they are a good yardstick for us. Make it a competitive game and avoid 4-6 goal pile ons and I will be happy with our efforts for this years opener.

 

[Blue and Blue]

Forget about who we play in round 1....it's irelevant.

2021 club motto for me

Just smash the crap out of em !

 

[RPCB]

Forget about who we play in round 1....it's irelevant.

2021 club motto for me

Just smash the crap out of em !

I would be devastated if we don’t win Round 1, especially if we aren’t within 5 goals of Richmond. We are primed and ready. Would suck if we started our arse kicking in Round 2.

 

[Arr0w]

One game doesn't define a season

 

[CJMB]

One game doesn't define a season

Unless it's a grand final

 

[myblueroan]

One game doesn't define a season

Nope. Just that entire week for us.

 

[bigdog43]

Unsure how much chat there has been but I've been told by a very good source that Cripps will sign before round 1, no concerns.

 

[thylacine60]

Is there concern?

 

[branedotorg]

Is there concern?

It's been said it was to be announced at the bnf but nothing yet.