Fadge I am a bit confused you won an extra 3 "big" games then us this year yet Nick only has 29/87 votes in those games,
Why isn't he 43 and substantially ahead like Anderson if he is such a big game impactor?
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
2025 Rolling ALL-Australian Team
- Thread starter Cringle
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Why isn't he 43 and substantially ahead like Anderson if he is such a big game impactor?
Your analysis is fingernail deep.
Congrats.
Especially when Gawn has comfortably beaten Cameron twice this year.
RCAB
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 25, 2024
- 5,899
- 8,965
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Nick Daicos leads the league in SI%. Richards isn't even first at your club.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Orange crush
Norm Smith Medallist
- Aug 12, 2017
- 6,592
- 12,118
- AFL Club
- GWS
We’re talking about as a kick, yeah
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
I hope people realise there's a pretty straightforward way to measure the impact of missing games in a wins/value above replacement sense.
A players value is what they can contribute over a replacement level player ie the 22nd player, usual reserves level player in your team.
That player would get about 5.0 player ratings points.
So for every game a player doesn't play you add a 5.0 to their total season score.
For instance, Nick Daicos played 23*15.09 = 347 player ratings points on the season. 0 games missed + 0
Marcus Bontempelli played 18*19.79 = 356 player ratings points total. But ten you add 5*5 to make it 381.
If you apply this to every player in the league, Bontempelli is rank 5 in the league.
It's not a perfect system but it's a good frame of reference to highlight that Bontempelli has played so well that he's still produced All-Australian quality value over replacement level despite missing the 5 games.
A players value is what they can contribute over a replacement level player ie the 22nd player, usual reserves level player in your team.
That player would get about 5.0 player ratings points.
So for every game a player doesn't play you add a 5.0 to their total season score.
For instance, Nick Daicos played 23*15.09 = 347 player ratings points on the season. 0 games missed + 0
Marcus Bontempelli played 18*19.79 = 356 player ratings points total. But ten you add 5*5 to make it 381.
If you apply this to every player in the league, Bontempelli is rank 5 in the league.
It's not a perfect system but it's a good frame of reference to highlight that Bontempelli has played so well that he's still produced All-Australian quality value over replacement level despite missing the 5 games.
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
We're not doing it this way, surely?
There's just one fundamental problem with this analysis...
You're using PlAyEr RaTiNgZ.
My view is that if you miss games, you get nothing to add to your 'season output'.
Stan_Darsh72
Hall of Famer
- Jun 18, 2011
- 40,796
- 69,736
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
You don't kick 575 goals being a dinosaur that was overrated.
RCAB
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 25, 2024
- 5,899
- 8,965
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
You just backfired yourself in the same post. Amazing
How if we are so shit Richards should be nowhere near superstar Nick
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
Putting player ratings aside.
I agree with you on not playing a game is adding nothing. Just that accounting for that nothing value by using totals is incorrect when comparing two players who played a different amount of games. Because a player's value when measured by statistics is not what they offer above zero, it's what they offer above what the statistics generated by the player that would have come in for him. Therefore in using raw totals, it slightly over-values the benefit of playing every game.
For example, Harvey Gallagher only started games for the Bulldogs in which Bontempelli didn't play. For the sake of argument lets call him Bontempelli's "replacement player" that came in to do the midfield role of Bont (he didn't but lets just use him for the sake of argument). He got player ratings scores of 4.0, 3.8 and 2.8, and only played because Bont didn't. Therefore we don't measure Bont's value-add against a score of 0, we measure it against Gallagher's average score of 3.5, the added-value over the fact that holding all things constant we can rely on Bont's scores of 19 and not Gallagher's scores of 3.5.
If Nick Daicos had done his ACL the day before the opening game of Round 0 the loss to Collingwood would have not been the loss of 672 disposals (for the sake of argument hold everything else in the team constant), the loss would be that you would expect a VFL level midfielder playing to replace him would get about 15 touches a game therefore the "loss" is 347 touches not 672. Not a hard concept to understand.
But not literally Gallagher's scores but the more value concept of the statistical output of a replacement player who scores about 5.0 on average. More of a concept. But I'm using a practical player to give the example.
In other words its slightly incorrect to use raw totals when using statistics as a proxy for player value when comparing players who played a different number of games and most notably slightly undervalues Bontempelli.
Battle should be a shoe in for the team, has had an awesome year.
Has been defending at a high level against talls and smalls, whilst being strong aerially and on the rebound. This also being done in a top 3 defense.
RCAB
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 25, 2024
- 5,899
- 8,965
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Why not?
%: Score involvements / Total team scores IS A MUCH BTTER measure than overall score involvements.
rye
⠀
- Apr 24, 2022
- 4,438
- 12,542
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
he was borderline to make the squad let alone a shoo in for the team
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
Because it says nothing about the literal direct contribution to the scores.
Ed Richards kicked more of the goal himself and from more difficult locations on the ground than Daicos, in addition to the one step removed element of it than Daicos. Surely that's a far better measurement of a good season purely from a midfielder contributing to score perpsecive than what you're coming up with. However you frame score involvement statistics its all context dependent, except for when you kick the bloody goals yourself (Richards did).
RCAB
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 25, 2024
- 5,899
- 8,965
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
He's not.. It's like comparing Messi and a Perth Glory player.
Richards has been very good this season but still isn't the difference like Daicos or Bont.
The eye tests for me said those players make a massive impact when their on the field, and SI% suggests that too.
- Apr 16, 2014
- 10,474
- 23,458
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
What's Jordan Clark's chances?
He's been great for us but I haven't watch enough neutral games to comment on AA selection.
He's been great for us but I haven't watch enough neutral games to comment on AA selection.
Snuffaluphagus
Moderator
- Sep 10, 2015
- 28,548
- 100,480
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Moderator
- #2,594
That's not even how it works for the guys picking the team.
(I think he's Freo's best chance by the way).
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
He does that aswell
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
I'm sure Kane Cornes sits down and watches 20 hours of footy every week, I don't know what you're on about.
RCAB
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 25, 2024
- 5,899
- 8,965
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Team percentage score involvements says nothing about the "literal direct" (whatever that means) contribution of scores? Wow. Outstanding.
I understand what you're saying, but I completely disagree with the concept.
If a player misses a game, or games, their output on that game is zero. Non existent.
Players who are durable, play through duress, and continue to deliver, are the ones who should be rewarded.
That's why Daicos in 2023, despite being comfortably ahead of every other player in every individual award before his injury, fell back to the pack (and was even overtaken by Bont by the end of the home and away season) because he literally delivered NOTHING to the team during his period of injury. I can't reward him for the efforts of Ned Long, or Will Parker, or Fin McCrae, and argue that he remained the best player leading into the finals due to the efforts of his replacements over the last 3 weeks....
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
I want the All-Australian team to at least to try and measure the value of performance toward winning across an entire season in a conceptual sense, not to give random bonus brownie points for being "durable" irrespective of how it relates to increasing your chance of winning games to win the flag.
Durability is important, but only in the context that it helps your team win more games in the season if you're a good player that plays more.
I can't agree with you there. Because by your logic you can "reward" players for any vague AFL skill that helps a team win.
If a player chooses to not kick off their non-preferred, their output by kicking on their opposite foot is zero. Non existent.
Players who can kick off both feet, and play games where they kick off both feet, and continue to deliver, are the ones who should be rewarded.
See how stupid it is? Nobody is pushing up a player because they hit more targets on their non-preferred, just that it's part of the overall skillset that eventually leads to the end goal of winning contribution. Whether that's kicking on your non preferred or having the agility to get onto your preferred, the end result of executing a kick is the same.
Whether you miss a few games and play at the league-best level, or you play every game and play slightly less than the league-best level, the end result of contributing to overall season wins is the same.
