2018 Rolling All Australian Team

[Boris the Contradiction]

No offence but raw hitout numbers are meaningless. A player could average 50 hitouts a game but if 0 are to his teammates and 7 to the opposition he's actually a net liability. the H2A stat is the one we're after.

Agreed, but they're hard to get. Hitouts aren't the only stats I posted either.

Grundy, this season, is a midfielder as well as a top line ruckman. His influence has been huge.

I think that's universally agreed but Champion Data are reluctant to give that info.

True.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I think that's universally agreed but Champion Data are reluctant to give that info.

I know. They release these stats very sparingly.
They are in the News Limited papers the following day on the bottom left of the stats sheet. However not tracked so you'd have to manually tally each game every week... And who can be ****ed doing that.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Agreed, but they're hard to get. Hitouts aren't the only stats I posted either.

Grundy, this season, is a midfielder as well as a top line ruckman. His influence has been huge.

How do you assess a ruckman's influence?

I don't disagree - he's having a fantastic season. But your comparison with Naitanui is jarringly superficial.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Agreed, but they're hard to get. Hitouts aren't the only stats I posted either.

Grundy, this season, is a midfielder as well as a top line ruckman. His influence has been huge.



True.

I agree. If they choose 1 ruck then either Gawn or Grundy could be considered unlucky. Pick two and I'd say both would be good chances to get in.

 

[LeverPuller]

I know. They release these stats very sparingly.
They are in the News Limited papers the following on the bottom left. However not tracked so you'd have to manually tally each game every week... And who can be ****** doing that.

Surprises me Footywire doesn't carry them

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

How do you assess a ruckman's influence?

There are many ways. Stats are one of them and the only one that's measurable.

Buy I also watch the players, and Grundy has been incredibly influential on almost all games he has played this year.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

There are many ways. Stats are one of them and the only one that's measurable.

Which stats in particular?

Buy I also watch the players, and Grundy has been incredibly influential on almost all games he has played this year.

OK wow. I didn't realise you watched the players. I concede defeat in light of this new information.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

How do you assess a ruckman's influence?

I don't disagree - he's having a fantastic season. But your comparison with Naitanui is jarringly superficial.

Why is it superfical?

Were you not arguing Darlings credentials as compared to Hogan as a CHF by comparing them statistically?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Congratulations. But that would still be misguided, regardless of your feelings.

That's nice dear. I actually don't care about the debate, both should be in and Damon_3388 is right. Who is the CHF doesn't make a pinch of difference.
You can have the last word though. We all know you want to.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Welcome to arguing with Gunnar. Enjoy your stay.

Is that old Longshanks!?

The downside of the Eagles going OK again.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Why is it superfical?

Because a ruckman's influence is not properly measured in raw hitout numbers, marks and possessions. Doesn't that go without saying?

Here are a couple of pieces I found in a quick Google search. This is from 2015 and this is from 2018. They offer some examples of how we might more meaningfully discuss a ruckman's influence. They're not up-to-date but you get an idea of the metrics.

Were you not arguing Darlings credentials ad compared to Hogan as a CHF by comparing them statistically?

Yes indeed. And look at the statistics I cited. There were many. Darling leads Hogan in goals, marks, contested marks, marks I50, tackles, tackles I50, contested possessions, one percenters, score involvements and metres gained.

There are quite a few there, aren't there? In particular, goals, marks, contested marks and marks I50 are pretty important ones for CHFs, aren't they? The others are for emphasis. Darling is doing the fundamental things expected of a key forward (marks and goals) as well as making a superior all-round contribution.

So what would be the argument for Hogan? Oh wait, Hogan has the edge in uncontested possessions so I guess that puts him in front.

 

[Cold Sober]

Gawn and Grundy should be first two picked, BY A ****ING STREET

 

[Sweet Jesus]

That's nice dear. I actually don't care about the debate, both should be in and Damon_3388 is right. Who is the CHF doesn't make a pinch of difference.
You can have the last word though. We all know you want to.

Frankly, you haven't really posted anything that demands a response.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Which stats in particular

Obviously I think the ones I said are important, which is why I said them........

Because a ruckman's influence is not properly measured in raw hitout numbers, marks and possessions. Doesn't that go without saying?

Here are a couple of pieces I found in a quick Google search. This is from 2015 and this is from 2018. They offer some examples of how we might more meaningfully discuss a ruckman's influence. They're not up-to-date but you get an idea of the metrics.

Yes indeed. And look at the statistics I cited. There were many. Darling leads Hogan in goals, marks, contested marks, marks I50, tackles, tackles I50, contested possessions, one percenters, score involvements and metres gained.

There are quite a few there, aren't there? In particular, goals, marks, contested marks and marks I50 are pretty important ones for CHFs, aren't they? The others are for emphasis. Darling is doing the fundamental things expected of a key forward (marks and goals) as well as making a superior all-round contribution.

So what would be the argument for Hogan? Oh wait, Hogan has the edge in uncontested possessions so I guess that puts him in front.

Ok, so let's recap.

You suggested that only one ruckman should be in the AA team because NicNat didn't make it in 2015, a very good season for him. I posted several stats, comparing the players' performances across those two years, and suggested that Grundy's current year performances are better than Natanui's in 2015, and that this year is therefore a different case to 2015 and both Grundy and Gawn should be picked.

You then attempted to suggest that my statistical argument was superficial, and eventually claimed that hitouts to advantage is the relevant stat. I agree it is (very) relevant, although I don't agree that hitouts, marks, possessions and tackles are not.

So my question is, do you have Naitanui's 2015 full season hitouts to advantage stats and Grundy's for 2018, so we can compare them? I'm interested in seeing them and can't find them. If you do not, I'm struggling to see the point in anything you have said.

Further to my original post I'll say this...Grundy is ahead for clearances, contested possessions, metres gained, disposal efficiency, contested marks, intercepts and inside 50s, to go with his superior hitout, marks, tackles and (vastly superior) disposal numbers. The only significant stat I can find where Naitanui is ahead is goals, where he is 0.3 goals per game ahead.

I'll stand by my original statement. Grundy has been significantly better this year than Naitanui was in 2015 and should be AA together with, rather than instead of, Gawn

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Obviously I think the ones I said are important, which is why I said them...

And I pointed out that these stats are superficial. Because they are. I have also helpfully provided examples of metrics that are more meaningful.

Ok, so let's recap.

You suggested that only one ruckman should be in the AA team because NicNat didn't make it in 2015, a very good season for him.

Actually, I said that we have a precedent of only picking one ruckman, even when two guys have had great seasons. I pointed to Naitanui in 2015 as an example of this. And in 2018, teams are even less likely to line up with two ruckmen so that precedent is even more persuasive.

I posted several stats, comparing the players' performances across those two years, and suggested that Grundy's current year performances are better than Natanui's in 2015, and that this year is therefore a different case to 2015 and both Grundy and Gawn should be picked.

You then attempted to suggest that my statistical argument was superficial, and eventually claimed that hitouts to advantage is the relevant stat. I agree it is (very) relevant, although I don't agree that hitouts, marks, possessions and tackles are not.

You offered a superficial comparison, using stats that do not adequately measure a ruckman's influence.

So my question is, do you have Naitanui's 2015 full season hitouts to advantage stats and Grundy's for 2018, so we can compare them? I'm interested in seeing them and can't find them. If you do not, I'm struggling to see the point in anything you have said.

My point, as has now been conveyed several times, is that you offered a superficial comparison, using stats that do not adequately measure a ruckman's influence. The fact that I do not have the more relevant data at hand doesn't make the above statement any less true.

Further to my original post I'll say this...Grundy is ahead for clearances, contested possessions, metres gained, disposal efficiency, contested marks, intercepts and inside 50s, to go with his superior hitout, marks, tackles and (vastly superior) disposal numbers. The only significant stat I can find where Naitanui is ahead is goals, where he is 0.3 goals per game ahead.

I'll stand by my original statement. Grundy has been significantly better this year than Naitanui was in 2015 and should be AA together with, rather than instead of, Gawn

Again, this is not how you assess the influence of a ruckman. Granted, Grundy has had an outstanding season. I wouldn't dispute that. But if you are comparing the influence of ruckmen, the stats you're presenting don't make the case.

And why should there be two ruckmen in the AA side when so few teams actually play two ruckmen in 2018?

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Holy Asperger's Batman!

 

[blaisee]

Andrews broke the AFL record for 1%ers yesterday. At the age of 21 no less. Definitely shaping up to be an AA defender.

He will be and allready is a star

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

And I pointed out that these stats are superficial. Because they are. I have also helpfully provided examples of metrics that are more meaningful.

Actually, I said that we have a precedent of only picking one ruckman, even when two guys have had great seasons. I pointed to Naitanui in 2015 as an example of this. And in 2018, teams are even less likely to line up with two ruckmen so that precedent is even more persuasive.

You offered a superficial comparison, using stats that do not adequately measure a ruckman's influence.

My point, as has now been conveyed several times, is that you offered a superficial comparison, using stats that do not adequately measure a ruckman's influence. The fact that I do not have the more relevant data at hand doesn't make the above statement any less true.

Again, this is not how you assess the influence of a ruckman. Granted, Grundy has had an outstanding season. I wouldn't dispute that. But if you are comparing the influence of ruckmen, the stats you're presenting don't make the case.

And why should there be two ruckmen in the AA side when so few teams actually play two ruckmen in 2018?

I give up.

I posted every possible relevant stat I could find. I did not post a(n admittedly relevant) stat I could not find. What that says is that my opinion is based on what I know.

If you think clearances, contested possessions, metres gained, disposal efficiency, contested marks, intercepts, inside 50s, hitouts, marks, tackles and disposals are not relevant when assessing the performances of a ruckman, then you have a very outdated (and shall I say superficial) view of the game.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I give up.

That suggests you made a fist of it beforehand. Generous.

I posted every possible relevant stat I could find.

That's great. But those stats still don't adequately measure a ruckman's influence. Do you accept this?

I did not post a(n admittedly relevant) stat I could not find. What that says is that my opinion is based on what I know.

It says you posted less relevant data because that's all you had available.

The fact it's all you had doesn't make it more relevant.

If you think clearances, contested possessions, metres gained, disposal efficiency, contested marks, intercepts, inside 50s, hitouts, marks, tackles and disposals are not relevant when assessing the performances of a ruckman, then you have a very outdated (and shall I say superficial) view of the game.

Certainly, some of those count for something. But there are simply too many key metrics omitted for that to adequately measure a ruckman's influence.

I mean, quite obviously, there are a whole series of metrics more telling than I50s, for example, when assessing the influence of a ruckman. That's not seriously disputable. That should go without saying but still you offer I50s like that's part of a solid argument.

And you also ignored my closing question: why should there be two ruckmen in the AA side when so few teams actually play two ruckmen in 2018?

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

That suggests you made a fist of it beforehand. Generous.

That's great. But those stats still don't adequately measure a ruckman's influence. Do you accept this?

It says you posted less relevant data because that's all you had available.

The fact it's all you had doesn't make it more relevant.

Certainly, some of those count for something. But there are simply too many key metrics omitted for that to adequately measure a ruckman's influence.

I mean, quite obviously, there are a whole series of metrics more telling than I50s, for example, when assessing the influence of a ruckman. That's not seriously disputable. That should go without saying but still you offer I50s like that's part of a solid argument.

And you also ignored my closing question: why should there be two ruckmen in the AA side when so few teams actually play two ruckmen in 2018?

"Too many" key metrics omitted? List these key metrics. You've got hitouts to advantage.

What are they?

You are just saying words for the sake of it.

All fluff and no substance.

 

[Engimal v3]

So my question is, do you have Naitanui's 2015 full season hitouts to advantage stats and Grundy's for 2018, so we can compare them? I'm interested in seeing them and can't find them. If you do not, I'm struggling to see the point in anything you have said.

Best I can find at 10pm:

Nic Nat, 2015: 11.1 (avg)
Grundy, 2018: 11.4 (avg)

 

[Sweet Jesus]

"Too many" key metrics omitted? List these key metrics. You've got hitouts to advantage.

What are they?

Did you read those articles I linked to earlier?

I'm not saying anything particularly controversial here. Don't take my word for it. Ask around.

You are just saying words for the sake of it.

All fluff and no substance.

This is pretty clearly the deflection of someone who's come up short on the substance.

People can read, champ. They can see you spinning your wheels and not going anywhere.

 

[The Gov]

The last page or so of this thread summed up in one image:

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Did you read those articles I linked to earlier?

I'm not saying anything particularly controversial here. Don't take my word for it. Ask around.

This is pretty clearly the deflection of someone who's come up short on the substance.

People can read, champ. They can see you spinning your wheels and not going anywhere.

I did. They were rubbish. The 2018 article was based on a stat analysis over three games and people saying hyperbolic rubbish like, "imagine being tackled by a crocodile". The 2015 article states the percentage of his hitouts which were to advantage, and nothing else useful.

I have presented numerous stats to support my view.

You are the one who said there are "Too many" key metrics omitted from my stat analysis? What happened when I asked you to list these key metrics? You deflected and referred me to an article about crocodiles.

And I'm the one spinning my wheels?

You have no idea.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I did. They were rubbish. The 2018 article was based on a stat analysis over three games and people saying hyperbolic rubbish like, "imagine being tackled by a crocodile". The 2015 article states the percentage of his hitouts which were to advantage, and nothing else useful.

I have presented numerous stats to support my view.

You are the one who said there are "Too many" key metrics omitted from my stat analysis? What happened when I asked you to list these key metrics? You deflected and referred me to an article about crocodiles.

You have presented superficial stats that don't make the case. We've established that.

But now that you've had time to think about it, what key metrics do you think would tell us more about the influence of a ruckman?

I've read enough about Naitanui's influence over the years to have a few in mind. But I want to know if you can imagine any. Or is that beyond you?

And I'm the one spinning my wheels?

That's right.

You have no idea.

Yet you are the one suggesting we might look at I50s to assess the influence of a ruckman. That is just a dumb thing to suggest. And that will be obvious to anyone who has considered the question for five seconds.

And for some reason, you continue to ignore my question: why should there be two ruckmen in the AA side when so few teams play two ruckmen in 2018?