2019 team rankings according to Champion Data

[ParapMarkets]

You need only look at their 2018 predictions to know its garbage stats.

All they are proving is either:
You cant quantify the unquantifiable
Or
Their markers for performance are completely wrong

Either of the above is true. Or both. But its at least one.

I think it can be quantifiable, they just clearly have their markers wrong. They do take stats from the past 40 games, so there are a number of games taken from 2017, but they made finals that year as well. WC don’t have to be number 1, but they finished home & away in 2nd spot, it’s not like they just scraped into finals and then had a good month. They just simply can’t be 11th, it’s ridiculous.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I think it can be quantifiable, they just clearly have their markers wrong. They do take stats from the past 40 games, so there are a number of games taken from 2017, but they made finals that year as well. WC don’t have to be number 1, but they finished home & away in 2nd spot, it’s not like they just scraped into finals and then had a good month. They just simply can’t be 11th, it’s ridiculous.

I think it's their gameplan, which will be reflected in the individual players stats. A p9ssessi9nalieiented game will prioritise decusion making and precision execution skills, particularly kicking. I'm thinking champion data rates contested all wins and metres gained higher.

That would tend to favour players in team playing a more territory oriented game kicking long to a contest more.

I dont recall but Iwonder if champion data underrated the Hawks in their dominant period, and a gameplan with some similarities.

 

[ParapMarkets]

I think it's their gameplan, which will be reflected in the individual players stats. A p9ssessi9nalieiented game will prioritise decusion making and precision execution skills, particularly kicking. I'm thinking champion data rates contested all wins and metres gained higher.

That would tend to favour players in team playing a more territory oriented game kicking long to a contest more.

I dont recall but Iwonder if champion data underrated the Hawks in their dominant period, and a gameplan with some similarities.

The Hawks were highly rated by champion data, they were ranked number 1 heading into both the 2015 and 2016 seasons.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

The Hawks were highly rated by champion data, they were ranked number 1 heading into both the 2015 and 2016 seasons.

Mmmmm

I need to research the details then

 

[nineteen eighty]

West Coast's midfield in the finals won all of the major stats, but they didn't throughout the year. For example, West Coast ranked 18th for ground-ball gets in 2018. Sheed was in and out of the team during the year, but was fantastic late, just as Redden had a great last 6 weeks.

CD work on a full two season average ending at the Grand Final. But there's a weighting system attached. More recent games have a greater loading than games played nearly two years ago. For example, the 2018 GF has greater weight in their algorithms than round 1, 2017. Even the second half of 2018 has greater weight than the first half of 2018.

They measure the stats of every player on every list as long as that player has played at least 5 games within the last two years. Their algorithms spit out the results of every player within the criteria and they rank the lists accordingly.

There's no "opinion" in these stats. And they don't suggest taking them as any guide to future performance.

Appreciate what you are saying but there is a absolutely "opinion" in their ratings...it's in the weightings themselves. I like CD and the work they do but as in all cases, stats are not the be all and end all. Case in point...West Coast Eagles.

 

[nineteen eighty]

West Coast were 18th for ground-ball stats, 11th for contested possessions, 11th for clearances, and 15th for tackles.

They're just stats, but they explain how the rankings evolve.

Do you know how they went against their opposition in the categories you have listed in the finals?

 

[nineteen eighty]

Surely this is embarrassing for Champion Data?

The 2018 list proves how inaccurate the CD system is on a team assessment and the 2019 list looks like more confirmation. How can the premier be ranked so low? They don't have a highly ranked midfield but come September the WCE midfield beat Collingwood's twice and destroyed Melbourne's.

It's not possible that CD's ranking formulae equate to actually winning which after all is what the ladder actually does measure.

Agree. The stats are good to look at how sides play and individually how they measure against opponents in each of the categories. Ranking teams based on God knows what algorithm seems highly flawed based on what it has thrown out.

 

[hawkman]

The Hawks were highly rated by champion data, they were ranked number 1 heading into both the 2015 and 2016 seasons.

We were ranked highly during that period

My favourite Champion Data stat was ranking Hawthorn's forward line the worst in the league at the start of 2008

 

[nineteen eighty]

I don't think this should effect CDs credibility. Rather, I think it shows the limitations of statistics. Especially in AFL.

The stats themselves are fine. It's the weightings and interpretation that are BS.

 

[HairyO]

We were ranked highly during that period

My favourite Champion Data stat was ranking Hawthorn's forward line the worst in the league at the start of 2008

So they have been worse than a dart board for at least a decade.

And people still pay attention.

 

[Carson Dial]

Quick way to improve their strike rate... employ Paul the Octopus (plus he's cheap)

 

[kranky al]

• How dare a a computer algorithm not rank my club higher

  They obviously need to get a black dude to rewrite it altogether.
  

 

[HairyO]

I think it can be quantifiable, they just clearly have their markers wrong. They do take stats from the past 40 games, so there are a number of games taken from 2017, but they made finals that year as well. WC don’t have to be number 1, but they finished home & away in 2nd spot, it’s not like they just scraped into finals and then had a good month. They just simply can’t be 11th, it’s ridiculous.

If it could be quantified thrn surely the guys spending millions of dollars on research would be the ones to do it?

 

[Big_Tony]

It's a ranking of the best lists based on the individual player stats that make up those lists. The interpretation is the problem. Football is a team game, and a team needs to be more than the sum of its parts to win. Some players will have their true "stats potential" dampened to fit the role the team needs them to play for example. Simply looking at the list of player stats doesn't tell you much about how well the team functions as a whole.

 

[HTT]

You lot are a fly to s**t.

This is a prediction of 2019, not a current rating.



Did you watch any football at all in 2018?

It is both. It is a current rating used to predict 2019.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

We were ranked highly during that period

My favourite Champion Data stat was ranking Hawthorn's forward line the worst in the league at the start of 2008

They did what???

Two 20 yr olds had kicked 113 goals between them in 2007....

 

[hawkman]

They did what???

Two 20 yr olds had kicked 113 goals between them in 2007....

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/hawthorn-have-afls-worst-forwardline-champion-data.412065/

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/hawthorn-have-afls-worst-forwardline-champion-data.412065/

That thread aged well.

 

[legend166]

All this tells me is we've got a long way to go before we get a proper handle on what stats actually contribute to wins in Australian Football. It also shows that individual performance means very, very little. In Australian Football, perhaps more than any other sport I can think of, the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts.

Things like system, coaching, player conhesion, tactics, etc, etc, are huge contributors to success that are not accounted for at all in lists like these.

 

[B4Bear]

We were ranked highly during that period

My favourite Champion Data stat was ranking Hawthorn's forward line the worst in the league at the start of 2008

Just goes to show what a dominant midfield Hawthorn had. Let's face it, in their prime the Hawks midfield could have made the Carlton forwards look good.

 

[Mcgearzz]

Lol how are wce 11th they won the flag with gaff and natanui to come back. Did Robert walls write this?

 

[LoBu]

Champion Data seems to be more about stat padding e.g. look at Tom Mitchell and where he was rated this year. Best stat padding teams are at the top is not a surprise. Melbourne have the likes of Gawn, Oliver, Viney who love the cheap possessions and Adelaide with Laird, Sloane etc as well loving the cheap possessions

Fair comments but Sloane is not a cheap ball getter, that's M Crouch

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[doppleganger]

It’s analysing lists going into 2019, Neale is rated extremely highly in their rankings. They have a big problem though, WC haven’t lost anyone and are ranked 11. They have a flaw in their system.

They lost Lycett, who is higher rated according to player ratings compared to NicNat.

And LeCras, who was their highest rated small/forward.

They rated WC 12th when they did this heading into 2018, so an improvement.

It is best viewed as a ‘talent’ rating...which is just as useful as a Carlton fan trotting out how many top10 draft picks they have on their list!

Trying to use individual ratings from previous seasons, with players often at different clubs, to then create ‘team’ rankings is nonsense.

 

[winty]

Im baffled how Hunt is considered "Elite when is isnt in out best 22

Similar to how Zac Smith is supposedly the 10th best ruckman yet only played 3 games for the year.

 

[the view]

this is why Supercoach sux

agree , you have to be very lonely to play that s**t