Ultimate Glory 2023 Trade speculation and Shinbeggars discussion

[FB19]

I'm not sure you can call it delusional and then only list 2 teams who would be interested. I suggest you pay a little more attention to how he is actually going this season. That wilderness you mention is bookended by a Best'n'Fairest and career best form. He is also only 24 years old.

To suggest he'd only get a late 2nd at best and only have 2 teams interested shows you really have NFI.

His draft range is my opinion you are free as you have done to disagree with. If it happens and he goes for much more than that, happy to be wrong. I didn’t say there would only be 2 teams interested, I posed the question of which teams would he fit and put forward 2 of what I believe are the most likely teams.
I am glad for you that everything is so clear and straightforward as it relates to list management. If you could just detail out how the off season will play out, then we can close the thread…

 

[Lickmesocks]

I'm not sure you can call it delusional and then only list 2 teams who would be interested. I suggest you pay a little more attention to how he is actually going this season. That wilderness you mention is bookended by a Best'n'Fairest and career best form. He is also only 24 years old.

To suggest he'd only get a late 2nd at best and only have 2 teams interested shows you really have NFI.

Good discussion and opinions but play the ball and not the man. The whole you have NFI is a bit over the top.

Fwiw I can’t see any club in Australia offering a first round pick for Worps. If they did then we would be taking it and running for the hills .

 

[Sixpence]

His draft range is my opinion you are free as you have done to disagree with. If it happens and he goes for much more than that, happy to be wrong. I didn’t say there would only be 2 teams interested, I posed the question of which teams would he fit and put forward 2 of what I believe are the most likely teams.
I am glad for you that everything is so clear and straightforward as it relates to list management. If you could just detail out how the off season will play out, then we can close the thread…

Good discussion and opinions but play the ball and not the man. The whole you have NFI is a bit over the top.

Fwiw I can’t see any club in Australia offering a first round pick for Worps. If they did then we would be taking it and running for the hills .

Are you guys for real? You call people delusional, then complain about playing the man. * me.

 

[FB19]

Are you guys for real? You call people delusional, then complain about playing the man. * me.

Saying an individual action or opinion is delusional is not the same as calling someone delusional. I sometimes do stupid things but I’m not stupid. That’s the point Lickmesocks was making. I don’t mind if you think I have NFI you are more than likely right, but there are better ways to say it. Equally I’m happy to do the same and use less emotive language than delusional. Is that fair?

 

[KermitJagger]

They are both two of the very worst kicks in the competition, the stats reflect this.

Taranto:
15.39% of his touches are clangers. That's 1 every 6.5 touches.

And 21.47% are turnovers. That's 1 every 4.66 touches.

Worpel:
16.67% are clangers. That's 1 every 6 touches.

And 23.01% are turnovers. That's 1 every 4.34 touches.

Alright, let's play the game both ways then.

According to the official AFL player ratings from Champion Data, Worpel has 2 years on record which have been rated higher than any year from Taranto. Both 2019 (12.65) and 2023 (13.54) exceed Taranto's best year, currently 2023 (11.69). Considering Champion Data are attempting to measure impact, then that would suggest the most sophisticated model available rates Worpel's best football ahead of Taranto's. Now I get what most people are going to say, "You can't seriously be using Champion Data?" - that's fine. Let's have a look at some of the stats this season a bit more closely.

You've done a nice bit of work figuring out the clangers and turnovers where there is naff all difference, but it really doesn't take into consideration the disposals from Taranto that just don't do anything or go anywhere, or where they come from. Worpel's possessions are a higher percentage contested (49.5% vs 42.5%) which lends itself to a lower efficiency, and a higher percentage in attack which also lends itself to a lower efficiency (5.2 I50s and 1.1 R50s to 4.2 and 2.7) - even with that, Worpel's poor efficiency is actually higher than Taranto's who gets the ball both in less damaging positions and does less with it (14.8mg per disposal and 4.3 disposals per SI to 13.5mg and 4.7 disposals per SI) despite being in a team that averages a goal more a game, with the third best offensive contest win % in the league behind only Geelong and Collingwood.

Returning to the Champion Data for a bit, it is very strange for a system like that which really values tackles and pressure to have a player like Taranto rated so much lower than Worpel despite far exceeding his pressure acts and tackles. I have a feeling it has something to do with the damage done by his errors, such as his high turnover rate and poor kicking - the only way he could be marked down so considerably is that if his disposals were either doing nothing positive or actually creating an unusual amount of scores against. To support that, he has the second worst kick rating in the league with -10 (meaning that he executes far below what his kicking efficiency should be, based on the kicks taken) and the third worst rating points per disposal in the league with .36 compared to higher impact players like Bontempelli with .8 or Newc with .64 who are both in the top 10.

So for all the talk of "Well Taranto is statistically better bla bla" I think that he is one of the best examples of all numbers and no substance in the league, he's ball dominant and his impact does not match his statistical output in the exact same way as someone like Russell Westbrook in the NBA. It's exactly what people were critical of with Tom Mitchell and exactly why we parted ways with him, and it's exactly why Richmond have been a markedly worse side than last year despite better player availability and a relatively unchanged structure. Great for SuperCoach, maybe not so much for a real football team.

It was a bit of a throwaway line that Worpel is better than Taranto this year, it can definitely be debated, I'm willing to admit there's not enough separating them to be definitive either way. The rating system that attempts to judge impact seems to think so, Richmond's performances seem to back that up, but he has received a few coaches votes and I'm just an arm chair pundit. What I do think, though, is that if someone seemingly as low impact as Taranto is worth two late firsts then it's not a stretch to think Worpel is worth 1 particularly given his performances this year are certainly better than Taranto's were last year. At the same time, I don't think we get an offer for a first for Worpel, so there's really no point in trading him - what he offers us at the moment far exceeds what we'd get for him as pretty much anything outside the top 10 would feel like a bit of a loss.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Always hoped Worps could become our version of Ben Cunnington

10

Ben Cunnington

Age

32

Ht

185cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

21.4

5star

K

9.0

3star

HB

12.4

5star

M

2.9

3star

T

4.7

5star

CL

5.6

5star

D

17.7

4star

K

6.0

2star

HB

11.7

5star

M

2.0

2star

T

4.0

5star

CL

4.0

5star

D

15.8

4star

K

6.4

3star

HB

9.4

5star

M

2.4

3star

T

6.2

5star

CL

3.0

5star

(early onset male baldness and all).

Interesting that I never see North Melbourne listed as a team that he'd suit IF he ever wanted to seek a trade.
They could genuinely improve their list by letting Cunnington and Shiels sail into the sunset and allow Worps to act as the mature coverage to Wardlaw, Sheezel, Phillips etc.

 

[KermitJagger]

Always hoped Worps could become our version of Ben Cunnington (early onset male baldness and all).

Interesting that I never see North Melbourne listed as a team that he'd suit IF he ever wanted to seek a trade.
They could genuinely improve their list by letting Cunnington and Shiels sail into the sunset and allow Worps to act as the mature coverage to Wardlaw, Sheezel, Phillips etc.

Don't reckon they need him now. LDU is a better player, they've got Simpkin, Wardlaw, Sheezel. They'll have a very good midfield in a few years if they do things right and Wardlaw's hamstrings stay together.

If any team would be on the hunt for him it'd be Geelong. They'd be right in his ear along with Parish.

 

[hawkinoz]

What I do think, though, is that if someone seemingly as low impact as Taranto is worth two late firsts then it's not a stretch to think Worpel is worth 1 particularly given his performances this year are certainly better than Taranto's were last year. At the same time, I don't think we get an offer for a first for Worpel, so there's really no point in trading him - what he offers us at the moment far exceeds what we'd get for him as pretty much anything outside the top 10 would feel like a bit of a loss.

Amen.

I have no idea why Hawks fans are running down Worpel's value when we have a recent example of Taranto & his return to form. I can understand other clubs who want him, running his value down.

 

[Crimsons]

Alright, let's play the game both ways then.

According to the official AFL player ratings from Champion Data, Worpel has 2 years on record which have been rated higher than any year from Taranto. Both 2019 (12.65) and 2023 (13.54) exceed Taranto's best year, currently 2023 (11.69). Considering Champion Data are attempting to measure impact, then that would suggest the most sophisticated model available rates Worpel's best football ahead of Taranto's. Now I get what most people are going to say, "You can't seriously be using Champion Data?" - that's fine. Let's have a look at some of the stats this season a bit more closely.

You've done a nice bit of work figuring out the clangers and turnovers where there is naff all difference, but it really doesn't take into consideration the disposals from Taranto that just don't do anything or go anywhere, or where they come from. Worpel's possessions are a higher percentage contested (49.5% vs 42.5%) which lends itself to a lower efficiency, and a higher percentage in attack which also lends itself to a lower efficiency (5.2 I50s and 1.1 R50s to 4.2 and 2.7) - even with that, Worpel's poor efficiency is actually higher than Taranto's who gets the ball both in less damaging positions and does less with it (14.8mg per disposal and 4.3 disposals per SI to 13.5mg and 4.7 disposals per SI) despite being in a team that averages a goal more a game, with the third best offensive contest win % in the league behind only Geelong and Collingwood.

Returning to the Champion Data for a bit, it is very strange for a system like that which really values tackles and pressure to have a player like Taranto rated so much lower than Worpel despite far exceeding his pressure acts and tackles. I have a feeling it has something to do with the damage done by his errors, such as his high turnover rate and poor kicking - the only way he could be marked down so considerably is that if his disposals were either doing nothing positive or actually creating an unusual amount of scores against. To support that, he has the second worst kick rating in the league with -10 (meaning that he executes far below what his kicking efficiency should be, based on the kicks taken) and the third worst rating points per disposal in the league with .36 compared to higher impact players like Bontempelli with .8 or Newc with .64 who are both in the top 10.

So for all the talk of "Well Taranto is statistically better bla bla" I think that he is one of the best examples of all numbers and no substance in the league, he's ball dominant and his impact does not match his statistical output in the exact same way as someone like Russell Westbrook in the NBA. It's exactly what people were critical of with Tom Mitchell and exactly why we parted ways with him, and it's exactly why Richmond have been a markedly worse side than last year despite better player availability and a relatively unchanged structure. Great for SuperCoach, maybe not so much for a real football team.

It was a bit of a throwaway line that Worpel is better than Taranto this year, it can definitely be debated, I'm willing to admit there's not enough separating them to be definitive either way. The rating system that attempts to judge impact seems to think so, Richmond's performances seem to back that up, but he has received a few coaches votes and I'm just an arm chair pundit. What I do think, though, is that if someone seemingly as low impact as Taranto is worth two late firsts then it's not a stretch to think Worpel is worth 1 particularly given his performances this year are certainly better than Taranto's were last year. At the same time, I don't think we get an offer for a first for Worpel, so there's really no point in trading him - what he offers us at the moment far exceeds what we'd get for him as pretty much anything outside the top 10 would feel like a bit of a loss.

I hope it's okay for me to reply - long time lurker
A comparison in the votes for the Coaches Award between Taranto (43 votes) and Worpel (3 votes) would suggest there is a difference in the impact they are having in games. Obviously there are a number of factors that may contribute to this, but it may be a reason why Taranto is generally considered more valuable then Worpel

 

[KermitJagger]

I hope it's okay for me to reply - long time lurker
A comparison in the votes for the Coaches Award between Taranto (43 votes) and Worpel (3 votes) would suggest there is a difference in the impact they are having in games. Obviously there are a number of factors that may contribute to this, but it may be a reason why Taranto is generally considered more valuable then Worpel

Worpel has far more competition for coaches votes in the Hawks midfield, in addition to less opportunity to gather them given our position on the ladder. Taranto is an extraordinarily large distance ahead of any other Richmond player in terms of output in the midfield, where Worpel has had to compete with Newcombe, Day, Nash and others recording a very similar output.

I did mention Taranto's coaches votes in the last paragraph, but to offset that he is also barely rated in the top 50 midfielders and Richmond have been far worse as a team since his inclusion. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Alright, let's play the game both ways then.

According to the official AFL player ratings from Champion Data, Worpel has 2 years on record which have been rated higher than any year from Taranto. Both 2019 (12.65) and 2023 (13.54) exceed Taranto's best year, currently 2023 (11.69). Considering Champion Data are attempting to measure impact, then that would suggest the most sophisticated model available rates Worpel's best football ahead of Taranto's. Now I get what most people are going to say, "You can't seriously be using Champion Data?" - that's fine. Let's have a look at some of the stats this season a bit more closely.

You've done a nice bit of work figuring out the clangers and turnovers where there is naff all difference, but it really doesn't take into consideration the disposals from Taranto that just don't do anything or go anywhere, or where they come from. Worpel's possessions are a higher percentage contested (49.5% vs 42.5%) which lends itself to a lower efficiency, and a higher percentage in attack which also lends itself to a lower efficiency (5.2 I50s and 1.1 R50s to 4.2 and 2.7) - even with that, Worpel's poor efficiency is actually higher than Taranto's who gets the ball both in less damaging positions and does less with it (14.8mg per disposal and 4.3 disposals per SI to 13.5mg and 4.7 disposals per SI) despite being in a team that averages a goal more a game, with the third best offensive contest win % in the league behind only Geelong and Collingwood.

Returning to the Champion Data for a bit, it is very strange for a system like that which really values tackles and pressure to have a player like Taranto rated so much lower than Worpel despite far exceeding his pressure acts and tackles. I have a feeling it has something to do with the damage done by his errors, such as his high turnover rate and poor kicking - the only way he could be marked down so considerably is that if his disposals were either doing nothing positive or actually creating an unusual amount of scores against. To support that, he has the second worst kick rating in the league with -10 (meaning that he executes far below what his kicking efficiency should be, based on the kicks taken) and the third worst rating points per disposal in the league with .36 compared to higher impact players like Bontempelli with .8 or Newc with .64 who are both in the top 10.

So for all the talk of "Well Taranto is statistically better bla bla" I think that he is one of the best examples of all numbers and no substance in the league, he's ball dominant and his impact does not match his statistical output in the exact same way as someone like Russell Westbrook in the NBA. It's exactly what people were critical of with Tom Mitchell and exactly why we parted ways with him, and it's exactly why Richmond have been a markedly worse side than last year despite better player availability and a relatively unchanged structure. Great for SuperCoach, maybe not so much for a real football team.

It was a bit of a throwaway line that Worpel is better than Taranto this year, it can definitely be debated, I'm willing to admit there's not enough separating them to be definitive either way. The rating system that attempts to judge impact seems to think so, Richmond's performances seem to back that up, but he has received a few coaches votes and I'm just an arm chair pundit. What I do think, though, is that if someone seemingly as low impact as Taranto is worth two late firsts then it's not a stretch to think Worpel is worth 1 particularly given his performances this year are certainly better than Taranto's were last year. At the same time, I don't think we get an offer for a first for Worpel, so there's really no point in trading him - what he offers us at the moment far exceeds what we'd get for him as pretty much anything outside the top 10 would feel like a bit of a loss.

Great work. I can't really comment given I don't have an understanding of how Champion Data come up with their rankings. Though on face value they come out with some very questionable lists.

One element that seems to have been overlooked is scoreboard impact, with Taranto kicking 10 goals so far this season, which is elite (currently) for an inside midfielder. Another is the coaches votes.

On the other hand another would be the time spent playing in the midfield and CBA attendances. Taranto ia the clear cut number one for Richmond and dominates the CBA's, whereas Worpel is arguably our number three or four and splits CBA's with three other players. That's sure to affect the numbers.

At the end of the day, based purely on watching them both, I'd say Taranto is a better player and IMO the stats (that I understand - the ones I referenced, the raw numbers, goals and coaches votes) back that up. Both are having good years and both are tough players that are two of the worst kicks in the league. However if we were to swap them around I don't believe the we would be playing any better, which I suppose says it all.

I can't see anyone offering a first either, unless it's Geelong and a late teens pick. I have said all along that we wouldn't get fair value for him if we were to trade him.

I think Taranto commanded such a fee because he had runs on the board, being consistently good bar his one injury interrupted season. Another factor would be Richmond's desperation to remain competitive.

 

[KermitJagger]

Great work. I can't really comment given I don't have an understanding on how Champion Data come up with their rankings. Though on face value they come out with some questionable lists.

One element that seems to have been overlooked is scoreboard impact, with Taranto kicking 10 goals so far this season, which is elite (currently) for an inside midfielder.

Another is time spent playing in the midfield and CBA attendances. Taranto ia the clear cut number one for Richmond and dominates the CBA's, whereas Worpel is arguably our number three or four and splits CBA's with three other players. That's sure to affect the numbers.

At the end of the day, based purely on watching them both, I'd say Taranto is a better player and IMO the stats (that I understand) back that up. Both are having good years and both are tough players that are two of the worst kicks in the league. However if we were to swap them around I don't believe the we would be playing any better, which I suppose says it all.

I can't see anyone offering a first either, unless it's Geelong and a late teens pick. I have said all along that we wouldn't get fair value for him if we were to trade him.

I think Taranto commanded such a fee because he had runs on the board, being consistently good bar his one injury interrupted season. Another factor would be Richmond's desperation to remain competitive.

Yeah I agree with your point around switching them. I don't think either are going to be the best player in a finals bound team, I wouldn't have either anywhere near the AA team.

Taranto's goal kicking is a weird one because he does hit the scoreboard well but outside of his own contribution he doesn't impact it much at all. Someone like Martin, Petracca or Bont might kick a goal a game but create a bunch more, Taranto does not.

 

[FB19]

Yeah I agree with your point around switching them. I don't think either are going to be the best player in a finals bound team, I wouldn't have either anywhere near the AA team.

Taranto's goal kicking is a weird one because he does hit the scoreboard well but outside of his own contribution he doesn't impact it much at all. Someone like Martin, Petracca or Bont might kick a goal a game but create a bunch more, Taranto does not.

Compliments on the analysis and I am willing to say I may underrate his trade value, perhaps it is also that Taranto was a pick 2 and won a B&F in a grand final year. Not that they should have much influence but suspect they might. Now that is settled, how did all of that great work lead us to a 2023 Hypothetical trade and draft thoughts and random scenarios???

 

[KermitJagger]

Compliments on the analysis and I am willing to say I may underrate his trade value, perhaps it is also that Taranto was a pick 2 and won a B&F in a grand final year. Not that they should have much influence but suspect they might. Now that is settled, how did all of that great work lead us to a 2023 Hypothetical trade and draft thoughts and random scenarios???

I would say that the Pick 2 element has a lot to do with it.

After all that analysis, I'll say the following - Worpel is likely to be underrated and undervalued by the market, we're unlikely to get true value as anything outside of a pick in the top 10 will struggle to match his performance. Doubt he'll be dealt.

Might be a watch and see if he only signs an additional year or two to bring him to free agency.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

GWS is a club that can roll out some really good-very good players for elite draft picks.

 

[Steven Tyler]

Who cares about Tim Taranto

14

Tim Taranto

Age

26

Ht

188cm

Wt

87kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.3

5star

K

12.8

5star

HB

9.5

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

5.6

5star

CL

4.1

5star

D

17.0

4star

K

12.0

5star

HB

5.0

3star

M

1.5

2star

T

3.0

4star

CL

5.5

5star

D

15.6

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

8.0

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

4.0

5star

CL

2.2

4star

ffs!

Mods, clean up in aisle 5!

 

[CHUBBSS]

Worpel will be worth something in two years, right now his building back. If he never dipped in form he would be worth plenty.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

Happy to keep Worps he was the start of our rebuild, heart and soul player you build a premiership around.

2 early draft picks, one with x factor and class. An 2 decent free agents and were on the rise aiming for top 8in 2024.

 

[WWSD]

Kai Lohmann aside, who’s already been metioned. Is there any other player under 23 at another club that might be worth a look who’s seeking more opportunities?

 

[OnTheRocks]

Ben McKay however, i like.

He has no ticker for the 'go when it's your turn' as proven in the last few minutes of the game against the scum.

 

[naysayer]

Is there any reason on god's green earth or under it that we would be looking to trade James Worpel

5

James Worpel

Age

25

Ht

186cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.5

5star

K

12.2

5star

HB

11.3

5star

M

2.9

3star

T

4.5

5star

CL

5.1

5star

No current season stats available

D

15.6

4star

K

6.2

3star

HB

9.4

5star

M

1.0

1star

T

3.2

5star

CL

1.8

4star

?

Massive contract? No
Massive value? No
Underperforming? No
Unhappy at the club? No
Dysfunctional midfield? No

 

[naysayer]

Kai Lohmann aside, who’s already been metioned. Is there any other player under 23 at another club that might be worth a look who’s seeking more opportunities?

Elijah Hollands. Different kind of player to what we have, a tall mid-forward who kicked a lot of goals as a junior. Well worth a look.

 

[BIGHAWK23]

Worpel isn't worth talking about

Re-Signing imminent

 

[Dewnior]

He has no ticker for the 'go when it's your turn' as proven in the last few minutes of the game against the scum.

Yeah, I saw that. I wasn't sure if that was a lack of willingness to put the body on the line or an instruction from the bench.

 

[Threadkilla]

GC’s first and second pick this year for our 2024 first? That would give us (at this stage) 3, 7 and 23. They’ll get an early bid on Walter anyway and we can really load up to fast track it all a bit.