AFL Player # 5: Elijah Tsatas - Signs a two-year extension! - 22/2

[TheGrizz]

Contract Status: Out of contract 2026
2024 My Boy Draft: Pick 14, Lore

 

[Vander18]

Champion data has a lot more than what the general public gets for free. I think Essendon is now paying for the full access but not every club/coach does… what we get on the outside is definitely shallow and simplistic though

How extraordinary that any club would not pay for this??

 

[Vander18]

Ah Merc's, saw his whole career, only needed 10 touches to seriously impact a game!

We could do with a clone of him now

10 touches would likely be 3 goals and 7 goal assists. Freak!

 

[eth-dog]

Because people like Twomey pumped him up so much in his draft year when the actual fact was he’s a terrible kick and always has been. He doesn’t like contact either. For a kid that has so much upside athletically it’s a pity he can’t get the basics right.

Oh, look, another Norf nuffie who has no idea.

 

[eth-dog]

I am starting to be concerned re this aspect of his game.

It's bullshit

 

[yodellinhank]

Agree it is a bit too stats driven . That is why I like listening to guys like Buckley who questions the value of some 40 possession games.
Using Friday as an example Tsatas had it 24 times but would most people have noticed he had 24 until the looked at the stats page ?

Far be it for me to get on the defensive for Tsatas, and without having seen the game, but I'd say it'd be great if he had 24 and wasn't noticed. Likely means he's winning the footy and dishing it off whilst not stuffing up. Luke Ball used to get 20 in a half completely unsighted as he hid at the bottom of every pack.

 

[yodellinhank]

It's bullshit

A lot of the aspects of his game are bullshit, I agree.

 

[eth-dog]

A lot my posts are bullshit

FTFY

 

[Nifft]

A lot of the aspects of his game are bullshit, I agree.

 

[BrunoV]

And the sad point is you are serious. I do not know why you do not have your own recruitment site given you are smarter than everyone in the industry.
I will give you a tip . Recruiters do watch . The issue is they gamble on what they think they can fix .
Anyway looking forward to one day seeing your expert draft predictions before a draft given the industry has no idea .

And you think that makes them smart or smarter?

 

[ant555]

And you think that makes them smart or smarter?

It is clear a lot of them are not smart but to say they do not look is simply wrong. We have not been smart. I agree with you on the dogs breakfast way we have tried to build lists . When it is risk v reward you will get a lot of bad risk. Throw in under performing development departments or coaches that are not up to it and you get what you get.

One reason why I was Phillipou and slightly lesser Humphry or Clarke was the risk of drafting another bloke who had no exposed form as far as attempting to defend or tackle.

At the end of the day you needs decent recruiting , good development and a good coach.

 

[Vander18]

It's bullshit

It’s an opinion.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Champion data has a lot more than what the general public gets for free. I think Essendon is now paying for the full access but not every club/coach does… what we get on the outside is definitely shallow and simplistic though

I think the main problem is that clubs don't know how to suitably analyse the data. At least that's the impression I get from my brother, who works in sports analytics (he's worked with the Cats a bit).

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

I think the main problem is that clubs don't know how to suitably analyse the data. At least that's the impression I get from my brother, who works in sports analytics (he's worked with the Cats a bit).

For those interested, this is the type of work he does (my brother is Patrick Ferguson).

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1475-4932.12665

 

[Beerfish]

For those interested, this is the type of work he does (my brother is Patrick Ferguson).

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1475-4932.12665

Uhh.. Cliffs?

 

[ghostdog]

Uhh.. Cliffs?

The abstract. Though sometimes an abstract of the abstract would be nice.

 

[owen87]

Uhh.. Cliffs?

The abstract. Though sometimes an abstract of the abstract would be nice.

Abstract
We use game-level data from the Australian Football League (AFL) to examine superstar workers' productivity and pay. By exploiting teams' injury-induced line-up changes between games, we show that, compared with replacement-level players, superstars increase their teams' likelihood of winning away games by approximately 15 percentage points. While we then show that betting markets appear to appropriately price superstars' marginal productivity, we present back-of-the-envelope calculations that suggest that teams underpay superstar players by at least 30 per cent. We discuss how inaccurate performance evaluations, labour market regulations, long-term back-loaded contracts, clubs' attempts to reduce harmful intra-team pay disparities and on-field success as a form of payment-in-kind may explain our findings.

I'd interpret that as;

Superstars* have a fairly large impact on chances of winning games. They're likely underpaid compared to what their impact is, probably due to various factors around salary cap management, team dynamics, regulations e.g. CBA and simply underestimating their impact compared to whoever would replace them.

So for us I'd guess it would be something like how good we are with Ridley vs without Ridley as an example.

* they define superstars this way;

Specifically, we define superstars as players in the 95th percentile of the distribution of the league's most-widely used performance rating.

We use Champion Data's player-game level ranking points to define superstar players.

Spoiler: further detail

We use Champion Data's player-game level ranking points to define superstar players. During each game, Champion Data rates player performance using a single metric that is tied to a large number of quantitative performance measures (e.g., effective disposals, goals, contested marks, meters gained, etc). Champion Data's player points are the league's most-widely used and reported quantitative performance rating. The objective of this rating is to capture a player's overall contribution to his team's performance.11 For the purposes of this study, we calculate AFL players' average game-level performance rating for each season in our sample. We then classify player i as a superstar in season t if his average performance rating in season t – 1 was in the 95th percentile of the league's performance distribution for that season.12 If superstar talent is uniformly distributed across the competition (a reasonable assumption given the AFL's use of reverse-order drafts and hard salary caps), by our definition the average AFL team's list has approximately two superstars (the typical AFL team has a list of 40 players, and we assume superstars make up 5 per cent of players in the competition).

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Uhh.. Cliffs?

I'll give him a call.

 

[Zach Package]

Good boy, bloody awesome half. So clean

 

[Call Me Cake]

Subbed on and ended up in the top 6 rated for clearances in the game

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Impressive half that

 

[citizen-erased]

Kicking polar opposite of what we've seen to date. Some lovely weighted ones

 

[brain taylor]

let’s gooooooooo

 

[MightyDon]

Should be starting on ground next week

 

[JT_the_Man]

Well that kicking issue has certainly disappeared. Think we’ve got one.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Well that kicking issue has certainly disappeared. Think we’ve got one.

Its still an issue and there'll be plenty of bad kicking days to come, but this was a really good game for the kid.