Review Autopsy vs Freo

Mattdougie

Cancelled
10k Posts
Jun 29, 2013
19,344
19,584
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Or it could be that CD enabled him to reflect more directly on Macrae's game which then upon consideration was poor, of which CD is one element of that consideration.

Coaches think they're crap because ultimately they're interested in structures and tactics and they don't answer how effectively players are adhering to tactics and structures.

That doesn't mean for our purposes they're crap.

Unless you personally know what Bevo's pre-game instructions were to every single player, they're a handy tool in avoiding very human elements of the game, like misapplication of events or even being distracted by watching the entire game.

Given that in the match-day thread, you said you only noticed 3 of Jong's 15 disposals to half time, you are going down this line of argument. Nobody's claiming that Jong played a better game the another because of the fact he had more touches, there's factors lien decision making that statistics can't measure. It's simply that in a fast paced game that humans find it inherently difficult to notice 22 players at once, it notices and collates every disposal from every player without human flaws like distractions or inability to closely monitor a fast-paced game.

It's simplifying it for the Macrae argument, but the principle remains the same.

Fairly sure I've never commented on Jongs overall game and this exact post where YOU bring him into the discussion is why I get blamed for talking about him all the time.

I cannot believe anyone with any intelligence actually thinks that CD allows you to not watch the full game and still make an accurate judgement of the game

Sorry mate but that is beyond moronic. Anyone that watches that game can see Mcraes cd rank is laughable in the context of that game, as is Adams.

What the coaches instructions to each players has absolutely zero bearing on CD points I have no idea why you would even reference that.

It's clear that you have a heavy reliance on CD in your football watching an analysis and that's fine but I will go with the way the coaches go, no disrespect to you but I think they are the ones to listen to when analysing a game of footy.
 

Substance

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 6, 2012
9,770
16,007
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I can't be bothered writing up a big post on this since I get up at 5am and only have my mobile with me. So just let me clarify that I thought macrae had a below par game and was inconsistent quarter to quarter, same as many others. He is usually more productive than he was but I saw few trademark macrae link up plays and he only had 1 i50 out of his 26 disposals. He wasn't too bad really but we need better from him and a dozen others obviously because we know they are much better than that. They set the standard last year so we know we can reasonably demand more.
 
Fairly sure I've never commented on Jongs overall game and this exact post where YOU bring him into the discussion is why I get blamed for talking about him all the time.

I cannot believe anyone with any intelligence actually thinks that CD allows you to not watch the full game and still make an accurate judgement of the game

Sorry mate but that is beyond moronic. Anyone that watches that game can see Mcraes cd rank is laughable in the context of that game, as is Adams.

What the coaches instructions to each players has absolutely zero bearing on CD points I have no idea why you would even reference that.

It's clear that you have a heavy reliance on CD in your football watching an analysis and that's fine but I will go with the way the coaches go, no disrespect to you but I think they are the ones to listen to when analysing a game of footy.
I don't watch all 9 games every week, and I don't have perfect recollection of every game of football I've watched.

Nobody's saying that stats don't have flaws. But honestly, given the fact that they're consistent with how they're measured, they can fill the gaps in the absence of watching every single game, of remembering each game perfectly or on how you watch football (between stoppages, live, at a game, I look at how each team is structuring in front and behind the stoppage and miss the stoppage itself, ergo which player wins the clearance).

Stats can fill those gaps. Nobody is saying that they replace what we already watch. Nobody is saying the measure things like positioning or decision making. Nobody isn't saying there isn't nuance within what is called out to be a "hard ball get" that you need video to analyse. But unless you watch every minute of every game and have a photographic memory I don't understand the point of your argument. Nobody is saying Adams didn't have a poor game, because we all understand the flaws in that ranking system. We are all saying that ranking points can't measure the elements of Adams' performance that made it poor.

And I'm not even getting into the ability to use statistics for computing and big data. I'll give a simple example - a behind is actually worth more than a behind. What do I mean? Well, if you take 10 years of data from behinds, the very next score after a behind tends to be scored by the team who just scored the behind. Conceding a kick in, for the team defending, is almost always a better position to be in relative to a centre bounce. We wouldn't be able to understand that without the collection of statistics and the computers and spreadsheets that you seem to hate so viciously.

In any case being proactive in science and computing was one part in winning the flag last year. Our partnership with VU means our sports science department was one of the best in the league. Our stoppage differential success last year was in part because we used more advanced computer modelling of stoppages than any other team, and we researched and used this to effectively win more clearances in games.
 

Mattdougie

Cancelled
10k Posts
Jun 29, 2013
19,344
19,584
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I don't watch all 9 games every week, and I don't have perfect recollection of every game of football I've watched.

Nobody's saying that stats don't have flaws. But honestly, given the fact that they're consistent with how they're measured, they can fill the gaps in the absence of watching every single game, of remembering each game perfectly or on how you watch football (between stoppages, live, at a game, I look at how each team is structuring in front and behind the stoppage and miss the stoppage itself, ergo which player wins the clearance).

Stats can fill those gaps. Nobody is saying that they replace what we already watch. Nobody is saying the measure things like positioning or decision making. Nobody isn't saying there isn't nuance within what is called out to be a "hard ball get" that you need video to analyse. But unless you watch every minute of every game and have a photographic memory I don't understand the point of your argument. Nobody is saying Adams didn't have a poor game, because we all understand the flaws in that ranking system. We are all saying that ranking points can't measure the elements of Adams' performance that made it poor.

And I'm not even getting into the ability to use statistics for computing and big data. I'll give a simple example - a behind is actually worth more than a behind. What do I mean? Well, if you take 10 years of data from behinds, the very next score after a behind tends to be scored by the team who just scored the behind. Conceding a kick in, for the team defending, is almost always a better position to be in relative to a centre bounce. We wouldn't be able to understand that without the collection of statistics and the computers and spreadsheets that you seem to hate so viciously.

In any case being proactive in science and computing was one part in winning the flag last year. Our partnership with VU means our sports science department was one of the best in the league. Our stoppage differential success last year was in part because we used more advanced computer modelling of stoppages than any other team, and we researched and used this to effectively win more clearances in games.


Mate you're talking about two completely different things

Brain dead CD stats that the brain dead general public use in an attempt to look intelligent and actually have no idea of their actual relevance

In comparisons to analytical focused data used by elite sporting bodies and their professional staff.

Honestly that's like comparing Zeph Skinner to The Bont.
 

Doggy Dan

Premiership Player
Jul 29, 2014
3,594
6,858
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Tom Campbell is like Mason Cox in my opinion and that is that it is a complete embarrassment to the game that they can get on the park.

Both are utterly atrocious footballers who get a free ride due their size. BTC looks more Bond villain than league footballer.
 

BRWB

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts The Cult of Robbo
Oct 7, 2012
15,839
24,196
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
...
Unless you personally know what Bevo's pre-game instructions were to every single player, they're a handy tool in avoiding very human elements of the game, like misapplication of events or even being distracted by watching the entire game.

Given that in the match-day thread, you said you only noticed 3 of Jong's 15 disposals to half time, you are going down this line of argument. Nobody's claiming that Jong played a better game the another because of the fact he had more touches, there's factors lien decision making that statistics can't measure. It's simply that in a fast paced game that humans find it inherently difficult to notice 22 players at once, it notices and collates every disposal from every player without human flaws like distractions or inability to closely monitor a fast-paced game.

It's simplifying it for the Macrae argument, but the principle remains the same.

But we do have a measure of how the MC rates how a player has done the job they gave him.

It's called the B and F. It's a shame this annual empirical measure of how a club rates a player and how he does his job is almost disregarded.

Relying on CD points is similar to how people used to just use a possession count to talk up a player. Just a more complicated with massive biases. Or worse relying on Brownlow votes.
 

TiAn_

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 19, 2006
7,415
18,931
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
But we do have a measure of how the MC rates how a player has done the job they gave him.

It's called the B and F. It's a shame this annual empirical measure of how a club rates a player and how he does his job is almost disregarded.

Relying on CD points is similar to how people used to just use a possession count to talk up a player. Just a more complicated with massive biases. Or worse relying on Brownlow votes.

B&F votes incorporate the "massive biases" of each voting person. E.g. Perhaps Rohan Smith favors players in the line he coaches, or players he likes? Perhaps he doesn't?

As you say, they indicate how a club rates a player. They aren't consistent between clubs, meaning they're almost useless in comparing the performance of two players from different teams.

No one here has said that advanced metrics are the be all and end all, despite the counter to that argument being made over and over, for no reason.

The reality is that there is a range of data that should be considered in assessing a player's performance and advanced metrics are one. Counting stats are another. B&F votes are another. Anecdotal evidence (what you see) is another again. How much weight you give to each category is a matter for you.

Striking a line through a category and saying people are idiots for taking it into account is just moronic grandstanding and prioritizing one category to the exclusion of all others is a fool's errand.
 

Mattdougie

Cancelled
10k Posts
Jun 29, 2013
19,344
19,584
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
But we do have a measure of how the MC rates how a player has done the job they gave him.

It's called the B and F. It's a shame this annual empirical measure of how a club rates a player and how he does his job is almost disregarded.

Relying on CD points is similar to how people used to just use a possession count to talk up a player. Just a more complicated with massive biases. Or worse relying on Brownlow votes.

Mate you can't argue with these people they know all that needs to be known.

They make statements and when challenged and pointed out the clear errors they are defining they just deflect and make it about the person and their continued actions(generally me).

They throw irrelevant stats at you as "proof" of their argument but then say they are subjective when the exact same stats don't help their argument.

Some can say whatever they wish about me but I don't change the goal posts like some. I'm an easy target now and any discussion with me that they don't like end in them sendin. Veiled insults in the guise of sarcasm. I just send insults I don't need to hide behind things.
 
B&F votes incorporate the "massive biases" of each voting person. E.g. Perhaps Rohan Smith favors players in the line he coaches, or players he likes? Perhaps he doesn't?

As you say, they indicate how a club rates a player. They aren't consistent between clubs, meaning they're almost useless in comparing the performance of two players from different teams.

No one here has said that advanced metrics are the be all and end all, despite the counter to that argument being made over and over, for no reason.

The reality is that there is a range of data that should be considered in assessing a player's performance and advanced metrics are one. Counting stats are another. B&F votes are another. Anecdotal evidence (what you see) is another again. How much weight you give to each category is a matter for you.

Striking a line through a category and saying people are idiots for taking it into account is just moronic grandstanding and prioritizing one category to the exclusion of all others is a fool's errand.
Precisely.

Roarke Smith got a 3 for the game he played - why did he get dropped and not Zaine Cordy who was only averaging 1 vote per game?
Moyd wasn't on our top 10 for average votes per game despite being am All-Australian.
Wallis polled lower averages than players who he was being selected over.

Who knows if some assistants are more or less strict with how they give votes.

I'm any case, Best and Fairest votes have the flaw that it's discrete data in football which is for data recording purposes a continuous event. One player's game that gets a 5 vote from every coach doesn't mean that they couldn't have played any better and there's nuance to how good a 1 or a 2 or a 3.

We also know that looking at averages that roughly half the team would get a 0 every week. Surely you're not suggesting that the 11 worst players in any given all equally played an equally poor game. It's the same problem to a smaller extent assuming the 41 players who didn't poll a Brownlow vote in a game played an equally poor game.

Champion Data apply the same formulas and their match callers are consistent with how they record every game which means there's no real flaws in comparing across games.
 
Dec 21, 2005
23,638
14,964
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Champion Data basically sh*t on Macrae in their rankings of him and I have no idea why. Him and Hunter were our only four-quarter performers for the game, and Macrae's consistency is consistently ignored by stats providers.
Sometimes stats don't tell the story. Footy fans are obsessed with stats. Macrae, does a lot that isn't reflected on any stat sheet that we are privy to.
 

Mattdougie

Cancelled
10k Posts
Jun 29, 2013
19,344
19,584
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Champion Data apply the same formulas and their match callers are consistent with how they record every game which means there's no real flaws in comparing across games.


Can I ask a serious question ? Do you have any involvement with CD? Do you work for them ?

It is beyond impossible for any group of seperate people to watch different games and come up with the exact same statistical outcomes even if they work to strict rules and guidelines. Inherent bias and simple attention to different factors will come with inherent differences.
 
Can I ask a serious question ? Do you have any involvement with CD? Do our work for them ?

It' is beyond impossible for any group of seperate people to watch different games and come up with the exact same outcomes even if they work to strict rules and guidelines. Inherent bias and simple attention to different factors will come with inherent differences.
Can I ask you a serious question? Are you actually a Bulldogs supporter? You seem to take great pleasure in pointing out the faults in Bulldogs players and other Bulldogs supporters.

What do you mean by same outcomes? I honestly don't know what that means?

What I'm trying to say is that we understand that application of calling the game is consistent. What constitutes a contested possessions or any other statistic, for that matter, is consistently applied for every game.

I know that this player got 12 kicks one week and 14 the week after, that the definition used to determine what is and isn't a kick the same week to week.

I know that the complex computer formula they use for ranking points is the same for every game.

What I also do know is that personally I am not consistent with how I watch football. Obviously, watching on TV and live is different. My frame of mind is different. I'm frustrated when we're losing. I'm caught up in the emotion in a finals game. How I watch the game of football and make analysis in my mind is different to a frustrating game I watch on TV losing to Fremantle, that it is a live game I watch against Sydney from level 3 at Etihad, that it is watching the Preliminary final in Sydney on level 1 off about 4 hours sleep because I got into Sydney late at night and I got up early because of the excitement, and during the game I'm more excited and worried about the scoreline than I am analysing the players in any non-finals game.

That influences how I view the game and make assessments. Recording statistics has consistency and falls victim to absolutely none of those human elements, or if it does, to a negligible amount (of course a caller can stuff up a player name or whatever, but they have backups, plus it would happen 1 in 1000 times). This is even before we get into the fact I don't watch all 205 AFL games - even for all Bulldogs games last year that I watched, my viewing experience was vastly different for each one.
 

Mattdougie

Cancelled
10k Posts
Jun 29, 2013
19,344
19,584
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Can I ask you a serious question? Are you actually a Bulldogs supporter? You seem to take great pleasure in pointing out the faults in Bulldogs players and other Bulldogs supporters.

What do you mean by same outcomes? I honestly don't know what that means?

What I'm trying to say is that we understand that application of calling the game is consistent. What constitutes a contested possessions or any other statistic, for that matter, is consistently applied for every game.

I know that this player got 12 kicks one week and 14 the week after, that the definition used to determine what is and isn't a kick the same week to week.

I know that the complex computer formula they use for ranking points is the same for every game.

What I also do know is that personally I am not consistent with how I watch football. Obviously, watching on TV and live is different. My frame of mind is different. I'm frustrated when we're losing. I'm caught up in the emotion in a finals game. How I watch the game of football and make analysis in my mind is different to a frustrating game I watch on TV losing to Fremantle, that it is a live game I watch against Sydney from level 3 at Etihad, that it is watching the Preliminary final in Sydney on level 1 off about 4 hours sleep because I got into Sydney late at night and I got up early because of the excitement, and during the game I'm more excited and worried about the scoreline than I am analysing the players in any non-finals game.

That influences how I view the game and make assessments. Recording statistics has consistency and falls victim to absolutely none of those human elements, or if it does, to a negligible amount (of course a caller can stuff up a player name or whatever, but they have backups, plus it would happen 1 in 1000 times). This is even before we get into the fact I don't watch all 205 AFL games - even for all Bulldogs games last year that I watched, my viewing experience was vastly different for each one.

You didn't answer my question whether you have some connection to CD and your ignoring it makes me think perhaps you do. Which if true means that you have an inherent bias to this whole argument.

It's below you to suggest other people are not fans because they disagree with you in fact it's pathetic and an easy out.

Why is my opinion less valid that CD is irrelevant, when I have the coaches of the AFL on my side, than yours who thinks they matter to a very important degree?

I have no doubt that the formula used by CD is consistent BUT the people imputting the data used for those stats can not be 100% consistent. It's an impossibility for different people to watch different game, or in fact the same game, and come up with EXACTLY the same outcomes.

Once even the smallest human factor is placed into the mix it is impossible to have 100% accurate data collection, it would even be impossible for the same person to watch 9 games and it still be accurate across every game.
 

BRWB

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts The Cult of Robbo
Oct 7, 2012
15,839
24,196
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
B&F votes incorporate the "massive biases" of each voting person. E.g. Perhaps Rohan Smith favors players in the line he coaches, or players he likes? Perhaps he doesn't?

As you say, they indicate how a club rates a player. They aren't consistent between clubs, meaning they're almost useless in comparing the performance of two players from different teams.

No one here has said that advanced metrics are the be all and end all, despite the counter to that argument being made over and over, for no reason.

The reality is that there is a range of data that should be considered in assessing a player's performance and advanced metrics are one. Counting stats are another. B&F votes are another. Anecdotal evidence (what you see) is another again. How much weight you give to each category is a matter for you.

Striking a line through a category and saying people are idiots for taking it into account is just moronic grandstanding and prioritizing one category to the exclusion of all others is a fool's errand.


1 - 5 people vote in the B and F so it takes out one person's bias. If all 5 don't rate the player then really that player just isn't rated by the club in that year.

2 - the CD system is set up to favour certain players types. So it is inherently biased and flawed IMO. It tries to compare apples and oranges and pears - and fails.

3 - I don't worry about comparing players across clubs so much. More interested in comparing within our club, and the B and F is the ultimate relative measure to do this IMO.

4 - I'm not calling people names so not sure what you are on about.

I agree that all measures can be looked at. However, I place minimal weight on CD ratings due to their bias in favouring certain player types. I therefore don't tend to find arguments saying, 'wow look at his CD points, he must have played well' as remotely compelling.
 
Last edited:
You didn't answer my question whether you have some connection to CD and your ignoring it makes me think perhaps you do. Which if true means that you have an inherent bias to this whole argument.

It's below you to suggest other people are not fans because they disagree with you in fact it's pathetic and an easy out.

Why is my opinion less valid that CD is irrelevant, when I have the coaches of the AFL on my side, than yours who thinks they matter to a very important degree?

I have no doubt that the formula used by CD is consistent BUT the people imputting the data used for those stats can not be 100% consistent. It's an impossibility for different people to watch different game, or in fact the same game, and come up with EXACTLY the same outcomes.

Once even the smallest human factor is placed into the mix it is impossible to have 100% accurate data collection, it would even be impossible for the same person to watch 9 games and it still be accurate across every game.
Yes, I'm Glenn Luff. You got me.

Coaches clearly don't think that Champion Data is irrelevant. I don't know why you keep saying that. They wouldn't be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars if they were. You're also confusing coaches and the wider football department. You're also confusing Champion Data-created ranking points that they create by and large for the media with the thousands of other stats that they collate that are useful to the clubs.

Coaches ultimately aim to develop tactics and try to understand the relationship between player and tactic. Of course things like "76 ratings points" can't answer that question but things like "play on from mark percentage" can be a guidance.

Wider football departments are also interested in statistics. Why else does every club hire multiple football analysts, opposition analysts and the like? It's not their necessarily their job to be able communicate or work with players, as opposed to understand how and why teams win or lose games and be a guidance to coaches, list managers and the like who also have a bit of human element to their role.

Of course there isn't 100% perfect data collection. But they have consistent quality audit checks, and a backup caller. The misses are so small they're negligible.

I feel like I'm banging my head up against a brick wall here. If your point was true, we wouldn't have seen more clubs paying more money to Champion Data. We would have Champion Data publicly stating that they introduced new statistics in part because of coaches requests. We would have seen clubs hire more football and data analysts in response to CEO's saying "a $1.8 million increase in football department spending" in their annual report. All of this points to the importance of what you're degrading here.

There are quite literally dozens of videos of the offices of coaches and list managers across various clubs talking to Club Website's media departments where you can see multiple years worth of Champion Data prospectus books in the background. The fact that I have to make that statement to justify the usefulness of Champion Data and statistics is quite outstanding but here we are.
 
Last edited:

Mattdougie

Cancelled
10k Posts
Jun 29, 2013
19,344
19,584
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Yes, I'm Glenn Luff. You got me.

Coaches clearly don't think that Champion Data is irrelevant. I don't know why you keep saying that. They wouldn't be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars if they were. You're also confusing coaches and the wider football department. You're also confusing Chpuom Data-created ranking points that they create by and large for the media with the thousands of other stats that they collate that are useful to the clubs.

Coaches ultimately aim to develop tactics and try to understand the relationship between player and tactic. Of course things like "76 ratings points" can't answer that question but things like "play on from mark percentage" can be a guidance.

Wider football departments are also interested in statistics. Why else does every club hire multiple football analysts, opposition analysts and the like? It's not their necessarily their job to be able communicate or work with players, as opposed to understand how and why teams win or lose games and be a guidance to coaches, list managers and the like who also have a bit of human element to their role.

Of course there isn't 100% perfect data collection. But they have consistent quality audit checks, and a backup caller. The misses are so small they're negligible.

I feel like I'm banging my head up against a brick wall here. If your point was true, we wouldn't have seen more clubs paying more money to Champion Data. We would have Champion Data publicly stating that they introduced new statistics in part because of coaches requests. We would have seen clubs hire more football and data analysts in response to CEO's saying "a $1.8 million increase in football department spending" in their annual report. All of this points to the importance of what you're degrading here.


Mate I continue to say coaches think champion date is unimportant because they have told me with their own mouths that is what they think. Our own club puts next to no credence in them.

Your twisting this discussion now. I have been talking about pure CD points and ranking not the stats based behind it, again they are two seperate statistical measures.

Of course some stay numbers can and will be used by clubs but that wasn't my point and you know that.

I referred to someone who said a player had a bad game and his CD ranking proved that which is completely wrong. Cowardice by the same person then by attempting to backtrack and say they didn't is expected and was with no surprise the outcome.

Again you deflect from the question do you have any connection to CD and I think the 3 times your have now ignored the question or answers with sarcasm answers the question.

Agree to disagree on the importance of stats TO THE LEMMINGS AND MINIONS, as most can't watch footy with their own two eyes let alone decipher stats and place them into a relevant response
 

Yojimbo

Cancelled
10k Posts
Nov 14, 2012
10,914
9,834
The "Elephant" in the room.
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Tom Campbell is like Mason Cox in my opinion and that is that it is a complete embarrassment to the game that they can get on the park.

Both are utterly atrocious footballers who get a free ride due their size. BTC looks more Bond villain than league footballer.
Mason Cox played 11 games in 2016 and kicked 17 goals, Tom Boyd
on the other hand played 15 games and kicked 13 goals now there
is about 1.7 million difference in their wages. I doubt Mason Cox
has a 200 odd page thread dedicated to him though. Both Mason
Cox and Tom Campbell were rookies and deserve a lot of credit
for getting on the park in the first place as more talented rookies
don't ever make the cut.
 

TiAn_

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 19, 2006
7,415
18,931
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
1 - 5 people vote in the B and F so it takes out one person's bias. If all 5 don't rate the player then really that player just isn't rated by the club in that year.

2 - the CD system is set up to favour certain players types. So it is inherently biased and flawed IMO. It tries to compare apples and oranges and pears - and fails.

3 - I don't worry about comparing players across clubs so much. More interested in comparing within our club, and the B and F is the ultimate relative measure to do this as seen by the club IMO.

4 - I'm not calling people names so not sure what you are on about.

I agree that all measures can be looked at. However, I place minimal weight on CD ratings due to their bias in favouring certain player types. I therefore don't tend to find arguments saying, 'wow look at his CD points, he must have played well' as remotely compelling.

1 - Having 5 people just means you have 5 peoples' biases, not that you're eliminating biases.

2 - That's not really correct. The Player Ratings System, for example's sake, specifically organises players by role/player type, so that apples can be compared with apples. What you do with the information is up to you. I adjust the weight I give to a metric based on the stats it rewards. It's not hard. I wouldn't use one to compare Moz to Bont.

3 - Ok, you're entitled to give whatever weight you like to that measure in assessing our players.
 
Mate I continue to say coaches think champion date is unimportant because they have told me with their own mouths that is what they think. Our own club puts next to no credence in them.

Your twisting this discussion now. I have been talking about pure CD points and ranking not the stats based behind it, again they are two seperate statistical measures.

Of course some stay numbers can and will be used by clubs but that wasn't my point and you know that.

I referred to someone who said a player had a bad game and his CD ranking proved that which is completely wrong. Cowardice by the same person then by attempting to backtrack and say they didn't is expected and was with no surprise the outcome.

Again you deflect from the question do you have any connection to CD and I think the 3 times your have now ignored the question or answers with sarcasm answers the question.

Agree to disagree on the importance of stats TO THE LEMMINGS AND MINIONS, as most can't watch footy with their own two eyes let alone decipher stats and place them into a relevant response
So your anecdotal evidence talking to one or two coaches where you could have easily misinterpreted what they were saying (given you clearly aren't in top of the vocabulary and definitions used for statistics) is clearly more significant evidence than what I posted above with the millions of dollars that change hands and the dozens of employees employed across the 18 clubs (you can literally see their titles on club website staff directories), yet you're calling others minions and lemmings.

To suggest that our own club puts no credence into CD rankings if anything g suggests how more advanced we are in regards to statistics because it is utterly simplistic (but publicly avaliable) and we are clearly much more concerned with things like using GPS's to analyse coordinate data at stoppages through machine learning to help us win more clearances.


I will say for the fourth time in this thread that CD ranking points were created for the media and fans, never for the coaches, yet you somehow equate the fact rat coaches not valuing something that was never intended for them as some sort of wider indictment of the use of statistics as a whole.

Ranking Points are a collated, consistently applied method of computing the various "box score" statistics into a single number. I will repeat, coaches are interested in tactics and structure and how a player playing a game plays in relation to those tactics and structure. Nobody has ever claimed that CD ranking points can answer that question. CD ranking points can show us that a player compiled certain statistics less often that they otherwise would which means given we don't have access to Bevo's instructions to every player we can by and large interpret to mean that player had a poorer than usual game.

I've run out of ways to sarcastically answer the question so no, I do not work for Champion Data.
 

BRWB

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts The Cult of Robbo
Oct 7, 2012
15,839
24,196
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
1 - Having 5 people just means you have 5 peoples' biases, not that you're eliminating biases.

2 - That's not really correct. The Player Ratings System, for example's sake, specifically organises players by role/player type, so that apples can be compared with apples. What you do with the information is up to you. I adjust the weight I give to a metric based on the stats it rewards. It's not hard. I wouldn't use one to compare Moz to Bont.

3 - Ok, you're entitled to give whatever weight you like to that measure in assessing our players.

M8 if the five people on the MC are 'biased' against you - then you just aren't that good irrespective of what CD say.

Secondly, Compare Macrae to Bont - completely different roles. Both very good at what they do. Both mids. Macrae's style of play isn't recognised by CD compared to Bont. As I said, apples and oranges.
 

Mattdougie

Cancelled
10k Posts
Jun 29, 2013
19,344
19,584
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
So your anecdotal evidence talking to one or two coaches where you could have easily misinterpreted what they were saying (given you clearly aren't in top of the vocabulary and definitions used for statistics) is clearly more significant evidence than what I posted above with the millions of dollars that change hands and the dozens of employees employed across the 18 clubs (you can literally see their titles on club website staff directories), yet you're calling others minions and lemmings.

To suggest that our own club puts no credence into CD rankings if anything g suggests how more advanced we are in regards to statistics because it is utterly simplistic (but publicly avaliable) and we are clearly much more concerned with things like using GPS's to analyse coordinate data at stoppages through machine learning to help us win more clearances.


I will say for the fourth time in this thread that CD ranking points were created for the media and fans, never for the coaches, yet you somehow equate the fact rat coaches not valuing something that was never intended for them as some sort of wider indictment of the use of statistics as a whole.

Ranking Points are a collated, consistently applied method of computing the various "box score" statistics into a single number. I will repeat, coaches are interested in tactics and structure and how a player playing a game plays in relation to those tactics and structure. Nobody has ever claimed that CD ranking points can answer that question. CD ranking points can show us that a player compiled certain statistics less often that they otherwise would which means given we don't have access to Bevo's instructions to every player we can by and large interpret to mean that player had a poorer than usual game.

I've run out of ways to sarcastically answer the question so no, I do not work for Champion Data.

Lol this isn't even about my initial argument

And when you ask several coaches(not just two) a direct question "do the club use CD as a tool for using in any planning "and the answer is "no we do not use it at all, it's has misleading and biased data points and is not a valuable tool at this level". I think it's fairly obvious even to someone as stupid as me what that means.

Wow the levels of absolute twattle some people talk in a vein attempt to boost their egos is hilarious

I challenged one bloke NOT EVEN YOU that to rate a player purely by his CD points was wrong.

You have turned this into a completely different discussion and clearly you have a hard on for statistical data.

Never have i challenged the statistical data clubs use and they way they collect them NEVER. Never did I disagree that clubs spend millions of their own statistical collection and find it very very import at to the way they plan NEVER.

So perhaps YOU need to read what I wrote and don't "attack" me like very one else does purely Coz in the a$$hole Mattdougie.

Ps you want to know who the lemmings are just look at who likes your completely irrelevant posts to the topic
 

TiAn_

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 19, 2006
7,415
18,931
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I referred to someone who said a player had a bad game and his CD ranking proved that which is completely wrong. Cowardice by the same person then by attempting to backtrack and say they didn't is expected and was with no surprise the outcome.

Again you deflect from the question do you have any connection to CD and I think the 3 times your have now ignored the question or answers with sarcasm answers the question.

Agree to disagree on the importance of stats TO THE LEMMINGS AND MINIONS, as most can't watch footy with their own two eyes let alone decipher stats and place them into a relevant response

Lol this isn't even about my initial argument

And when you ask several coaches(not just two) a direct question "do the club use CD as a tool for using in any planning "and the answer is "no we do not use it at all, it's has misleading and biased data points and is not a valuable tool at this level". I think it's fairly obvious even to someone as stupid as me what that means.

Wow the levels of absolute twattle some people talk in a vein attempt to boost their egos is hilarious

I challenged one bloke NOT EVEN YOU that to rate a player purely by his CD points was wrong.

You have turned this into a completely different discussion and clearly you have a hard on for statistical data.

Never have i challenged the statistical data clubs use and they way they collect them NEVER. Never did I disagree that clubs spend millions of their own statistical collection and find it very very import at to the way they plan NEVER.

So perhaps YOU need to read what I wrote and don't "attack" me like very one else does purely Coz in the a$$hole Mattdougie.

Ps you want to know who the lemmings are just look at who likes your completely irrelevant posts to the topic

That poster said they thought Macrae was ineffectual, and the Player Ratings reflected what they thought. They explained that. Stop twisting what they said to give you an out. Calling another poster a coward for not being steadfastly argumentative like you is laughable.

Your opinion about the usefulness of advanced metrics is apparently coloured by being a local footy assistant coach or similar. Not everyone believes you can definitively assess who has played well just by watching a game and some people use the available metrics to inform themselves. You rate your own opinion highly enough that you think you don't have to. Good for you.

All you've done in this thread is repeatedly respond to an argument that no one at all was making, because you can't "win" in the argument that everyone else is having, and call people lemmings to prop yourself up.

And it's pretty rich and really sulky to say people are just disagreeing with you because of your reputation, when everyone has been at pains to point out it's because you're repeatedly making straw man arguments that don't stand up, have failed to respond to what's actually being said and you haven't come up with a remotely sensible justification for potting everyone that that thinks advanced metrics can be useful.
 

Mattdougie

Cancelled
10k Posts
Jun 29, 2013
19,344
19,584
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
That poster said they thought Macrae was ineffectual, and the Player Ratings reflected what they thought. They explained that. Stop twisting what they said to give you an out. Calling another poster a coward for not being steadfastly argumentative like you is laughable.

Your opinion about the usefulness of advanced metrics is apparently coloured by being a local footy assistant coach or similar. Not everyone believes you can definitively assess who has played well just by watching a game and some people use the available metrics to inform themselves. You rate your own opinion highly enough that you think you don't have to. Good for you.

All you've done in this thread is repeatedly respond to an argument that no one at all was making, because you can't "win" in the argument that everyone else is having, and call people lemmings to prop yourself up.

And it's pretty rich and really sulky to say people are just disagreeing with you because of your reputation, when everyone has been at pains to point out it's because you're repeatedly making straw man arguments that don't stand up, have failed to respond to what's actually being said and you haven't come up with a remotely sensible justification for potting everyone that that thinks advanced metrics can be useful.


Lol yeah ok no one said anything about McRae game being rated by CD

YEAH THAT NEVER HAPPENED NOPE I JUST MADE IT UP

Then someone decided to have a discussion about a completely different point that I never even discussed and someone I'm twist in things?? Lol sooooooo many lemmings

If you don't think for one second a certain section of people in here wrote posts that they are the exact opposite of what I wrote just on an attempt to bait me you are a simpleton, even the mods have accepted it happens but I guess that just me making things up again lol people have flat out contradicted their own statements in an attempt to bait me and when I cal it on them I'm the instigator :)

There is no winning in the discussion we had because it was two completely different points, I NEVER said stats weren't useful to clubs EVER that was not the argument so how can I win or lose a discussion I wasn't having?

If you cant see that the two topics are completely unrelated then I can't help you but here is a dot poor maybe even you can understand.

1- CD points do not define a good or bad game
2- statistical data is very important to all clubs in its correct form.

But hey I just make things up and then use stats to support them Hahahahhaha

here is a stat - lemming level at 65% and rising

Ps here is the quote I responded to initially until others tried to make it about the importance of data to footy clubs. Implies that his rating is a clear definition of his game. BLACK AND WHITE

"You should be asking why he got the rating he did and letting that help inform your opinion on his impact, instead of the other way around"


 
Last edited:
Back