-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Carlton in the Media (articles, podcasts etc) - Part 2 (cont. in Part 3)
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #4,127
They are review stats from the previous season, not a preview for the upcoming season. The word talent shouldn't come into it.
When we break out, this method won't identify it until after it has happened. It's fairly meaningless.
When we break out, this method won't identify it until after it has happened. It's fairly meaningless.
Nailed it, ODN
Well, I'd strongly disagree with that. The data is great. It's the interpretation and application that sucks arse here.
- Aug 22, 2014
- 13,676
- 49,683
- AFL Club
- Carlton
No, the person interpreting the data has made that conclusion. Doesn't mean they're right.
You could rank teams on any number of data points, and pre-existing form is about the simplest approach you could take for a junk article. In-depth analysis and forecasting doesn't sell papers though, while "Carlton has the worst list" riles up Blues fans and tickles the fancy of everyone else.
Metalcrusher
A God Amongst The People
- Banned
- #4,132
It tickles something thats for bloody sure ....
Their data works best when it has players with more than 50 games played.
It is why we're low and Freo are low and why Richmond have dropped to 9th (heh)
The champion data numbers are what the clubs and media outlets use. It's good. BB's comment is also very true. This is an article; it's meant to get some kind of a reaction. They want people to talk about it and for it to be shared across social media platforms.
The guy who wrote the article for afl.com.au, Nathan Schmook, was probably given a basic table from Champion Data that's been pulled from their upcoming 2018 Prospectus (which is mentioned at the bottom) and been instructed to make something out of it. He's decided that the sum of a list worth of individual in-game output is a measure of talent.
He also talks about grouping players into elite, above average, average and below average categories. That stuff is fine as the players are grouped by a ridiculous number of measurable events. A possession/disposal is rated on being contested/unconstested, if it was effective (hit the target/to advantage), the distance and direction of the disposal (long kicks forward rated much higher than short handballs back), plus added factors like was it a clearance, etc. It's far from the basic stats you see on the afl app. Find the little Vice mini-documentary thing on the stats Champion Data does, it's actually pretty interesting.
As for a little explanation of how you can take a basic form of the CD numbers and extrapolate them different ways...
If you extrapolate the average of every 2017 Carlton and Adelaide players supercoach score (uses a basic CD number set) Carlton actually has a higher number than Adelaide; 54 to 52.
If you consider that Adelaide used substantially less players than we did and deduct the 'did not play' scores of 0 from those averages all of a sudden it's Carlton 64 - Adelaide 73.
So do we have the better full list because when factoring in every player we had a higher average contribution? Or is it Adelaide because the players that didn't contribute aren't measureable and should be deducted from the comparison?
Anyone with excel, some free time and a basic stats understanding will probably be able to create a set of factually accurate results that can prove that any of the teams has the 'least talented' list or vice versa.
those things are a load of rubbish, they never forecast what the players will be like in coming years
The actual ranking itself doesn’t take age into account. If you look at who we have on our list who would rate on this it is easy to see why we would rate poorly.
Williamson, Fisher, SPS, Marchbank, Cuningham, Curnow, SOS, Pickett and even McKay are all probably best 22 now but haven’t played the required 40 games to be ranked appropriately (and that’s not even mentioning Macreadie, Polson etc.). That and the fact that our playing list over the age of 25 is the worst in the league. It’s not really very surprising that Champion Data rate is the worst.
Only if you let it .
A terrific example of why you shouldn't put much emphasis on what the "stats" come up with .
Trust your eyes and knowledge of the game , if you need "stats" to help you you're in trouble ...
North’s list isn’t as bad as people are making out. Their 25 and overs are way better than ours (and teams like GC and Brisbane). Brown, Higgins, Waite, Cunnington, Ziebell, Tarrant, Thompson, Goldstein. That’s a pretty handy older age bracket.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #4,139
Stats don't win games.
As for Champion Data & all the 'aspiring' so called journos ....... pffffffft!
Jabba73
Hall of Famer
Schmook = Schmuck
- Aug 16, 2009
- 7,049
- 9,916
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- North Ballarat
ferrisb
Brownlow Medallist
For some reason my post “he’s talking out his schmookhole” seems to be in the previous quote ? Anyhoo, schmookhole !
Not so sure about that, i rate Brown highly, Cunnington and Ziebell as solid, the rest are past their best.
I’m not saying it’s an elite grouping, I’m just saying they aren’t as bad as people are making out. Higgins was excellent this season and I think he is a gun. Tarrant is pretty much elite. These 2 may be nearing the end but they are still very, very good players, I’m not talking about in 3 years time I am talking the here and now. Their 25 and overs are far better than ours and it isn’t even close imo.
In the prospectus they go into further detail and compare players against those of a similar age (and position) to determine where they sit in the scope of the playing group. There are overall all encompassing comparisons/rankings, but they also go deeper to give a better understanding. Rather than just saying, and I'm paraphrasing here without any stats attached, 'Josh Kelly is heaps better than Sam Petrevski-Seton' they also add something along the lines of 'But SPS is waaaaaay better than the average 19-20 year old midfielder'.
As far as I'm aware the AFL 'Player Rankings' are a little different to CD's evaluations in that they're more about sheer output (ie sum or av of a huge amount of complex game stats) rather than continuous/sustained output of more basic stats over several seasons which the AFL rankings really favours, in the same way that the AFL's Fantasy numbers don't quite relate to CD's SC numbers.
Higgins and Waite hardly have a good history of playing a season out due to injury and/or suspension and the ol' Goldstein just ain't what she used to be for whatever reason... maybe it's Preuss being there, maybe he's been hampered by lingering injuries. Still reasonably handy though, I'll give the big man that.
Ziebel, Tarrant and Thompson are alright, pretty good on their day, but I've never had massive wraps for Cunnington if I'm honest. I like that he's a bit of a blue collar type with the way he plays, but if I was a coach he's probably not someone I'm particularly worried about come match day. That being said he is definitely rating the lowest on the flogometre of those 4, so that's something...
Also, how much longer do some of those guys have and how quickly will their game deteriorate? this year Tarrant will be 29, Higgins and Goldstein 30, Thompson 32 and Waite 35. Hardly spring chickens.
Last edited:
I think NM fans would appreciate your optimism PM - the roos are locked for the wooden spoon this season in my view, and still have some more pain to feel thereafter.
I think that they didnt quite realise where their list was until it was too late, and they have also thrown away their older players for nix.
The younger boys coming through also dont inspire me in the slightest. I hope i am wrong for norths sake..... but i look at them and see CFC circa 2015!!!
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #4,150
Come on guys this is not the Norf list management thread.
Stick to the topic - Carlton in the Media.
Thanks
Stick to the topic - Carlton in the Media.
Thanks
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
