Changes for next week

[WaynesWorld19]

WW are you losing it? See below, it was only this arvo, surely your memory cant be that bad?

Then I apologise

 

[WaynesWorld19]

It happens when you close your mind and spend a whole day trying to defend your position when you know you are wrong.

It's also what happens when you opinion vary's from the mob

 

[Coopers]

lol. that was convincing.

Mooney is now their best player.

all in favour, raise your hands

Most important player.

I thought you were arguing that there needed to be a statistic that proved it? I gave you one...

 

[Crow-mo]

I'm thinking along the same lines as Vader. Who decides the FSI and how closely do they pay attention to our games?

they don't watch our games at all per se, it is a statistical measure.

If you asked everyone on here to name their best 22, how many of us are likely to name the same 22 players? For most sides their best 22 is constantly changing, especially amongst the 20th-25th best players on their list due to fluctuations in form, fitness and the position they are playing.

absolutely. and that's kinda the point about people wanting to argue about the exact nature of a 22, there is never a consensus on the exact composition of the 22. However, there is always a core of say 16-18 players who are consistent, and about 7-8 players who will occupy the last 4 or so spots.

it doesn't really matter if someone thinks player #24 is really player #21. they are still on the fringes and weighted as such.

I am not sure even the clubs themselves have a perfect, definable 22.

 

[Crow-mo]

How does FSI explain the change in the baseline? Well, our best team has changed.

that is only part of it, they also measure form and output of individual players as qualitative factors.

Round 1 best team (from FSI data) - players in bold didn't play

McLeod Rutten Stevens
Reilly Bock Doughty
Otten Thompson Mackay
Vince Moran Burton
Knights Tippett Porplyzia
Maric Van Berlo Goodwin
Edwards Hentschel Symes Johncock

Round 7 best team (from FSI data) - players in bold didn't play

Johncock Rutten Davis
McLeod Bock Goodwin
Doughty Reilly Van Berlo
Porplyzia Stevens Vince
Dangerfield Tippett Douglas
Maric Thompson Edwards
Knights Mackay Hentschel Burton

So the FSI indicator included Moran, Symes and Otten in our best 22 at the start of the year, but now their places are taken by Dangerfield, Davis and Douglas in our best FSI team. Now, you can argue around the margins about which of those 6 players are in our best 22, but what you can't argue ist hat Moran, Symes and Otten dropped out of our best 22 on performance - they dropped out because they are injured and haven't played this year.

It's a team stability index to some extent, but to call it a full strength index when the baseline varies so much is crazy.

I think this is over stated.

* Is Podsiadly part of Geelong's best 22 now?
* What about O'hailpin at Carlton
* Burton for us?
* How about Moran, now we insist on playing only 1 ruck?

players emerge, players decline, players fall out of favour with selectors.

surely, you're not suggesting the best 22 should be set in stone?

 

[Crow-mo]

The problem I have with that methodology is that it fails to account for players who haven't played a single game all season due to injury. Players like Otten, Moran and Symes (using our R1 FSI team as a baseline). Otten and Moran would definitely be in our best 22 when fit, Symes is borderline. The fact that they are currently injured does not change this, whereas the FSI assumes that they are no longer in our best 22 just because they haven't been selected.

Otten is likely to be best 22, and is in my 22. That said, his position in the 22 depends on his continued development, and expansion beyond the role he was given.
consider how many games douglas played in a row from mid 2007 to mid 2009 and still wasn't considered a certain best 22 players. On that basis Otten isn't 100% just because he played every game last year, he needs to continue to develop.

where does Moran fit in if we choose to continue to play 1 ruckman?

in any case, the vast bulk of the 22 is still broadly agreed.

 

[Crow-mo]

This!

So Otto is no longer worthy of a spot in our 22.....why? Because he's ****ing injured, thus we are not at full strength!

Our bloody FSI changed when our team didn't!

This is crazy, I understand the formula they're trying to use based on form and a rolling best 22 to include any new revelations, but to just dicount players that haven't played in a while is stupid. Like so many things, it's a good idea in principal, but doesn't work.

how big a contribution do you think he makes to our 22 over and above Davis say?

 

[Crow-mo]

Most important player.

I thought you were arguing that there needed to be a statistic that proved it? I gave you one...

that's not a statistic, and you didn't even provide evidence of it.

IF it were true (it isn't) you wouldn't be able to find supporting evidence to back that up, and I gave you some options.

if there are no indicators that even infer that, then its not true.

 

[Crow-mo]

He doesn't agree with the idea of gifting games to youngsters who don't deserve them.

He gifted games to Tippett in 2008

 

[Southerntakeover]

I think there are reasonable questions to be asked about the use of FSI as an objective measure, given that it seems to be almost entirely based upon a (questionable) subjective opinion on what actually constitutes our full strength team.

 

[Southerntakeover]

He gifted games to Tippett in 2008

Bingo.

That people are forced to selectively change their logic to justify different selections points to the fact that the selection criteria arent as concrete as some would have us believe.

 

[Crow-mo]

I think there are reasonable questions to be asked about the use of FSI as an objective measure, given that it seems to be almost entirely based upon a (questionable) subjective opinion on what actually constitutes our full strength team.

a better question might be what is the actual difference between a group of players someone thinks ranks [#20-22] versus the group of players someone else thinks rank [#23-25]

you'd be hard pressed to show it makes much difference.

there are always going to be in the region of 25/26 players that are going to appear in the majority of people's 22.

what would be relevant if someone outside of that group were included, or excluded.

 

[Southerntakeover]

a better question might be what is the actual difference between a group of players someone thinks ranks [#20-22] versus the group of players someone else thinks rank [#23-25]

you'd be hard pressed to show it makes much difference.

there are always going to be in the region of 25/26 players that are going to appear in the majority of people's 22.

what would be relevant if someone outside of that group were included, or excluded.

Seems fair.

Youd also have to take into account position i guess. Some spots, i.e. ruck have signficantly less depth behind them in most teams making one injury more signifcant.

And as far as it goes... theres only one real 'ranking' thats important and none of us, nor champion data will ever actually be privvy to it.

 

[Crow-mo]

Bingo.

That people are forced to selectively change their logic to justify different selections points to the fact that the selection criteria arent as concrete as some would have us believe.

Tippett 2008

Games	19
Disposals	7.11	
Marks	2.32
Goals	0.89	
tackles	1.68
Hitouts 	6.21

to recap
7 disposals
2 marks
< 1 goal per game


now I don't begrudge the decision at all, it was the right thing to do.

but unless we are saying Walker ISN'T a big time prospect...

Walker career to date

Games	18
Disposals	8.89	
Marks	4.28
Goals	1.56	
tackles	1.94

 

[Crow-mo]

Seems fair.

Youd also have to take into account position i guess. Some spots, i.e. ruck have signficantly less depth behind them in most teams making one injury more signifcant.

And as far as it goes... theres only one real 'ranking' thats important and none of us, nor champion data will ever actually be privvy to it.

one of the issues is that CD ranking is proprietary and they won't share what's in it. Much Like John Hollingers PER in the NBA.

what can be verified is the efficacy of those rankings.

there is a strong correlation between CD rankings and a club's B&F. Now that might be because their formula replicates what matters to coaches, OR it might be that coaches have come to rely upon it for their evaluations.

in either case, the conclusion is the same.

 

[Southerntakeover]

now I don't begrudge the decision at all, it was the right thing to do.

but unless we are saying Walker ISN'T a big time prospect...

I think the logic that we fix all of his problems before he becomes a regular fixture in the team, as put forward by certain members is so ridiculous im suprised anyone would actually think its valid.

No player is a finished product when they become a regular member. That includes every single player that we've blooded under Craig. If the standard of a spot in the team is so very high that even being currently better than other players in the team isnt enough, wed never play any young player.

 

[Southerntakeover]

But the rankings are entirely different to what we're discussing arent they? We're discussing something which is a more predictive measure, not a descriptive.

 

[NTRabbit]

now I don't begrudge the decision at all, it was the right thing to do.

but unless we are saying Walker ISN'T a big time prospect...

[/code]

Are those stats the be all and end all though?

Maybe Tippett was meeting all of the internal targets and performance indicators set by the coaching staff that we don't see, while Walker is not.

 

[Crow-mo]

Are those stats the be all and end all though?

Maybe Tippett was meeting all of the internal targets and performance indicators set by the coaching staff that we don't see, while Walker is not.

So he is being assessed to a higher standard?

 

[CroCop]

Are those stats the be all and end all though?

Maybe Tippett was meeting all of the internal targets and performance indicators set by the coaching staff that we don't see, while Walker is not.

Maybe we should bring in Walker to replace Davis in defence. Anyone can get cheap kicks in the backline and they are both slow so a perfect replacement in my eyes. This way Davis can go back to the Roosters in the SANFL and learn to play as a forward. We already know Walker can play as a forward in the SANFL .

 

[DirrtyBee]

Less than 24 hours now!!! I have no life haha

 

[Crow-mo]

But the rankings are entirely different to what we're discussing arent they? We're discussing something which is a more predictive measure, not a descriptive.

the rankings are the primary engine of FSI.
it is the qualitative input.

the best 22 input is overstated imo, as substituting a couple of fringe players for others will make little difference. what matters is the rating system in the first place. which is the rankings.

Its hard to make an argument that the rankings don't have meaningful value. Though of course every metric has limitations, and in this case the rankings aren't perfect when it comes reflecting full value in KPD.

all of that said, consider all 16 clubs and their B&F results. Proof of the correlation I was talking about.

 

[relapse]

Vader very well put .......Craig as many great coaches likes to bring kids into a winning environment where they learn from the actions of senior players who stabilize teams with their consistency (usually) and on-field leadership

It's a tried and true approach

This is why Richmond & St Kilda have not had the success that bottoming out and filling the team with kids approach

And b4 anyone mentions St Kilda ........Reiwoldt is now 28, that's 10 years since he was drafted and still no more success than Adelaide who has never bottomed out but taken the approach of slower player introduction into a winning steady environment

Now I am conviced you are just taking the piss, seriously do you really think that Craig is a great coach

His record certainly doesnt support that, a true mark of a great coach is premiership success. Good coaches are a dime a dozen, but great coaches are as rare as hens teeth. There have been plenty of good coaches that have come and gone through the system, but you can count on one hand the number of great coaches there has been in the last 10-15 years or so.

Regardless of how much people want to overrate Craig he will never be seen as a great coach until he achieves success in September. At the moment he has achieved no more than Ayres or Cornes did, arguably Ayres could be even be rated higher due to Geelong's 1995 grand final appearance.

 

[Crow-mo]

arguably Ayres could be even be rated higher due to Geelong's 1995 grand final appearance.

Ayres also finished top of the table in 1997.

Grand final, Minor Premiership, Prelim... across 2 teams.

I love Geelong supporters who say they were robbed in 1997 *AND* say Ayres never did anything for them.

 

[WALL-e]

how big a contribution do you think he makes to our 22 over and above Davis say?

I'd say a fair bit. Different type players. Look a hell of a lot alike, but a lot different. Davis has the inability to take a Mark Williams type for a full game, Otto could, which in turn releases Johncock/Doughty from the task. At the same time Otto took Scott Lucas, Allowing Bock to free up. I'd have them both in my 22, though I'm a massive Davis homer.

Otto was also a line breaker. Would play on in every situation, carry the footy and use long kicking when possible. Davis (in defence) is more your stay at home. So we loose an attacking element.

I'd have them both in, but I'd say at this point in their careers Otto is a fair distance ahead in what he can do and what he provides the team.

Though I got Davis as long term.

one of the issues is that CD ranking is proprietary and they won't share what's in it. Much Like John Hollingers PER in the NBA.

what can be verified is the efficacy of those rankings.

there is a strong correlation between CD rankings and a club's B&F. Now that might be because their formula replicates what matters to coaches, OR it might be that coaches have come to rely upon it for their evaluations.

in either case, the conclusion is the same.

This is good for CD rep. And as you said, as noone knows what it's exactly made up of, are you able to get the correlation on the 8-15 range in B&F and CD rankings?

This is where my issue lays, your top guys like a Judd, is usually also your top stat man as well. Now what Judd provides beyond stats is priceless, as seen Monday night, crap efficiency %, but broke lines and tore the game apart.

My point being, what about those low stat guys, who provide something to their team? That can't be measured in stats. Leadership, (to uyse the now famous afc quote) HALF WINS!, dire tagging, the ability to attack with a handpass rather than defend. All very difficult to measure with a stat, mostly impossible.

You've said they don't watch our games, so it's likely where this indicator falls down is in intangibles. As well as the fact they disregard players after they've been injured for a while. Symes, MOran and Otto are all best 22 (imo ofcourse ), yet none are FSI 22. Symes provides leadership, toughness, a hard nose edge, a footy nouse (like booting it long in the wet rather than handpassing backwards) and will lift the team through example, yet it is likely that Myke Cook (and I'm a fan) is above him now on the FSI best.

The FSI looks like it's taken the next step in stats, and it very proactive in it's analysis. Having read a bit more about it, it looks like it goes well beyong supercoach etc. But it's still fundamentally floored. Though I don't believe there can be a stat system that provides a true analysis of the 'best' team.

Just on the Mooney point. I said this because Harley and Bartel have both said that Mooney was their most important player for their structure. Obviously this wont be the Browlow case, but what he does allows so much more than the 1-3 he may kick. Running to create space, not a stat, but SO effective. Having played a ton of basketball and now with zoning in footy, movement is key. You get no stat for a dummy lead to open space, but you get a game next week.

Tippett was, as you said probably gifted games. But once again on structure, you could see why he was getting them. Defensive pressure, ability to ruck the 50 (as the Crows have shown that a forward will ruck pretty much every F50 ruck contest), mis-matches dues to athletecism etc. There were probably a few more that deserved a game statistically speaking, but Craig is a massive structure man, and Tippett is a wet dream for Craigs set up, no-one can play the role he does.