Prediction Changes v Freo (3:15pm Sunday @ Marvel)

[stevieg1969]

Need Us, Melbourne, Port, St Kilda and Brisbane to win = Top 4

 

[Philthy1]

Need Us, Melbourne, Port, St Kilda and Brisbane to win = Top 4

We also need GC to drop a game as well. Either Port away or Essendung at home.

 

[dogwatch]

I feel for Ryley. He has played nearly every round this year and then gets dropped in the last game before the finals. There’s no VFL game this weekend to help him earn a recall either.

However it shouldn’t be seen as a selection disaster. Sanders’ form has been below his best recently while Arty has been impressive in VFL games since his return from a hamstring strain.

Also Sanders is merely playing to decide whether he wants to stay with the Dogs or join the Tassy Devils startup. No massive pressure compared to Arty whose whole career is on the line.

The change in the lineup might end up telling us a bit about both players.

 

[DognBones]

I'd like to think we'd get an impactful game from Jones but I'm not optimistic. On recent VFL form his bursts have been good but not convinced about his whole game involvement. Had Dolan been fit and available I'd much prefer him. Happy to admit my doubts were misplaced if Arty makes a good contribution.

 

[Unorth]

I believe in Arty. Good call.

Sanders is unlucky but he’s run out of gas and has no point of difference as a mid at this point.

I would rather Treloar in the side, and I don’t think he’s any less likely to do an injury in a couple of weeks time if we make finals, than he will be on Sunday. We were also too cautious with West last year, despite his history of being a problem for Hawthorn, and that was the wrong call. McNeil instead was awful and allowed Sicily to dominate.

But aside from that, AJ in, VDM out, Garcia in the side…this improves the fringes a little. It’s a reasonably strong side. We should win.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

While I'm not happy from a Dogs supporting perspective for Sanders drop of form, it does put into context some of the victory laps myself and people were taking here early in the season re Sanders.

Especially the premium price we paid to trade up to specifically target him. (Pick 10, 17 and a future first which is another late teens pick, though we got back two picks to match Croft bid to the value of an early 30's pick, though it's not worth that as a live pick). Many were defensive about this because they said you can't value it from an abstract sense of pick 6, we were only making that trade for Sanders so you have to judge Sanders on that merit. Sanders' form is not yet matching the average expectation of a pick 6, let alone exceeding it (what would be required for that trade to be good), so it looks poor as it stands.

 

[maddog37]

While I'm not happy from a Dogs supporting perspective for Sanders drop of form, it does put into context some of the victory laps myself and people were taking here early in the season re Sanders.

Especially the premium price we paid to trade up to specifically target him. (Pick 10, 17 and a future first which is another late teens pick, though we got back two picks to match Croft bid to the value of an early 30's pick, though it's not worth that as a live pick). Many were defensive about this because they said you can't value it from an abstract sense of pick 6, we were only making that trade for Sanders so you have to judge Sanders on that merit. Sanders' form is not yet matching the average expectation of a pick 6, let alone exceeding it (what would be required for that trade to be good), so it looks poor as it stands.

Do you feel better now??

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Do you feel better now??

Not at all? I'm putting myself in that category and it's entirely fair to be continually reflecting on whether we did good trades or not.

I hang shit on other clubs for making objectively dumb trades when you over-value your own certainty in projecting a players performance. Like Essendon trading pick 31 to upgrade 11 to 10 to draft Caddy. Which is more clearly a bad trade for Essendon and good for Geelong, with fewer moving parts. It's only fair I be self-critical to my own club too.

 

[lachy]

While I'm not happy from a Dogs supporting perspective for Sanders drop of form, it does put into context some of the victory laps myself and people were taking here early in the season re Sanders.

Especially the premium price we paid to trade up to specifically target him. (Pick 10, 17 and a future first which is another late teens pick, though we got back two picks to match Croft bid to the value of an early 30's pick, though it's not worth that as a live pick). Many were defensive about this because they said you can't value it from an abstract sense of pick 6, we were only making that trade for Sanders so you have to judge Sanders on that merit. Sanders' form is not yet matching the average expectation of a pick 6, let alone exceeding it (what would be required for that trade to be good), so it looks poor as it stands.

What a load a shyte. Sanders in his second year and Croft have more than justified the strategy. Up until his last 3 weeks Sanders was playing that well many on here were concerned about losing him to Tassie.

He has lost a bit of form as all young players do in a long season. Hopefully he has gets his form back in the VFL next week if we win Sunday

 

[stevieg1969]

We also need GC to drop a game as well. Either Port away or Essendung at home.

I have Port in there.

 

[Fossie 32]

Artie averages 7 possies per game. Sanders had 6 in one quarter as sub last week

 

[MaxiBont]

While I'm not happy from a Dogs supporting perspective for Sanders drop of form, it does put into context some of the victory laps myself and people were taking here early in the season re Sanders.

Especially the premium price we paid to trade up to specifically target him. (Pick 10, 17 and a future first which is another late teens pick, though we got back two picks to match Croft bid to the value of an early 30's pick, though it's not worth that as a live pick). Many were defensive about this because they said you can't value it from an abstract sense of pick 6, we were only making that trade for Sanders so you have to judge Sanders on that merit. Sanders' form is not yet matching the average expectation of a pick 6, let alone exceeding it (what would be required for that trade to be good), so it looks poor as it stands.

He’s still in his second year and played some great footy throughout the season. When he was playing that HF/Mid role he was having some great games. His role has been changed throughout the season and was in a role that didn’t suit him at all the last few weeks.

That’s understandable, he’s not as good as our other mid options at the moment.

Freijah’s had some bad games towards the end of the season as well. It happens with young players.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

What a load a shyte. Sanders in his second year and Croft have more than justified the strategy. Up until his last 3 weeks Sanders was playing that well many on here were concerned about losing him to Tassie.

He has lost a bit of form as all young players do in a long season. Hopefully he has gets his form back in the VFL next week if we win Sunday

There's a bit of a difference though between being comfortable that Sanders will be a very good AFL player in the future (I am) and the fact that you're always a chance to get a superstar of the game out of pick 6, which typically those players aren't getting dropped in their second season.

Put it this way: I will be thrilled if Sanders manages to get 100 coaches votes in the entirety of his career from now. It'll be a better career than someone like Tom Atkins (75 career coaches votes) and I'm not confident he'll ever be the good inside role player that Atkins has been over the last few years. That is a rough ballpark in the type of player he might be, and playing a career with output similar to Tom Atkins is a very handy AFL career.

But even still, 100 coaches votes is well below expectations/averages for a typical pick 6. We can look at historical data for how picks 4-8 or whatever perform and average it out and in the modern era with a pick in that range you should be getting around 125 or so career coaches votes. For every dud you pick with 0 votes you have a roughly equal chance to draft a future All-Australian star who gets 250 career coaches votes.

Why am I being attacked by stating the obvious: with the information we have at hand I'm far less optimistic and projecting a lower future output about Sanders' career than two months ago? His reduced form is meaningful information in predicting his future output. We don't have to pretend it isn't.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Freijah’s had some bad games towards the end of the season as well. It happens with young players.

This is equally my point. We can continue to use the new information we have. We don't have to handwave away the fact that young players rise and fall in form, the future superstars show themselves early.

I am equally less confident now in Freijah's future output than I was a few weeks ago immediately after the Sydney game.

Put it this way - even if there was a 1.5% chance that Freijah would have future career output similar to Bontempelli, after the Sydney game, the fact that he has been poor since has reduced that to 0.5%. How do we know this? Because the Bontempellis of the world, with the same excuse of being a "young player", didn't have the same downturn of form at the same age in his second season either. Neither did Daicos, neither did Judd, neither did Pendlebury, neither did Nat Fyfe. And before you say, "oh come on, we were't ever expecting Freijah [or Sanders] to be a literal top 10 player like Judd or Bont" I would argue we have to think probabalistically and say, yes, yes we were, even if it was a 1% chance or 2% chance or whatever of happening.

 

[weltschmerz]

Pick 6 has had a pretty shocking run.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Pick 6 has had a pretty shocking run.
View attachment 2403552

Nice selective avoidance of Macrae behind the screenshot, but yes it's a statistical anomaly. There's nothing magical about the pick and we can infer the value of pick 6 by (for instance) taking a smoothed average of pick 5, 6 and 7 combined.

 

[lachy]

There's a bit of a difference though between being comfortable that Sanders will be a very good AFL player in the future (I am) and the fact that you're always a chance to get a superstar of the game out of pick 6, which typically those players aren't getting dropped in their second season.

Put it this way: I will be thrilled if Sanders manages to get 100 coaches votes in the entirety of his career from now. It'll be a better career than someone like Tom Atkins (75 career coaches votes) and I'm not confident he'll ever be the good inside role player that Atkins has been over the last few years. That is a rough ballpark in the type of player he might be, and playing a career with output similar to Tom Atkins is a very handy AFL career.

But even still, 100 coaches votes is well below expectations/averages for a typical pick 6. We can look at historical data for how picks 4-8 or whatever perform and average it out and in the modern era with a pick in that range you should be getting around 125 or so career coaches votes. For every dud you pick with 0 votes you have a roughly equal chance to draft a future All-Australian star who gets 250 career coaches votes.

Why am I being attacked by stating the obvious: with the information we have at hand I'm far less optimistic and projecting a lower future output about Sanders' career than two months ago? His reduced form is meaningful information in predicting his future output. We don't have to pretend it isn't.

So full of shyte. The following are pick 6 players
Granger Barras
Srephenson
Mc Asey
Petrevski Seaton
Francis
Marchbank
Sharenberg
Conca
Yarran
Myers
M Thorp
Dowler
Williams
Bradley
Salopek
Sampi
And Dylan Smith

And that is just back to 2000.
That is 19 out of 25 Sanders is at least as good as.

Your being attacked as you put it as you are stating an opinion with zero supporting evidence that a 6th pick is something sensational and not recognising how far Sanders has already come

 

[lachy]

Nice selective avoidance of Macrae behind the screenshot, but yes it's a statistical anomaly. There's nothing magical about the pick and we can infer the value of pick 6 by (for instance) taking a smoothed average of pick 5, 6 and 7 combined.

Come up with anything to support a poor take. Its yours, wear it, your choice

 

[MaxiBont]

This is equally my point. We can continue to use the new information we have. We don't have to handwave away the fact that young players rise and fall in form, the future superstars show themselves early.

I am equally less confident now in Freijah's future output than I was a few weeks ago immediately after the Sydney game.

Put it this way - even if there was a 1.5% chance that Freijah would have future career output similar to Bontempelli, after the Sydney game, the fact that he has been poor since has reduced that to 0.5%. How do we know this? Because the Bontempellis of the world, with the same excuse of being a "young player", didn't have the same downturn of form at the same age in his second season either. Neither did Daicos, neither did Judd, neither did Pendlebury, neither did Nat Fyfe. And before you say, "oh come on, we were't ever expecting Freijah [or Sanders] to be a literal top 10 player like Judd or Bont" I would argue we have to think probabalistically and say, yes, yes we were, even if it was a 1% chance or 2% chance or whatever of happening.

I’m not going to be too upset that Sanders/Freijah don’t look as good as Bont/Daicos/Judd in their second year.

I understand your broad point, but I prefer to look at the good games of young players as a marker for potential rather than their bad ones. Both Sanders & Freijah have had really good games, Freijah more so.

Consistency is one of the hardest things for young players to have in any professional sport.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Come up with anything to support a poor take. Its yours, wear it, your choice

By your logic you should trade pick 6 for pick 7 straight up because pick 7 has historically been the more productive pick.

My god, I'm trying to be fair here.

How is the fact that poorer recent form updates our forecasting for a player than when before from before the poor form "a poor take"?

Sanders has had a worse overall season now than his overall season a month ago. Current output is a predictor for future output. Ergo, our forecast of his future output is now reduced to where it was a month ago. How is that a poor take? How is that bloody common sense even something to be disagreed with? Bloody hell/

 

[Optimistic Dog]

Arty looked a cut above VFL last week. He has the skills to be a player at AFL level just needs to get involved more and bit more hardness.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I’m not going to be too upset that Sanders/Freijah don’t look as good as Bont/Daicos/Judd in their second year.

I understand your broad point, but I prefer to look at the good games of young players as a marker for potential rather than their bad ones. Both Sanders & Freijah have had really good games, Freijah more so.

Consistency is one of the hardest things for young players to have in any professional sport.

This goes back to my original point though that there's always going to be a bigger spotlight (and there should be) on Sanders' development, because we overpaid to reach for him knowing we'd draft him purely from draft pick value perspective in executing a trade when presumably there were also other trade options that didn't involve trading our 2024 first. And we can deduce that we overpaid because we would have thought that Sanders would not only meet the expectations of a pick 6 (I mean, all pick 6s by definition at the time you draft them are expected to meet those expectations), but exceed them.

I'm still confident Sanders has a good career, and his good games show that. But we also traded pick 10, 17 and a future 1st for him and some later picks to partially match a Croft bid. Even if we put pick 17 for the later picks aside, we traded pick 10 and a future first for him, at this stage he's roughly performing to the expectations of the pick 10 we already had, meaning that in effect we gave away the future first for nothing, purely from a value perspective.

This isn't a slight on Sanders, this isn't to say that I don't think he can be good, and I think people are misunderstanding the point I'm making. If we didn't trade the future first, we could have had Bo Allen or Murphy Read this year, and Koltyn Tholstrup last year.

Even if Sanders is the best of the bunch, it can still be a bad trade, because the career value add of Allen + Tholstrup (or the picks that they represent) may be higher than the career value add of Sanders. That's the point.

 

[lachy]

By your logic you should trade pick 6 for pick 7 straight up because pick 7 has historically been the more productive pick.

My god, I'm trying to be fair here.

How is the fact that poorer recent form updates our forecasting for a player than when before from before the poor form "a poor take"?

Sanders has had a worse overall season now than his overall season a month ago. Current output is a predictor for future output. Ergo, our forecast of his future output is now reduced to where it was a month ago. How is that a poor take? How is that bloody common sense even something to be disagreed with? Bloody hell/

Because simply your looking at the last 3 weeks as judgement on a second year player and what we gave up to get him and Croft like it is some evidence of a mistake by our club.

Sick to death of posters making out we as a club are poor, settle for medioracy, never learn from mistakes when we have never been better run on or off the field than we are now.

I agree that Sanders needs a rest and has to show something in the VFL final next week to get back into pur AFL team. But to not acknowledge that he is getting close to being a best 22 which is what you want from a number 6 pick in a draft is simply nonsense

 

[Zgope1]

despite looking pretty decent on the wing and in the half forward role earlier in the year, Sando just hasn’t held down his role well enough in recent weeks.

The tackles looked like they were starting to stick and he looked like he was covering the ground well then he took a backward step on both fronts.

We’ve got plenty of smart, hard bodied guys in the side that can use the ball and tackle.

I think against Freo Arty gives us McNeil being sh*t insurance and we need as much run as we can get to shrink the ground for Freo. We are picking teams with a lot of KPPs so the ground level players have to be able to cover a lot of space and if they can’t they HAVE to have more hardness and be more damaging than Sanders has been recently.

Something I’ve loved about the intro of Garcia and Baker in the last month is they are both fast and they are both hard at it. Let Bont, Ed, Dale, Fridge, West, Davo and our stud talls do the killing. Our role players can just be honest, competitive and run their backsides off

 

[Al dente]

Jones has always looked better at AFL level than he does at VFL.
last time he played a string of games he got us over the line a couple of times. high impact/ upside