Coaches votes - how many mids?

[lamaros]

Yet the conventional wisdom is that "KPPs are worth more than midfielders". How often do you hear that during the trade period?

Apparently, though, there's not a single KPP or ruckman among the best-performed players in the competition.

There's a reason that good key forwards are paid so much: they're rare.

That doesn't mean they're they best guy on the ground, it just means that the opportunity cost of not having a great forward is having a s**t one.

The difference between a top 10 key forward and a top 20 is HUGE. The difference between top 10 mid and top 20? Not so much.

That's just simple economics.

Doesn't mean that the mids don't have the biggest results on the game outcome though.

 

[lamaros]

The that note:

Top 20 players for disposals: #1 32.9, #19 27.9
Top 20 for contested disposals: #1 16.6, #19 12.5

Top 20 players for goals: #1 58, #19 31

So by these basic measures, the best key forwards are nearly 100% better than the 19th best ones. The best mids only 15-25% better than the 19th best.

That means that you get better value for money for key forwards when they're really good.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

There's a reason that good key forwards are paid so much: they're rare.

Apparently so rare that there's not a single one among the league's best-performed players.

So why do people blithely insist they're more valuable than midfielders?

That doesn't mean they're they best guy on the ground, it just means that the opportunity cost of not having a great forward is having a s**t one.

I don't follow.

The difference between a top 10 key forward and a top 20 is HUGE. The difference between top 10 mid and top 20? Not so much.

But we're not comparing KPPs against other KPPs and midfielders against other midfielders.

We're comparing all players: KPPs and midfielders and everything in between.

And it turns out that midfielders are en masse better performed than KPPs. So why do people keep insisting that KPPs are en masse more valuable?

That's just simple economics.

If you say so.

I maintain there is something obviously counterintuitive about the received wisdom on this point.

Doesn't mean that the mids don't have the biggest results on the game outcome though.

So if midfielders have more influence on results, how do people reason that KPPs are more valuable?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The that note:

Top 20 players for disposals: #1 32.9, #19 27.9
Top 20 for contested disposals: #1 16.6, #19 12.5

Top 20 players for goals: #1 58, #19 31

So by these basic measures, the best key forwards are nearly 100% better than the 19th best ones. The best mids only 15-25% better than the 19th best.

That means that you get better value for money for key forwards when they're really good.

But that doesn't support the argument that KPPs are en masse more valuable than midfielders.

If you're talking about the absolute top tier, then that's an open question. But people regularly go beyond that and just assume that there's a premium attached to KPPs generally.

But look at your numbers. Based on what you've posted, how could anyone argue the 20th best key forward is more valuable than the 20th best midfielder?

But go into the various trade threads and you'll see people just stating as fact that "you pay more for KPPs" without any regard for whether that particular KPP actually warrants that kind of premium.

 

[nineteen eighty]

Josh Gibson won the B&F in 2013 and 2015 at Hawthorn and didn't poll the highest from Hawthorn in the coaches votes

I find it interesting that how our coaches vote for the internal award doesn't match up with the coaches votes.

The rules and criteria are different but I'd be interested in how many top 10 vote getters also won their clubs B&f

This is definitely something I'd also like to see. If anyone had a spare moment (Uni students??), would gain you a number of BF likes if you could pull this together.

 

[Ando727]

none of ours on the list and only one Bulldog? Clearly the teams that share it around too much miss out.

That would make perfect sense though - no standouts, even contributions. It says good things about your team. The award, who cares?

 

[Schauermann]

Josh Gibson won the B&F in 2013 and 2015 at Hawthorn and didn't poll the highest from Hawthorn in the coaches votes

I find it interesting that how our coaches vote for the internal award doesn't match up with the coaches votes.

The rules and criteria are different but I'd be interested in how many top 10 vote getters also won their clubs B&f

The think is most B&F gives votes to all players for each game (don't know about all, actaully even ours is a bit mysterious to me). And they probably a lot more based on what the coaching staff expected from individuell players. While in the Coaches votes only 5 players get votes from each coach. And those often go to a those generella considered matchwinners. And thoise are mostly players who get a lot of ball or kick lots of goals. In the end it is a team sport with a lot of player sinvolved in each match so pretty difficult to judge who is most important.

PS Would have been fun when Ross had given Crowley 5 votes each week in his B&F year.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Ha Ha. Dangerfield has 5 less votes after 18 rounds than Fyfe had after 11 last year, yet so many flogs here rate Dangerfield's year more dominant.

Yeah.... Did you happen to see the other Geelong player whose top 3?
That's why.

 

[lamaros]

But that doesn't support the argument that KPPs are en masse more valuable than midfielders.

If you're talking about the absolute top tier, then that's an open question. But people regularly go beyond that and just assume that there's a premium attached to KPPs generally.

But look at your numbers. Based on what you've posted, how could anyone argue the 20th best key forward is more valuable than the 20th best midfielder?

But go into the various trade threads and you'll see people just stating as fact that "you pay more for KPPs" without any regard for whether that particular KPP actually warrants that kind of premium.

I'm not sure your following the basic point? It's just supply and demand.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm not sure your following the basic point? It's just supply and demand.

I think that's definitely true of the very good KPPs. There's a scarcity premium. But I'm not sure it's true once you get into the second and third tiers.

 

[telsor]

If anyone here had to list the top 10 players in the game, you'd hope that a few KPPs made it in there (Buddy, Rance, Talia) and maybe even a small forward (Betts or Rioli). The Brownlow is one thing, but I just thought the coaches might have a better feel for impact across the ground. They may do on a weekly basis (Enright got top votes this week), but obviously across the season it's all mids.

Maybe they do, and we're the ones who are mistaken? (Not saying this is the case, but it's possible).


One thing I do like about coaches votes is that they should take into account the players instructions. Playing your assigned role well should improve your votes, even if to the general public it seems your impact has been reduced. (not sure if this actually does happen, but you'd hope so).

 

[Gralin]

Maybe they do, and we're the ones who are mistaken? (Not saying this is the case, but it's possible).


One thing I do like about coaches votes is that they should take into account the players instructions. Playing your assigned role well should improve your votes, even if to the general public it seems your impact has been reduced. (not sure if this actually does happen, but you'd hope so).

certainly happens in B&F votes, coaches votes being public each round I'd almost think some of those types of games they don't give votes to on purpose

 

[telsor]

The that note:

Top 20 players for disposals: #1 32.9, #19 27.9
Top 20 for contested disposals: #1 16.6, #19 12.5

Top 20 players for goals: #1 58, #19 31

So by these basic measures, the best key forwards are nearly 100% better than the 19th best ones. The best mids only 15-25% better than the 19th best.

That means that you get better value for money for key forwards when they're really good.

There are a hell of a lot more mids though.

Each week, every team would play about a dozen players through the midfield, so that's a bit over 300 players..So the 20th of them is still in the top 7%.
There would be maybe 3 KPFs per team, so 54 total..Leaving the the 20th barely making the top 40%

How does the mid at the 20% percentile (~60th) rate against the KPF at the same level (~11th)?

 

[lamaros]

There are a hell of a lot more mids though.

Each week, every team would play about a dozen players through the midfield, so that's a bit over 300 players..So the 20th of them is still in the top 7%.
There would be maybe 3 KPFs per team, so 54 total..Leaving the the 20th barely making the top 40%

How does the mid at the 20% percentile (~60th) rate against the KPF at the same level (~11th)?

That's not really the discussion we're having, is it?

 

[telsor]

That's not really the discussion we're having, is it?

Well, when the 'issue' is that the top players are all mids, I would have thought it was relevant that the vast majority of the players are mids. I'd also think that the drop in quality between the best and the 20th best had a lot to do with the overall numbers.

 

[lamaros]

Well, when the 'issue' is that the top players are all mids, I would have thought it was relevant that the vast majority of the players are mids. I'd also think that the drop in quality between the best and the 20th best had a lot to do with the overall numbers.

It's not an issue, it's just a fact of the game. It's structured that those who follow the ball and win it in contests have the biggest individual influence on the results.

Doesn't mean that other roles and players aren't also vastly important, and doesn't mean that key forwards and defenders might not be more important than how good your third best mid is.

 

[STFU Donnie]

The burning question, of course, is how is Shane Edwards doing?

 

[wal]

Yeah.... Did you happen to see the other Geelong player whose top 3?
That's why.

So you agree then, Fyfe 2015 was way more dominant than Danger 2016.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

So you agree then, Fyfe 2015 was way more dominant than Danger 2016.

No, I was saying unlike fyfe, Danger has to share votes with another Champion midfielder having a Great year.
Fyfe didn't have that worry.

 

[Jobe Watson]

It's always funny when people criticize the Brownlow as being a "midfielder's award", when basically every other award given to individual players is also dominated by midfielders.

There really needs to be a Defensive Player of the Year away to recognise the best performance from a key defender (though you can probably already tell that from the All Australian team).