Ideas for new stats thread

[The Old Dark Navy's]

BF is thinking about coming up with its own method for rating players aside from the votes per game and traditional basic stats most sites use. As an aside, whether this is incorporated in that or not, I would really like to get something going next year that we can refer to when debating the worth of a player.

Many stats are hard to find as times passes so these stats would need to be updated after each match and we will need like minded posters to help maintain it. Whether we put them in the player threads, a dedicated stats thread (and copy it to the player threads), I am not sure. It would certainly make player reviews a lot easier to do.

As we know we tend to rate players according to possessions, goals, contested possessions etc. However, for our sake and the sake of argument against opposition supporters, I think we need to record stats like time on ground, goals kicked against defenders, estimated time being tagged or double teamed at stoppages and comments on tagging roles and other team roles that are fulfilled but not credited by normal stats.

I think we might hold different opinions of some of our players if we recognise the unheralded stuff a little more.

As I said, BF may be doing something in this regard so I am just seeking feedback in case nothing gets off the ground. All it would take is some of our posters watching games next year with an eye on one or two things more than just the spectacle.

Any takers or any ideas about other things we should be looking for during a match?

 

[thylacine60]

Oh, great, another stats thread. This place.........

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I've also decided we need to figure out a way to avoid threads being derailed by the first reply. Thy, if you could kindly post your expected posting times to give a fighting chance, that would be appreciated.

No, for those that venture outside the Carlton board or even those who want to debate the merits of a player inside the Carlton board, I think certain intangibles need to be recorded for such purposes.

If we were able to achieve this as part of a post match review, that would be great but we no longer have reliable in depth reviews.

BF are going to run with something similar in the future so I'm just canvassing thoughts so we get a head start.

 

[thylacine60]

It can be quite random of late but happy to PM mods before putting new thread topics to the sword. Appreciate the sounding.

 

[reg_lower91]

A possible idea for rating a player's game is by coming up with a rating system that is based on what BF posters rank most important.

So, post a thread on the main board asking what top 10 stats posters rate the most in order. i.e. tackles, marks, disposals, goals, goal assists, contested disposals, etc, etc. Then invert everyone's ratings (i.e. what is considered most important receives the most points, opposite for those stats considered the least important). Then total up the whole thread, giving you an overall ranking. That overall ranking can then be used to evaluate an individual player's game during the year.

i.e. let's just say the overall ranking (for 5 stats for example) is:
1. Tackles (worth 5 points)
2. Clearances (worth 4 points)
3. Marks (worth 3 points)
4. Goals (worth 2 points)
5. Goal Assists (worth 1 points)

Using this system, Chris Judd's round 18 game against Essendon would have seen him receive 103 points.

It's a lot of work and similar to supercoach in way but it's a ranking system that would come from the posters themselves - 'BF Points'.

I hope that all made sense. Tis just an idea anywho.

 

[zeeCFC]

Like our own, likely flawed, dreamteam system?

 

[BluesMan]

Dreamteam/Supercoach point ideas seem tacky, and silly. It needs to be like ODN said. Them nitty gritty stats, that are hard to come by. We don't have to have a point system, because it doesn't need one.

 

[matt decat]

A possible idea for rating a player's game is by coming up with a rating system that is based on what BF posters rank most important.

So, post a thread on the main board asking what top 10 stats posters rate the most in order. i.e. tackles, marks, disposals, goals, goal assists, contested disposals, etc, etc. Then invert everyone's ratings (i.e. what is considered most important receives the most points, opposite for those stats considered the least important). Then total up the whole thread, giving you an overall ranking. That overall ranking can then be used to evaluate an individual player's game during the year.

i.e. let's just say the overall ranking (for 5 stats for example) is:
1. Tackles (worth 5 points)
2. Clearances (worth 4 points)
3. Marks (worth 3 points)
4. Goals (worth 2 points)
5. Goal Assists (worth 1 points)

Using this system, Chris Judd's round 18 game against Essendon would have seen him receive 103 points.

It's a lot of work and similar to supercoach in way but it's a ranking system that would come from the posters themselves - 'BF Points'.

I hope that all made sense. Tis just an idea anywho.

I agree with trying to determine what the wider community's view on the importance of each stat so your suggestion is a good place to start. however, the position that a player plays should also have an effect. so for example, for a ruckman, their total hitouts won and hit outs to advantage should be taken in to consideration. for a defender, their goals conceded should be taken into consideration. also, for example, using your example, walker would average 5 points per game on goals alone, and being a forward is more likely to score goals. this begs the question, should a goal be worth more for someone who doesnt play forward because they may have to work harder for one of their goals.

i think the fantasy EPL league has a good system, as the players position is taken in to consideration when determining the scores, i.e a goal is worth more points for a defender than a forward, but a conceded goal deducts more points from a defender than it does a forward.

 

[reg_lower91]

I agree with trying to determine what the wider community's view on the importance of each stat so your suggestion is a good place to start. however, the position that a player plays should also have an effect. so for example, for a ruckman, their total hitouts won and hit outs to advantage should be taken in to consideration. for a defender, their goals conceded should be taken into consideration. also, for example, using your example, walker would average 5 points per game on goals alone, and being a forward is more likely to score goals. this begs the question, should a goal be worth more for someone who doesnt play forward because they may have to work harder for one of their goals.

Totally agree with this. i.e. If goals is held as the most important stat by BF posters then that means nothing for defenders. I would like to finally see some sort of system where defenders are rewarded for their defending, midfielders for their disposal and physical pressure and forwards rewarded their shots on goal and pressure I50.

 

[blues4flag]

Would rather a system that considers ratios as opposed to totals.

It's a fact that different eras see different disposal numbers. 10 years ago, 25 disposals would have you in the top 2 or 3 on the ground. These days, you'd be closer to top 10.

Even within years, different teams average different numbers. Sydney has been a low disposal team under both Roos and Longmire while being relatively successful.

 

[cris_carlton]

Just gonna put my two cents in here and gonna give my thoughts on what some people has said here. Supercoach system is flawed in that you cant rank a ruck next to a defender with a certain amount of points. So we SHOULDNT rank players next to each other (ie 110 points goes to Judd and 50 points to jamo even tho jamo won us the game.) What we should do is put up stats next to a player that relates to his posistion. So for a FF some normal stats are goals, GA, contested marks, tackles, uncontested in f50. then we could go further and record how many times he got beaten 1 on 1, 2 on 1, spoiled, outmarked, directly rebounded on ect. No one cares about kicks, handballs, hitouts, spoils from a FF. Then for a FB we can look at 1 on 1 Spoils, 1 on 1 Contested marks, 3rd up spoil, 3rd up mark, tackles, defensive runs from the back, kicks that open up play, goals directly conceded, marks against. Other stats to include are time on ground, whether the player is doing a specific role (ie jamo to kenedy) ect. Because of these more in depth stats we could post them up on a Game day stat thread and then people can have discussions using these really specific stats. I dont think it would be a good idea to rank players on a game.. it would be best to just record all the weird stats we dont normally hear and use them for a discussion. anyway thought i would jump in with my opinion

EDIT: Those more in depth stats should be ones that a coach either jizzes his pants over (good effort) or screams at a player (weak effort). No one cares about 25m passes on the backline

EDIT**: and we could vote on BF which stats we want to see for each position. possible rank them on importance but not putting a subjective number on them

 

[marcmurphy#3]

I don't think using detailed stats is necessarily the way to go. I would like the see the average ranking of a player out of ten after a game. I just think there are too many variables when it comes to using a SC/DT type approach.

 

[ferrisb]

I really like mm3's suggestion.

Simple, consistent, allows easy comparison across players, clubs, positions. Even solves the issue of diff teams playing diff styles, and will stand the test of time as stats distributions change over time.

I absolutely love stats and spreadsheets, but I think what is being proposed is unworkable. If you can get data like time on ground, great, but what about 1-on-1s. Are we really expecting BF fans to tally these accurately for every player, every week?

Ranking system not the biggest leap from the voting system, but does cover every player, not just top 5 each game.

Also, if rolling out across the BF site, I would suggest rival team boards team up each week. If Carl plays Coll, Carlton fans vote for Carl AND Coll players. And Coll players vote for both sides too (most of them can count to 10!)

Say Carlton fans give Judd an avg 9.2 out of 10, and Coll gives him 8.2, he gets an 8.7 for the week.

The double sided review hopefully cuts down on biased home sides (but then also introduces opposition trolling). Maybe votes only count from board-approved posters? Not tying to be elitist, but I've seen lots of stupid opposition supporters that would give Judd 0/10 out of spite. Actually, that can be solved by using median votes, or by excluding outlier votes in calculations.

Would be even more amazing if each player ranking also had a 1-2 line consensus summary of each player's game (maybe a mod sums up post-game BF posts, like they do with votes ATM). So you could look back and see how any player played in any game. This system would basically equate to what they do in the papers after each GF (which I like).

Happy to discuss the nerdier side of this further if people think it has merit.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I absolutely love stats and spreadsheets, but I think what is being proposed is unworkable. If you can get data like time on ground, great, but what about 1-on-1s. Are we really expecting BF fans to tally these accurately for every player, every week?

You can't keep stats on 1 on 1s or 2 on 1s as such, but if we notice that Judd had 2 men go to him at a stoppage, one holding, one blocking and it is done consistently, it does add some perspective to opinions over time that Judd only got 15 possessions therefore was owned by his tagger. Teams like West Coast put heaps of attention into Judd, and the history is written on BF accordingly. Having our own observations written not in hindsight but during/after a match, and everyone being able to access that information, certainly helps to balance things out a bit. Same for our defenders who are left one out with no pressure coming from the midfield. They should be judged on contests they should have got to, not every contest involving a forward in their vicinity. It won't capture everything but something is better than nothing.

Maybe it is as simple as putting this stuff in our gameday threads or review threads, and we have a separate thread where we just link up to each game thread, each season. So if you wanted to go back and check out thoughts or observations on a game from 5 years ago, you don't have to go searching for it in the archives.

Also, if rolling out across the BF site, I would suggest rival team boards team up each week. If Carl plays Coll, Carlton fans vote for Carl AND Coll players. And Coll players vote for both sides too (most of them can count to 10!)

Say Carlton fans give Judd an avg 9.2 out of 10, and Coll gives him 8.2, he gets an 8.7 for the week.

The double sided review hopefully cuts down on biased home sides (but then also introduces opposition trolling). Maybe votes only count from board-approved posters? Not tying to be elitist, but I've seen lots of stupid opposition supporters that would give Judd 0/10 out of spite. Actually, that can be solved by using median votes, or by excluding outlier votes in calculations.

Yes, would be very prone to trolls but it is being considered that we have a fan vote and an opposition vote but not necessarily average them out. Of course, you will then get opposition fans masquerading as locals and corrupting the vote. It's not a hard and fast system but something that is unique to BF is the desired result.

 

[j-ham]

Someone keep count of metres gained by players and post it.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Someone keep count of metres gained by players and post it.

Some things will be impossible but general observations that Mitch Robinson kicked long on multiple occasions but was bombing it, compared to Heath Scotland spotting up players in the corridor with 30 metre passes, might give perspective to a game where they both get 30 possessions. Of course forums are prone to saying things like 'Russell directly caused 4 goals against us in the first quarter alone' (a few years back) whereas the reality is he had a hand in one turnover from which a goal resulted and potentially had an excuse. This is where we need consensus from posters to separate the frustration from the reality I guess.

On a ratings system, I agree that 1-10 is fairly simple and easy to follow. I'd just like to document our games a little better than we currently do. These are potentially historical records we are talking about. I don't know how many of you have gone back looking for articles and comments on players and games that you remember but have found dead links or no trace at all. In a discussion forum where debate is lively, these things are like gold.

 

[The Coach]

You can't keep stats on 1 on 1s or 2 on 1s as such, but if we notice that Judd had 2 men go to him at a stoppage, one holding, one blocking and it is done consistently, it does add some perspective to opinions over time that Judd only got 15 possessions therefore was owned by his tagger. Teams like West Coast put heaps of attention into Judd, and the history is written on BF accordingly. Having our own observations written not in hindsight but during/after a match, and everyone being able to access that information, certainly helps to balance things out a bit. Same for our defenders who are left one out with no pressure coming from the midfield. They should be judged on contests they should have got to, not every contest involving a forward in their vicinity. It won't capture everything but something is better than nothing.

Maybe it is as simple as putting this stuff in our gameday threads or review threads, and we have a separate thread where we just link up to each game thread, each season. So if you wanted to go back and check out thoughts or observations on a game from 5 years ago, you don't have to go searching for it in the archives.



Yes, would be very prone to trolls but it is being considered that we have a fan vote and an opposition vote but not necessarily average them out. Of course, you will then get opposition fans masquerading as locals and corrupting the vote. It's not a hard and fast system but something that is unique to BF is the desired result.

Would be even more amazing if each player ranking also had a 1-2 line consensus summary of each player's game (maybe a mod sums up post-game BF posts, like they do with votes ATM). So you could look back and see how any player played in any game. This system would basically equate to what they do in the papers after each GF (which I like).

Happy to discuss the nerdier side of this further if people think it has merit.

[/quote]

We are basically after what the buddy concept was supposed to do each week - a detailed discussion of each players contribution. Stats cannot do it - we need posters buying in with how many X had kicked on him or how many times Y had leads ignored etc etc.

Posters could rate /10 if they wish but based on arguments not averages a mod or two could roll all the posters scores into a single player rating thread for each round. BUT if the player discussion threads are not on our main board they have no chance of being patronized. You will get 100's of posts about a players game on the main board and zip for the same game on the 'soon to be renamed players board?'

If it is not on the main board it will not work but 22 new threads each week is not going to work either as we would end up spread over 2 pages and once anything is off pg1 it is gone.

I would suggest 3 new threads that one mod has responsibility for starting after each game eg

Forws v Collingwood : AW JW BT EB SH AG BT

Backs v Collingwood : ........

Mids & Utilities v Collingwood : ....

Every player is listed under one category. People then post comments about a player or players, or rate someone or all the category - whatever they like. Maybe the OP/mod could kick start the thread by providing some initial ratings?

At the end of the week this is the data that a couple of mods or co-ops use to rate each player /10 and which is copied into the single thread/sticky that is kept for prosperity (maybe this could work/live in the player 'Navy Intelligence' forum?) and provide season totals and ratings averages

 

[Chief]

A possible idea for rating a player's game is by coming up with a rating system that is based on what BF posters rank most important.

So, post a thread on the main board asking what top 10 stats posters rate the most in order. i.e. tackles, marks, disposals, goals, goal assists, contested disposals, etc, etc. Then invert everyone's ratings (i.e. what is considered most important receives the most points, opposite for those stats considered the least important). Then total up the whole thread, giving you an overall ranking. That overall ranking can then be used to evaluate an individual player's game during the year.

i.e. let's just say the overall ranking (for 5 stats for example) is:
1. Tackles (worth 5 points)
2. Clearances (worth 4 points)
3. Marks (worth 3 points)
4. Goals (worth 2 points)
5. Goal Assists (worth 1 points)

There is something in the pipeline that might let people create their own rank and weight for each stat, allowing you to create your own individual score depending on what YOU find important.

 

[The Coach]

It has to be a voting/ratings system because every point allocation system has weaknesses and in the end someone has to make a judgement call on the best possible information.

If goals kicked and how they are kicked is not a big enough minefield: we can all remember instances when 4gls were more valuable than 8 in another game (and how do we rate defenders fairly) - let us take tackles! What of the high tackle count because the player was second to the ball too often. It has to come down to a judgement call by a voter/rater

 

[Chief]

Note that we'd be happy to provide a system for recording or voting on these stats so they become part of a player database. They'd be easier to record and retrieve that way.

 

[Blue and Silver]

Chains of posession that result in a shot on goals should be recorded. I believe Champion data does this already, and it might be difficult without going over the vision a second time. But would certainly be insightful

 

[blue gunslinger]

can we also have a break down of stats per cm of height to give wa blues own D Ellard a increase in importance?
Only 1 stat I care about
W/L

 

[Wickzki]

can we also have a break down of stats per cm of height to give wa blues own D Ellard a increase in importance?

Poor Robbie Warnock and Aaron Sandilands. Boy, they suck!

 

[blue gunslinger]

I think they will still have Ellard's measure on hitouts/cm but not tackles/goals etc

 

[OldBlueFan]

Would it be worth asking folks to put their hand up each week to watch a particular player?

I know after a game, I find it hard to remember each individual's performance, but certain things done by particular players will stand out. I reckon if I was watching specifically just one player I could remember a whole lot more about them came the end of the game. And if we are taking specific stats (disregarding stats that are collected elsewhere) again, this would be easier with 1 player rather than trying to manage it for the whole team.

If multiple folks put their hand up for one player, so much the better, they can compare notes afterward.

The sort of stats that I think would be worth tracking this way would be things like:

time vs each opponent through a game (this would be cool if there was a big footy wide ranking system because a player's merit could be judged in terms of time vs better opponents).

running bounces that break open play and become constructive rather than confusing teammates and petering into nothing (running bounces on their own tell you nothing)

1 on 2's where a player wins or breaks even in the contest, conversely 2 on 1's where 2 players are beaten by their single opponent

etc etc.