Analysis Interview with Binuk Kodiuwakku - AFC's player analytics expert

[Jarmayhem]

That gets misread I reckon.

If the worst players in the league stayed together for ages and ages they'd still stink and so would their team.

Our coaches read the cohesion stuff and think it's vital that they keep Thompson, VB, Reilly, Douglas, Mackay... together for as long as possible. The longer they're there, the greater the payoff will be.

To add rookies would be to go back to square one.

Stability only matters if it's good players playing together. Get the best, most talented players you can and then let them develop together.

Good news is, our next generation are getting a lot of experience together in the SANFL. A silver lining perhaps?

 

[GreyCrow]

That gets misread I reckon.

If the worst players in the league stayed together for ages and ages they'd still stink and so would their team.

Our coaches read the cohesion stuff and think it's vital that they keep Thompson, VB, Reilly, Douglas, Mackay... together for as long as possible. The longer they're there, the greater the payoff will be.

To add rookies would be to go back to square one.

Stability only matters if it's good players playing together. Get the best, most talented players you can and then let them develop together.

Google Podcasts

podcasts.google.com

I must admit I thought of the afc a lot when listening to the podcast

I felt his basic premise was OK but I also felt there were holes in it

Again as Binuk points out in his episode there needs to be context with it

 

[GreyCrow]

Good news is, our next generation are getting a lot of experience together in the SANFL. A silver lining perhaps?

Yeah I mentioned something similar a few weeks ago. It follows Pagans under 19s model. But I don't think the afl works in a similar manner

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Google Podcasts

podcasts.google.com

I must admit I thought of the afc a lot when listening to the podcast

I felt his basic premise was OK but I also felt there were holes in it

Again as Binuk points out in his episode there needs to be context with it

Agreed

Look at the Hawks or Geelong. Prior to their 2007/2008 breakthrough period I'm sure their teams changed a lot compared to during their premiership dynasties.

You could point to that and say See, they just needed stability.

Really though what they needed was to get to a stage that they'd assembled/developed a team that was worth sticking by.

Of course teams that haven't found that combination yet are going to churn through a few.

Darwin is seeing the symptom (end result), not the root cause.

 

[kulak]

Re: Binuk’s podcast interview

I noticed he found Hamish open to feedback

But Reid quite closed - he said that JR as a former agent already has a great knowledge base and there was no analytics input to the contract side

I am not sure our list management in the last few years has been as good as it can be, it’s definitely worse than in the Noble era. Would some analytics have discouraged us from Eddie’s current deal for example?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Re: Binuk’s podcast interview

I noticed he found Hamish open to feedback

But Reid quite closed - he said that JR as a former agent already has a great knowledge base and there was no analytics input to the contract side

I am not sure our list management in the last few years has been as good as it can be, it’s definitely worse than in the Noble era. Would some analytics have discouraged us from Eddie’s current deal for example?

Great question

Recruiting Gibbs had a PR basis behind it. Fagan pushing for it to happen.

Re-signing Lynch on the back of Lever, Cameron and soon McGovern leaving again had a PR element to it.

I wonder what Binuk would have suggested in those two cases?

 

[Geoffa32]

Good news is, our next generation are getting a lot of experience together in the SANFL. A silver lining perhaps?

I know you are joking. But look at North Melbourne in the 90s.

The core of that side played Reserves and won a Reserves Premiership together before league.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[rezagun]

I wonder who the nba team was...
Phoenix suns.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

We're living proof that Darwin is wrong.

We have the most stable team in the competition. 15 players still there from Pyke's 2016 Round 1 team. Most clubs are single figures.

Yet we are really struggling.

 

[footy4ever]

Great question

Recruiting Gibbs had a PR basis behind it. Fagan pushing for it to happen.

Re-signing Lynch on the back of Lever, Cameron and soon McGovern leaving again had a PR element to it.

I wonder what Binuk would have suggested in those two cases?

could have gone either way

 

[footy4ever]

We're living proof that Darwin is wrong.

We have the most stable team in the competition. 15 players still there from Pyke's 2016 Round 1 team. Most clubs are single figures.

Yet we are really struggling.

Exactly, and the premise of my first post referring to analytics in general with particular reference to Darwin's podcast.

How many teams have taken all the analysis on board and have still failed? We don't hear about that.




"I don't understand. The analysis said we should've won"

 

[GreyCrow]

We're living proof that Darwin is wrong.
Yet we are really struggling.

Are you saying Darwin's theory is wrong?

 

[GreyCrow]

Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution - organisms adapt and change to survive in an ever competitive environment

Ben Darwins Theory of (sporting) Evolution - organisms must have stability and cohesion to succeed in an ever competitive environment

 

[Jarmayhem]

Finally had a chance to listen to this podcast. Fascinating area and a fascinating guy.

Whether you think it has a place in footy or not, it's great to see the club pioneering something different.

 

[lacrow]

As far as cohesion goes, my 2-cents is that it is definitely a real thing. Having said that, it does not mean keeping players who are obviously not up to it (Mackay, Otten, Douglas, etc.) in the side just for the sake of cohesion. However I do feel that we should be able to discern who our best players are and stick with them, even through slumps they may have for 4-5 games or so.

I said it before in another thread but I really don't agree with this constant state of flux that is created by constantly dropping/upgrading players throughout the year. The coaches should know who is our best 22 and they should be playing every week (unless injured). I know people have made the argument that "AFL is different from the NFL, NBA, etc." but I just don't buy that.

 

[Elite Crow]

As far as cohesion goes, my 2-cents is that it is definitely a real thing. Having said that, it does not mean keeping players who are obviously not up to it (Mackay, Otten, Douglas, etc.) in the side just for the sake of cohesion. However I do feel that we should be able to discern who our best players are and stick with them, even through slumps they may have for 4-5 games or so.

I said it before in another thread but I really don't agree with this constant state of flux that is created by constantly dropping/upgrading players throughout the year. The coaches should know who is our best 22 and they should be playing every week (unless injured). I know people have made the argument that "AFL is different from the NFL, NBA, etc." but I just don't buy that.

So you just continue to play out of form players and never test the depth of your squad or develop it?

 

[John Who]

As far as cohesion goes, my 2-cents is that it is definitely a real thing. Having said that, it does not mean keeping players who are obviously not up to it (Mackay, Otten, Douglas, etc.) in the side just for the sake of cohesion. However I do feel that we should be able to discern who our best players are and stick with them, even through slumps they may have for 4-5 games or so.

I said it before in another thread but I really don't agree with this constant state of flux that is created by constantly dropping/upgrading players throughout the year. The coaches should know who is our best 22 and they should be playing every week (unless injured). I know people have made the argument that "AFL is different from the NFL, NBA, etc." but I just don't buy that.

The problem is that you’re making an assumption that there is an absolute “best 22”. The reality is that there are probably a dozen absolute best players who rarely play poor games. Then there are about 10 “next best” who are generally good enough to be in best 22, but in any given period, can easily play poorly and can be replaced by 10 or so fringe players from the reserves.

Take Hartigan, Gibbs, Douglas and JJ, at their best, absolutely in best 22. At their worst, can look comical indeed!

Also the kids with obvious potential, you can see some of them will surpass the talents of our crop of veterans. Though the main question should be “what year will the kids consistently do better than their AFL role counterparts?” Bearing in mind it took players like Doedee and Milera 3 years to be consistently excellent.

 

[John Who]

We're living proof that Darwin is wrong.

We have the most stable team in the competition. 15 players still there from Pyke's 2016 Round 1 team. Most clubs are single figures.

Yet we are really struggling.

We’re really mainly struggling this year. 2016-2017 we were on a significant rise. 2018 was a colossal injury mess, we were struggling to pick 22 fit players. No amount of Darwinian theory would have mattered last year!

This year however...

 

[jackster83]

We’re really mainly struggling this year. 2016-2017 we were on a significant rise. 2018 was a colossal injury mess, we were struggling to pick 22 fit players. No amount of Darwinian theory would have mattered last year!

This year however...

Oh I think the signs of decline were there last year. Jacobs, Betts, Walker, Douglas and Sloane were all struggling. We mostly just assumed it was due to injury though.

 

[marty36]

We’re really mainly struggling this year. 2016-2017 we were on a significant rise. 2018 was a colossal injury mess, we were struggling to pick 22 fit players. No amount of Darwinian theory would have mattered last year!

This year however...

The cliff was always coming its just a matter of when

As well as the Cats have gone this year, the core and best players in their team may hit the same cliff next year, infact their age demographic is worse than ours with the quality of the players they will have next year around 30

Ages next year for the cats

Hawkins 32
J Selwood 32
Ablett 36
Bilcavs 29
Danger 30
Duncan 29
Henderson 30
Rohan 29
Taylor 34
Smth 30
Stanley 29
Tuohy 30
S Selwood 30


13 players and most are top 22 players, yet most posters think we should follow the cats,

Sidenote, there are discussions they may go after Jacobs or ryder

 

[1970crow]

So you just continue to play out of form players and never test the depth of your squad or develop it?

Sounds like it. Welcome to the forum Neil or Don.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So you just continue to play out of form players and never test the depth of your squad or develop it?

I agree with lacrow

Chopping and changing achieves nothing. Even the dropped guys over the journey who do a bit better once recalled revert to their mean soon enough.

You should only change your team when you've decided to make a permanent change to your best 22.

Eg if we've now seen enough of Atkins to decide that his good isn't enough to outweigh his bad and we drop him - fine. But that means he gets traded or delisted at season's end.

He can't return via SANFL form or a good preseason. We've been down a failed road. No need to repeat.

 

[Scorpus]

I agree with lacrow

Chopping and changing achieves nothing. Even the dropped guys over the journey who do a bit better once recalled revert to their mean soon enough.

You should only change your team when you've decided to make a permanent change to your best 22.

Eg if we've now seen enough of Atkins to decide that his good isn't enough to outweigh his bad and we drop him - fine. But that means he gets traded or delisted at season's end.

He can't return via SANFL form or a good preseason. We've been down a failed road. No need to repeat.

The only exception I would make to this is if someone is performing well below their average, and we know their average is good enough at AFL level

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The only exception I would make to this is if someone is performing well below their average, and we know their average is good enough at AFL level

They're the ones lacrow is talking about.

Unless they're physically in need of a break then you keep them in. Quality will win out. Form will only be temporary.

If it lingers too long then it's not form and you make the permanent call.

There are exceptions. Eg Stevie J off the rails, drinking too much, given a wake up call. But typically these are not football related.

 

[Scorpus]

They're the ones lacrow is talking about.

Unless they're physically in need of a break then you keep them in. Quality will win out. Form will only be temporary.

If it lingers too long then it's not form and you make the permanent call.

There are exceptions. Eg Stevie J off the rails, drinking too much, given a wake up call. But typically these are not football related.

I think while it's a good idea in principle, it's too simplistic

What about young players? Often it can take years for a player to come good. You can't just go delisting or trading quality if we put then in the firsts for a season or two and they look garbage. Similarly, you can't just keep that player in the firsts forever hoping they will become good.

What about players that might have a late career resurgence like Dale Thomas? Do you keep those guys in the side for years or cut them too early?

I think that sort of system is at risk of keeping out of form players for too long, and cutting off the careers of those who might come good.

In fact I think we have done this sort of thing.

Back in Charlie Cameron. Play him for game after game, looks okay, eventually we decide he could be worth trading because he's borderline. We trade him, he dominates.

Have to see what Lachie Murphy looks like. Back him in for s**t game after s**t game. He's now played 30 largely poor games. Making the call earlier risks not figuring out whether we have a good player, but keeping this guy in the side for so long hurts the team. Why not rotate this guy in and out of the side a few times to see who might have it, rather than only doing that once?

Guys like Douglas, Jacobs and Thompson. Make the wrong call on seeing a form slump as just a slump rather than a slide to the end of the career. So we're stuck with them in the side for far too long.

I think it's risky to limit yourself to making the call on a player once