Lists by Numbers

[lamaros]

Gee I think Geelong is in for some trouble in a little bit. They've lost Ling, Milburne, Ottens, Mooney in 2011, and they're probably going to lose a few more at the end of 2012.

They have 14 guys on their list with 100 or more games, but only two of them were born after 1984. That's a lot of experience that is going to leave the side in the next few years, and a lot of other guys on the list haven't had many games. Only 3 50-100 game players, and only two 25-50, one of whom is Pods.

Unless Geelong's young guys are really good they are going to struggle badly for a bit unless a few of Enright, Corey, Chapman and Bartel can play a fair way into their 30s.

(I got a bit carried away and compared them to other sides in the league. Collingwood's spread is much better, with 13/8/5 a quite a few younger guys in the 100+ bracket. St. Kilda, the other supposed 'old' side, are 15/7/1 but with less talent. Hawks are 14/6/4. Swans, who are always tipped to slide, are 10/11/4. WCE 10/10/5. Blues are 12/7/6. We are 9/10/8.

Big contrast, as expected, to bottom 8 sides:

North 6/7/11, Richmond 5/10/6, Brisbane 10/7/5, Freemantle 9/7/8, Adelaide 7/8/6, WB 12/4/3 - they might be gone for a while, yikes, Melbourne 8/10/6, Port 9/8/5)

 

[Kong]

Re: The Non-Essendon Thread II

That bodes well for us.

What are like compared to say, North, Melbourne and Richmond?

 

[lamaros]

Re: The Non-Essendon Thread II

That bodes well for us.

What are like compared to say, North, Melbourne and Richmond?

I just put them in above.

We've a very good profile. North look to be about a year behind in terms of development. Everyone else in the bottom 8 just looks... well.. worse.

GWS and GC I couldn't get the numbers for, but they are special cases anyhow.

The big thing is the Dogs, they have a distribution profile like a top 8 side who has a fall about to happen. Doesn't look good for them.

(We are 9/10/8.

North 6/7/11, Richmond 5/10/6, Brisbane 10/7/5, Freemantle 9/7/8, Adelaide 7/8/6, WB 12/4/3, Melbourne 8/10/6, Port 9/8/5

 

[lamaros]

Re: The Non-Essendon Thread II

If I was going to project the 2012 ladder based on list profile I'd weigh it towards 100+ and 50+ game players, with 25-50 more a sign for the year after. Giving them values of 3/2/1 it would looks something like:

Collingwood 13/8/5 (60)
St. Kilda 15/7/1 (60)
Hawks 14/6/4 (58)
Blues 12/7/6 (56)
Swans 10/11/4 (56)
Essendon 9/10/8 (55)
WCE 10/10/5 (55)
Melbourne 8/10/6 (50)
Geelong 14/3/2 (50)
Freemantle 9/7/8 (49)
Brisbane 10/7/5 (49)
Port 9/8/5 (48)
WB 12/4/3 (47)
North 6/7/11 (43)
Adelaide 7/8/6 (43)
Richmond 5/10/6 (41)
GC
GWS

Will be interesting to see how it compares to the actual season.

St. Kilda does have a decent group of players, and with Lenny back and no off season trouble this time around they could shut a few people up. Melbourne is the big one for me. I just don't rate them, but they actually look like they have a decent list at the moment. However Geelong will most likely be in the 8 before them, as Geelong's top group is just that good.

 

[lamaros]

Re: The Non-Essendon Thread II

I posted this over on the polls board, but probably a better discussion here:

This is a list of players, including only those who turn 27 or younger this year, who are currently best 22 for their teams or on the fringe.

I think we stack up pretty well, but we'd hope to, considering who we're ranked against.

Midfield

Essendon: Watson, Stanton, Hocking, Zaharakis, Melksham, Howlett, Lonergan, Prismall
North: Wells, Swallow, Ziebell, Adams, Cunnington, Bastinac, Atley, Greenwood
Richmond: Martin, Foley, Cotchin, Grigg, Jackson, Edwards, White, Helbig
Melbourne: Moloney, Jones, Trengove, McKenzie, Gysberts, Bail, Jetta, Morton, Bennell

Ranked: North, Essendon, Richmond, Melbourne.

Defence

Essendon: Hooker, Pears, Myers, Dempsey, Heppell, Hardingham, Hibberd, Slattery
North: Grima, Thompson, Tarrant, McMahon, Pederson
Richmond: Deledio, Rance, Houli, McGuane, Conca, Batchelor, Grimes
Melbourne: Frawley, Grimes, Garland, Tapscott, Strauss, Bartram

Ranked: Melbourne, Essendon, North, Richmond

Forward

Essendon: Hurley, Carlisle, Monfries, Jetta, Crameri, Colyer, Reimers
North: Thomas, Campbell, Hansen, Wright, Harper, Warren
Richmond: Riewoldt, Vickery, Nahas
Melbourne: Watts, Jurrah, Sylvia, Petterd, Bate, Clark, Dunn, Howe

Ranked: Melbourne, Essendon, Richmond, North

Ruck

Essendon: Bellchambers, Ryder
North: McIntosh, Goldstein
Richmond: Maric, Graham
Melbourne: Martin

Ranked: North, Essendon, Richmond, Melbourne

 

[lamaros]

Re: The Non-Essendon Thread II

A bit more from me about lists and such, copied from the polls thread (more analysis there, for those that care):

Richmond has four guys turning 28 or older in 2012 on their list, with 491 games experience. Essendon has 6, with 1052.

However.

Essendon has 1572 games of experience in the rest of their list, the guys 27 or younger. With 21 guys having played 25 games or more.
Richmond has 1361 games of experience in the rest of their list. They have 17 guys there who have played 25 games or more.

Its is true that Richmond has a very young list. But it is a complete misnomer that this means they have an experienced young team.

Richmond HAS to play a guy with 25 games or less every week, they just don't have any choice.

Essendon's 22nd player could be a guy with 47 games of AFL experience. That's more AFL experience than Richmond's 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd players.

All things being equal, Richmond is carrying four more players than Essendon every time they run out. Essendon has 31 players on their list with more experience than Richmond's 22nd. Richmond has 16 players on their list with more experience than Essendon's 22nd.

Compare this to Collingwood, who not only has 13 guys with 100+ games, but has a 22nd player with 48 games and another 4 with 25+. Collingwood has 26 players with more experience than Richmond's 22nd. Richmond has 15 players on their list with more experience than Collingwood's 22nd.

(Interestingly, Geelong this year will go from a side that had their 22nd player at around 40 games, to having four guys inside the 22 on around 20 games. This is why I'm tipping them to slide a bit - though they still have 14 guys at 100 games plus (compared to Richmond's 5) to keep them up for a bit).

 

[Slattery_20]

Re: The Non-Essendon Thread II

That's a very interesting breakdown lamaros, cheers for posting.

 

[lamaros]

Re: The Non-Essendon Thread II

No worries. I'm finding it pretty interesting. It's actually strange to see 'intuitive' views backed up by some stats.

WARNING: Another huge (and not very tight) post from me follows. (Ah, insomnia)

Taking a quick look at some other squads, I'd say the following (granted this is just a quick look, not much depth to it):

Carlton has a decent list. They will probably be up for a while now. As much as I hate to say that. Not a very old squad, with a good spread of experience and decent young players. I'm not sure on some of the young players as I don't know them super well, but it's pretty decent.

Hawks list isn't as deep as I first assumed, and they do have a few guys who will likely be retiring in the next couple of seasons. If Burgoyne and Mitchell don't hang about for a few into their 30s Hawks might drop off sooner than expected. Could be a really interesting one. I assumed they'd be close to best in the land.

Fremantle's list isn't as good as I have assumed either. They have a bit of old talent, and the list doesn't run super deep. However they do have a few handy inexperienced players who look pretty safe bets (Barlow for one).

Saints drop off very quick outside their best 22, so any injuries will hurt them more than nearly anyone else out of the finals contenders. However that 22 is still powerful. Big fall coming, but maybe not just yet.

Geelong is so top heavy it hurts. Unless they have the best draft team in the country they will probably start their fall, though it will look more like a slide.

Swans are doing ok. Though they rely a bit on guys who might will be retiring soon it is nowhere near as pronounced as in other lists. Goodes will probably play to 400 games and keep them up forever.

West Coast have probably the ideal from an age/games perspective. I've probably stuffed up in picking them to drop out of the eight this year.

Voss has ****ed Brisbane. They have one of the worst lists going around. Worse than Richmond, easily. It doesn't look good at all.

Of course, it is NOWHERE near as bad as the worst list in the land. McCartney is on a hiding to nothing. No depth, no experienced youngsters, and a large number of key players reaching the end of their careers. The Dogs better hope Liberatore and Wallis and Roughead and co all come good, and soon.

Ports list is merely poor in comparison to the above two.

I don't rate Melbourne at all. I though they would make bottom 4 easily this year. But... their list is ok. Pretty good even. They'll probably improve for the next couple of years. Good time for the new coach to take over.

North's list is very similar to ours, albeit a year or two behind. If this analysis means anything (who knows?) then they'll chase us up the ladder.

Adelaide has a few holes, as you'd expect with players like Davis and Gunston leaving. No sensational flaws though.

Collingwood have a fantastic list. If salary cap pressures and GWS don't tear them apart a bit they will probably stay up for a fair while.

Finally: Our list. Our list is really positive for one reason. It is dominated by young players.

Say What?

When you look at other top 8 sides you notice two things:

1. They are often top heavy: Dominated by group of guys (~13-15) with a lot of games (Geelong's 100+ group has 2466 games, Collingwood's 2214, St. Kilda's 2626, Hawks' 2319), filled out by a much less experienced group.
2. This experienced group is filled with guys born in 84 or earlier for the most part (Geelong, 12/14, St. Kilda 12/15, Hawks 10/14, Collingwood 8/13 - I did say they have the best list).

Neither of these are true for us:

1. We have only 1530 games experience in our experienced group.
2. Only 4 of those 9 are born before 85.

What this means is we have one of the youngest, least experienced finals lists going around. If numbers mean anything this means we are on the way up.

West Coast also have an amazing list for a top four team. Only 1638 games in their experienced group. However they have 7/10 of that group in the older age bracket. They also had a dream run with injury in 2011.

Carlton is also good, with 1788 games and 6/12. (Sydney are in the middle with 1858 games and 9/10.)

TL;DR:

Collingwood have a great list and will probably get better.
Carlton and West Coast have good lists and will probably keep pushing up.
Hawthorn aren't sliding like St. Kilda and Geelong, but they're not shooting up anymore.
Geelong is sliding.
St. Kilda will slide with even the slightest tremor, but could hold on a year if stable.
Sydney are treading water.
Essendon is on the way up, up, up.
North and Melbourne are following a bit behind us.
Fremantle is primed to jump up, but may plateau before they reach the top.
Adelaide and Richmond have some recruiting to do.
Port is going to struggle, but are in the same ballpark as Richmond and Adelaide.
Brisbane is going to say goodbye to Voss before he gives them any reason to smile.
Buldogs are ****ed.

Based on this review I have ****ed up in tipping West Coast to miss the 8 and Melbourne to be bottom 4. And Carlton might make the top 4.

 

[lamaros]

Re: The Non-Essendon Thread II

Here's a more simple breakdown of why I think some teams will stay up for a while, and why some will probably slide:

Players 27 or younger in 2012, by total games experience, for the 2011 finals teams:

Essendon: 1572
Carlton: 1468
Collingwood: 1407
West Coast: 1334
Hawthorn: 1214
Sydney: 1147
St. Kilda: 908
Geelong: 546

BONUS: Why some teams are ****ed, and some just seem ****ed: Bulldogs 1058, Brisbane 828, Port 1560, Melb 1265, Rich 1361.

 

[Slattery_20]

Re: The Non-Essendon Thread II

27+ age group would be... what, the 2003 draft & before?

I really got a surprise when I checked how old Port sides of recent years have been.
Most of the other bottom sides have really been flogging their youth - even Brisbane, belatedly - but Port have been playing a lot of beige, bog average mid-career duds and just going nowhere.

 

[Kong]

Re: The Non-Essendon Thread II

Great stuff, lamaros, even if numbers aren't my strong point.

Probably warrants its own thread. Thread title?

 

[lamaros]

Re: The Non-Essendon Thread II

Great stuff, lamaros, even if numbers aren't my strong point.

Probably warrants its own thread. Thread title?

'Lists by the numbers'?

 

[lamaros]

Re: The Non-Essendon Thread II

27+ age group would be... what, the 2003 draft & before?

I really got a surprise when I checked how old Port sides of recent years have been.
Most of the other bottom sides have really been flogging their youth - even Brisbane, belatedly - but Port have been playing a lot of beige, bog average mid-career duds and just going nowhere.

2002. Watson and Winders were 02, while Watson is 85 and Winders 84.

Port have a very surprising list. They actually have a lot of games in their younger players. It looks to me like they are under performing a fair bit. Which means they have really shit coaching, or their young players are all rubbish.

 

[Slattery_20]

Re: The Non-Essendon Thread II

'Lists by the numbers'?

"Nerd pr0n".

 

[Slattery_20]

Re: The Non-Essendon Thread II

2002. Watson and Winders were 02, while Watson is 85 and Winders 84.

Port have a very surprising list. They actually have a lot of games in their younger players. It looks to me like they are under performing a fair bit. Which means they have really shit coaching, or their young players are all rubbish.

Hurt a bit by being constantly good through the earlier 00s, and not going hard enough to rebuild after that. 07 ended up costing them more than a flogging.

When you look at their list by age.

• Name Games Age
  Schulz, Jay 103 26yr 10mth
  Salopek, Steven 121 26yr 8mth
  Logan, Tom 92 26yr 7mth
  Surjan, Jacob 108 26yr 6mth
  Chaplin, Troy 122 25yr 11mth
  Pearce, Danyle 134 25yr 10mth
  Westhoff, Justin 89 25yr 4mth
  Thomas, Matt 68 24yr 11mth
  Phillips, Simon 13 24yr 10mth
  Carlile, Alipate 91 24yr 9mth
  Stewart, Paul 44 24yr 7mth
  Salter, Nick 21 24yr 6mth
  Pfeiffer, Darren*(R) 7 24yr 4mth

I reckon that's the group that stands out.
Salopek, Pearce and Westhoff pretty good players, but who the **** are the rest of 'em?

I would suggest a big bunch of them are neither producing, nor developing.

Should note, I don't rate Peter Rohde whatsoever. They can't actually afford to sack him though.

 

[lamaros]

Well, compare them to us, a team with a similar number of games into that 'mid-range' group:

NAME			GAMES	AGE
Watson, Jobe		132	27yr
Dyson, Rick		102	26yr 4mth
Slattery, Henry		94	26yr 1mth
Stanton, Brent		162	25yr 9mth
Prismall, Brent		61	25yr 7mth
Monfries, Angus		132	25yr 1mth
Lonergan, Sam		65	24yr 10mth
Baguley, Mark*(R)	0	24yr 9mth
Dempsey, Courtenay	54	24yr 5mth
Lee, Brendan*(R)	0	24yr 4mth
Hocking, Heath		62	24yr 1mth

Dyson is going/fringe, as is Slattery, Prismall & Lonergan, and Dempsey hasn't been on the park all that much.

We've got Watson, Stanton, Monfries and Hocking holding up their end - that's three of our best players right there - but it's still not amazing. Opposition fans would mostly look at that list and go "no wonder you're shit, you've only got Watson".

The big thing for us is the guys underneath that age group - Ryder, Jetta, Crameri, Howlett, Zaha, Hurley, Heppell, Hooker, Pears, Myers, Melksham, etc. They're the ones pushing up, making Dyson, Slattery and co struggle to get a game.

Port don't have that group. They just have Gray, Boak, Trengove... Now they've added Ebert, and would hope Butcher and Hartlett can come along, but they're still missing out.

 

[Slattery_20]

Well, compare them to us, a team with a similar number of games into that 'mid-range' group:

NAME			GAMES	AGE
Watson, Jobe		132	27yr
Dyson, Rick		102	26yr 4mth
Slattery, Henry		94	26yr 1mth
Stanton, Brent		162	25yr 9mth
Prismall, Brent		61	25yr 7mth
Monfries, Angus		132	25yr 1mth
Lonergan, Sam		65	24yr 10mth
Baguley, Mark*(R)	0	24yr 9mth
Dempsey, Courtenay	54	24yr 5mth
Lee, Brendan*(R)	0	24yr 4mth
Hocking, Heath		62	24yr 1mth

Dyson is going/fringe, as is Slattery, Prismall & Lonergan, and Dempsey hasn't been on the park all that much.

We've got Watson, Stanton, Monfries and Hocking holding up their end - that's three of our best players right there - but it's still not amazing. Opposition fans would mostly look at that list and go "no wonder you're shit, you've only got Watson".

I guess that's fair comment, but I'd say we prolly are carrying one-two too many in that group as well.
btw don't write Hartlett off. Genuine quality, when he's right.

 

[fishardansin]

That is some fantastic work Lamros. I'd say that you could find a way to glean information out of the less than 25 games played guys too. Perhaps you can look at the guys in that bracket that played more than 15 games in the one year. It could be last year or they could've been in a previous year but have since missed every season due to injury.

That way players like Heppell, Conca and Atley can be added to the expected improvement. Hell even Gumby can be added to Essendon!!

 

[Scrads]

Good read Lamaros, pardon my intrusion.

Can I ask why you left out the 0-25 games group in the numbers ? For Hawthorn, that includes Savage, Smith, Puopolo, Breust, Gunston and Bailey. Maybe not counting this group led to your conclusion of the hawks dropping off suddenly.

 

[lamaros]

Good read Lamaros, pardon my intrusion.

Can I ask why you left out the 0-25 games group in the numbers ? For Hawthorn, that includes Savage, Smith, Puopolo, Breust, Gunston and Bailey. Maybe not counting this group led to your conclusion of the hawks dropping off suddenly.

I just did it mostly because I was looking over this lists quickly, and in general I know less about guys that have played fewer games.

That also means I left out guys like Heppell and Carlisle for us.

Secondly I did it because guys who have played fewer games are generally support players, the guys that round out a list. While there are some obvious ones who clearly have talent for the most part these guys are hard to rate.

Prismall is a great example of this. As a young player rounding out the Geelong list he looked like he had a big future (much like Menzel and Duncan and Christiansen do today) however once he was removed from that environment dominated by established quality players he was required to stand on his own, and the gloss started to fade.

Over such a short period of games, 25 or less, it is more difficult to work out if someone is genuinely a player, or just performing a role in a machine that is oiled by the sweat of the experienced blokes.

Which is not to say the Hawks bunch aren't any good. I rate a few of them (two - the rest I think are Prismalls), much like I rate Heppell. I just think you have to look at them really carefully, so a general numbers breakdown doesn't tell you much.

I think most people generally take for granted the stuff experienced players do, and get carried away by new additions. You only have to look at the Bulldogs and Saints in 2011 to see how huge a difference it makes when you replace a couple of pros with some kids. Hell, just look at Essendons performances when Watson and Hocking missed.

If you lose Sam Mitchell and Hodge for the year all of a sudden a few of your young guys will start to look worse. But they won't be, not really, it's just Sam Mitchell is that good. And even though you know he is good, to take for granted the pressure he takes that allows the bit players to shine.

 

[lamaros]

That is some fantastic work Lamros. I'd say that you could find a way to glean information out of the less than 25 games played guys too. Perhaps you can look at the guys in that bracket that played more than 15 games in the one year. It could be last year or they could've been in a previous year but have since missed every season due to injury.

That way players like Heppell, Conca and Atley can be added to the expected improvement. Hell even Gumby can be added to Essendon!!

This is actually pretty close to how I assess the young players: if you've managed 15 or more games in the one season then you're probably pretty good. The better the team you got those games in is, the better you're probably going to be too.

Of course sometimes I still think theyre not that great. I have my biases!

 

[Scrads]

Valid points, but I'd just like to point out that most of that group I mentioned are best 22 players for us, best 25 at least for the lower ones. In a team that was a preliminary finalist last year and one of the favourites for this year, they pretty much have to be quality. Surely the top tier of our players can't be THAT good that they drag up the bottom third of our team as far as you are suggesting.

The difference with the Prismall scenario is that he was largely getting games as pretty much the only inexperienced player in the side (barring Selwood). The Hawks group I mentioned make up a much larger portion of the team, so it would be a lot harder for the rest of the team to drag them up.

 

[Slattery_20]

Tom Murphy was a best 22 player in 2008. Played 19 or 20 games OTOH, so was Xav Ellis.

I can understand where lama is coming from, it definitely will throw up anomalies, but I can see his point. You've got to draw the line somewhere.

 

[Scrads]

Tom Murphy was a best 22 player in 2008. Played 19 or 20 games OTOH, so was Xav Ellis.

I can understand where lama is coming from, it definitely will throw up anomalies, but I can see his point. You've got to draw the line somewhere.

I don't see your point about those 2 players, I'd even disagree that Murphy was best 22 in 08, he was more like a fringe player playing only because he was needed due to injury (he wasn't picked for the grand final). Not to mention, he is still best 25 for us now. And with Ellis, I'm positive he would still be best 22 if injuries hadn't cruelled his development in the following 3 seasons. It's also worth noting that the group I mentioned were a little bit older than what Murphy and Ellis were in 08, meaning they are at least a little more developed and settled in the team.

 

[Slattery_20]

Every rule has exceptions.
The line's been drawn at 25, feel free to re-do your own with the line drawn at 24, or 26, or whatever you feel's fair; but I'm finding lama's approach worth a look.