Universal Love Nathan Fyfe

[Clems Knee]

http://m.live-footy.heraldsun.com.au/statscentre/index/20150920150140906

Thank you.
So Champion data ratings are just SuperCoach?
Don't they apply and deduct points based on effectiveness of disposal, rather than metres gained, and then they moderate the scores based on a predetermined total points score for the game? And apparently you get more points for influencing the outcome of the game more.

If so, Fyfe could have lost points for
a) ineffectiveness of disposal (hmmm)
b) being involved in a fairly close win: Adelaide's team actually got about 100 points more than Fremantle.
c) having other players in the team who played well and took points from him.
d) not influencing the games as much as Dangerfield ( yeh right)

This is probably evidence that Champion Data's stats are a crock of shit.

Based on that Fyfe wins 40 to 38, what am I missing? clogged ??

Fyfe's SC 158 Dangerfield's SC 188.

Sandiland's is just 91. Stats clearly do not reflect his influence, and AFL player ratings are just as bad.

 

[Arcassius]

This - http://www.afl.com.au/stats/player-ratings/ratings-explained

Which on-field acts contribute to a player's score?
Every time a player is involved in a passage of play he has the chance to accrue points. But rather than his score being a simple tally of his possessions, marks, tackles, hit-outs, free-kicks and scores, his performance is measured using a system called Equity Ratings. The system determines where and how a player influences a contest and whether the player's effort then results in a positive result for his team. Equity Ratings includes what coaches love to describe as "pressure acts". As a result, players are rewarded for interrupting opposition passages of play as well as setting up scores for their own team.

Players who consistently produce positive contributions are rewarded more highly than players with a high volume of stats. As an example, a 20-disposal game by Cyril Rioli, where 17 disposals are positive and only one is negative, can have the same impact as a 40-disposal game by Dane Swan, where 25 are positive and nine are negative.

Can players lose points during games?
Yes. Players can receive a negative score in a number of ways, including when they give away free kicks and also when they turn the ball over. A turnover that results in an opposition score results in the largest negative score.

How is the player ratings system different to the scoring system used in AFL Fantasy and the Champion Data player ratings?
Whereas AFL Fantasy scores simply takes into account how many times a player receives and disposes of the ball, how many scores he registers and whether he wins or gives away free kicks, Official AFL Player Ratings consider a whole range of other factors. These include where the player was on the field when he received the ball, whether the player was under pressure and whether his disposal advantaged his team or led to a score.


---

So Danger gets 38 possessions, 29 contested, 8 tackles, 5 frees for - statistically a great game. AFL Player Ratings looks at more metrics, and it attempts to weight towards impact for a position. So metres gained for example are more highly valued.

In the end no model is perfect - just 'best fit'

 

[youmewe]

Thank you.
So Champion data ratings are just SuperCoach?
Don't they apply and deduct points based on effectiveness of disposal, rather than metres gained, and then they moderate the scores based on a predetermined total points score for the game? And apparently you get more points for influencing the outcome of the game more.

If so, Fyfe could have lost points for
a) ineffectiveness of disposal (hmmm)
b) being involved in a fairly close win: Adelaide's team actually got about 100 points more than Fremantle.
c) having other players in the team who played well and took points from him.
d) not influencing the games as much as Dangerfield ( yeh right)

This is probably evidence that Champion Data's stats are a crock of shit.



Fyfe's SC 158 Dangerfield's SC 188.

Sandiland's is just 91. Stats clearly do not reflect his influence, and AFL player ratings are just as bad.

I agree.

This is how they do it.

SUPERCOACH SCORING SYSTEM

While complicated, basically the scoring system is not as transparent as we would like it to be. In the Supercoach game there is not a list we can read off to calculate our players scores e.g, 1 kick = 1 point, 1 contested mark = 6 points, because the Supercoach scores are entirely based on your players influence within the game and the context of the possessions. Yes their scores do depend on the amount of possessions they get and there is a scoring system which stipulates how many points each player gets for a different action they have in the game, but it is not black and white and as I previously mentioned, depend heavily on where the possessions were and what part of the game the possession took place.

On top of this and probably the most controversial aspect of the Supercoach scoring system is the 3300 point factor. This means that Champion data will ONLY allocate 3300 points to any one game of AFL football. This means that in a weekend of football, there is only ever 26,400 points available for your Supercoach team to attain, no more no less. I know there will be plenty of discussions and implications for this so I have included an explanation from Champion Data themselves to help clarify the situation.

Champion Data Rankings: how come every match adds up to 3,300 points?
Before 2004 we simply allocated a set number of points for each statistic, something like the Dream Team formula but with qualitative stats, such as effective kicks (+4), ineffective kicks (0) and clanger kicks (-6). Those base points had been refined through research by Swinburne University on the most important factors in winning a game of football. Over the years we have continued to test them and made minor tweaks and additions as the game evolves and we collect more information about each match.

From 2004 we decided to take situational information into account. The research shows that you win more matches by making quality decisions near goal, and when the match is in the balance. For each action in the match, the computer uses a multiplier which involves the position on the field and a pressure factor based on the margin and the time left. The pressure factor is basically the effect a player can have on his teams winning chances by doing the right thing at that time a game-winning goal is given the highest multiplier, while a handball on the wing when his team is already 80 points ahead gets scaled down.

Once all the numbers are in, we normalise them so that the total is 3,300. Each player is given a slice of the pie, in proportion to his total weighted ranking points. This lets us measure a players contribution to a match regardless of its speed or overall quality. For SuperCoach it means that Sydney players are worth considering on a level playing field with Bulldogs & Cats, even though there are fewer possessions in their matches. It also means that there is no inflation as the game continues to speed up, and a players 150 today is as dominant of a total match as 150 was five years ago regardless of game styles and trends.

• Where does 3,300 come from?
The average match from 2001 to 2003 had about 3,300 points. If we looked at raw base numbers these days, they would have gradually increased just like Dream Team points.

• Not adding up to exactly 3,300?
Rounding can vary this.

• Whats an average score?
3,300 / 44 = 75, so 100+ indicates a good game. 150 means hes done the job of two average players.

• Someone had 50 points at half time and didnt come back on the field. How did he finish with only 40? Or 60?
The normalisation has the effect of concentrating points around the times when the result was decided as one team took control. At half time the computer assumes 1,650 points have been allocated. But if one team has already run away with the match, points from the first half will continue to scale up as a proportion of the pie. Conversely if the match is won very late, points from earlier are scaled down.


PROSPECTUS INFO RE SUPERCOACH SCORING SYSTEM

The Official Player Ranking points are a formula designed to measure the quality of a player’s statistics rather than just the quantity. Each year the rankings formula is reviewed by Champion Data’s statisticians and is ‘tweaked’ according to changes in the games. The 2007 season saw an example of this as Champion Data started recording run-down tackles. These were scored high than regular tackles as it involved a player putting in extra effort to apply a tackle after a hard chase.

Explanation of Rankings and the Current Formula:

Champion Data’s Rankings formula is based on the official AFL statistics and is calculated by computer. From 1999-2003, Champion Data together with Swinburne University conducted extensive research (covering 1110 games in total) identifying winning and losing factors in AFL games. Findings from the research tell us that effective kicking along with a side’s ability to win the disputed ball are two of the most important winning factors in the AFL. Our rankings formula is geared towards rewarding these statistics with higher values as well as assigning negative points to stats that are detrimental to a side’s winning chances (ie. clangers and ineffective disposals).

There are 57 individual statistics to which the computer attributes either a positive or negative value. For example, an effective kick is worth four points and an effective handball is worth two points but an ineffective disposal is worth zero points. With research continually conducted on the data gathered by our statisticians, new statistics have been defined and existing values have continually been refined over the years to reflect the changing nature of game plans. Even with the evolution of our great game we know that winning the contested ball and using disposals effectively are still two major keys to victory.

Many statistics are valued higher depending on the state of play in which they occur. Perhaps the most common example of this is an uncontested mark. Over the last few years we have seen a lot more ‘junk’ football being played, with sides kicking the ball sideways and backwards more often than ever before. Therefore grabbing an uncontested mark from a teammate’s kick has become more common than ever and is valued at just one point. Grabbing an uncontested mark from an opposition’s kick requires much greater skill in reading the play however, and is given a value of four points. This principle also applies to a contested mark as they are valued at six points when taken from a teammate’s kick and eight points from an opposition kick.

In 2005, the rankings formula introduced weighting to its values depending on the proximity to goal and the state of play in which the stat occurred. For instance, it is clear that turning the ball over in your own defensive 50 has a much more detrimental effect than turning it over in the forward-line and the rankings values reflect this. The values are designed to reward players that stand up and dominate when the game is up for grabs rather than those that rack them up when the margin is greater and the result of the game is out of reach. Mathematically this state-of-play weighting is based on the derivative of match-winning probability with respect to a score change. The total rankings value for one side in a single match has been normalised to be 3300- so sides with a game plan involving a slower tempo and fewer disposals (think Sydney) are not condemned to a lower score than the side that love to rack up the disposals and create free-flowering games.

Rankings points are not only assigned live during the match but are re-adjusted at the completion of the match with the computer weighting scores depending on the most important time of the match or when the match was won. For example, a player may have a score of 50 points at quarter time with his side leading by 20 points at the first break. If that player’s side loses the match by one point after being outscored by five goals in the last quarter then more weighting will be given to statistics in the last quarter (where the game was ultimately won) rather than the first quarter, which will be geared down at the completion of the match. So that same player might end the day with only 40 points in the first quarter. This system also works in the reverse, so for example if one team out-scores the other by four goals in the first quarter and runs away with the game in the next three quarters, the ranking points from the first quarter will be geared higher at the completion of the match for the winning side.

 

[Clems Knee]

I agree.

This is how they do it.

SUPERCOACH SCORING SYSTEM

While complicated, basically the scoring system is not as transparent as we would like it to be. In the Supercoach game there is not a list we can read off to calculate our players scores e.g, 1 kick = 1 point, 1 contested mark = 6 points, because the Supercoach scores are entirely based on your players influence within the game and the context of the possessions. Yes their scores do depend on the amount of possessions they get and there is a scoring system which stipulates how many points each player gets for a different action they have in the game, but it is not black and white and as I previously mentioned, depend heavily on where the possessions were and what part of the game the possession took place.

On top of this and probably the most controversial aspect of the Supercoach scoring system is the 3300 point factor. This means that Champion data will ONLY allocate 3300 points to any one game of AFL football. This means that in a weekend of football, there is only ever 26,400 points available for your Supercoach team to attain, no more no less. I know there will be plenty of discussions and implications for this so I have included an explanation from Champion Data themselves to help clarify the situation.

Champion Data Rankings: how come every match adds up to 3,300 points?
Before 2004 we simply allocated a set number of points for each statistic, something like the Dream Team formula but with qualitative stats, such as effective kicks (+4), ineffective kicks (0) and clanger kicks (-6). Those base points had been refined through research by Swinburne University on the most important factors in winning a game of football. Over the years we have continued to test them and made minor tweaks and additions as the game evolves and we collect more information about each match.

From 2004 we decided to take situational information into account. The research shows that you win more matches by making quality decisions near goal, and when the match is in the balance. For each action in the match, the computer uses a multiplier which involves the position on the field and a pressure factor based on the margin and the time left. The pressure factor is basically the effect a player can have on his teams winning chances by doing the right thing at that time a game-winning goal is given the highest multiplier, while a handball on the wing when his team is already 80 points ahead gets scaled down.

Once all the numbers are in, we normalise them so that the total is 3,300. Each player is given a slice of the pie, in proportion to his total weighted ranking points. This lets us measure a players contribution to a match regardless of its speed or overall quality. For SuperCoach it means that Sydney players are worth considering on a level playing field with Bulldogs & Cats, even though there are fewer possessions in their matches. It also means that there is no inflation as the game continues to speed up, and a players 150 today is as dominant of a total match as 150 was five years ago regardless of game styles and trends.

• Where does 3,300 come from?
The average match from 2001 to 2003 had about 3,300 points. If we looked at raw base numbers these days, they would have gradually increased just like Dream Team points.

• Not adding up to exactly 3,300?
Rounding can vary this.

• Whats an average score?
3,300 / 44 = 75, so 100+ indicates a good game. 150 means hes done the job of two average players.

• Someone had 50 points at half time and didnt come back on the field. How did he finish with only 40? Or 60?
The normalisation has the effect of concentrating points around the times when the result was decided as one team took control. At half time the computer assumes 1,650 points have been allocated. But if one team has already run away with the match, points from the first half will continue to scale up as a proportion of the pie. Conversely if the match is won very late, points from earlier are scaled down.


PROSPECTUS INFO RE SUPERCOACH SCORING SYSTEM

The Official Player Ranking points are a formula designed to measure the quality of a player’s statistics rather than just the quantity. Each year the rankings formula is reviewed by Champion Data’s statisticians and is ‘tweaked’ according to changes in the games. The 2007 season saw an example of this as Champion Data started recording run-down tackles. These were scored high than regular tackles as it involved a player putting in extra effort to apply a tackle after a hard chase.

Explanation of Rankings and the Current Formula:

Champion Data’s Rankings formula is based on the official AFL statistics and is calculated by computer. From 1999-2003, Champion Data together with Swinburne University conducted extensive research (covering 1110 games in total) identifying winning and losing factors in AFL games. Findings from the research tell us that effective kicking along with a side’s ability to win the disputed ball are two of the most important winning factors in the AFL. Our rankings formula is geared towards rewarding these statistics with higher values as well as assigning negative points to stats that are detrimental to a side’s winning chances (ie. clangers and ineffective disposals).

There are 57 individual statistics to which the computer attributes either a positive or negative value. For example, an effective kick is worth four points and an effective handball is worth two points but an ineffective disposal is worth zero points. With research continually conducted on the data gathered by our statisticians, new statistics have been defined and existing values have continually been refined over the years to reflect the changing nature of game plans. Even with the evolution of our great game we know that winning the contested ball and using disposals effectively are still two major keys to victory.

Many statistics are valued higher depending on the state of play in which they occur. Perhaps the most common example of this is an uncontested mark. Over the last few years we have seen a lot more ‘junk’ football being played, with sides kicking the ball sideways and backwards more often than ever before. Therefore grabbing an uncontested mark from a teammate’s kick has become more common than ever and is valued at just one point. Grabbing an uncontested mark from an opposition’s kick requires much greater skill in reading the play however, and is given a value of four points. This principle also applies to a contested mark as they are valued at six points when taken from a teammate’s kick and eight points from an opposition kick.

In 2005, the rankings formula introduced weighting to its values depending on the proximity to goal and the state of play in which the stat occurred. For instance, it is clear that turning the ball over in your own defensive 50 has a much more detrimental effect than turning it over in the forward-line and the rankings values reflect this. The values are designed to reward players that stand up and dominate when the game is up for grabs rather than those that rack them up when the margin is greater and the result of the game is out of reach. Mathematically this state-of-play weighting is based on the derivative of match-winning probability with respect to a score change. The total rankings value for one side in a single match has been normalised to be 3300- so sides with a game plan involving a slower tempo and fewer disposals (think Sydney) are not condemned to a lower score than the side that love to rack up the disposals and create free-flowering games.

Rankings points are not only assigned live during the match but are re-adjusted at the completion of the match with the computer weighting scores depending on the most important time of the match or when the match was won. For example, a player may have a score of 50 points at quarter time with his side leading by 20 points at the first break. If that player’s side loses the match by one point after being outscored by five goals in the last quarter then more weighting will be given to statistics in the last quarter (where the game was ultimately won) rather than the first quarter, which will be geared down at the completion of the match. So that same player might end the day with only 40 points in the first quarter. This system also works in the reverse, so for example if one team out-scores the other by four goals in the first quarter and runs away with the game in the next three quarters, the ranking points from the first quarter will be geared higher at the completion of the match for the winning side.

Thanks for this.

I wonder how many points Dangerfield got for hitting the head of his teammate and catching the rebound?

Every game gets 3300 points, whether it is the worst quality game in the world, or the fierce contest of Saturday night. How does this make sense?

If a player like Taberner runs and runs, then gets free to get an uncontested mark, he gets almost no points? Do marks get different points based on where they are awarded? Eg back half compared to the wing or forward pocket? That should happen, but there is no indication of this.

Lyon talks about score involvements, quality of hitouts to advantage, and the type of tackling. Do Champion Data provide much more deep statistics to the clubs than this stuff? I should hope so.

 

[youmewe]

Thanks for this.

I wonder how many points Dangerfield got for hitting the head of his teammate and catching the rebound?

Every game gets 3300 points, whether it is the worst quality game in the world, or the fierce contest of Saturday night. How does this make sense?

If a player like Taberner runs and runs, then gets free to get an uncontested mark, he gets almost no points? Do marks get different points based on where they are awarded? Eg back half compared to the wing or forward pocket? That should happen, but there is no indication of this.

Lyon talks about score involvements, quality of hitouts to advantage, and the type of tackling. Do Champion Data provide much more deep statistics to the clubs than this stuff? I should hope so.

This is a sample of how they score various acts.

 

[Taylor]

Just in case it hasn't been mentioned yet, you can own the jumper he played his 100th game in, signed and framed.

Currently being auctioned from the FFC store page.

It's way out of my price range, so someone nice please buy it

https://auctiondesq.imgstg.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=item&AuctionID=55254&OrgID=1746

 

[Belnakor]

10 out 10 coaches award.. again

 

[electricfeel]

Just in case it hasn't been mentioned yet, you can own the jumper he played his 100th game in, signed and framed.

Currently being auctioned from the FFC store page.

It's way out of my price range, so someone nice please buy it

https://auctiondesq.imgstg.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=item&AuctionID=55254&OrgID=1746

I'll buy it and wear it to bed each night Is that weird?

 

[Taylor]

I'll buy it and wear it to bed each night Is that weird?

Little bit

Id put it on my wall and blow it a kiss when I walk past like I do with my other signed stuff.

 

[Palmervich]

Little bit

Id put it on my wall and blow it a kiss when I walk past like I do with my other signed stuff.

Come on girls, keep it in the girl talk thread please!!! [emoji13]

 

[E Shed]

I'm not a merch kind of guy but that jumper is a genuine bit of history. If his career continues on its current trajectory it could be worth a small fortune by the time he retires.

 

[Dockerjonz]

Just in case it hasn't been mentioned yet, you can own the jumper he played his 100th game in, signed and framed.

Currently being auctioned from the FFC store page.

It's way out of my price range, so someone nice please buy it

https://auctiondesq.imgstg.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=item&AuctionID=55254&OrgID=1746

saw the starting bid, then realized there was a current bid

 

[Taylor]

I'm not a merch kind of guy but that jumper is a genuine bit of history. If his career continues on its current trajectory it could be worth a small fortune by the time he retires.

Yeah I said to a friend that if he plays how he plays he could have four or five Brownlow medals and THAT is the jumper he played his 100th game in.

Having 100th, 200th and 300th on the wall next to the baby pictures would be cool.

 

[Arcassius]

 

[free at last]

I'm not a merch kind of guy but that jumper is a genuine bit of history. If his career continues on its current trajectory it could be worth a small fortune by the time he retires.

What like becoming the greatest WA football exponent of our times?

 

[se17enteen]

Just in case it hasn't been mentioned yet, you can own the jumper he played his 100th game in, signed and framed.

Currently being auctioned from the FFC store page.

It's way out of my price range, so someone nice please buy it

https://auctiondesq.imgstg.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=item&AuctionID=55254&OrgID=1746

No thanks, saving my money for Colin Sylvia's 300th game jumper.

 

[Purple Suit]

Great Troll by Fyfe. The AFL made the dodgy system that didn't recognise great players like Elvis, Sandi etc because of their weightings. Fyfe stepped up and broke it.

 

[Banker]

Great Troll by Fyfe. The AFL made the dodgy system that didn't recognise great players like Elvis, Sandi etc because of their weightings. Fyfe stepped up and broke it.

Its pretty much a midfielder rating system.

The ratings are junk once you get past the top 5 as you can't definitely say one is better than another.

 

[Arcassius]

Great Troll by Fyfe. The AFL made the dodgy system that didn't recognise great players like Elvis, Sandi etc because of their weightings. Fyfe stepped up and broke it.

All of these systems are simply a 'best guess' model. Our game plan over the last few years (highly defensive, long kicking, low disposal) wouldn't have helped our individual stars much.

What this does do is highlight how far ahead of the pack Nat is, and how impressive his season so far has been.

 

[Allikat]

Fyfe's game on Saturday night was a thing of beauty. That Fyfe v Dangerfield contest just shows how much above the rest of the competition those 2 are, and to think Fyfe won it, and is still so early in his career. It's scary to think, but Fyfe seems to be getting better every game. And finally having someone to compete against that's at his level, you could tell during the game that Fyfe & Danger were trying to outdo each other.

 

[Max Connors]

10 out 10 coaches award.. again

Speaking of coaches votes, I now realize why it took so long for Hilly to get going on Saturday night. His plane from Tassie probably didn't land until half time.

 

[Mogumber]

Fyfe's game on Saturday night was a thing of beauty. That Fyfe v Dangerfield contest just shows how much above the rest of the competition those 2 are, and to think Fyfe won it, and is still so early in his career. It's scary to think, but Fyfe seems to be getting better every game. And finally having someone to compete against that's at his level, you could tell during the game that Fyfe & Danger were trying to outdo each other.

Pendles is up there too I reckon.

 

[UFO Tatsu]

View attachment 140214
Speaking of coaches votes, I now realize why it took so long for Hilly to get going on Saturday night. His plane from Tassie probably didn't land until half time.

Even Clarkson thinks we got the better Hill.

 

[estibador]

Fyfe's game on Saturday night was a thing of beauty. That Fyfe v Dangerfield contest just shows how much above the rest of the competition those 2 are, and to think Fyfe won it, and is still so early in his career. It's scary to think, but Fyfe seems to be getting better every game. And finally having someone to compete against that's at his level, you could tell during the game that Fyfe & Danger were trying to outdo each other.

I hope Fyfey was texting him that night hinting how fun it would be for them to play in the same team.

 

[Allikat]

Pendles is up there too I reckon.

I watched a lot of Pendles in the last couple of years, and he is amazingly good, but not as good as these two were on Saturday night.