North Melbourne List Rated 6th Best in Comp

[Jumping Roo]

North List Rated 6th Best in Comp!

2020 list ratings: Kangas' shock rise, Dogs tipped to shine

Champion Data has released its rankings of the 2020 AFL lists. Where does your club rate?

www.afl.com.au

Will take it with a grain of salt though given Bulldogs are rated 2nd!

Good nonetheless to get some recognition given we are always underrated in the media!

 

[Val Keating]

North List Rated 6th Best in Comp!

2020 list ratings: Kangas' shock rise, Dogs tipped to shine

Champion Data has released its rankings of the 2020 AFL lists. Where does your club rate?

www.afl.com.au

Will take it with a grain of salt though given Bulldogs are rated 2nd!

Good nonetheless to get some recognition given we are always underrated in the media!

2nd best midfield in the comp. doesn’t stack up tbh.

Didn’t they rate Melbournes list the best heading into last year? Mozze

 

[ferball]

I'd have thought that's where we we tbh.

A few of us thought we had a top four list last year, even without Maj.

Under Scamper we ranked sixth in terms of w/l ratio. So it's probably a fair call.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Good. We could use another morale-boosting win in an elimination final.

 

[Mav]

Last year’s top 4.
Melbourne
Adelaide
Richmond
*

It means nothing

 

[Mav]

We went from 8th to 6th, and Dogs went from 15th to 2nd.

Yet we’re the shock riser?

 

[Pykie]

The one thing I will agree with in that article is the Geelong defence not getting rated.

Blicavs and Stewart are good players....

The least amount of points conceded is pretty easy when you play half your games on a ground with dimensions that has absolutely no place in the top level competition....

Pretty easy to defend a ground in modern footy with virtually no wings and shaped like a hotdog that every visiting team put's about 6 or 7 balls into the crowd each game that would of otherwise been onto a players chest on all other grounds.

 

[GarnerSmash]

The one thing I will agree with in that article is the Geelong defence not getting rated.

Blicavs and Stewart are good players....

The least amount of points conceded is pretty easy when you play half your games on a ground with dimensions that has absolutely no place in the top level competition....

Pretty easy to defend a ground in modern footy with virtually no wings and shaped like a hotdog that every visiting team put's about 6 or 7 balls into the crowd each game that would of otherwise been onto a players chest on all other grounds.

From the H&A season only:

Ave points for GHMBA: 100
Ave points against GHMBA: 54

Ave points for all other grounds: 81
Ave points against all other grounds: 72

So its basically worth 6 goals to them before the ball is bounced.

 

[RobZombie]

I'd have thought that's where we we tbh.

A few of us thought we had a top four list last year, even without Maj.

Under Scamper we ranked sixth in terms of w/l ratio. So it's probably a fair call.

These list rankings are always good for a chuckle, especially when they break them down by line.

The thing to consider is what are the stats trying to measure and are they any good at it?

Firstly, they try to answer the question "how much has this player contributed to creating or preventing scores?". It does a pretty good job on the creating scores part, a less good job of the preventing scores part. It's notoriously bad at rating KPDs and doesn't really account for taggers at all. However, of all the rating systems that try to boil things down to a single number, it most closely correlates to the actual scores of games, so it's got that going for it.

Secondly, it tries to answer the question "How much has this player contributed in total over the last two years?" and does a pretty good job of that too. For instance when people got outraged and offended that Cunners was rated higher than Josh Kelly at stages last year, they conveniently forgot about the weeks that Kelly contributed precisely nothing from the grandstand.

So when you look at the ratings of fwd/mid/def lines it will tend to overrate groups of established players who have stayed on the park over the last two years. Blind Freddy can see that our forward line is basically young and good (8th in points for, 6th in goals per I50), and the backline old and bad (5th worst in points against, 5th worst in goals conceded per oppo I50). Yet the CD line rankings that just add up the ratings of the players in the lines say the opposite. But the forward line features Larkey, Zurhaar, TT, Garner, and LDU, none of whom have played the 40 games that the ratings are based on over the last 2 years.

Do we have the 2nd best midfield? Of course not. Does CD overrate stable lineups? Possibly. Does it largely fail to account for midfield defensive work? Probably. But are we still underrated by the punters in general? I'd say so.

 

[ferball]

Cheers Rob. Top stuff (as usual.)

 

[King Corey]

We went from 8th to 6th, and Dogs went from 15th to 2nd.

Yet we’re the shock riser?

Shut up and enjoy your virtual finals placing.

 

[Dan]

 

[The Nostradamus]

Champion data underrated us

Top 4 list thanks

 

[Val Keating]

Cameron Ling?