Sydney have the most talented list according to Champion Data

[Dr Tigris]

This thread is being sidetracked by the argument about the mismatch between the Tigers have a CD mediocre list and being premiers - with the obvious issue that a team with such non-elite list shouldn't be able to trash the best teams in the AFL in finals.

I like the banter and suchlike. But it seems fairly obvious that CD produce stats that measure certain aspects of performance. Those stats correspond reasonably well with team performance. However, if a team plays a style that is different to the norm, in a winning way, the stats will 'lie'.

Right now many people want the Tigers to go back to being a joke, and believe that the premiership was a fluke. To many tiger fans this is manna from heaven and they can dump right back on the decades of trashing they've been given.

To some this is a really solid indicator that CD stats are a good intro to thinking about footy. But they are nowhere near the be all and end all. In fact CD stats about player quality don't necessarily = team success.

 

[Dangerousfield]

according to champion data, Edwards is better than cotchin

In typical BF fashion, people rave on without researching facts. It pays to understand how CD rate players. To be Elite you have to be in the top 10% of players IN THAT POSITION. So Cotchin's numbers are being rated against all midfielders and they don't make it into the top 10% OF MIDFIELDERS, that is statistical fact.

Edwards is not "better" than Cotchin, he's probably in the bucket of General Forwards so he is in the top 10% by statistics for General Forwards.

If you take time to do your research you don't weigh in with what are stupid observations about CD ratings.

 

[kranky al]

This thread is being sidetracked by the argument about the mismatch between the Tigers have a CD mediocre list and being premiers - with the obvious issue that a team with such non-elite list shouldn't be able to trash the best teams in the AFL in finals.

I like the banter and suchlike. But it seems fairly obvious that CD produce stats that measure certain aspects of performance. Those stats correspond reasonably well with team performance. However, if a team plays a style that is different to the norm, in a winning way, the stats will 'lie'.

Right now many people want the Tigers to go back to being a joke, and believe that the premiership was a fluke. To many tiger fans this is manna from heaven and they can dump right back on the decades of trashing they've been given.

To some this is a really solid indicator that CD stats are a good intro to thinking about footy. But they are nowhere near the be all and end all. In fact CD stats about player quality don't necessarily = team success.

Nah i think you are reading into it too much

Cd stats are just flawed af

They weight a posession where a player misses a forward on a clear lead for an easy chest mark that ends up a 50/50 ball - the same as a pinpoint pass that leads to an easy mark to the forward.

Thats just one of many examples of the glaring flaws in their system that leave truly elite players ranked stats wise the same as some serious scrubbers - where any true student of the game will always rate the former higher than the latter

 

[Tiger2709]

the OP just set this up so the Richmond supporters could come one and say we're the best because we have a premiership... bit pathetic.

Doesn't matter if were the best because we have a Premiership.

 

[Tiger2709]

The player ratings run over the 2 years so this might be similar. Would explain why the Tigers are low.

Ive heard that is the case, two of our Premiership players havent played enough to even be rated from what I read in the article on this.

 

[doppleganger]

Nah i think you are reading into it too much

Cd stats are just flawed af

They weight a posession where a player misses a forward on a clear lead for an easy chest mark that ends up a 50/50 ball - the same as a pinpoint pass that leads to an easy mark to the forward.

Thats just one of many examples of the glaring flaws in their system that leave truly elite players ranked stats wise the same as some serious scrubbers - where any true student of the game will always rate the former higher than the latter

For starters you are using possession and disposal interchangeably, which is incorrect.

CD also do take into account position on the ground.

The problem is that the majority of people, plenty of supposed expert football analysts included, don’t actually know what the stats they are quoting actually are meant to capture, and use them inappropriately and make poor inferences as a result.

The player ratings themselves are pretty good.

 

[Tiger2709]

To my Richmond "friends", congrats on the flag but a genuine question sort of related to this "talent v premierships" debate.
Why did your club choose Matthew Richardson to present the cup last year ahead of all of those VFL premiership greats you have? (I could look the reason up I guess but that's not a supporters view)
Don't premierships put you above talent?

At Richmond, Richo is the shining light that gave us something to cheer through all those bad years between flags, personally I can't think of another Richmond player that deserved it more and he is not just a player but a true supporter of the club as well.

 

[Tiger2709]

I'm looking forward to round one. It should be a great game. Ablett back, Dees with a point to prove...

I think we'll know a bit about both sides at the end of it.

Long season though, I still find it hard to understand how the Dees didnt make it last year, has they done so who knows which of our clubs may be crowing about being reigning Premiers, certainly an opportunity missed as things turned out.

I still think we would have won but the Dees list would have given them a chance, its upstairs that your club needs sorting imo.

 

[doppleganger]

Ive heard that is the case, two of our Premiership players havent played enough to even be rated from what I read in the article on this.

yep Townsend and Graham

 

[kranky al]

For starters you are using possession and disposal interchangeably, which is incorrect.

CD also do take into account position on the ground.

The problem is that the majority of people, plenty of supposed expert football analysts included, don’t actually know what the stats they are quoting actually are meant to capture, and use them inappropriately and make poor inferences as a result.

The player ratings themselves are pretty good.

I did- i typed it out quickly

It was the effective disposal stat i was railing at and it is a flawed stat.

 

[Turnover]

Saints, Melbourne and gws coming. These r the rising teams. Gws gf, Melbourne and saints top 6.

 

[doppleganger]

I did- i typed it out quickly

It was the effective disposal stat i was railing at and it is a flawed stat.

What in particular is wrong with the definition?

 

[JVseven]

Champion Data have obviously never heard of Richmond.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

GWS has the most talented best 22.

Yes, and still so young too.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Champion Data rates Shane Edwards as elite.

//.

 

[RUNVS]

Champion Data rates Shane Edwards as elite.

//.

His mum does as well.

 

[Rotayjay]

it makes sense to look at things outside the square (e.g. mindfulness programs) that might give your club an edge.

We're way ahead of the curve with our national anthem stance

 

[kranky al]

What in particular is wrong with the definition?

An effective disposal is counted the same whether its a precision kick to a leading player or if it goes over his head and turns an easy mark into a 50/50

Ssme with handpasses - a player can do a perfect handpass hitting a running player at full stretch and its counted the same as a handpass that forces a player to check step - receive the handpass but get caught.

 

[Ron The Bear]

We're way ahead of the curve with our national anthem stance

It's a one-percenter that may or may not have provided some benefit. Apparently we'll be seeing it again this year.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Champion Data rates Shane Edwards as elite.

//.

For the second time in his career.

 

[THE THIN MAN]

We're way ahead of the curve with our national anthem stance

 

[Carson Dial]

How many times has Champion data predicted the Premiership side, does anyone know? I’m willing to bet the percentage is extremely low.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

How many times has Champion data predicted the Premiership side, does anyone know? I’m willing to bet the percentage is extremely low.

Reckon it’s a better strike rate than the average Fremantle supporter.

 

[Forward Press]

An effective disposal is counted the same whether its a precision kick to a leading player or if it goes over his head and turns an easy mark into a 50/50

The latter scenario of the kick going over his head into a 50/50 is only counted as effective if it is over 40 metres in distance. In other words, CD don't penalise as heavily for long kicks compared to short kicks.

If a short kick goes to a 50/50 it is counted as ineffective, and if the opposition wins it is counted as a turnover.

If a long kick goes to a 50/50 it is counted as effective, even if the opposition wins it. You cannot penalise players that kick it long to contests when there are not many options available.

The effective disposal stat is useful as long as you recognise, correctly, the limitations. Of course context matters but good luck quantifying that sort of thing.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Just wondering how Champion data ranks gun players who havent got much left in the tank and their best may be behind them?

Do they rank them on stats, B&F rankings, get a score and then discount this by a factor each year they are over 30?

RE Priddis and Mitchell people are predicting a massive drop off at the Eagles due to these guys retiring when in reality their best footy was years ago not 2017.

How did the likes of Kennedy, McVeigh and Grundy get ranked? Any age diacounts?

My recollection is champion data rates players on their last 2 years, with extra weighting applied to the last year... which is why injured players can be underrated. Wasn't aware of them making age adjustments, but they may have amended their model.