The credibility of champion data stats/ranking points

[Jobe Watson]

How come Kennedy got more for his short effective kicks than Bontempelli did?

Points are weighted based on the position of the ground and the time/closeness of the game. A short kick in the forward half of the ground in the dying seconds of a close game would score more than a short kick in defense in junk time. A contested mark in defense in the dying seconds of a narrow game would score more than a contested mark in the 3rd quarter of a blowout game. etc, etc.

Kennedy's kicks might have been in a higher scoring position on the ground during a more crucial part of the game (the first half).

 

[Richo83]

Forget about the algorithms - just have a knowledgeable unbiased observer watch the game and distribute the pool of points amongst each player on the ground.

Inside football does this, and I don't agree their rankings a lot of the time either. Every system will be criticised.

 

[The Swert]

It's not uncommon for players to do a bad handpass which spills free or goes to another player under the pump as a result of a tackle, you'd ignore them under your system.

That's far less influential than an effective handpass or kick...which receives less points than such a tackle.

 

[Richo83]

That's far less influential than an effective handpass or kick...which receives less points than such a tackle.

Sure, but you can still lay a tackle which doesn't cause a ballup or a free and be effective.

 

[Chism]

That system is still extremely flawed.

Bontempelli was not that bad.
Hunter was nowhere near third best on ground.
Kennedy ranked 11th best and Franklin 23rd?

Forget about the algorithms - just have a knowledgeable unbiased observer watch the game and distribute the pool of points amongst each player on the ground.

I still think that 200 points being about the maximum anyone can reach is underselling some of the best individual performances in any given game.

Think Carey in his best games - 20 marks (mostly contested) and 8 goals, Ablett's 9 in the 89 GF, Lockett and Dunstall's bags of goals. Those efforts should be approaching 400 points...

Not often i agree with you but i am now on that post especially the bolded!

CD went back a few years ago and evaluated Koutas game in the 99 Prelim ( with todays scoring format ) in which we beat the Bombers by 1 pt and he scored something like 128pts in the final Qtr alone!

Impact on the game in crunch situations i do like how CD award points and junk time free disposals when you are already 10 goals up should be scored lower much like they are which is good.

In saying that CD do like certain players and they always seem to be scored more highly than others and Bont is a classic example when other players get near identical stats and are much lower rated points wise. Regular Supercoach players have been talking about it for years and Bont is not the only one CD like to favor.

 

[gavaniacono]

Its not qualitative.
Therefore will only ever be of secondary importance if one is in a hurry and hasnt time to watch or rewatch the game.

 

[Damon_3388]

just have a knowledgeable unbiased observer watch the game and distribute the pool of points amongst each player on the ground.

I still think that 200 points being about the maximum anyone can reach is underselling some of the best individual performances in any given game.

That's pretty much what Champion Data already do, while also affording additional weighting for specific acts, and the context they happen in within the match.

200 isn't the maximum, either, it's just a score that's very rarely achieved. The scores are also relevant to the player's impact on a specific match, so a 90 from one player one week isn't the same as a 90 in another.

Nobody has to treat it as gospel, but as far as statistical measures go, the Champion Data Player Ranking Score is quite comprehensive and sophisticated, and usually fairly commensurate with who had the greatest impact on the match, as well as being (in my calculations) a reasonable guide for Brownlow voting too.

 

[Bardo State]

Was Josh Kennedy the 11th best and most influential player on the ground last night? Franklin the 23rd?

They would have both been in my top 5, and I'm sure the top 5 of most other neutral observers. But not the Player Ratings above...

Only saw the last quarter. Couldn't say.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

When did Bontempelli make 11 tackles???

Does hugging a teammate after a goal count or something?

They should only count tackles that lead to a ball up or free kick.

No way his ineffective tackles were worth that much.

I dont think they count tackles if the opponent gets away an effective disposal.

 

[kranky al]

The de stat is so broken it defies words - some players are flattered by it.

 

[J_Moore]

I generally find the AFL Player Ratings usually broadly align with how I viewed a game. Much more do than DT, SC etc. I rate em.

It could be argued they punish missed shots a bit too harshly (the cause of Franklin's relatively low rating on Thursday), but I guess there's an opportunity cost with forwards.

Not perfect, but useful.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Has anyone quoted Mark Twain yet?

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

[Rotayjay]

If you sacrifice your interest in football at the altar of stats, you're missing the point.

 

[Scotland]

Ranking points are what they are - a novelty for the fans. They don't mean anything.