Tom Boyd

[Plugger35]

A 20 year old part time ruckman went toe to toe with Mummy for 3/4 of a game and your bagging him?

Lol get over yourself your being pathetic.

By any standards he had a decent game and has been good for a while now. Would walk into the saints team so move on.

Where did I bag him? I said he had a decent game but I thought Mumford was more influential than him.

He wouldn't walk into the Saints team either when we have KPFs like Riewoldt, Bruce, Membrey and McCartin, they are all more effective KPFs than Boyd.

And if you'd started with that, I wouldn't have had a problem.

But you didn't. You've been arguing that a summary metric - designed to summarise a players output for people too stupid to understand raw stats and what they mean - is equal to those raw stats in measuring that players output.

The day coaches and commentators forget about stats and only cite supercoach scores is the day you might be onto something.

But until then it is a wildly idiotic argument to suggest that supercoach points mean a friggen thing outside of the context of a shitty newspapers game.

I said SC scores aren't the be all and end all but they are still a way of measuring a player's impact on the game, generally speaking if a player scores over 100 SC points which Mumford did it means that have played a pretty good game and been influential.

You just want to dismiss that though because it doesn't back up your argument that Boyd was more influential than Mumford.

But Mummy SHOULD have had a bigger influence - he should have totally dominated - and the Dogs coaches now know a little more about Boyd's capacity.

Yes perhaps he should have had a bigger influence but he still had an influence, he was far from the worst GWS player, Cameron has that sewn up.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Great result for a part time ruckman to restrict Mumfords dominance that was predicted even against Roughead

I don't think he has gotten the recognition he deserved from lat night's game. To carry the ruck going up against the beast in Mumford and with Lobb running him into the ground at every chance, it was immense.

I've no doubt behind closed doors he'll be getting the deserved plaudits.

He looked knackered in the third, brilliant effort to play it out from a young man.

 

[nobbyiscool]

I said SC scores aren't the be all and end all but they are still a way of measuring a player's impact on the game, generally speaking if a player scores over 100 SC points which Mumford did it means that have played a pretty good game and been influential.

You just want to dismiss that though because it doesn't back up your argument that Boyd was more influential than Mumford.

Anyone wanting to have a serious discussion about the game should dismiss supercoach scores cos they mean less than f*** all in a genuine match analysis.

Getting over 100 points doesn't mean that a player was influential. It means only that the player did what the metric values (such as hit outs which, as I've said, are only behind free kicks as the most pointless stat in footy) - no one with half a brain, and no one who has the understanding to actually read stats (and not bullshit summary metrics) should read anything more into it than that.

 

[MitchRobinson12]

Boyd is growing as a player before our eyes and anyone that can't see that is a hater, plain and simple.

I noticed after that big mark and goal Lobb kicked he copped some sledging from GWS including Cameron who was chirpy for a player with a handful of possessions at the time. The next centre bounce he got up, won the hitout and put on a hard tackle to force another stoppage, the kid has heart and I wish Carlton got him he's going to be a star.

People need to stop rating him by what he earns, to wriggle him free of GWS and a supposed hand shake agreement with Carlton the Dogs had to offer big and he took what every single person on this forum would've taken as a 19 year old. Blame the Dogs for the money he earns not Tom Boyd you fools.

 

[Bonts1000]

Boyd is growing as a player before our eyes and anyone that can't see that is a hater, plain and simple.

I noticed after that big mark and goal Lobb kicked he copped some sledging from GWS including Cameron who was chirpy for a player with a handful of possessions at the time. The next centre bounce he got up, won the hitout and put on a hard tackle to force another stoppage, the kid has heart and I wish Carlton got him he's going to be a star.

People need to stop rating him by what he earns, to wriggle him free of GWS and a supposed hand shake agreement with Carlton the Dogs had to offer big and he took what every single person on this forum would've taken as a 19 year old. Blame the Dogs for the money he earns not Tom Boyd you fools.

Well said mate

 

[Plugger35]

Anyone wanting to have a serious discussion about the game should dismiss supercoach scores cos they mean less than f*** all in a genuine match analysis.

Getting over 100 points doesn't mean that a player was influential. It means only that the player did what the metric values (such as hit outs which, as I've said, are only behind free kicks as the most pointless stat in footy) - no one with half a brain, and no one who has the understanding to actually read stats (and not bullshit summary metrics) should read anything more into it than that.

Well I don't think it's any coincidence that the best players have the highest average supercoach scores, the ruckmen with the highest average scores are guys like Goldstein, Gawn, Naitanui and Mumford and they are widely considered to be the best ruckmen in the game.

 

[Iamspock]

Boyd didn't look out of place last night. Certainly had a better game than Cameron

Everybody had a better game than Cameron Pretty mouthy for somebody who did nothing

 

[Astro_]

Everybody had a better game than Cameron Pretty mouthy for somebody who did nothing

Exactly.

Cameron's chats-to-kicks ratio is an interesting read

 

[nobbyiscool]

Well I don't think it's any coincidence that the best players have the highest average supercoach scores, the ruckmen with the highest average scores are guys like Goldstein, Gawn, Naitanui and Mumford and they are widely considered to be the best ruckmen in the game.

On the contrary, the fact Goldstein was still getting 100s despite playing like dogshit for the 2nd half of the season (after he got injured) disproves your argument.

I could just as easily argue the converse to you by saying the fact Mumford comprehensively outscored Boyd yesterday proves that supercoach scores are bullshit.

Once again, they are only a summary metric for people too stupid to read stats and to understand what they mean. No one trying to engage in a serious footy discussion should or would cite supercoach scores.

 

[Damon_3388]

Anyone wanting to have a serious discussion about the game should dismiss supercoach scores cos they mean less than f*** all in a genuine match analysis.

Getting over 100 points doesn't mean that a player was influential. It means only that the player did what the metric values (such as hit outs which, as I've said, are only behind free kicks as the most pointless stat in footy) - no one with half a brain, and no one who has the understanding to actually read stats (and not bullshit summary metrics) should read anything more into it than that.

Actually, it does mean that they're influential, because the metric gives weighting to certain actions in the context of the particular match and the result. It's a far more sophisticated measurement than people give it credit for. It's not just a tally of kicks, handballs, hitouts, etc.

On the contrary, the fact Goldstein was still getting 100s despite playing like dogshit for the 2nd half of the season (after he got injured) disproves your argument.

Couldn't have anything to do with many people's perception of what makes a ruckman valueable and useful being largely skewed, could it? Goldstein in the second half of the year was below last year's output and below what he was doing early in the year, yes, but he wasn't "bad" or "dogshit" by any stretch.

Say it with me everybody - DISPOSALS AND MARKS DO NOT MAKE A GOOD RUCKMAN!

 

[Big Bryza]

I noticed in the last quarter when GWS thought they had it won, they were having a collective laugh at him.

Who's laughing now?

Yeah it might have been the 3rd term when Lobb took a mark and goaled.

Patton n co were getting stuck right into Boyd. Arrogant campaigners should have worried about winning the game.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Actually, it does mean that they're influential, because the metric gives weighting to certain actions in the context of the particular match and the result. It's a far more sophisticated measurement than people give it credit for. It's not just a tally of kicks, handballs, hitouts, etc.

I get this. But it has no more validity than if you or I come up with a scoring system weighing actions according to how you or I value them.

It's like what people say about IQ tests. IQ tests don't measure IQ - IQ tests measure what IQ tests measure.

It's the same with supercoach - it only measures what it measures. It doesn't measure how well a player has played, it only attempts to based on what it values.

 

[Damon_3388]

I get this. But it has no more validity than if you or I come up with a scoring system weighing actions according to how you or I value hem.

Well I think as far as all-round statistical measurements of output and impact, it's probably the best available right now. The fact that it goes a ways to attribute worth to actions way beyond just disposals, marks and goals says a lot, too. Nobody is saying it's perfect or infallable or the absolute measure of a player, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find too many instances where it's wildly off the mark in terms of a player's impact on a specific game. That's something else people also don't realise - that 100 in one game is not the same as 100 in another, it's all about the context of the game and the impact a player had within it.

Even despite the game-by-game differences in what a particular score is worth, if you do a 3-2-1 or 44-1 or 22-1 based on CDPR scores, factoring in who wins and loses too, you can generally get a rough guide (occassionally spot on) as to who would win a Brownlow, MVP or club B&F in a given year. The number of votes might be off, but the results are usually around the mark I've found when I've thrown it together out of interest in the past.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Well I think as far as all-round statistical measurements of output and impact, it's probably the best available right now. The fact that it goes a ways to attribute worth to actions way beyond just disposals, marks and goals says a lot, too. Nobody is saying it's perfect or infallable or the absolute measure of a player, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find too many instances where it's way off the mark in terms of a player's impact on the specific game (something people also don't realise, that 100 in one game is not the same as 100 in another, it's all about the context of the game and the impact a player had within it).

Again, I would say the fact that Mumford comprehensively outscored Boyd yesterday proves that it is absolutely fallible, and that it is a failed metric (possibly even more for ruckman than any other position.)

I can't understand how anyone could've watched that match and not think Boyd outplayed Mumford, unless they're hanging onto a blind hatred of a 20yo who earns more money than they ever will.

 

[HairyO]

For a guy on his sort of money that was recruited mostly as a KPF you would expect him to kick at least one goal in 3 finals, especially when the Dogs have had a dominant midfield.

If you're satisfied with his output in the last 3 finals you're very easily pleased.

For a guy who was recruited mostly as a KPF he not only held his own in the ruck for nearly the entire game but was more important than Mumford.

If you're not satisfied with that then you are either clueless or a troll or both.

 

[Damon_3388]

Again, I would say the fact that Mumford comprehensively outscored Boyd yesterday proves that it is absolutely fallible, and that it is a failed metric (possibly even more for ruckman than any other position.)

I can't understand how anyone could've watched that match and not think Boyd outplayed Mumford, unless they're hanging onto a blind hatred of a 20yo who earns more money than they ever will.

Mumford - 46 hitouts, 4 clearances, 6 tackles, 4 one percenters, 1 inside 50s

Boyd - 21 hitouts, 5 clearances, 2 tackles, 3 one percenters, 4 inside 50s

I honestly don't think Boyd out-played Mumford. How much that duel factored into the overall result is another thing, but I don't think that performance can reasonably be claimed as a win for Boyd over Mumford in the ruck. Yeah, he held his own and did a bit himself, but he also did nothing to nullify his opponent's usual impact and influence.

 

[Dogsman16]

When all is said and done I think it's pretty fair to say that we came out on top of the Boyd deal. Not because Boyd has set the house on fire, but rather Griffen has been terribly underwhelming. He was probably the biggest name brought to GWS and they'd be lucky to get another 20 games out of him.

Well and truly cooked and it's clear as day that he's not the type that enjoys taking responsibility. Been found out several times in that regard when we have played GWS over the past two seasons.

Boyd will fill out either of the ruck roles for the next ten years (whether it's majority ruck or majority forward I'm not sure yet) but he will play 230 - 250 games for the club. We obviously shouldn't have payed that much in terms of salary for him but we traded him in for pick 6 and a player who in hindsight isn't worth a pick in the top 25.

 

[Number37]

Again, I would say the fact that Mumford comprehensively outscored Boyd yesterday proves that it is absolutely fallible, and that it is a failed metric (possibly even more for ruckman than any other position.)

I can't understand how anyone could've watched that match and not think Boyd outplayed Mumford, unless they're hanging onto a blind hatred of a 20yo who earns more money than they ever will.

Boyd didn't do anything spectacular but competed very well and had a huge influence on the result given that Mumford was rendered completely useless.
Whilst it is a huge step in right direction for Boyd, they are not paying him a million dollars to play in the ruck.

 

[nobbyiscool]

When all is said and done I think it's pretty fair to say that we came out on top of the Boyd deal. Not because Boyd has set the house on fire, but rather Griffen has been terribly underwhelming. He was probably the biggest name brought to GWS and they'd be lucky to get another 20 games out of him.

Well and truly cooked and it's clear as day that he's not the type that enjoys taking responsibility. Been found out several times in that regard when we have played GWS over the past two seasons.

Boyd will fill out either of the ruck roles for the next ten years (whether it's majority ruck or majority forward I'm not sure yet) but he will play 230 - 250 games for the club. We obviously shouldn't have payed that much in terms of salary for him but we traded him in for pick 6 and a player who in hindsight isn't worth a pick in the top 25.

I'm sure I could find the answer myself if I looked hard enough.

But do you (or anyone else) know who the player was that the Giants took with the Dogs first rounder that year? It's not really as straightforward as saying it's Boyd vs Mumford.

 

[ManOfClay]

Mumford - 46 hitouts, 4 clearances, 6 tackles, 4 one percenters, 1 inside 50s

Boyd - 21 hitouts, 5 clearances, 2 tackles, 3 one percenters, 4 inside 50s

I honestly don't think Boyd out-played Mumford. How much that duel factored into the overall result is another thing, but I don't think that performance can reasonably be claimed as a win for Boyd over Mumford in the ruck. Yeah, he held his own and did a bit himself, but he also did nothing to nullify his opponent's usual impact and influence.

You don't have the capability to understand the game so who really cares what you think. Time and time again all you ever do is reference the stat sheet.

 

[Dogsman16]

I'm sure I could find the answer myself if I looked hard enough.

But do you (or anyone else) know who the player was that the Giants took with the Dogs first rounder that year? It's not really as straightforward as saying it's Boyd vs Mumford.

Marchbank who's just requested a trade.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Boyd is growing as a player before our eyes and anyone that can't see that is a hater, plain and simple.

I noticed after that big mark and goal Lobb kicked he copped some sledging from GWS including Cameron who was chirpy for a player with a handful of possessions at the time. The next centre bounce he got up, won the hitout and put on a hard tackle to force another stoppage, the kid has heart and I wish Carlton got him he's going to be a star.

People need to stop rating him by what he earns, to wriggle him free of GWS and a supposed hand shake agreement with Carlton the Dogs had to offer big and he took what every single person on this forum would've taken as a 19 year old. Blame the Dogs for the money he earns not Tom Boyd you fools.

Blame dogs for what exactly?

 

[nobbyiscool]

Boyd didn't do anything spectacular but competed very well and had a huge influence on the result given that Mumford was rendered completely useless.
Whilst it is a huge step in right direction for Boyd, they are not paying him a million dollars to play in the ruck.

You guys didn't pay Tippett 900k to play in the ruck - and yet I don't reckon you, or many other people (and certainly not me!) would say that Tippett is overpaid based on how good his form was before he got injured this season.

I really think that ruckmen terribly undervalued if they add a lot around the ground (ala Gawn, Tippett), or if they can lead to you dominating clearances (ala Naitanui). There aren't 18 great ruckmen in the league, so if you can get a great one I think - and I reckon clubs would agree - they're worth all the money they can get, because you have a massive positional advantage over a lot of other teams.

Of course Boyd isn't in that category yet - his marking is the big flaw in his game when you compare him to Tippett - but I don't reckon the Dogs would consider him overpaid if he became a top 5 ruckman.

 

[The 747]

I'm sure I could find the answer myself if I looked hard enough.

But do you (or anyone else) know who the player was that the Giants took with the Dogs first rounder that year? It's not really as straightforward as saying it's Boyd vs Mumford.

Marchbank

 

[Damon_3388]

You don't have the capability to understand the game so who really cares what you think. Time and time again all you ever do is reference the stat sheet.

It illustrates further the point I was making. It's not the be-all, end all. The sooner people realise that stats are a tool to illustrate or disprove a point, and that people don't just either watch the game or just look at a stats sheet, the better. Sometimes *shock* people do both!

Yes, it's great that Boyd held his own against a quality ruckman, but it's a long stretch to say he outplayed him in the ruck during that game. And again, how much affect that duel had on the overall result is a separate thing.

That's not discrediting Boyd's performance. It is possible to have a decent individual game by your standards, while your direct opponent does their thing to their usual high standard, too.

You guys didn't pay Tippett 900k to play in the ruck - and yet I don't reckon you, or many other people (and certainly not me!) would say that Tippett is overpaid based on how good his form was before he got injured this season.

I really think that ruckmen terribly undervalued if they add a lot around the ground (ala Gawn, Tippett), or if they can lead to you dominating clearances (ala Naitanui). There aren't 18 great ruckmen in the league, so if you can get a great one I think - and I reckon clubs would agree - they're worth all the money they can get, because you have a massive positional advantage over a lot of other teams.

Of course Boyd isn't in that category yet - his marking is the big flaw in his game when you compare him to Tippett - but I don't reckon the Dogs would consider him overpaid if he became a top 5 ruckman.

I actually think the Dogs should mould him as a ruckman who can drift forward, not a forward who can chop out in the ruck. Will need to make great strides in his fitness and ability to give those second and third efforts, but that's what pre-seasons are for.

2020-2024 (when Boyd will be 25-29 years old, in his prime) should be what Boyd is judged on, not his contract now.