Which player will make the leap to stardom in 2018?

[Vdubs]

And what is the consensus on the difference between "A grade" and "B grade"?

For us
A -GAJ, Danger, JSelwood
B+ -Duncan
Is there consensus on that?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Alex Pearce - Fremantle

Not this year (although I hope he does) - but next year for sure

IMO - get confidence in his body in 2018 and dominate in 2019

 

[Sweet Jesus]

For us
A -GAJ, Danger, JSelwood
B+ -Duncan
Is there consensus on that?

You tell me.

You'd have to first explain what it means to be "A grade" or "B grade".

If those terms don't mean anything then how can you have a discussion about which players belong in either category?

Does your above post indicate that Taylor and Hawkins are "C grade"?

Who are the "D grade" players?

 

[Vdubs]

You tell me.

You'd have to first explain what it means to be "A grade" or "B grade".

If those terms don't mean anything then how can you have a discussion about which players belong in either category?

Does your above post indicate that Taylor and Hawkins are "C grade"?

Who are the "D grade" players?

It's your definition.
If MANY people agree, there is consensus.
Simple.
I was looking at mids.
Hawkins B+
Taylor A
SSelwood B
Zac Smith B
Rhys Stanley C
Jordan Murdoch C
Many Cats fans would say Duncan A, Stanley & Murdoch D
Who cares?
Mere semantics. Opinions about classification of a player are tat- opinions.
My take is if it's a clear cut case of A Grade, nobody will dispute.If grey area, go for the lesser

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It's your definition.

No it's not. I'm asking you.

If you're asking me, I'd say the categories are absolutely meaningless and one of the most inane features of the way people assess players. You may as well use a tiered colour-coding system. It would be no less ridiculous.

If MANY people agree, there is consensus.
Simple.
I was looking at mids.
Hawkins B+
Taylor A
SSelwood B
Zac Smith B
Rhys Stanley C
Jordan Murdoch C
Many Cats fans would say Duncan A, Stanley & Murdoch D
Who cares?
Mere semantics. Opinions about classification of a player are tat- opinions.
My take is if it's a clear cut case of A Grade, nobody will dispute.If grey area, go for the lesser

So can you tell me what it means to be "A grade" and what it means to be "B grade"? What is the consensus on that?

When you say Taylor is "A grade" and Scott Selwood is "B grade", what does that actually mean?

You're right that there is an element of semantics in play. But it seems strange to have an extended discussion about these categories if they don't actually mean anything. One guy's A grade. Another guy is B grade. OK, but what does that mean?

 

[Vdubs]

No it's not. I'm asking you.

If you're asking me, I'd say the categories are absolutely meaningless and one of the most inane features of the way people assess players. You may as well use a tiered colour-coding system. It would be no less ridiculous.

So can you tell me what it means to be "A grade" and what it means to be "B grade"? What is the consensus on that?

When you say Taylor is "A grade" and Scott Selwood is "B grade", what does that actually mean?

You're right that there is an element of semantics in play. But it seems strange to have an extended discussion about these categories if they don't actually mean anything. One guy's A grade. Another guy is B grade. OK, but what does that mean?

But it is "your" definition .
Pick your own team and rate your players and how they stack up against their opponents & teammates.
It's not ridiculous if there is some consensus, and if there isn't, as there won't be for certain players, so be it.
An A grader would be a standout consistent player that you know every week is going to be quality.
Scott Pendlebury is a classic A grader imho.
A is better than B.
What is your system for classifying players, if we must have a comparison? Excellent, V Good, Good, Average, Poor?
And if we don't have to have one, fine.
I was only replying to your question, and the reply has to be the same as I said initially- whatever the consensus is.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

But it is "your" definition .
Pick your own team and rate your players and how they stack up against their opponents & teammates.
It's not ridiculous if there is some consensus, and if there isn't, as there won't be for certain players, so be it.
An A grader would be a standout consistent player that you know every week is going to be quality.
Scott Pendlebury is a classic A grader imho.
A is better than B.
What is your system for classifying players, if we must have a comparison? Excellent, V Good, Good, Average, Poor?
And if we don't have to have one, fine.
I was only replying to your question, and the reply has to be the same as I said initially- whatever the consensus is.

So what does it mean to be "B grade"? Just not as good as "A grade"?

Do you not see how that is arbitrary to the point of ridiculousness?

You have these made-up categories that don't mean anything.

 

[Vdubs]

So what does it mean to be "B grade"? Just not as good as "A grade"?

Do you not see how that is arbitrary to the point of ridiculousness?

You have these made-up categories that don't mean anything.

Are you saying that because your team is devoid of A graders? Just kidding btw.
I know nothing about you but if you were with family and friends at a gathering and the topic was footy, and all were interested, do you not believe that if you were asked to rate your teams players it would provoke good discussion, and some consensus?
It's nor rocket science but creates good discussion. End of consternation.
This forum is about that too.
The fact that many people on this thread have raised the issue proves that, although the first post I replied to about this was your question.
It doesn't have to be this earnest.
Nobody is right or wrong, but if a room full of people agreed that Josh Kennedy was an A grade KF, what is there to dispute?
And that Tom Hawkins thereby is now not quite at that level -maybe a B+?
I don't mind it because it is easy enough to do.
And there REALLY is no right or wrong.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I know nothing about you but if you were with family and friends at a gathering and the topic was footy, and all were interested, do you not believe that if you were asked to rate your teams players it would provoke good discussion, and some consensus?

I would use my words to construct a sentence that actually conveys something.

I wouldn't bleat arbitrary, meaningless rubbish like "he's an A-grader". And what, someone who disagrees would be like "nah, he's more like B+"? What does that even mean?

And people think that is a good discussion? It is devoid of anything resembling insight.

Nobody is right or wrong, but if a room full of people agreed that Josh Kennedy was an A grade KF, what is there to dispute?
And that Tom Hawkins thereby is now not quite at that level -maybe a B+?

So we have 26 different letter grades yet I never hear a player described as "H grade" or "U grade". Why is that? We have 26 letter grades but the entire AFL player group fits into the first three or four. Doesn't that demonstrate the complete meaninglessness of these categories?

How about this for an alternative? Let's use this tiered colour-coding system:

Can you go through Geelong's players and tell me which colour they are according to my system? It would be just as worthwhile and instructive as assigning them letter grades.

I look forward to the debate over whether Hawkins is Green, Brown or Slate. Hopefully a consensus emerges on that burning question. It should be fascinating.

And there REALLY is no right or wrong.

Maybe not. But there is such a thing as "obviously meaningless".

 

[Vdubs]

I would use my words to construct a sentence that actually conveys something.

I wouldn't bleat arbitrary, meaningless rubbish like "he's an A-grader". And what, someone who disagrees would be like "nah, he's more like B+"? What does that even mean?

And people think that is a good discussion? It is devoid of anything resembling insight.

So we have 26 different letter grades yet I never hear a player described as "H grade" or "U grade". Why is that? We have 26 letter grades but the entire AFL player group fits into the first three or four. Doesn't that demonstrate the complete meaninglessness of these categories?

How about this for an alternative? Let's use this tiered colour-coding system:

Can you go through Geelong's players and tell me which colour they are according to my system? It would be just as worthwhile and instructive as assigning them letter grades.

I look forward to the debate over whether Hawkins is Green, Brown or Slate. Hopefully a consensus emerges on that burning question. It should be fascinating.

Maybe not. But there is such a thing as "obviously meaningless".

With respect, this is a useless reply as you know. I get your point.
Did you rebel against grades at school?
Are you not familiar with A-E classifications with A being 80+%, D being a pass, and E a failure?
Serious question here depending on your age and upbringing.
I should not assume that everybody who can post is familiar with a simple grading system with A being your upper echelon.
You have avoided the OP poser as to who will become the next star by being distracted by someone or many ones that have referred to ABCD etc.
Nice diversion, but unnecessary.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

With respect, this is a useless reply as you know. I get your point.

So you don't want to use the colour-coding system? Why not? Is it any less instructive than assigning letter grades?

Did you rebel against grades at school?

No. They were defined in percentage terms derived from established assessment criteria. They weren't just arbitrary categories plucked out of thin air.

Are you not familiar with A-E classifications with A being 80+%, D being a pass, and E a failure?

Yes. How does that apply to players?

Do players get a percentage mark? What percentage is Dangerfield?

I should not assume that everybody who can post is familiar with a simple grading system with A being your upper echelon.

I'm familiar. Please explain how you'd apply those percentage terms to players.

Are you saying that 20 percent of the players on AFL lists are "A-graders"?

 

[Wilburman]

Jack Billings.

 

[Vdubs]

So you don't want to use the colour-coding system? Why not? Is it any less instructive than assigning letter grades?

No. They were defined in percentage terms derived from established assessment criteria. They weren't just arbitrary categories plucked out of thin air.

There you go. How does that apply to players?

Do players get a percentage mark? What percentage is Dangerfield?

I'm familiar. Please explain how you'd apply those percentage terms to players.

I'll humour you again-
A+ Danger, Martin 90+
A Fyfe, Pendles, 80-90
B+ Hawkins nearly 80
B Zac Smith 70-79
C Sam Menegola 60-69
D Wylie Buzza 50-59

 

[Wilburman]

Agree with this

Doubt it. Guy has permanent butter fingers.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'll humour you again-
A+ Danger, Martin 90+
A Fyfe, Pendles, 80-90
B+ Hawkins nearly 80
B Zac Smith 70-79
C Sam Menegola 60-69
D Wylie Buzza 50-59

What are those numbers based on? Did you just pluck them out of thin air? How is that different to the colour-coding scheme I proposed earlier?

In your previous post, you said "A grade" reflects those who are above 80%.

So that would be a fifth of all players, right? You'd rank all the players in order from best to worst and by definition the top fifth would be A-graders. Right?

 

[Wilburman]

For Sydney, I'd like Heeney to finally consistently show his talent. Probably another year for Mills, can thank Longmire for that.

 

[Vdubs]

What are those numbers based on? Did you just pluck them out of thin air? How is that different to the colour-coding scheme I proposed earlier?

In your previous post, you said "A grade" reflects those who are above 80%.

So that would be a fifth of all players, right? You'd rank all the players in order from best to worst and by definition the top fifth would be A-graders. Right?

Tell me those numbers are incorrect?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Tell me those numbers are incorrect?

I don't know what they mean. Hawkins is "nearly 80"? What does that mean?

If they are just arbitrary numbers, why are they more instructive than my colour-coding system?

Do you agree that one fifth of all AFL players are A-graders? That's your rationale. Do you stand by it?

 

[yeahmate]

If you want a scientific system of grading players it would make sense to use a bell curve distribution and then spread the a to f (or whatever letter grade spread you want) over the curve evenly spaced so that most players will sit in the fat part of the curve ranked D to B with outliers from B+ to A+ at one end and F to D- at the other. Then you need someone to subjectively rank all of the players in order from 1 to whatever number of players there is and then sit them all in place within the curve. If you wanted to iron out subjectivity get lots of experts to rank them and take an aggregated approach.

But really all that sounds a bit hard so maybe just work with A+ grade being probably top 5% players in the league i reckon so maybe 20 or so across the league (without having done the maths)?

 

[Vdubs]

I don't know what they mean. Hawkins is "nearly 80"? What does that mean?

If they are just arbitrary numbers, why are they more instructive than my colour-coding system?

Do you agree that one fifth of all AFL players are A-graders? That's your rationale. Do you stand by it?

NO. Not 1/5 are A graders. Not necessarily.
The numbers are a score/100; there may well be multiple B-C graders and way less A graders.
Just melding the old score system is easy; you are making this unnecessarily obtuse

 

[Rance2Mewtwo]

Why do these threads always devolve into arguments surrounding personal definitions of “A grader”?

Let’s get this back on topic and find a way to link this thread back to Richmond’s premiership.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

NO. Not 1/5 are A graders. Not necessarily.

But you said an A grade is for 80% and above.

So that means the top 20% are A-graders. Therefore one fifth of players are A-graders.

The numbers are a score/100; there may well be multiple B-C graders and way less A graders.

A score out of 100? What does that mean?

How is that more instructive than my colour-coding system?

You said Hawkins was nearly 80 out of 100. Where would that place him on the above chart? Brown? Maybe Green?

Why is my colour-coding system any more ridiculous that you assigning a number out of 100, which you've apparently plucked out of thin air?

Why is your totally arbitrary system of categories more sensible than any other?

Just melding the old score system is easy; you are making this unnecessarily obtuse

I just think it's bizarre that you assess players according to a category system despite being unable to explain what any of the categories mean.

 

[Vdubs]

But you said an A grade is for 80% and above.

So that means the top 20% are A-graders.

A score out of 100? What does that mean?

How is that more instructive than my colour-coding system?

I just think it's bizarre that you assess players according to a category system despite being unable to explain what any of the categories mean.

Good for you. I am comfortable with it, not that I actually introduced you to the topic, but many others are also comfortable with it.
Why not share who you think the next blue star will be?
And stop misquoting. Your comprehension says %, nobody else has said that, I didn't. It might be a score /100, but it does not refer to a % population.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Good for you. I am comfortable with it, not that I actually introduced you to the topic, but many others are also comfortable with it.
Why not share who you think the next blue star will be?

So just to clarify, you can't actually tell me what it means to be "A grade" or "B grade". But you will continue describing players that way, despite being unable to explain what those terms mean.

You don't think that's weird?

And stop misquoting. Your comprehension says %, nobody else has said that, I didn't. It might be a score /100, but it does not refer to a % population.

When you were explaining the established system of letter grades, you said an A grade was for those scoring 80% or better.

What does that % refer to, if not a player's ranking among the player group? Is it just a number you pulled out of thin air?

 

[Vdubs]

So just to clarify, you can't actually tell me what it means to be "A grade" or "B grade". But you will continue describing players that way, despite being unable to explain what those terms mean.

I did tell you but you refuse to accept what is common sense.