Opinion Who is currently the best player in the AFL

[RCAB]

Don't get so defensive.

 

[conrad_437]

I don't think I've ever seen a thread that is over 100 pages, and one poster literally accounts for 1/5th of all posts...

 

[Worm4]

I don't think I've ever seen a thread that is over 100 pages, and one poster literally accounts for 1/5th of all posts...

The Daicos goat thread, Fadge accounts for a higher % of posts. I actually think Fadge is Peter Daicos

 

[Fadge]

You've used hundreds of posts to emphasise that Daicos was on track to win a number of awards before his brief injury in 2023, so clearly average performance meant a lot to you until recently.

Yep, the key word is 'before'. And I have said once he was injured, Bont briefly overtook him on season output, given Bont was playing and Daicos wasn't. But then Daicos returned to be influential in a premiership.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

I don't think I've ever seen a thread that is over 100 pages, and one poster literally accounts for 1/5th of all posts...

Yet barely 3% of the word count

 

[Mr Meow]

Yep, the key word is 'before'. And I have said once he was injured, Bont briefly overtook him on season output, given Bont was playing and Daicos wasn't. But then Daicos returned to be influential in a premiership.

Bont had greater total season output in 2023, correct. Same as 2024. In 2025, missing more than 5 games swung it in Daicos' favour.

 

[hawkman]

Has anyone mentioned that of those who average 3 or more inside 50's Daicos is 64th of 65 players for their disposal finding a teammate inside 50. Gawn is the only one worse

If you want to drop it back to 2 inside 50's per game, Daicos is 150th of 156

 

[Fadge]

Has anyone mentioned that of those who average 3 or more inside 50's Daicos is 64th of 65 players for their disposal finding a teammate inside 50. Gawn is the only one worse

If you want to drop it back to 2 inside 50's per game, Daicos is 150th of 156

Where are the likes of Bont, Callaghan and NWM, out of interest?

Just for points of comparison.

 

[hawkman]

Where are the likes of Bont, Callaghan and NWM, out of interest?

Just for points of comparison.

Not much better

NWM 144th, Callaghan 141st and Bont 121st

 

[Mr Meow]

Yep, the key word is 'before'. And I have said once he was injured, Bont briefly overtook him on season output, given Bont was playing and Daicos wasn't. But then Daicos returned to be influential in a premiership.

Geelong vs West Coast Player Ratings are in. Looking forward to your appraisal of the wrongly assigned strong performers from the top 8:

Smith
Holmes
O'Connor
Atkins
Worpel
Bowes
Williams
De Koning

The lowest ranking players were Hewett, Archer Reid, Mannagh, Allan and Kolodjashnij. I look forward to seeing these guys dominate the coaches votes as incorrectly assigned "weak Player Ratings" recipients.

 

[chaddy22]

This is really one of the dumbest arguments against Daicos, in fact it's more of a meme joke rather than serious commentary or rebuttal.

You realise last night Bont took a whopping one contested mark? The previous week when he tore up Essendon he took none.

I am not talking about fridays game i am talking in general. How many contested marks does he take in a season compared to The Bont or Heeney. No player is perfect.Buddy kicked a lot of goals but also a lot of points compared to other great forwards.
On Friday Daicos was close to the best on ground if stats are to be believed.He had as many stats compared to Heeney
but Heeney had huge impact. We can use stats but in the end impact is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[craffles]

checks thread for first time

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yeah, because in my view, you either play a game, or you don't. And the more games you play, the more opportunity you have to contribute to season output.

I don't pretend that the games you miss, you actually play at the same level (as is the case if you base your analysis on averages), or some sort of 'replacement value'.

I spent 20 posts slowly and methodically introducing the conceptual idea that a player's value is the expectation that they will play better than the player that might replace them should they not be played - and literally everyone else who bothered to read it understands it instead of you.

You saying "and the more games you play the more opportunity you have to contribute to season output" is no different to me saying "the more games you miss, the more opportunity you give to a worse player on your list to contribute to season output", which obviously opens up the idea of player value being some sort of "above replacement level" idea.

 

[Fadge]

I spent 20 posts slowly and methodically introducing the conceptual idea that a player's value is the expectation that they will play better than the player that might replace them should they not be played - and literally everyone else who bothered to read it understands it instead of you.

So what?

'Replacement Value Theory' is your concept, and I'm not sure you've had much if any support that a player can add to their season output when not playing.

 

[Worm4]

So what?

'Replacement Value Theory' is your concept, and I'm not sure you've had much if any support that a player can add to their season output when not playing.

Lewis Young contributes less when playing for Carlton every week

 

[Kavliaris69]

Truth be told I am still annoyed at Longmire for farting around with Heeney's position for years. He never got any consistency early on in his career.

Agree. Always thought Heeney was special in his early years but played out of position. The results in last 2-3yr show what he is capable of. Hoped Hawks would have nabbed him 3-4 years ago.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So what?

'Replacement Value Theory' is your concept, and I'm not sure you've had much if any support that a player can add to their season output when not playing.

Except they don't add to their value. It's just that when a game is played, zero value is the equivalent of a replacement player. They actually go backwards in "total season output" of they miss a game.

 

[Fadge]

Except they don't add to their value. It's just that when a game is played, zero value is the equivalent of a replacement player. They actually go backwards in "total season output" of they miss a game.

They 'go backwards' in consideration of their averages.

We just assess it differently.

If there is a player who plays 16 of 20 games and averages a 20 rating, and your 'Replacement value' is 5:
I say 'The player averages a 20 rating, but has missed 4 games'

You say 'The player averages a 17 rating'.

PLaYeR RaTiNGZ says 'The player averages a 20 rating'.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

They 'go backwards' in consideration of their averages.

Their average stays the same. Because it's the average. Of the games they played. When they don't play a game, the averages of the games they do play stay the same.

We just assess it differently.

If there is a player who plays 16 of 20 games and averages a 20 rating, and your 'Replacement value' is 5:
I say 'The player averages a 20 rating, but has missed 4 games'

You say 'The player averages a 17 rating'.

No, I don't say that a player averages a 17 ratings. I also say "the player averages a 20 rating, but has missed 4 games".

I say a player's value over replacement was equivalent, to a player whom averages 17 and plays all 20 games, if you want to make a comparison to a between their value as players.

You can also translate that into points over replacement, wins over replacement, if you so wish, whatever over replacement, in order to talk about value in different currencies. Ratings Points is just one currency that approximates the value of how good or poorly of a game that you played. You can use any approximation tool if you so wish, but there has to be one if we want to numerically quantify how good a player game was, and how good you would have expected their replacement to play.

Two different things.

You keep making stating that I'm making claims I'm not making.

 

[Fadge]

Their average stays the same. Because it's the average. Of the games they played. When they don't play a game, the averages of the games they do play stay the same.

No, I don't say that a player averages a 17 ratings. I also say "the player averages a 20 rating, but has missed 4 games".

I say a player's value over replacement was equivalent, to a player whom averages 17 and plays all 20 games, if you want to make a comparison to a between their value as players.

LOLOL.

My head hurts.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

LOLOL.

My head hurts.

Common retort when you just claim other people say stuff when they literally just don't

 

[Fadge]

OK Padlocks, here we go:
View attachment 2579545

Player Ratings actually did a reasonable job of last night's game, though as usual, there were a few howlers.

I have provided the above table with my ratings, compared to Player Ratings.

I thought Jackson was the best/most valuable player on the ground given Darcy's injury. He beat Cameron and Steene was pretty much irrelevant.

Pearce was my next best in important moments, with Daicos also amongst the top 2 or 3 on the ground. I reckon the top coaches votes get split amongst those 3, favouring the Freo players given the win. Daicos slots that late goal and Pies win, Daicos would have been a clear BOG.

Ryan and to a lesser degree Crisp also a chance for a few coaches votes.

I think the only other players in the mix for coaches votes are my players ranked 5 to 9 - Clark, Quaynor, Maynard and Serong. But I really don't think there will be many, if any, votes going in their direction.

But Padlocks, they are my TOP 9. Let's see if the Coaches BOG comes from outside of that group.

I have also highlighted the players where I see a considerable difference between Player Ratings and how I saw the game. The massive outlier was Lachie Schulz. Sure, he missed that very important goal, but gee he was good for a lot of the night and for Player Ratings to give him a -1 and the second worst player on the ground... oh boy.

OK, so let's revisit the analysis now that the Coaches Votes have been released...



As we can see, the bloke on the couch absolutely have a better feel for the game than any mathematical model that has been developed to date.

And this is actually a relatively good assessment of a game from Champion Data.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Fadge]

Pretty good effort from Champion Data this week, only missing the single game where the #1 player on the ground according to the coaches was outside their top 9 players on the ground - that was Archie Roberts, who was rated the 11th best player in the Essendon v. Melbourne game.

Not enough scoreboard influence, young Archie. Lift!

 

[threenewpadlocks]

OK, so let's revisit the analysis now that the Coaches Votes have been released...

View attachment 2581254

As we can see, the bloke on the couch absolutely have a better feel for the game than any mathematical model that has been developed to date.

And this is actually a relatively good assessment of a game from Champion Data.

Thanks for playing.

How about for the game you didn't watch Fadge? And how about for the Round 6, 2012 game of Gold Coast vs. Fremantle? Or indeed the Round 8, 2023 game between GWS Giants and Western Bulldogs - because you've clearly invoked how well players have played in the 2023 season as being relevant to how good of a player they are now?

It's so funny how you're claiming you're running laps around "how you have a better feel for the game" when you literally pulled out of the agreement YOU AGREED TO to rate all 9 games

 

[threenewpadlocks]

OK, so let's revisit the analysis now that the Coaches Votes have been released...

View attachment 2581254

As we can see, the bloke on the couch absolutely have a better feel for the game than any mathematical model that has been developed to date.

And this is actually a relatively good assessment of a game from Champion Data.

Thanks for playing.

Glad to see that Ratings Points was more correct than you in rating Billy Framptons' game.

Player Ratings > Fadge

What's that? I can't cherry pick data or use a small sample of games?