Opinion Who is currently the best player in the AFL

[Fadge]

Oh really? Daicos has averaged more goals has he?

The response was re: clearances.

Oh boy.

 

[Fadge]

So weird how people get into goals and goal assists to measure a player. Haven’t they heard of Kane’s top 50?

If you want to focus on goals and goal assists to rank your players, Bont is way down the list.

Oops.

 

[RCAB]

If you want to focus on goals and goal assists to rank your players, Bont is way down the list.

Oops.

What about amongst mids?

By the way I thought you didn't discuss stats.

 

[doppleganger]

I do not understand why this needs to be as complex as a "scoreboard contribution rating". The outright statistical superiority of Bontempelli in terms of goals, goal assists, inside 50s, clearances, marks inside 50 and score involvements makes a discussion about scoreboard impact a non-event

Would check who is winning some of those in 2026.

The "scoreboard contribution ratings" are what player ratings are actually all about.

And no issue at all with anyone rating Bont as better, he is a star and some would say the more "complete player" due to almost being able to play as a key position player due to his physical size.

I do take issue when someone uses just flat out wrong explanations as part of their reasoning.

 

[Fadge]

What about amongst mids?

By the way I thought you didn't discuss stats.

I don't. That's why I'm showing you how useless your rationale is.

Anyway, this has all been done to death.

The stats and player ratings analysts love Bont. The coaches, umpires, players and media love Daicos.

Bont hasn't played in a winning final since Daicos has been in the system. Daicos has played in 5, including a premiership.

It is what it is.

 

[RCAB]

I don't. That's why I'm showing you how useless your rationale is.

Anyway, this has all been done to death.

The stats and player ratings analysts love Bont. The coaches, umpires, players and media love Daicos.

Bont hasn't played in a winning final since Daicos has been in the system. Daicos has played in 5, including a premiership.

It is what it is.

I don't think I've ever seen a poster on Bigfooty get stupider with each post they post.

It is what it is.

 

[RCAB]

I would say Daicos was the best player in the AFL... Until you started "arguing" for him Fadge

 

[joe444]

Odd Max Gawn

11

Max Gawn

Age

34

Ht

209cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.1

4star

K

7.4

3star

HB

6.7

4star

CL

2.8

4star

HO

35.3

5star

D

18.5

4star

K

11.5

4star

HB

7.0

4star

CL

3.5

4star

HO

29.2

5star

D

8.4

3star

K

3.6

2star

HB

4.8

4star

CL

1.0

3star

HO

15.6

5star

not in the poll.

 

[doppleganger]

I don't think I've ever seen a poster on Bigfooty get stupider with each post they post.

It is what it is.

You must have missed the nuffie who went broke betting "beans" using his own made up Player Rankings.

 

[Fadge]

You must have missed the nuffie who went broke betting "beans" using his own made up Player Rankings.

It might have been team rankings, but same difference.

And how will I cope now that Roby has changed his vote from Daicos to Bont, just to spite me?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Giving some random arbitrary value

It's not arbitrary. Arbitrary suggests application on a whim, no rhyme, reason or logic to the value I create.

What part of my logic do you disagree with? I'm 100% open to hearing why you might think it's arbitrary. What do you take issue with?

• That every team generally names 23 fit players? When one player is unavailable, they pick someone else to replace them?
• That we're interested in how well you expect the last player you select to perform, as a concept, league wide across all teams? That generally speaking, there are a pool of SSP players, and mature-agers from state leagues, that you can pick up at no draft cost, and for an average team, they would immediately be about the 30th best player on your list? (That most teams have around 6.5 injuries to their best 29 players on average, your 30th best player for any given game plays about half of all league games)?
• That we can measure this, by taking a cross-section of these types of players' actual performances, and averaging that?
• That when Daicos or Bontempelli are a late out (as Daicos was last week), that one of these players are selected in his place?
• That a Daicos or a Bontempelli or any given player had a certain level of expected performance before they were a late out?
• That the expected level of performance of both groups of players can be represented by adjusted ratings points? (How exactly we adjust ratings points for team style and pace of play is a separate discussion, but lets just say that you're happy with such an adjustment)?
• That the value loss of a good player, when measured by adjusted ratings points, is the difference between the two expected performance numbers?

I'm more than happy to discuss the above logic to you, if you think any of it is flawed.

I'm more than happy to discuss with you, in the attempt to approximate the expected ratings points value of a replacement player, what specifically that number should be.

For instance, here is a online discussion about the idea of a replacement level player in the NBA. It's an interesting read (to me at least)

Tangotiger Blog

 

[RCAB]

You must have missed the nuffie who went broke betting "beans" using his own made up Player Rankings.

You think I went broke, that's cute.

Just goes to show stupid you are dopple, after all these years.

 

[Fadge]

It's not arbitrary. Arbitrary suggests application on a whim, no rhyme, reason or logic to the value I create.

What part of my logic do you disagree with? I'm 100% open to hearing why you might think it's arbitrary. What do you take issue with?

• That every team generally names 23 fit players? When one player is unavailable, they pick someone else to replace them?
• That we're interested in how well you expect the last player you select to perform, as a concept, league wide across all teams? That generally speaking, there are a pool of SSP players, and mature-agers from state leagues, that you can pick up at no draft cost, and for an average team, they would immediately be about the 30th best player on your list? (That most teams have around 6.5 injuries to their best 29 players on average, your 30th best player for any given game plays about half of all league games)?
• That we can measure this, by taking a cross-section of these types of players' actual performances, and averaging that?
• That when Daicos or Bontempelli are a late out (as Daicos was last week), that one of these players are selected in his place?
• That a Daicos or a Bontempelli or any given player had a certain level of expected performance before they were a late out?
• That the expected level of performance of both groups of players can be represented by adjusted ratings points? (How exactly we adjust ratings points for team style and pace of play is a separate discussion, but lets just say that you're happy with such an adjustment)?
• That the value loss of a good player, when measured by adjusted ratings points, is the difference between the two expected performance numbers?

I'm more than happy to discuss the above logic to you, if you think any of it is flawed.

I'm more than happy to discuss with you, in the attempt to approximate the expected ratings points value of a replacement player, what specifically that number should be.

For instance, here is a online discussion about the idea of a replacement level player in the NBA. It's an interesting read (to me at least)

Tangotiger Blog

Padlocks, when we're talking about the best performed player in a season - which you are when you introduce the concept of replacement value - the normal person would use the games that player actually played to form their conclusions.

Here is a question for you...

Had Bont have missed the entire 2025 season, how would have you ranked the following three players for season 2025?
1. Bont - who didn't play a game, but would have been a regular best 18 player - he gets 5.5 ranking points per game, right?
2. Jonty Faull - who played 16 games, but whose average performance was below the 'replacement value' threshold.
3. Harry DeMattia - who wasn't best 23 for Collingwood, and didn't play a single game.

For me, on season output, I rank them as follows:
1. Jonty Faull
N/A Bont and DeMattia

How would you have ranked them?

 

[RCAB]

And how will I cope now that Roby has changed his vote from Daicos to Bont, just to spite me?

The ramblings of a narcissist.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Padlocks, when we're talking about the best performed player in a season - which you are when you introduce the concept of replacement value - the normal person would use the games that player actually played to form their conclusions.

Here is a question for you...

Had Bont have missed the entire 2025 season, how would have you ranked the following three players for season 2025?
1. Bont - who didn't play a game, but would have been a regular best 18 player - he gets 5.5 ranking points per game, right?
2. Jonty Faull - who played 16 games, but whose average performance was below the 'replacement value' threshold.
3. Harry DeMattia - who wasn't best 23 for Collingwood, and didn't play a single game.

For me, on season output, I rank them as follows:
1. Jonty Faull
N/A Bont and DeMattia

How would you have ranked them?

Season output only provides value if it's more season output than the other player you could have - or were forced to - select instead.

How do you not understand this?

Value by its nature is marginal, because every team is always putting a full team out on the park. Marginal vs absolute. With your statement of season output, you're ranking against the concept of zero, the idea that their output replaces nothing, a void. That's not incorrect, because their output is always replacing the fact that someone else would have also produced output because all teams are always picking 22 (now 23) players that always get output. If you formed the 20th AFL team and and had zero draft assets filled it with minimum contract players, because the league rules require you to name 23 players, those 23 minimum contract players would still get some total season output.

When Bont was injured, we did not select nobody to replace him. We selected Harvey Gallagher. The value of having Bont fit for the last 18 games, was not that Bontempelli was better than the concept of zero, adding to his total season output from starting at zero from game one. The value of Bontempelli's fitness from game 1, was that we did not have to select Gallagher anymore.

Jonty Faull played worse in 2025 than if Richmond had recruited their former player Liam McBean - who was the best key forward in the SANFL, but is 31 years old - and told him to play the exact same role for 16 games. Do you disagree?

Therefore, while his season output was higher, his value was lower than DeMattia.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Padlocks, when we're talking about the best performed player in a season - which you are when you introduce the concept of replacement value - the normal person would use the games that player actually played to form their conclusions.

Okay, lets look at the actual value that the games that the player actually played.

• Marcus Bontempelli was injured for the Dogs in R1-3 last year
• Harvey Gallagher was selected for those three games
• Harvey Gallagher therefore was only selected because Bontempelli was injured. He was his direct replacement.
• Harvey Gallagher's total season output, was to get 4.0, 3.8, and 2.8 ratings points for those three games. This is just an approximation of his "output", to be clear. His total season output was 10.6 ratings points
• Marcus Bontempelli had an output of 0 for those 3 rounds.

Can we agree on those facts?

Now:

• Marcus Bontempelli played in round 5-24 for the Dogs, 18 games. His total
• Harvey Gallagher was not selected as a starting 22 player in any of those rounds. Gallagher's output was 0.
• Therefore, Bontempelli had replaced Gallagher in the team.
• If Bontempelli was unavaliable for any of those 18 games, the Dogs might have selected Gallagher to replace him.
• Had Gallagher replaced him, his total output for those 18 games, would have been more than 0.

Any disagreement there?

Okay, with the above dot points, what was the value of having Bontempelli's availability for those 18 games?

Was it:

• That he generated 356 ratings points. That is mathematically also 356 ratings points more than 0.
• That he generated more ratings points than what Harvey Gallagher would have produced, had he played 18 games instead.

Which of those two dot points would you have down as better measuring the value of Bontempelli being fit to play games?

 

[Fadge]

Season output only provides value if it's more season output than the other player you could have - or were forced to - select instead.

How do you not understand this?

Value by its nature is marginal, because every team is always putting a full team out on the park. Marginal vs absolute. With your statement of season output, you're ranking against the concept of zero, the idea that their output replaces nothing, a void. That's not incorrect, because their output is always replacing the fact that someone else would have also produced output because all teams are always picking 22 (now 23) players that always get output. If you formed the 20th AFL team and and had zero draft assets filled it with minimum contract players, because the league rules require you to name 23 players, those 23 minimum contract players would still get some total season output.

When Bont was injured, we did not select nobody to replace him. We selected Harvey Gallagher. The value of having Bont fit for the last 18 games, was not that Bontempelli was better than the concept of zero, adding to his total season output from starting at zero from game one. The value of Bontempelli's fitness from game 1, was that we did not have to select Gallagher anymore.

Jonty Faull played worse in 2025 than if Richmond had recruited their former player Liam McBean - who was the best key forward in the SANFL, but is 31 years old - and told him to play the exact same role for 16 games. Do you disagree?

Therefore, while his season output was higher, his value was lower than DeMattia.

So just to be clear, if you were 'rating' Faull (16 games) and DeMattia (0 games) for their 2025 seasons, who is 'rated' higher?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So just to be clear, if you were 'rating' Faull (16 games) and DeMattia (0 games) for their 2025 seasons, who is 'rated' higher?

But I do not care that it is factual that one player was selected for one team and another player wasn't selected for another, that the player that was selected thus was able to competently run around on a paddock for a bit. The fact that Jonty Faull generated some statistics is not insightful to me. Every single AFL listed player would generate some output if they were selected for 16 games. The fact that Faull objectively did, does not give me any insight whatsoever to whether he offered any more value than DeMattia.

I care about how competently they were able to run around on the paddock for a bit, against the expectation that there are a bunch of state leaguers, recently delisted players and other currently listed AFL players on minimum and draftee contracts that would all also competently run around on the paddock for a bit. And to compare the extent of the competency among this group, and by extension, all players in general.

How are you not getting this?

 

[txbyhull]

I'm either going to unwatch the thread soon

I’ve found that unwatching and popping in when I sit down on the toilet to be the perfect environment for this absolute shit-storm of a thread

 

[txbyhull]

I beg the mods close this or we shift to the third best player in the comp.

 

[RCAB]

I’ve found that unwatching and popping in when I sit down on the toilet to be the perfect environment for this absolute shit-storm of a thread

I thinks its obvious that Bont is universally considered the best player in the AFL right now.

Just a few (or one, maybe just one grandiose narcissist) coming with a few incoherent arguments to prove their point.

I changed my vote for several reasons. But one of the reasons is that if your arguments continually sound illogical and dishonest, then based on the balance of probabilities you're probably wrong.

I've also used some standardized modelling that correlates metrics that better reflect winning football and premiership-level impact. For example... some stats constantly show up as high for teams that win premierships or reach the GF (you can go check Wheeloratings) each year. So using that logic, you try to see which players correlate to those metrics.

Without making the weights looking cartoonish, there's no way you can rank Daicos as no. 1 player in the league in any given season. I suspect this is because you can't ignore his high amount of turnovers, he currently has the highest amount of turnovers in 2026, while simultaneously doesn't provide elite numbers defensively to make up for it.

That doesn't mean he isn't highly ranked, its just he is just not as good or as complete as Bont right now.

Anyway Daicos is back tonight, so that should be interesting.

 

[doppleganger]

You think I went broke, that's cute.

Just goes to show stupid you are dopple, after all these years.

LoL...you are Roby

You and padlock are a perfect match!

 

[doppleganger]

I'm more than happy to discuss with you, in the attempt to approximate the expected ratings points value of a replacement player, what specifically that number should be.

Just like all your ramblings about player ratings, I have no interest in how many ratings points you attribute to players who are yet to play a game.

 

[JHF1870]

Oh really? Daicos has averaged more goals has he?

So weird how people get into goals and goal assists to measure a player. Haven’t they heard of Kane’s top 50?

My model this year weighs goals more than last year, Assists, Centre clearances more than any other stat as they're the most pivotal in winning a game. Given inside 50s are about 1/3 resulting in a goal, I've gone slightly less than 1/3 that of a goal for balance.

This means only the last person in the chain gets a significant boost from the assist.

Bont is clearly smashing it up so far.

 

[RCAB]

My model this year weighs goals more than last year, Assists, Centre clearances more than any other stat as they're the most pivotal in winning a game. Given inside 50s are about 1/3 resulting in a goal, I've gone slightly less than 1/3 that of a goal for balance.

This means only the last person in the chain gets a significant boost from the assist.

Bont is clearly smashing it up so far.

Aren't you reacting to small sample size data if you adjust per start of the year in round 4 or earlier? How do you know it's not merely a short trend that will revert to the mean later in the season?