Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Top 50 players 2017

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:53 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
... The list tends to reinforce the idiocy of the calculations being performed. For example, there are players who aren’t in their team’s best 22 in the view of their own selection panel who are allegedly “elite”. Goldstein and Daniel Menzel are examples. ...


Surely that's largely a matter of players having a sharp rise or fall in their career trajectory. The question even for reliable ratings (in simpler settings) is how static or dynamic to make them.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MagpieBat 



Joined: 27 Nov 2010
Location: Brooding in a cave... somewhere... maybe...

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:11 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
MB’s link doesn’t work but if you search Champion Data on the SEN site, it’s one of the early results. The list tends to reinforce the idiocy of the calculations being performed. For example, there are players who aren’t in their team’s best 22 in the view of their own selection panel who are allegedly “elite”. Goldstein and Daniel Menzel are examples. There are other players that do one thing well enough but wouldn’t even be discussed by sensible people if they were up for trade, like Daniel Rich. There are probably others in both categories but life is too short to assess such a silly list name by name.


Or you just copy paste the original sentence as written into the address bar and hit Enter. Either way will get you the page in question.

It seems our humble Nick's software has been thrown by the apostrophe in the link I posted...

_________________
I am vengeance. I am the night. I am MagpieBat.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:19 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

K wrote:
Pies4shaw wrote:
... The list tends to reinforce the idiocy of the calculations being performed. For example, there are players who aren’t in their team’s best 22 in the view of their own selection panel who are allegedly “elite”. Goldstein and Daniel Menzel are examples. ...


Surely that's largely a matter of players having a sharp rise or fall in their career trajectory. The question even for reliable ratings (in simpler settings) is how static or dynamic to make them.

Rich, Goldstein and Menzel are not elite players (whether in their own or in any other position) and identifying them as such displays a fundamental difficulty with the nomenclature.

Put simply, the vice lies in calling anything about any player "elite" on the basis of statistics. If they simply said "Mitchell is in the top 10% of players for handballs that miss their target and lead to opposition goals per game" (or whatever), that'd be fine - the unacceptable part is pretending that might mean that a player has "elite" qualities. The "score" allocated by Champion Data is a surrogate.

Look at it this way: if you get ranked in the top 3 on the final honours board in your law degree, that says something about your academic achievement - because the honours points are the very means by which one assesses how "good" the student is/was. If you get ranked top 3 in the AFL for anything except goals or marks, it probably doesn't tell you anything much, except that the player had a lot of the ball - it doesn't mean that they're "elite" (although it might mean that they're not completely useless). The use of the term "elite" in this context is, as Bertrand Russell would have said, a category mistake.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
qldmagpie67 



Joined: 18 Dec 2008


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:34 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

P4S I agree the word elite is thrown around like cheap confetti these days.
It's seems since the introduction of statistical data on a mass basis they find ways of calling players elite based solely on a single stat.
Case in point. Beams 2012 Copeland winning season at the time was statistically just about the best on record. By memory he had 17 or 18 games of 30+ disposals and around 30 goals led the clearances and was top 5 for inside 50's and top 10 in rebound 50's. At the time many were calling him elite but even I didn't as there were parts of his game needed improvement and still does. Did he have a heck of a season sure did.
To be elite in my eyes it needs to be sustained high level play in all facets for a sustained period of time.
Pendles is elite that's it in our team.
Grundy has shown he's an elite big man but isn't an elite player yet.
Howe is an elite intercept mark but isn't an elite player
Wells is an elite user of the ball but isn't an elite player
Treloar is an elite runner of the ball but isn't an elite player
Adams is an elite clearance man but isn't an elite player
Get my drift. Being elite in 1 facet of a game shouldn't count as being an elite player
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:52 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
K wrote:
Pies4shaw wrote:
...Goldstein and Daniel Menzel are examples. ...

Surely that's largely a matter of players having a sharp rise or fall in their career trajectory. The question even for reliable ratings (in simpler settings) is how static or dynamic to make them.

Rich, Goldstein and Menzel are not elite players (whether in their own or in any other position) and identifying them as such displays a fundamental difficulty with the nomenclature.

Put simply, the vice lies in calling anything about any player "elite" on the basis of statistics. If they simply said "Mitchell is in the top 10% of players for handballs that miss their target and lead to opposition goals per game" (or whatever), that'd be fine - the unacceptable part is pretending that might mean that a player has "elite" qualities. ...

Well, by all means kick Mitchell if you want, but I don't think they list him as elite, so your disregard for him is shared by their ranking system.

Goldstein was dominant in 2015 and the start of 2016, before injury affected him. Maybe now he's over the hill. (Yes, I know 2015 has fallen out of the 2-year window for their rankings now.)

I'm not at all fully convinced by their ratings system (I want all the raw data, not ratings), but I hardly think plucking out a few players you don't respect is strong evidence against it.

The labels they use are not really related to the merits or otherwise of their rankings. Would you prefer it if they just downgraded all of the labels? e.g. "elite" could be called "above average"; "above average" could be relabelled "average"; "below average" could be called "terrible".
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MightyMagpie 



Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:17 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

From my Season Preview thread:

I'll update this post in a bit more detail with my comments and some additional information as I work through the AFL Prospectus, but here's a list of our top-ranked players with relative rating in round brackets and previous year (2016 from 2017 AFL Prospectus) in square brackets.

First, a link to an explanation of the AFL Player Rating system: http://www.afl.com.au/stats/player-ratings/ratings-explained EDIT and http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/PlayerRatings/PlayerRatings_HOW.pdf

Secondly, Relative Rating is a measure of how a player performed relative to players of the same age and position based on AFL Player Rating points.



ELITE (top 10%)

Howe (+44%) [Above Average +28%]
Scott Pendlebury (+36%) [Elite +49%]
Jack Crisp (+26%) [Average +4%]

ABOVE AVERAGE (top 11%-35%)

Brodie Grundy(+49%) [Above Average +32%]
Adam Treloar (+23%) [Elite +42%]
Taylor Adams (+22%) [Above Average +24%]
Tom Langdon (+21%) [Above Average +32%]
Tom Phillips (+21%) [Unclassified -23%]
Will Hoskin-Elliott (+1%) [Poor]
Daniel Wells (-21%) [Above Average +8%]

AVERAGE (top 36%-65%)

Jordan DeGoey (+23%) [Average +5%]
Brayden Maynard (+22%) [Below Average +9%]
Tyson Goldsack (+10%) [Above Average]
Steele Sidebottom (+2%) [Above Average +21%]
Lynden Dunn (-4%) [Average]
Jamie Elliott (-5%) [Above Average]
Ben Reid (-14%) [Average +0%]
Travis Varcoe (-15%) [Average -24%]
Alex Fasolo (-16%) [Above Average +33%]
Jarrad Blair (-19%) [Average -13%]

BELOW AVERAGE (top 66%-90%)

Darcy Moore (-1%) [Below Average +3%]
Mason Cox (-15%) [Rookie -15%]
Matthew Scharenberg (-19%) [Unclassified]
Tim Broomhead (-23%) [Average]
Levi Greenwood (-26%) [Average -17%]
Josh Smith (-30%) [Below Average -14%]
Chris Mayne [Average -16%]

POOR (bottom 10%)

James Aish (-45%) [Below Average +3%]
Ben Crocker [-28%]

The rest are rookie listed or unclassified.

_________________
All We Can Be


Last edited by MightyMagpie on Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:29 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^^^
Thanks for posting that, MM. I'd be interested to know what stats they provide for every player in their prospectus. (e.g. do they give every player's kick rating?)
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MightyMagpie 



Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:36 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

K wrote:
^^^
Thanks for posting that, MM. I'd be interested to know what stats they provide for every player in their prospectus. (e.g. do they give every player's kick rating?)


You could always drop by a newsagent and have a peek if you don't want to shell out $39.95, and bear in mind they choose from these for each player depending on position it seems so not all are there for all players, but here are the abbreviations ... let me know if any aren't obvious:

ACC%
AD%
B
CL
CM
CON
CP
CP%
DISP
EFF%
FA
FF
G
GA
GC
HAD
HB
HO
HOW%
I50
IM
K
K:H
M
MI50
MINS
MT
R50
SA
SP EFF%
SPL
TK
TOG
UM
UP
UP%

I think that's all of them.

_________________
All We Can Be
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
qldmagpie67 



Joined: 18 Dec 2008


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:50 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

MightyMagpie wrote:
From my Season Preview thread:

I'll update this post in a bit more detail with my comments and some additional information as I work through the AFL Prospectus, but here's a list of our top-ranked players with relative rating in round brackets and previous year (2016 from 2017 AFL Prospectus) in square brackets.

First, a link to an explanation of the AFL Player Rating system: http://www.afl.com.au/stats/player-ratings/ratings-explained

Secondly, Relative Rating is a measure of how a player performed relative to players of the same age and position based on AFL Player Rating points.



ELITE (top 10%)

Howe (+44%) [Above Average +28%]
Scott Pendlebury (+36%) [Elite +49%]
Jack Crisp (+26%) [Average +4%]

ABOVE AVERAGE (top 11%-35%)

Brodie Grundy(+49%) [Above Average +32%]
Adam Treloar (+23%) [Elite +42%]
Taylor Adams (+22%) [Above Average +24%]
Tom Langdon (+21%) [Above Average +32%]
Tom Phillips (+21%) [Unclassified -23%]
Will Hoskin-Elliott (+1%) [Poor]
Daniel Wells (-21%) [Above Average +8%]

AVERAGE (top 36%-65%)

Jordan DeGoey (+23%) [Average +5%]
Brayden Maynard (+22%) [Below Average +9%]
Tyson Goldsack (+10%) [Above Average]
Steele Sidebottom (+2%) [Above Average +21%]
Lynden Dunn (-4%) [Average]
Jamie Elliott (-5%) [Above Average]
Ben Reid (-14%) [Average +0%]
Travis Varcoe (-15%) [Average -24%]
Alex Fasolo (-16%) [Above Average +33%]
Jarrad Blair (-19%) [Average -13%]

BELOW AVERAGE (top 66%-90%)

Darcy Moore (-1%) [Below Average +3%]
Mason Cox (-15%) [Rookie -15%]
Matthew Scharenberg (-19%) [Unclassified]
Tim Broomhead (-23%) [Average]
Levi Greenwood (-26%) [Average -17%]
Josh Smith (-30%) [Below Average -14%]
Chris Mayne [Average -16%]

POOR (bottom 10%)

James Aish (-45%) [Below Average +3%]
Ben Crocker [-28%]

The rest are rookie listed or unclassified.


MM by reading those it shows me that the system is way out of whack.
Scharenberg went from unclassified to below average on the basis of 7 games in 2017 ?
Langdon's ranking dropped 11% (if I'm reading and understanding it right) but he stays as an above average player based on past ranking ?
Crisp goes from average to elite ?
There's way to many vagrencies in these systems for mine
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MightyMagpie 



Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:00 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

qldmagpie67 wrote:
MM by reading those it shows me that the system is way out of whack.
Scharenberg went from unclassified to below average on the basis of 7 games in 2017 ?
Langdon's ranking dropped 11% (if I'm reading and understanding it right) but he stays as an above average player based on past ranking ?
Crisp goes from average to elite ?
There's way to many vagrencies in these systems for mine


QM - Worth reading the link I provided.

Scharenberg - 4 games pre 2017 probably accumulated insufficient rating points for an assessment. 10 games in 2017 moved him into the assessed bracket. At 14 games he is probably still "low" as the assessment is based on a player's last 40 games with more weighting given to recent games.

The Langdon change in relative rating does not seem odd to me - in 2017 AFL Prospectus his LAST 40 games (with weighting to recent games) AFL rating points were 32% higher than the average of Gen Def of his age. In 2017. This year's AFL Prospectus, same except 21%. That suggests the games dropped off from 2015 he played better than the games added in 2017 plus weighting to recent games.

Crisp - moved from Mid to Gen Def category which explains the difference I think.

Not having a go at you QM, but for those bagging Champion Data, I would just say this ... AFL is about 20 years behind baseball with analytics (think baseball in late 1990s/early 2000s) and, whilst not perfect by any means, it improves each year and improves the understanding of the game for those taking it onboard. The early modern history of sabermetrics (Bill James, Sandy Alderson et al) is quite interesting and Bill James was regarded by baseball organisation stalwarts as a bit of a crackpot in the early days.

_________________
All We Can Be
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
qldmagpie67 



Joined: 18 Dec 2008


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:21 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

MightyMagpie wrote:
qldmagpie67 wrote:
MM by reading those it shows me that the system is way out of whack.
Scharenberg went from unclassified to below average on the basis of 7 games in 2017 ?
Langdon's ranking dropped 11% (if I'm reading and understanding it right) but he stays as an above average player based on past ranking ?
Crisp goes from average to elite ?
There's way to many vagrencies in these systems for mine


QM - Worth reading the link I provided.

Scharenberg - 4 games pre 2017 probably accumulated insufficient rating points for an assessment. 10 games in 2017 moved him into the assessed bracket. At 14 games he is probably still "low" as the assessment is based on a player's last 40 games with more weighting given to recent games.

The Langdon change in relative rating does not seem odd to me - in 2017 AFL Prospectus his LAST 40 games (with weighting to recent games) AFL rating points were 32% higher than the average of Gen Def of his age. In 2017. This year's AFL Prospectus, same except 21%. That suggests the games dropped off from 2015 he played better than the games added in 2017 plus weighting to recent games.

Crisp - moved from Mid to Gen Def category which explains the difference I think.

Not having a go at you QM, but for those bagging Champion Data, I would just say this ... AFL is about 20 years behind baseball with analytics (think baseball in late 1990s/early 2000s) and, whilst not perfect by any means, it improves each year and improves the understanding of the game for those taking it onboard. The early modern history of sabermetrics (Bill James, Sandy Alderson et al) is quite interesting and Bill James was regarded by baseball organisation stalwarts as a bit of a crackpot in the early days.


I read the link MM but for mine it still has loads of holes in its accuracy.
I get the Scharenberg thing but why rate him until,he's played the 40 games ?
Agree I see the Langdon one but in 2017 form he wouldn't be rated a average player in terms of what he showed.
Crisp again as he changed positions and it's comparable to age and games but still to call him elite to me defies the word itself.
Mate I don't take anything personally and am happy to debat with anyone and we all might see things different.
I actually have paid for champion data data for the simple fact I like to see how it works and who it rates compared to my personally view.
Agree AFL is light years behind in the stats keeping department.
For me I'll only call a player elite if I see them game in game out for a long period of time be influential in your team winning like Pendles or like a Swan
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:43 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

qldmagpie67 wrote:
MightyMagpie wrote:
...
QM - Worth reading the link I provided.
...

I read the link MM but for mine it still has loads of holes in its accuracy.
...

Don't stop at reading that link, everyone. Read the 15-page pdf that I gave the link to (on p2). That's probably as much info as they're ever going to give us about their methodology. (I've glanced at it but not read it all yet.)
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:47 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Ultimately, the tragedy is that what gets measured seems to have a rather remote connection, at best, with what wins or loses games. I am very familiar with the stats used in NFL - many of those are quite unrelated to the skills thought to be necessary to play well in a particular position but, nevertheless, closely-connected to assessing whether the things a player did or didn’t do affected the likely result of the game positively or negatively. I accept it is easier to do that in games that aren’t continuous. Nevertheless, I understand why a quarterback is rated as “elite” and the same with the various skill positions etc - it’s because the stats say that you are very much more likely to win with player x on your team in that position than the various alternatives, all other things being equal. Here, the stats don’t seem to assess a player’s likely contribution to a win or a loss. Thus, I know nothing more about a player’s exposed/assessed ability to immpact a team’s win prospects after reading these stats than I did before. I don’t object to this sort of analysis, I’d just prefer it to be assessing something relevant to whether I would like a particular player on my team, rather than another team.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:40 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
Ultimately, the tragedy is that what gets measured seems to have a rather remote connection, at best, with what wins or loses games. [1a] I am very familiar with the stats used in NFL [2]- many of those are quite unrelated to the skills thought to be necessary to play well in a particular position but, nevertheless, closely-connected to assessing whether the things a player did or didn’t do affected the likely result of the game positively or negatively [1b]. I accept it is easier to do that in games that aren’t continuous. [3] Nevertheless, I understand why a quarterback is rated as “elite” and the same with the various skill positions etc - it’s because the stats say that you are very much more likely to win with player x on your team in that position than the various alternatives, all other things being equal. [1c] Here, the stats don’t seem to assess a player’s likely contribution to a win or a loss. [1d] Thus, I know nothing more about a player’s exposed/assessed ability to impact a team’s win prospects after reading these stats than I did before. I don’t object to this sort of analysis, I’d just prefer it to be assessing something relevant to whether I would like a particular player on my team, rather than another team.


P4S, Please clarify what you mean. I'm uncertain about your meaning. (My numbering of statements above comes after the statements of interest.)
[2] is good for us and this discussion. It means we have another sport to use as a reference example.
I'm not sure what you're meaning by [1a]--[1d], though. [1a] sounds like you're saying the measured quantities are not correlated well with winning or losing. But the second part of [1b] sounds like you're saying they actually are, with the first part of [1b] sounding like you're just saying these go against received wisdom (which could be wrong). Likewise, [1c] and [1d] seem to be in some tension with one another. Is [1c] "bad" in your opinion, because you think they should show the contributions of player x relative to player y who plays on the same team in a different position, rather than player x in his team relative to player z in the same position in a different team? (I'm assuming in stating that question that there is exactly one player in each position, not multiple players in the same position.)

On [3]: it's not continuity that's the problem, though lots of stoppages no doubt make the data collectors' (not statisticians'!) job easier. The difficulty comes from strong interactions between many objects (players) ---- a many-body problem, if you like. That's why baseball is one of the easiest non-trivial sports to analyse: at any given time, the interactions are very weak for all but a couple of players (very, very weak in the case of the players just sitting in the dugout).
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MightyMagpie 



Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:44 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Added ratings from 2016 Prospectus in my original post in the Preseason Review.

Now gives a 3-4 year picture of how players have been rated.

See below.

I'll update this post in a bit more detail with my comments and some additional information as I work through the AFL Prospectus, but here's a list of our top-ranked players with relative rating in round brackets and previous years (2016 and 2015 from 2017 and 2016 AFL Prospectus, respectively) in square brackets.

First, a link to an explanation of the AFL Player Rating system: http://www.afl.com.au/stats/player-ratings/ratings-explained and http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/PlayerRatings/PlayerRatings_HOW.pdf

Secondly, Relative Rating is a measure of how a player performed relative to players of the same age and position based on AFL Player Rating points.

For those bagging Champion Data, I would just say this ... AFL is about 20 years behind baseball with analytics (think baseball in late 1990s/early 2000s) and, whilst not perfect by any means, it improves each year and improves the understanding of the game for those taking it onboard. The early modern history of sabermetrics (Bill James, Sandy Alderson et al) is quite interesting and Bill James was regarded by baseball organisation stalwarts as a bit of a crackpot in the early days.

ELITE (top 10%)

Howe (+44%) [Above Average +28%] [Above Average]
Scott Pendlebury (+36%) [Elite +49%] [Elite]
Jack Crisp (+26%) [Average +4%] [Average]

ABOVE AVERAGE (top 11%-35%)

Brodie Grundy(+49%) [Above Average +32%] [Average]
Adam Treloar (+23%) [Elite +42%] [Above Average]
Taylor Adams (+22%) [Above Average +24%] [Average]
Tom Langdon (+21%) [Above Average +32%] [Above Average]
Tom Phillips (+21%) [Unclassified -23%] [unclassified]
Will Hoskin-Elliott (+1%) [Poor] [Below Average]
Daniel Wells (-21%) [Above Average +8%] [Average]

AVERAGE (top 36%-65%)

Jordan DeGoey (+23%) [Average +5%] [Poor]
Brayden Maynard (+22%) [Below Average +9%] [unclassified]
Tyson Goldsack (+10%) [Above Average] [Above Average]
Steele Sidebottom (+2%) [Above Average +21%] [Above Average]
Lynden Dunn (-4%) [Average] [Above Average]
Jamie Elliott (-5%) [Above Average] [Above Average]
Ben Reid (-14%) [Average +0%] [unclassified]
Travis Varcoe (-15%) [Average -24%] [Average]
Alex Fasolo (-16%) [Above Average +33%] [Above Average]
Jarrad Blair (-19%) [Average -13%] [Above Average]

BELOW AVERAGE (top 66%-90%)

Darcy Moore (-1%) [Below Average +3%] [unclassified]
Mason Cox (-15%) [Rookie -15%] [Rookie]
Matthew Scharenberg (-19%) [Unclassified] [unclassified]
Tim Broomhead (-23%) [Average] [Average]
Levi Greenwood (-26%) [Average -17%] [Average]
Josh Smith (-30%) [Below Average -14%] [Rookie]
Chris Mayne [Average -16%] [Above Average]

POOR (bottom 10%)

James Aish (-45%) [Below Average +3%] [Poor]
Ben Crocker [-28%] [Poor] [unclassified]

The rest are rookie listed or unclassified.

_________________
All We Can Be
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 5 of 8   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group