Top 50 players 2017
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests Registered Users: None |
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
qldmagpie67
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
|
Post subject: Top 50 players 2017 | |
|
Champion data each year finalise there list of players in order of points.
I'm not 100% sure on the exact formula but it does take into account all key stats with a formula that considers time spent on ground as well. It doesn't penalise players who miss games through injury which is fair.
It also takes into consideration if games were home or away and also factors in weather conditions as that could affect disposals and standard of the game.
It also works on a system of performance over a sustained period meaning with points added or subtracted depending on how that player perform as against the same club with similar conditions.
Players with under 40-50 games won't figure as they haven't had the opportunity to accumlatate points over a decent period.
Players on average can gain or loss around 3-5 points per game depending on the variables mentioned before.
Gaining or losing more than the average would mean having a absolute breakout game or having a absolute shocker on a corresponding fixture to were you previously had a very good game.
The top 10 are as follows
1 - Dangerfield
2 - Martin
3 - Pendlebury
4 - Kennedy (Swans)
5 - Sloane
6 - Franklin
7 - Zorko
8 - R.Gray
9 - Treloar
10 -Neale
So we finished with 2 players in the top 10.
Other Collingwood players
21 - Adams
39 - Wells
46 - Grundy
55 - Howe
60 - Sidebottom
75 - Crisp
We have no other player ranked in the top 100
At the beginning of last season we had 6 midfielders ranked in the top 50 (and we were rated the #1 midfield) but this has dropped down to 4 now.
Grundy has worked his way into the top 50 for the first time after being ranked in the 70's at the start of last season.
Howe missed out on the top 50 but his position improved to 55 up around 25-30 places from beginning of last season.
Adams improved his position as well by 6 spots
Wells fell down around 8 spots
Sidey fell 9 spots and is now ranked the 51st in terms of midfielders which is what he's listed as.
Crisp fell as well due mainly to his change in position it seems he's now listed as a mid/HBF instead if midfielder like in 2016.
To try to explain the formula goes past my ability but to give posters some idea I'll list our players points as a career high and current
Pendles high 701 in 2014 current 627.5
Treloar high 541.8 in 2017 current 539.9
Adams 492.4 2017 and is current he increased from 413.4 at the start of 2017 to the end of season
Wells high 492 in 2014 current 466.1
Grundy high 459.1 current began the season at 402.4
Howe high 464.4 during 2017 season current 454.9
Sidey high 548.7 at start of 2015 season current 450.3. He has each of the past 3 seasons had his ranking drop by around 30 to 40 ranking points
For my old mate P4S his next captain is now ranked the 418th player in the comp. His career high ranking points were 362.3 at the mid point of the 2015 season. He started the 2017 season with 234.5 ranking points and finished with 169.8 ranking points. That equates to a loss of around 8 ranking points per game. |
|
|
|
|
Albert Parker
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
|
Post subject: | |
|
So if each team had equal representation in the list, they'd have 5.5 players in the top 100.
We have 8, and 2 in the top 10, which suggests our top end talent is competitive (which most on this board would agree).
Our ladder position from the past couple of seasons then suggests
- we lack depth (particularly in Key Positions)
- we lack cohesion and an effective game plan
Hoping/expecting some improvement in ladder position in 2018, but the KPP's remains an area of vulnerability for us. _________________ One team, one dream - the Pies and this year's premiership |
|
|
|
|
qldmagpie67
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
|
Post subject: | |
|
Albert Parker wrote: | So if each team had equal representation in the list, they'd have 5.5 players in the top 100.
We have 8, and 2 in the top 10, which suggests our top end talent is competitive (which most on this board would agree).
Our ladder position from the past couple of seasons then suggests
- we lack depth (particularly in Key Positions)
- we lack cohesion and an effective game plan
Hoping/expecting some improvement in ladder position in 2018, but the KPP's remains an area of vulnerability for us. |
Albert I think your partially right with your assumptions.
We do have a good representation in the top 100 considering the averages but on the flip side you wouldn't expect some clubs to have more than 2 maybe 3 players. Again if there are players under the 50 game mark they haven't really completed enough games to have the points base for improving there position.
Our lack of depth is and has been a concern for a while IMO.
We did also have several players ranked in the 100-200 range as well most of which haven't played enough games yet to be really ranked.
We won't be far form having players like Moore Maynard Scharenberg WHE Elliott push for top 100 places but that's likely to come with the continuing slide of Wells Sidey and other ageing players or players retiring.
For mine Pendles is unbelievable as his highest ranking points and his current aren't that far apart meaning he has performed at a incredible high standard for a very long time.
Was good to see Grundy Adams and Howe all move up the rankings the last year. I think everyone on nicks would agree they all played there best footy of there respective careers lasts season. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
I’m happy for Sidebottom to get no points in the Champion Data rankings. He’s the second-best player at the Club and the best-performed over the last 12 months. That the rankings don’t reflect that says more about the viability of the ranking system than about Sidebottom. |
|
|
|
|
qldmagpie67
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
|
Post subject: | |
|
Pies4shaw wrote: | I’m happy for Sidebottom to get no points in the Champion Data rankings. He’s the second-best player at the Club and the best-performed over the last 12 months. That the rankings don’t reflect that says more about the viability of the ranking system than about Sidebottom. |
P4S the ranking system is complex and I don't agree with it totally but it's the basis many "industry experts" base opinions.
The system shows Dangerfield as currently the best player in the comp but it could be very easily argued Martin is that player now but he wasn't ranked as highly so he's playing catchup under the system as in points being allocated.
Pendles ranked 3rd would seem weird to some but what the system does is show long term high standards of play which no one could argue that pendles should be ranked so highly.
My argument with the system would be it obviously a computer alagarythmn of some sort and computers can't and wouldn't understand the nuances of the game in regards to players changing roles or them being given a different role as there career evolves.
As I said I don't fully understand how the system works but I thought it would be a fair post to show our players.
For our club to have 7 inside the top 100 I thought was a good result considering our recent win/loss record
For what it's worth having Zorko inside the top 10 defies belief for mine |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
qldmagpie67 wrote: | Pies4shaw wrote: | ... That the rankings don’t reflect that says more about the viability of the ranking system ... |
P4S the ranking system is complex and I don't agree with it totally but it's the basis many "industry experts" base opinions.
...
My argument with the system would be it obviously a computer alagarythmn of some sort and computers can't and wouldn't understand the nuances of the game in regards to players changing roles or them being given a different role as there career evolves.
As I said I don't fully understand how the system works but I thought it would be a fair post to show our players.
For our club to have 7 inside the top 100 I thought was a good result considering our recent win/loss record
For what it's worth having Zorko inside the top 10 defies belief for mine |
To whom more precisely do you refer when you say "industry experts"? Just media talking heads, or people with skin in the game?
Yep, it's a fair post --- equally interesting if the rankings are sensible or senseless. They do seem to let players 'get away with' being injury-prone, i.e. there's (apparently) no distinction between injury through ill fortune and injury through the body's limitations. |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
In fairness, the above numbers are based on a set of parameters and for whatever reason, don't seem to show Sidebottom reflective of his true value.
I could easily tweak another set of parameters and find a way to get Sidebottom somewhere near the top of a list. That's just what stats do.
I found it an interesting read but nothing has changed in 100 years of footy.
A team is made up of its sum of all parts, not just a collection of talented individuals all thrown together on a footy field wearing the same top. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Pies2016 wrote: | In fairness, the above numbers are based on a set of parameters and for whatever reason, don't seem to show Sidebottom reflective of his true value.
I could easily tweak another set of parameters and find a way to get Sidebottom somewhere near the top of a list. That's just what stats do.
... |
Their methodology to obtain their formula is what's interesting --- and what determines whether it has merit or not. |
|
|
|
|
qldmagpie67
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
|
Post subject: | |
|
K wrote: | Pies2016 wrote: | In fairness, the above numbers are based on a set of parameters and for whatever reason, don't seem to show Sidebottom reflective of his true value.
I could easily tweak another set of parameters and find a way to get Sidebottom somewhere near the top of a list. That's just what stats do.
... |
Their methodology to obtain their formula is what's interesting --- and what determines whether it has merit or not. |
K it is interesting as I'm sure they wouldn't share there methodology.
For mine it's seems it doesn't allow for the changing nuances in the game nor would it account for changes in players roles within a team environment.
Using Sidey as a guide he has each of the last 3 years seen his ranking decline markedly yet his overall stats haven't diminished to any great extent.
Yes he has had less inside 50's on average each season and his contested numbers were down slightly but his overall disposal count and other indicators aren't noticeably different. For mine there is lays the problem.
Did Sidey role in the side change (was he required to play more as a defensive mid role instead of attacking mid role ?)
Conversely Adams numbers have risen especially last year. It was statistically his best year in the AFL and understandable his ranking climbed
Wells only played 9 games and his ranking dropped like Sidey but he played in 7 of our wins and each time played quite well maybe not racking up large numbers but doing exactly what the team and coach required of him.
Again conversely Grundy had his best year in the AFL and his ranking climbed markedly.
Howe star shone last year again and his ranking climbed.
The methodology used obviously doesn't account for some of the factors mentioned and I wouldn't and couldn't start to put together a formula that would accurately calculate anything like this.
As for the "industry experts" David King Gerrard Healy etc often use champion data as there basis for form lines and player form.
The one thing I did notice was the lack of defenders in the top 100. By memory I think it was around 5 total with Rance being the highest ranked in the teens.
Whether this is just a anomaly or a glitch in the system is debatable. I would have Rance easily a top 10 player IMO |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
So we have got 2 of the top 10 players (ie 20%) and 5 of the top 50 (ie 10%). That seems pretty damn good to me. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
The suggestion that there are only 8 better players than Treloar in the entire AFL is a reasonably silly one, too. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
qldmagpie67 wrote: | K wrote: | Pies2016 wrote: | In fairness, the above numbers are based on a set of parameters and for whatever reason, don't seem to show Sidebottom reflective of his true value.
I could easily tweak another set of parameters and find a way to get Sidebottom somewhere near the top of a list. That's just what stats do.
... |
Their methodology to obtain their formula is what's interesting --- and what determines whether it has merit or not. |
K it is interesting as I'm sure they wouldn't share there methodology.
For mine it's seems it doesn't allow for the changing nuances in the game nor would it account for changes in players roles within a team environment.
...
The methodology used obviously doesn't account for some of the factors mentioned and I wouldn't and couldn't start to put together a formula that would accurately calculate anything like this.
As for the "industry experts" David King Gerrard Healy etc often use champion data as there basis for form lines and player form.
The one thing I did notice was the lack of defenders in the top 100. By memory I think it was around 5 total with Rance being the highest ranked in the teens.
Whether this is just a anomaly or a glitch in the system is debatable. I would have Rance easily a top 10 player IMO |
I agree, QM67; I'm sure they wouldn't want to release the actual formula they use. But by methodology, I'm thinking about how they come up with and defend the formula, rather than what exactly it is. Was there any textual description or explanation provided accompanying these ratings?
I also draw a big distinction between the raw data and some arbitrary formula someone uses on it. They have behaved like Uncle Scrooge with their data, which is ultimately detrimental to the game itself. A real disgrace, actually, especially when you consider that the AFL owns half of that company. There are times when the AFL acts not in the long-term interests of the game, but only in the pursuit of short-term money. (The end-of-season bye is a glaring example.) |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
Post subject: | |
|
RudeBoy wrote: | So we have got 2 of the top 10 players (ie 20%) and 5 of the top 50 (ie 10%). That seems pretty damn good to me. |
Since it favors midfielders, it suggests that it is very heavily stats based. Accordingly, all this means is that Collingwood tends to have most of the work (possessions) done by fewer persons and other (better) clubs tend to share the output.
Any list that is generated by stats is limited and should NOT be considered a "best player" list. instead it should be a "best at these stats" type of list (e.g., like a leading goalkicker list for example). _________________ Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
qldmagpie67
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
|
Post subject: | |
|
Pies4shaw wrote: | The suggestion that there are only 8 better players than Treloar in the entire AFL is a reasonably silly one, too. |
Statistically speaking it's a accurate accessment
Where the system is flawed is it doesn't take into account the players roles changing IMO.
Numbers will always be just that numbers. Think Mitchell getting 50 touches against us last year but the majority of those in the scheme of the game were basically worthless but it would have padded his ranking points more than likely.
The only real stats I like to follow are disposals to advantage, accuracy on goal, rebound 50's, inside 50's, effective tackles, hard ball gets. To me all of these have a direct impact on your teams chances of winning.
Wells and Pendles excel in the disposals to advantage stats with a average of over 80% next best was Howe & Scharenberg, Elliott & WHE are our best at accuracy on goal, Howe was our best in total rebound 50's but Scharenberg averaged the most rebound 50's per game played, Treloar and Adams led our inside 50 count, Maynard and Adams led the effective tackle averages, Adams led the hardball gets with Maynard, Pendles and Grundy next best on averages. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|