Team Changes

[giant]

Originally posted by Ruckman
Originally posted by Ruckman
It's none of my business but I was wondering whether you're a short person by any chance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



My line of questioning milud, replied "Ruckman of of the Bailey" is that big guys having played in the spine usually have a better 'feeling' for what goes on there. I can't remember who it was who said it but the "spiritual benefit of ruckmen" applies to all KPP's, and while many 'grassburners' are oblivious to it (possibly too busy counting stats) they are it's primary beneficiary.

Ruckmen who have made great coaches? Ummm, Percy Jones? Ron Alexander? Don Scott?

[NMWBloods]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Go Swannies
[B]cf your previous statements:

[QUOTE][B]Our previous conversion rate was unsustainably high.[B][QUOTE]

and

[QUOTE][B]Teams are typically not able to maintain those conversion ratios indefinitely.[B][QUOTE]

and

[QUOTE][B]It suggests that an unbelievably high level is not sustainable for a length of time. That's not the same thing as saying excellence is not sustainable for a period of time (although it of course is limited too).[B][QUOTE]

and

[QUOTE][B]Nevertheless, in some cases it is so compelling that it provides a strong case - for example a team might kick 20+ goals 6 weeks in a row, but the evidence suggests this is not sustainable. Common sense suggests it's not also, for a variety of reasons.So? I demonstrated with data that none of this was sustainable. I fail to see how kicking 4.0 in one game is comparable to successive seasons of kicking well. Someone might even do it for a few games, but unlikely to do it for long extended periods. Also, comparing individuals to team accuracy is fraught with difficulties.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Ruckman
Good I like to see prats arguing agaist my point of view because it reminds me I'm right.

There are two ways to view things the quantitative and the qualitative, NMW is a big stats man (amongst others) and I appreciate their research skills. Sometimes I think stats can be misleading, particularly when evaluating players whose primary role isn't the accumulation of stats.

I find all of this rather insulting. I may use stats but that doesn't preclude me from watching the game and observing other factors as I have done for 30 years. This is a little different to some other people who never use stats at all. A combination is a much better approach.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Ruckman
My line of questioning milud, replied "Ruckman of of the Bailey" is that big guys having played in the spine usually have a better 'feeling' for what goes on there. [/B]

For the last three years, Schauble has averaged around 9 possessions and 4 marks a game each year. 7 possessions, 0 marks is sub-par but he is underdone, so it's not unexpected. It really has nothing to do with my height, although I appreciate the epithet "grassburner".

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

(Lockett) also kicked 29.0 in 13 games in 1999.

Did he? I thought his record stretch of goals without missing was back in 1995 and included the 16 straight he kicked against Fitzroy one afternoon at the Whitten Oval.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
Did he? I thought his record stretch of goals without missing was back in 1995 and included the 16 straight he kicked against Fitzroy one afternoon at the Whitten Oval.

Oops - made a mistake there, mixing up the columns. Thought his goals seemed rather low !!

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Oops - made a mistake there, mixing up the columns. Thought his goals seemed rather low !!

A good reason never to trust anyone "justifying" their argument with statistics.

You either have a feel for the game or you dont.

[Sanecow]

You can have a feel for the game and an understanding of statistics. They are not mutually exclusive. Judging players based entirely on feel unfortunately tends to put too much weight on the spectacular.

[Newbie]

Originally posted by Sanecow
You can have a feel for the game and an understanding of statistics. They are not mutually exclusive. Judging players based entirely on feel unfortunately tends to put too much weight on the spectacular.

This is the question that art and science have been in confrontation for sometimes. This is their distinction too.

I think we should stop it here. Getting into small technical points serve no purpose at all. Points have been made as far as I am concerned.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Ruckman
Now this is silly, Vogels is a pure forward, so the game after he debut's lets uproot him and play him in the backline for the first time this season. That'll really help him to settle into the firsts

Where did you get the fact that he a pure forward from??

If anything, its the position he has played LEAST. He moved through the ranks as a wingman and then a KPP backman, winning the Hampden Leagues B&F in that role.

http://redandwhiteonline.com/content.php?id=462_0_2_0_M

In any case, CHF and CHB are often interchangeable - look at Lucas, Leppitsch or McPharlin.

[barry]

I actually liked the look of the side with Vogels up at FF/FP. MOL is a bit small for that role IMO, and a resting ruckman too slow.

With LRT holding down CHB at the moment, persisting with the big V up forward is worth considering.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by barry
With LRT holding down CHB at the moment, persisting with the big V up forward is worth considering.

I dont doubt it will happen as long as LRT is in the side. But if he gets dropped I say we have a viable option... not to mention a much better one IMO.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by barry
A good reason never to trust anyone "justifying" their argument with statistics.

You either have a feel for the game or you dont.

Oh, you are so full of crap!

I always love the argument whereby you deliberately avoid all the stats and state them to be irrelevant, except when there is a mistake and then you leap on that one as proof of your views and still conveniently avoid the others. Standard strawman argument.

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Oh, you are so full of crap!

I always love the argument whereby you deliberately avoid all the stats and state them to be irrelevant, except when there is a mistake and then you leap on that one as proof of your views and still conveniently avoid the others. Standard strawman argument.

I always laugh at people who peddle statistics which are wrong as if it were the gospel truth.
Statistic have a useful, but LIMITED role, as long as you have all the statistics. In most cases statistics are over used in AFL.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by barry
In most cases statistics are over used in AFL.

Nonsense. They are only over used about 40% of the time.