Pro Stats Player Rankings -- after ten rounds

[Ruck'n'Roll]

So LRT is as "effective" as Barry Hall?

[NMWBloods]

I don't really know how the effectiveness ranking works - the score seems to be more reflective.

[Schneiderman]

Re: Pro Stats Player Rankings -- after ten rounds

Originally posted by NMWBloods

L.Roberts-Thompson  19.2  81%

barry? barry? helloooo.....

[dread and might]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pro Stats Player Rankings -- after ten rounds

Originally posted by Wil
Jonathan Hay from Hawthorn has the lower score

So: theoretical trade; LRT for Hay. Take or leave?

[Sean]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pro Stats Player Rankings -- after ten rounds

Originally posted by dread and might
So: theoretical trade; LRT for Hay. Take or leave?

Leave.

It's probably worth pointing out that only 20 players from each side were listed and obviously 22 play each week so in theory LRT could be ahead of a whole bunch of players. Unlikely that many would be getting as many minutes as him though.

[Wil]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pro Stats Player Rankings -- after ten rounds

Originally posted by Sean
It's probably worth pointing out that only 20 players from each side were listed and obviously 22 play each week so in theory LRT could be ahead of a whole bunch of players. Unlikely that many would be getting as many minutes as him though.

I was going to say the same thing. It has not listed every player from every club.

RE: The Hyphen. I am pretty sure Roos has told him that his job is safe for the year and that he just needs to focus on being in the right position to defend and not to worry about his own game as such as the skills will come.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
the score seems to be more reflective.

. . . of your preconceptions about LRT?

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I don't really know how the effectiveness ranking works

Really? I don't think anyone here's swallowing that.

I thought your explanation was fine, the raw score is built up out of the players stats. The effectiveness percentage then compares those stats to his opponents.

You presented some stats that show that while LRT is not accumulating stats he is doing as effectively against his opponent as Barry Hall. You can't just reject or downplay those stats you don't like.

The only fair thing (big thing) for you to do is to either reject all the stats or admit the kid's not nearly as bad as some people claim.

[NMWBloods]

Making some pretty big assumptions there to push your barrow. The score seems more reflective of my impression of all players' performances across the competition than the effectiveness %. Given that the effectiveness % is always less 100%, then obviously there is more to it than simply the net difference between a player and their opponent.

There is nothing inherently unfair about accepting some stats and not others. I relied more on the score as it appear more accurate and this is how I ranked the players and indeed how Pro Stats ranks the players.

That LRT happens to be near the bottom is simply a fact of the stats. That you are trying to explain it away as my bias against LRT is ludicrous - did I convince Pro Stats to organise the stats that way... It illustrates yet again that certain people have preconceived notions on what other people think and this colours their views. It makes meaningful discussion rather difficult and is actually quite tedious and puerile.

[barry]

This is statistics for statistics sake.

Completely meaningless ego trip for stats nerds with little relevance to the real world.

Can it tell us who's kicking it up the guts, long and direct ?


Cricket is a game for statistics, AFL is not.

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods


That LRT happens to be near the bottom is simply a fact of the stats. That you are trying to explain it away as my bias against LRT is ludicrous - did I convince Pro Stats to organise the stats that way... It illustrates yet again that certain people have preconceived notions on what other people think and this colours their views. It makes meaningful discussion rather difficult and is actually quite tedious and puerile.

Its just an amazing coincidence that the resendent LRT-hater starts off a thread from some dodgy stats site which paints LRT in a bad light.

[NMWBloods]

Now you're really drawing a long bow.

Firstly, I've never said anything to suggest I am an "LRT hater" and despite my requests of you, you've never substantiated your claims that I am with any quotes.

Secondly, I am simply posted the stats as I thought they were interesting showing where our players were relative to each other. Other people drew out the LRT stat, not me.

Thirdly, just because you don't understand stats or don't like their implications, doesn't make them meaningless or dodgy. Additionally, stats can tell you who kicks the ball long and straight.

Fourthly, resorting to calling people nerds because they understand numbers is really very tragic and more than anything else illustrates a lack of understanding.

[Charlie]

Play the ball, thanks folks. There's simply no need for name-calling.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Making some pretty big assumptions there to push your barrow.

I am indeed, it was one of those big brightly coloured Mexican jobs with the ribons on the wheels.
In fact arguing stats with someone as efficient as you NMB with them is part of the absurdity (akin to Schauble challenging Crouchy to a spinting competition). 'Twas all in fun,

On the other hand . . .

Originally posted by NMWBloods There is nothing inherently unfair about accepting some stats and not others.

I am going to assume that isn't really a position you meant to make, too fascile and 'puerile' by half.

As for the rest, I didn't really expect you to cut LRT some slack on the basis of him having the same effectiveness rating as BBBH. It's not the sort of thing people do online.

To change the subject slightly, I'd like to see Schauble & LRT in against Collingwood to take Rocca and the new Cloke respectively.

[Vivien]

Good post, NMW. Shame it's been turned into another round of LRT-bashing!

I guess the obvious conclusion to draw from these stats is that apart from the obvious stand-outs, our list is pretty even. I think the rating system seems fair - the stats certainly reflect what I would have expected. Would be interesting to know how they work out the ratings. Would also be interesting to see how our guys compare to some of the other players in the leauge. Out of interest, who were the top ranking players?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Ruckman
I am indeed, it was one of those big brightly coloured Mexican jobs with the ribons on the wheels.
In fact arguing stats with someone as efficient as you NMB with them is part of the absurdity (akin to Schauble challenging Crouchy to a spinting competition). 'Twas all in fun,

Just so hard to tell at times. Maybe I should read all your posts assuming your tongue is planted firmly in your cheek...

I am going to assume that isn't really a position you meant to make, too fascile and 'puerile' by half.

Not probably as it reads. More that if you believe some stats are not accurate or not fully understandable does not necessarily invalidate other stats.

As for the rest, I didn't really expect you to cut LRT some slack on the basis of him having the same effectiveness rating as BBBH. It's not the sort of thing people do online.

I'd really like to know more about how the effectiveness score works so that any comparison is understandable.

To change the subject slightly, I'd like to see Schauble & LRT in against Collingwood to take Rocca and the new Cloke respectively.

Isn't Rocca stilll injured? Cloke should be a good matchup for LRT.