Pro Stats Player Rankings -- after ten rounds

[Charlie]

I've always thought that a rolling 22 round ladder would be useful - especially in the early part of the season.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by barry
The only stats that matter is the ladder. The only stats that matter is the ladder. Although I do allow myself one digression, and thats to rank the teams on percentage as a better indicator of where they are travelling.

The only stat that matter is who wins the flag.

However, if you don't put in the effort to understand how a team gets there you won't understand what is happening during the season. Stats and observation help with that - pure gut feel is often wrong.

What is also wrong is to simply rely on one or two stats.

For example, if ladder and percentage are considerd most important, then at round 11 last year, Essendon were looking like a flag chance. Placed 4th with an 8-3 record and 110%.

However, looking more closely at who they played, how they played and various stats showed they were overperforming (as I commented last year much to the anny=oyance of various Bomber supporters on BF who didn't believe me).

From that time Essendon went 4-7 and only scraped into the eight.

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
The only stat that matter is who wins the flag. However, if you don't put in the effort to understand how a team gets there you won't understand what is happening during the season. Stats and observation help with that - pure gut feel is often wrong.

Stats dont tell you that either. They are a sideshow. Who cares who got the most possessions during a round, other than people who count possessions. Those sorts of stats are self-serving. All I need to know is who won and by how much. Well, other stats are interesting, but like I said, a sideshow really.

The ladder never lies. If you are 6th, it can tell you how many games and how much percentage you need to make up to get to 4th. When you are 4th it tells you how much you need to get into 2nd. When 2nd ....

Then the finals start.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by barry
Stats dont tell you that either. They are a sideshow. Who cares who got the most possessions during a round, other than people who count possessions. Those sorts of stats are self-serving. All I need to know is who won and by how much. Well, other stats are interesting, but like I said, a sideshow really.

The ladder never lies. If you are 6th, it can tell you how many games and how much percentage you need to make up to get to 4th. When you are 4th it tells you how much you need to get into 2nd. When 2nd ....

Then the finals start.

Relying on only one or two stats can be misleading. For example, if ladder and percentage are considerd most important, then at round 11 last year, Essendon were looking like a flag chance. Placed 4th with an 8-3 record and 110%.

However, looking more closely at who they played, how they played and various stats showed they were overperforming (as I commented last year much to the anny=oyance of various Bomber supporters on BF who didn't believe me).

From that time Essendon went 4-7 and only scraped into the eight.

Understanding effective clearances, long kicks, kick to handball ratios, marks inside 50, number of inside 50s, scoring shots, accuracy, etc. can all provide insights into understanding how a team plays and why it is performing the way it is.

[Wil]

Originally posted by barry

The ladder never lies. If you are 6th, it can tell you how many games and how much percentage you need to make up to get to 4th. When you are 4th it tells you how much you need to get into 2nd. When 2nd ....

Then the finals start.

The only time the ladder is a true measure of anything useful is at the end of 22 rounds. Even then it is biased as not every team has the same draw.

Besides, what could the ladder tell you in how to become a better team apart from kick more goals and concede less goals?

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Understanding effective clearances, long kicks, kick to handball ratios, marks inside 50, number of inside 50s, scoring shots, accuracy, etc. can all provide insights into understanding how a team plays and why it is performing the way it is.

Or you could just measure how well the key player/s in the team are travelling.

Essendon finished the season poorly because their stars in Hird, Lloyd and Fletcher were in and out of the team. Collingwood without Buckley, Rocca and Tarrant suffer noticeably. And I reckon if you took Bruce, Yze and White out of Melbourne they would nose-dive. Just watch Richmond without just Brown and Richo this weekend.

Without Willo, MOL and Davis we have endured, but only just. Granted we played weak teams and so the victories came, but they were marginal. The strong teams we played out-classed us easily without these players.

Does any team have enough depth to cover these sorts of losses any more? Brisbane seemed to have it between 2001 and 2003, but without Jon Brown and Lynch this year, they were very ordinary. Port have been in a similar predicament. Not surprisingly both have begun to return to form now that some of their key players have returned.

Even the "mighty" West Coast may yet fail if one or two of their key players are absent in the finals. Anyone want to guess who was missing from their Round 9 team that lost to the then last Magpies??

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Or you could just measure how well the key player/s in the team are travelling.

Essendon finished the season poorly because their stars in Hird, Lloyd and Fletcher were in and out of the team. Collingwood without Buckley, Rocca and Tarrant suffer noticeably. And I reckon if you took Bruce, Yze and White out of Melbourne they would nose-dive. Just watch Richmond without just Brown and Richo this weekend.

Without Willo, MOL and Davis we have endured, but only just. Granted we played weak teams and so the victories came, but they were marginal. The strong teams we played out-classed us easily without these players.

Umm, as much as I've talked up Mick in the past couple of weeks, players like Hird, Tarrant and Bruce should be compared with Hall, Goodes and Kirk, not Williams, O'Loughlin and Davis.

Fair's fair.

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Relying on only one or two stats can be misleading. For example, if ladder and percentage are considerd most important, then at round 11 last year, Essendon were looking like a flag chance. Placed 4th with an 8-3 record and 110%.

However, looking more closely at who they played, how they played and various stats showed they were overperforming (as I commented last year much to the anny=oyance of various Bomber supporters on BF who didn't believe me).

From that time Essendon went 4-7 and only scraped into the eight.

Well arent you the bee's knees. How about some predictions for the rest of this season Nostrodarmus. Predicting injuries would help too.

Understanding effective clearances, long kicks, kick to handball ratios, marks inside 50, number of inside 50s, scoring shots, accuracy, etc. can all provide insights into understanding how a team plays and why it is performing the way it is.

If team A beats team B 150 to 140 it has a lot more inside 50's scoring shots, accuracy than if it beats it 80 to 70. But, the stats tell us a completely different story.
If you win games, you get the good stats (marks, goals). When you lose you get the bad ones (tackles, clangers).

You take one week at a time. Form can change over a week. IN the last couple of years we've had defining games which have changed our fortune over an hour.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by barry
Well arent you the bee's knees. How about some predictions for the rest of this season Nostrodarmus. Predicting injuries would help too.

Here is a prediction - you'll continue to talk rubbish and troll!

If team A beats team B 150 to 140 it has a lot more inside 50's scoring shots, accuracy than if it beats it 80 to 70. But, the stats tell us a completely different story.

But the team that wins 80-70 has a better percentage and that is one of your key benchmarks. If a team beats last place by 20 points and another team beats the top team by 15 points, according to the ladder and percentage the former will probably be slightly ahead, but that's misleading.

If you win games, you get the good stats (marks, goals). When you lose you get the bad ones (tackles, clangers).

Rubbish. It's not always that way.

Also, what do you mean 'good stats' - you think marks are good and tackles are bad? Surely it's interdependent on other factors...

You take one week at a time. Form can change over a week. IN the last couple of years we've had defining games which have changed our fortune over an hour.

Ah, cliches - the fallback for someone without a coherent argument.

[liz]

Originally posted by Charlie
Umm, as much as I've talked up Mick in the past couple of weeks, players like Hird, Tarrant and Bruce should be compared with Hall, Goodes and Kirk, not Williams, O'Loughlin and Davis.

Fair's fair.

Are you serious?

Hird is in a class of his own amongst those players listed and Davis hasn't achieved enough, nor played consistently enough to be categorised with the others.

But surely O'Loughlin and Williams are at least the equals of Tarrant and Bruce, both in terms of natural talent and what they've achieved. I certainly wouldn't swap either of them for Tarrant, and would only consider it for Bruce due to his age and if I could put sentiment to one side.

[swansrock4eva]

Ok, Barry, Bloods - FINAL WARNING! Neither of you is going to convince the other that yours is the true way of light and happiness so keep the bitching off the boards!

[sharpie]

Jeez, this place is gonna get real quiet if they stop .

[giant]

Come on liz and Charlie - you need to step into the Bloods/Barry vaccum! Your club forum needs you!

[Charlie]

Originally posted by liz
Are you serious?

Hird is in a class of his own amongst those players listed and Davis hasn't achieved enough, nor played consistently enough to be categorised with the others.

But surely O'Loughlin and Williams are at least the equals of Tarrant and Bruce, both in terms of natural talent and what they've achieved. I certainly wouldn't swap either of them for Tarrant, and would only consider it for Bruce due to his age and if I could put sentiment to one side.

You've misunderstood the point I was making.

For Essendon, missing Hird, Fletcher and Lloyd means missing their three best players. For Melbourne, missing Bruce, Neitz and White means missing their three best, as well. Missing Williams, Davis and O'Loughlin - as good as they are - doe not mean missing our best three.

I was commenting on the relative importance of the players listed to their respective clubs.

As an aside, though, I'd swap any player except Goodes and Hall for Cameron Bruce. He was well on his way to clinching the Brownlow by round 10 until he got hurt early in the year. Clearly in the top 25 players in the league.

[liz]

Originally posted by Charlie
Missing Williams, Davis and O'Loughlin - as good as they are - doe not mean missing our best three.

I was commenting on the relative importance of the players listed to their respective clubs.

It comes down to opinion as to who the best players for any team are. It is a defendable position that both O'Loughlin and Williams are in our top 3.

I will concede that even if O'Loughlin is in our "best 3 players" he is not in our "3 most important players". Williams is, in my view - probably number 2 after Hall. Goodes would be if he could consistently play at his 2003 level. Thus far this year he has fallen short of that level. Kirk, excellent player though he is, could be far more easily covered than Willo can.

You only had to watch the way the whole midfield unit had more purpose and zip last weekend against Freo with a (still rusty) Williams inserted, or think back to the SF against the Saints last year where the midfield disintegrated after Williams was injured.