One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on December 30, 2009, 03:30:54 PM
-
Statistics reveal Carlton great Brett Ratten the No.1 AFL player of decade
By John Clark
foxsports.com.au
December 30, 2009
Champion Data Top 20
1. Brett Ratten (66 games, 126.1 average points per game)
2. Nathan Buckley (138, 123.1)
3. Scott West (177, 116.9)
4. Peter Bell (186, 116.7)
5. Joel Bowden (207, 111.7)
6. Ben Cousins (170, 110.3)
7. Chris Judd (178, 110.0)
8. Nigel Lappin (152, 109.1)
9. Simon Black (225, 107.0)
10. Anthony Koutoufides (130, 106.8 )
11. Nick Dal Santo (168, 105.7)
12. Brent Harvey (215, 105.5)
13. Lenny Hayes (198, 105.1), Gary Ablett (168, 105.1)
15. Michael Voss (161, 104.8 )
16. Wayne Campbell (114, 104.2)
17. James Hird (143, 103.6)
18. Simon Goodwin (209, 103.1)
19. Adam Simpson (216, 102.8 )
20. Luke Power (216, 102.6) and Jimmy Bartel (157, 102.6)
While Michael Voss basks in being the No.1 player of the past decade according to the fans, numbers obtained by foxsports.com.au tell a very different story.
Figures from Champion Data, the AFL's official statistics provider, reveal Carlton accumulator Brett Ratten edged the likes of Voss, Nathan Buckley, Simon Black and James Hird to be crowned king of the 2000s.
The system that leads to a player's ranking for each game, treasured by insiders at AFL level, are endorsed by Swinburne University School of Mathematics.
The formula is weighted in favour of effective use of the ball and winning possession in contested situations.
Midfielders dominate the top 20 from round one, 2000, through to this year's grand final.
Ratten, who played 66 games in the decade, averaged 126.1 rankings points per match.
The current Blues coach edged Buckley, who averaged 123.1 points per game. That pair was well clear of seven-time Western Bulldogs best and fairest winner Scott West (116.9).
Peter Bell, the former North Melbourne and Fremantle little man, was fourth with the impressive average of 116.7 points an outing with maligned Richmond utility Joel Bowden (111.7) rounding out the top five.
Ratten played the least amount of games across the decade of the leading 20 players while the incredibly consistent Black (107.0) notched the most with 225.
James Hird, runner-up to Voss in the foxsports.com.au poll to find the leading player of the past 10 years, came in 17th (103.6).
Wayne Carey played 65 games of his illustrious career in the 'noughties' and slotted in at No.39. Nick Riewoldt was the top-ranked key forward at No.27, clear of Matthew Lloyd (No.44) and Warren Tredrea (No.50).
Of the ruckmen, the much-travelled Peter Everitt averaged 99.6 points in his 159 appearances to be 35th on the list. Fellow big men Luke Darcy (96.7), Brad Ottens (95.5) and Dean Cox (93.8 ) followed.
Cool Cat Darren Milburn (101.8 ) was minister of defence this decade. Collingwood dasher Heath Shaw (97.7) and Dustin Fletcher (95.2) were next best of the backmen.
The Formula
There are a total of 57 individual statistics categories where the computer attributes either a positive or negative value.
Several of these categories, such as `marks from opposition kicks' ranking points, are derived from the computer linking a series of composite statistics.
Champion Data does not reveal their full rankings system but here is a sample of what we can tell you.
A player scores four rankings points for each effective long kick.
If the long kick goes to a teammate for an uncontested possession, research shows this is very valuable for the team and the computer adds five rankings points to the players tally.
Effective short kicks are less than 40 metres that result in uncontested possession to a teammate. The computer also adds four rankings points for these.
Clanger kicks are when the kick goes down the throat of the opposition and the computer deducts eight rankings points from the players tally because this hurts the team badly.
Ineffective kicks occur most often where players kick short to a contest and the computer ignores these by giving a zero rankings value.
A goal receives eight ranking points in addition to the four ranking points for the effective kick, and the points awarded for the possession type resulting in the kick and goal.
Another example of weighing in favour of game breaking statistic is contested marking. A contested mark results in four rankings points to the player.
A contested mark from an opposition kick is very important and the computer adds eight rankings points for these.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,26536830-23211,00.html
-
I'm afraid this article is more of an indictment on an over-reliance on stats and less of an acclaim for the likes of Bowden.
That list is a joke.
-
in some cases it's really the Champion Data top 20 Ball hogs.
-
Truth in jest Ox. All 20 are midfielders. Really a best 20 for dreamteams.
My actual top 20 would come from:
Voss
Hird
J.Brown
Cousins
Judd
S.Black
Ablett
Rucciuto
Goodes
Buckley
Richo
B.Harvey
B.Johnson
Bartel
Lloyd
N.Riewoldt
Crawford
C.Cornes
Scarlett
Lappin
-
Further proof that Bowden was underrated.
-
I don't think anyone can deny that Joel was a prolific ball gatherer, the question on Joel was whether he played in the team way.
Over his whole career I am more in the pro Joel camp but in the last few years I do think that RFC needed to develop another option when bringing the ball out of the backline. This was mainly due to the way the game evolved into a fast rebounding attacking style from the backline. I don't think the way the game evolved suited Joel's method of play.
However when we look at some of the alternatives we had available;
- Raines: either got smashed, kicked long bombs, or put teamates under shocking pressure
- Rance: love the way he attacks the ball but I can barely look when he disposes of the ball
- Polo: looks absolutely buggered when he gets the ball and looks lucky to dish a handball off
- McMahon: is a quicky rebounding defender with high kicking efficiency however has gotten bagged big time for his one strength and doesn't stand a chance with his other obvious deficencies
- King: very questionable disposal
At least when joel had the ball I could always rest easy in knowing the ball would not be turned over. However in the last few years this was tempered with also knowing that our forwards 50's would be reduced as 18 opponents would be in our forward line by the time the ball got in there.
-
- Polo: looks absolutely buggered when he gets the ball and looks lucky to dish a handball off
We must go to different games.
-
I don't think anyone can deny that Joel was a prolific ball gatherer, the question on Joel was whether he played in the team way.
Very good player JB in a poo team.
-
Richard Taylor recruiter
- anlaysed each kick for over 100 players as they thought champion data not sufficient
:eyebrow
http://www.yellowandblack.com.au/forum/showpost.php?p=290489&postcount=21
-
I don't think anyone can deny that Joel was a prolific ball gatherer, the question on Joel was whether he played in the team way.
Very good player JB in a poo team.
And forced to play at the wrong end of the ground for him due to our poor planning and recruiting regarding KPPs especially hardly any key defenders in readiness to replace Gas and Chubba. I wouldn't have Joel in the top of the decade but agree Magic - a good footballer in a crap team which supporters expected to make up for dud teammates around him.
-
Don't know whether this is the place to say this but have you ever added up the scores (total) for each team in supercoach (heraldsun) , it always adds up to the same score, Always. How can this be? The scores must get rationalized which I feel is effectively rigged. Surely if both teams scores have to add up to a certain score , some players in some sides will be disadvantaged which leads me to the point about champion data, am I right in saying they supply supercoach?
-
supporters expected to make up for dud teammates around him.
This has been a very real problem for several of our best players over the years and a big reason that they've been the brunt of criticism.
Campbell & Richardson are others who've worn supporter frustration. Problem is these guys can't do it all by themselves.
We just haven't had the depth of quality in our best 22 to support them.
-
Don't know whether this is the place to say this but have you ever added up the scores (total) for each team in supercoach (heraldsun) , it always adds up to the same score, Always. How can this be?
Easy, it doesn't
1. St Kilda 867,431 $12,888,100 1,833 39,817
2. Geelong 958,864 $12,940,100 2,049 39,667
3. Western Bulldogs 552,117 $12,099,500 1,855 37,565
4. Collingwood 749,366 $13,668,200 1,446 37,490
5. Carlton 874,170 $14,152,800 1,552 37,308
6. Adelaide 456,542 $12,312,600 1,744 37,275
7. Sydney 336,604 $12,648,300 1,623 36,575
8. Essendon 509,412 $13,484,400 1,738 36,381
9. Brisbane 614,657 $12,303,300 1,677 35,880
10. North Melbourne 549,127 $13,167,700 1,796 35,816
11. Richmond 533,017 $13,959,100 1,357 35,043
12. Hawthorn 817,802 $12,870,600 1,569 34,926
13. Port Adelaide 359,897 $11,826,000 1,505 34,921
14. West Coast 461,500 $13,603,900 1,942 34,493
15. Fremantle 539,371 $12,575,300 1,252 33,962
16. Melbourne 506,276 $13,404,100 1,472 33,862
-
Sorry Infamy I didn't explain myself well enough, I'm talking about each individual games points the total of the two teams points combined always equals within 10 of 3300, how can this be shouldn't the scoring be open ended? Check it out every game always adds up to 3300 or within 10 of. It doesn't matter which team versus which team the scores of both teams add up to 3300
-
Sorry Infamy I didn't explain myself well enough, I'm talking about each individual games points the total of the two teams points combined always equals within 10 of 3300, how can this be shouldn't the scoring be open ended? Check it out every game always adds up to 3300 or within 10 of. It doesn't matter which team versus which team the scores of both teams add up to 3300
Easy, as I said before, it doesn't
The column second from the right is the team score in Round 22, you can see that the teams combined score doesn't reflect their opponents. It also ranges from 1250 to 2050, that's a pretty massive gap.
-
Rd 22 WCE V RICH WCE 1942 Rich 1357 TOTAL 3299..... GEEL vFREO GEEL 2049 FREO 3301 TOTAL 3301 ...... HAW v ESS HAW1569 ESS 1738 TOTAL 3307 ..... CARL v ADEL CARL 1552 ADEL 1744 TOTAL 3296........ If you check every match of every round you will find that the players points score for both sides adds up to within 10 points of 3300.
-
Dogged could you please link to these stats, I'm curious to have a look at what you say?
-
Round 22 2009: Sydney 1623 + Brisbane 1738 = 3361
I agree it does seem to happen a lot but I'd suggest its a statistical anomoly. Probably to do with the fact that there is a fixed amount of game time (nothing generally happens in time on to generate stats) and either one team has the ball and will generate points for doing something with it or vice versa. Perhaps the points for stats have been weighted around a number such as 3300 but it seems rather arbitrary. I would be interesting to go back in time to compare previous seasons given there is so many more possessions in a game compared to even 4-5 years ago.
-
Check again infamy syd 1623 bris 1677 TOTAL 3300. You were looking at ess score. I am telling you it ALWAYS adds up to within 10 of 3300,and how can this be?
-
Al , infamy has got rd 22 scores on this thread. Some of my mates and me have been checking for two years. How can every game do this the scoring of players should be open ended for it to be completely fair. If Ablett scores 400 then so beit his score should not be rounded down nor should player B who gets -56 be rounded up .
-
so Bowden is better then Judd and Black?
what a load of sh*t!
seriously!
>:(
-
I am telling you it ALWAYS adds up to within 10 of 3300,and how can this be?
Champion Data Rankings: how come every match adds up to 3,300 points?
Before 2004 we simply allocated a set number of points for each statistic, something like the Dream Team formula but with qualitative stats, such as effective kicks (+4), ineffective kicks (0) and clanger kicks (-6). Those base points had been refined through research by Swinburne University on the most important factors in winning a game of football. Over the years we have continued to test them and made minor tweaks and additions as the game evolves and we collect more information about each match.
From 2004 we decided to take “situational” information into account. The research shows that you win more matches by making quality decisions near goal, and when the match is in the balance. For each action in the match, the computer uses a multiplier which involves the position on the field and a “pressure factor” based on the margin and the time left. The pressure factor is basically the effect a player can have on his team’s winning chances by doing the right thing at that time – a game-winning goal is given the highest multiplier, while a handball on the wing when his team is already 80 points ahead gets scaled down.
Once all the numbers are in, we “normalise” them so that the total is 3,300. Each player is given a slice of the pie, in proportion to his total weighted ranking points. This lets us measure a player’s contribution to a match regardless of its speed or overall quality. For SuperCoach it means that Sydney players are worth considering on a level playing field with Bulldogs, even though there are fewer possessions in their matches. It also means that there is no inflation as the game continues to speed up, and a player’s 150 today is as dominant of a total match as 150 was five years ago regardless of game styles and trends.
• Where does 3,300 come from?
o The average match from 2001 to 2003 had about 3,300 points. If we looked at raw base numbers these days, they would have gradually increased just like Dream Team points.
• Not adding up to exactly 3,300?
o Rounding can vary this.
• What’s an average score?
o 3,300 / 44 = 75, so 100+ indicates a good game. 150 means he’s done the job of two average players.
• Someone had 50 points at half time and didn’t come back on the field. How did he finish with only 40? Or 60?
o The normalisation has the effect of concentrating points around the times when the result was decided as one team took control. At half time the computer assumes 1,650 points have been allocated. But if one team has already run away with the match, points from the first half will continue to scale up as a proportion of the pie. Conversely if the match is won very late, points from earlier are scaled down.
http://forum.sportal.com.au/viewthread.aspx?t=54461
-
Sounds like a steaming pile of schit.
-
Nothing to lose sleep over and I can see what they are trying to do by trying to even out eras so there's some ability to compare. However isn't a 45 possie freak game from Ablett jnr still not more worthy than say a 35 possie game from someone 5-10 years ago?!!
-
Just a quick question Does supercoach take into account what your opponent does?
-
Just a quick question Does supercoach take into account what your opponent does?
It would be very difficult to work out for midfielders if they do given all the rotations. Half the time the players and coaches themselves admit they don't know who is on who directly in the midfield. Only at the bookends can you easily see which backman is on which forward.