Analysis Crows Player Ratings

Remove this Banner Ad

Bob Neil said:
It’s interesting that these ratings (both in general and in the match just gone) are favouring Rankine so heavily over Soligo.
Click to expand...
His disposals are super damaging I guess? Had 11 touches against Port for 3 goals and 2 goal assists, and was 4th for the team for metres gained despite having half the disposals of the rest of the top 5.
 
NSolis said:
His disposals are super damaging I guess? Had 11 touches against Port for 3 goals and 2 goal assists, and was 4th for the team for metres gained despite having half the disposals of the rest of the top 5.
Click to expand...

I do remember the Champion data guy on SEN mentioning a few weeks back that they've pushed to really punish inaccuracy in goal kicking in the ratings this year, so I think this damage thought is probably on the money.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Golumless said:
I do remember the Champion data guy on SEN mentioning a few weeks back that they've pushed to really punish inaccuracy in goal kicking in the ratings this year, so I think this damage thought is probably on the money.
Click to expand...
Surely punishing inaccurate goal kicking more should only be implemented if the amount of scoring from kick ins has increased
 
Scorpus said:
Surely punishing inaccurate goal kicking more should only be implemented if the amount of scoring from kick ins has increased
Click to expand...
Not that I definitively know this to be true but my understanding of the ratings is that if a player gets the ball in a position (e.g. close to goal) where the expected score is, say, four points but ends up only actually scoring a point then in effect their involvement has cost the team three points and so this is reflected in their player rating for the match.

Then repeat this for all of their involvements in the match (i.e. does each involvement the player has positively or negatively impact the xScore for us or our opponent at any given time) and you get their aggregate impact for the match. Whether this translates directly to rating points or if there is some other metric involved I'm not sure.
 
Bob Neil said:
It’s interesting that these ratings (both in general and in the match just gone) are favouring Rankine so heavily over Soligo.
Click to expand...
Rankine's scored a few goals straight from clearances or similarly contested ball. So he'll get the credit both for creating the chance and also converting it.

Bob Neil said:
Not that I definitively know this to be true but my understanding of the ratings is that if a player gets the ball in a position (e.g. close to goal) where the expected score is, say, four points but ends up only actually scoring a point then in effect their involvement has cost the team three points and so this is reflected in their player rating for the match.

Then repeat this for all of their involvements in the match (i.e. does each involvement the player has positively or negatively impact the xScore for us or our opponent at any given time) and you get their aggregate impact for the match. Whether this translates directly to rating points or if there is some other metric involved I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge (a combination of that absurdly long academic paper I linked earlier and "stuff I heard on the internet"), the ratings started from the theory that 1 rating point should be analogous to 1 point on the scoreboard. So if you add up all the player ratings of both sides and subtract the loser from the winner. It should match the margin. except for two things:
  1. There's obvious the points left over at the end of each quarter with no corresponding score
  2. The AFL and/or Champion Data seem to have made some changes based purely on vibes. eg. An effective handball can never score less than 0 rating points, even though by the algorithm it could be negative. (the famous backwards and sideways hospital handball)
Similarly in that missed goal example, they'd actually only lose 2.5 points. Due to getting credit for the one point scored, but also 0.5 points from the field position of the kick in.
 
1715505587920.png
Pure Class Ratio: Izak Rankine (0.25)
Quantity Over Quality: Daniel Curtin (-0.06)
1715505633710.png
 
1716018961000.png

Pure Class Ratio: Lachlan Murphy (0.27)
Quantity Over Quality: Ben Keays (-0.03)

1716019035017.png
 
When was the last time Murphy had 15 rating points in a game? Felt like an unusually high impact game for him.
 
NSolis said:
When was the last time Murphy had 15 rating points in a game? Felt like an unusually high impact game for him.
Click to expand...
19.2 vs Sydney last year. Next best last year was 14.

It was an unusual amongst his better games though. Because he did all his good work outside the contest. Getting on the scoresheet and 3 goal assists help (+ setting up a horrendous Keays shank).

Normally his better games are noted by clearances and high percentage of contested possessions.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Last edited:
NSolis said:
When was the last time Murphy had 15 rating points in a game? Felt like an unusually high impact game for him.
Click to expand...
Very, very good in the first half. I'd keep him for next week, but on a short leash if he doesn't perform
 
FR0GGY said:
What don’t they value, for max to be so low?
I know he doesn’t get a lot of it but he doesn’t make a mistake very often.
Click to expand...
There's a known weakness in the ratings with purely defensive roles (shutdown defenders and taggers) which is probably whats at play here. Most of his good work is keeping other players (and himself in the process) out of the contest.

skimming the stats. Most of Michelanney's possessions are uncontested, and low metres gained (he's had multiple games with zero "rebound 50s" despite playing deep in defense). People have made the comment his disposal has been a bit sketchy at times this year too.

Compared to someone like Keane, a defensive player who is well represented in the rankings, he takes relatively few contested marks and his "1%'er" count is way lower.
 
ABAB said:
But he already didn't perform in the 2nd half (only had 3 possessions) when the side was still in the contest so it wasn't like he didn't have the opportunity to perform.
Click to expand...
Quiet second half, but still a solid game on the whole. If that was Murphy's game every week he'd be worth a spot in the team. Problem is he tends to go missing for entire games as well.
 
1717321273885.png

Pure Class Ratio: Brayden Cook (0.36)
Quantity Over Quality: Taylor Walker (-0.09)

1717321305366.png
 
1717678075180.png
Pure Class Ratio: Ben Keays (0.30)
Quantity Over Quality: Billy Dowling (0.04)
1717678175274.png
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Analysis Crows Player Ratings

Similar threads

arrowman
Competitions Crows Player Wordle!
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Scorpus
Scorpus
John Who
Top 10 Crows in relation to BnF top-5 ratings
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Kane McGoodwin
Kane McGoodwin
The Dr
Podcast Historic Crows podcast
Replies
9
Views
272
SugarShane
SugarShane
screech
Opinion Non-Crows AFL 11
84 85 86 87 88
Replies
2K
Views
77K
jackster83
jackster83
S
Powerful Player Agents
Replies
8
Views
430
Coopers
Coopers
DroppingTheBall
Universal Love Primary nicknames of current Crows AFL list players
2 3
Replies
63
Views
5K
FR0GGY
FR0GGY
pluggerbangerlennylover
Video Highlights Lots of Full Crows Matches
Replies
0
Views
184
pluggerbangerlennylover
pluggerbangerlennylover

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top