No Oppo Supporters 2016 General AFL Discussion Part 2 (Sydney Posters Only)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
What a champ!

Screen_Shot_2016_10_25_at_6_03_03_PM.png
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Hrmm... I'm not overly smart however the Avg player rating system sounds a little off to me.

View attachment 307740

Can someone smarter than me explain how you can have noone rated better than 298 however end up with an avg player rating of 297???

Hahaha
 
Hrmm... I'm not overly smart however the Avg player rating system sounds a little off to me.

View attachment 307740

Can someone smarter than me explain how you can have noone rated better than 298 however end up with an avg player rating of 297???

They might be rating the entire list at 297, so the best player they lost was average and the rest below average. So they didn't lose any real talent.
 
They might be rating the entire list at 297, so the best player they lost was average and the rest below average. So they didn't lose any real talent.
I agree & that would make more sense but it's not how it initially reads IMO. It's all manipulation as to what they want to emphasise. The picture (Boomer) set it up before you even read about poor old lolnorf.
 
Hrmm... I'm not overly smart however the Avg player rating system sounds a little off to me.

View attachment 307740

Can someone smarter than me explain how you can have noone rated better than 298 however end up with an avg player rating of 297???
Can you make it a little bigger, i'm having trouble zooming in my screen so i can read it?
 
What they need to do is a whole lot of statistical analysis on what wins games. It's ability to score vs ability defend broadly. But what goes into scoring and what goes into defending.

What's the most critical aspect of scoring? Is it winning a ruck contest. Does winning a one on one lead to more points than cutting off an opposition attack and countering.

Are contested possessions more important in winning a game than uncontested possessions, and how do you objectively compare the two.

I think at present it's very much subjective based on available statistics. They probably looked at the best players in the league and what they excelled at, then created an algorithm that would see the best players score highly. It's obviously centred more around attack rather than defence.

It's a good starting point I guess but not exactly objective.
 
Are you being sarcastic (serious qstn)? It looks fine on my screen mate.
Nah, it was sarcasm (it's pretty much all i've got).

It's just huge on the screen.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Don't really rate the AFL player ratings anyway. Pretty sure Brent Harvey was still considered a top 10 player

He wasnt. May have been top 10 for his mid-fwd position, though, which is a small pool.

The ratings do a better job of including defensive/pressure stuff in their metrics than SuperCoach etc, but it's still the biggest weakness.

I looked at it in a bit of detail in a post earlier in the year - the main thing they capture is how likely one of your possessions is to lead to your team scoring a goal. Harvey still was good for that this year.
 
Putting a roof on the MCG would be like permanently putting the snapchat puppy filter on the Mona Lisa.

This is Australia, we tend to produce a mona lisa, then get bored of it, then think it needs an modern update it, add some garish colours and modern features and then end up making it worst.

The way melbourne is going all they need to do is make a ring of 100 story investor apartments on the outside of the mcg, grab some rope and tarps and presto cover it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top