AFL Player # 3: Darcy Parish

[Beerfish]

Contract Status: Unrestricted free agent 2028 or 2029
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 18, doug85

 

[boncer34]

Beerfish can I post my cats playing ping pong gif again?

 

[MiguelM]

Someone mentions he's not damaging and his chief fanboi comes in and provides... Stats with no context.

He's good at clearances. How high are his score involvements due to the fact that he has a s**t ton of possessions? He gets 6.6 SI out of 31.4 touches, or 21% of his touches. Merrett does the same amount from 28 touches, Langford 6.5 from 15, Martin 5.6 from 22. All three are far more damaging than Parish.

Let's compare those score involvements per touch to the best mids in the league this year (Butters, Rozee, Petracca, Bont). Rozee 6.7 per 25.6 disposals or 26% of his disposals, Butters 6.5 per 26.4 or 25% of his touches, Petracca 8.8 out of 28.4 disposals or 30% of his touches and Bont 7.4 out of 27.4, or 26% of his touches.

So when I say not damaging, it means that compared to the best midfielders in the league which the fan club always want to include him in, he's comparably nowhere near it. He's a second tier mid that some Essendon fans think is in the top tier.

As far as effective disposals go, any kick over 40m that isn't a direct intercept is automatically counted as effective. So if he kicks it to a 3-on-1 45 metres away, it gets spoiler and the Oppo crumb it it still counts as an effective disposal because technically the contest he kicked it to was halved. And again, is it that high because he gets a s**t ton of possessions? Highly likely.

You talk about context, well, can you tell me what % of time spent in forward half for Langers, Bont & Pretracca compared to Parish?

Clutching at straws. Fact is Parish makes us a better side by miles and there is not a trade that will currently give us more value.

Yeah, I would swap Parish for Butters, Rozee or Bont but aint happening.

 

[TheGrizz]

Someone mentions he's not damaging and his chief fanboi comes in and provides... Stats with no context.

He's good at clearances. How high are his score involvements due to the fact that he has a s**t ton of possessions? He gets 6.6 SI out of 31.4 touches, or 21% of his touches. Merrett does the same amount from 28 touches, Langford 6.5 from 15, Martin 5.6 from 22. All three are far more damaging than Parish.

So Merrett and Parish get involved in as many scores as each other (woth only a 3 disposal difference per game)
You trading Merrett as well? Not damaging enough?

Of course Langford (a forward) and Martin (an attacking wingman) would have better percentage, they would have to by design and virtue of wher ethey get the ball.
Ridley has 2.65 score involvements per game for 20 disposals (so 10%). Therefore, he isn't damaging enough for you?

Or is there a folly to comparing percentage stats across positions?

Let's compare those score involvements per touch to the best mids in the league this year (Butters, Rozee, Petracca, Bont). Rozee 6.7 per 25.6 disposals or 26% of his disposals, Butters 6.5 per 26.4 or 25% of his touches, Petracca 8.8 out of 28.4 disposals or 30% of his touches and Bont 7.4 out of 27.4, or 26% of his touches.

So when I say not damaging, it means that compared to the best midfielders in the league which the fan club always want to include him in, he's comparably nowhere near it. He's a second tier mid that some Essendon fans think is in the top tier.

Let's be clear.
I have never - ever- said that Parish is in that mould of player. And I can't recall anyone posting as such. That is a made up argument in your own head.

But let's follow that logic, so he isnt as good as the best 5 mids in the comp (Bont, Butters, Petracca, Rozee) therefore we should trade him?
Like is your logic that if they aren't as good as those guys then trade him and draft someone who is? If only it was that easy.

Parish will never be those players, nor can I recall one post that says he would be from anyone. But for every Bont there is a Libba and Macrae, for every Rozee and Butters there is a Wines, for every Petracce there is a Viney and Brayshaw, for every Pendlebury there is a Taylor Adams. Those guys don't get let go for a middling first round pick.

Parish, statistically and in talent, is the equal of all those other guys. He can easily be an Uber talented right hand man to Merrett provided the right mix is around him (which we had earlier in the year with Setterfield and Caldwell both fit).

You dont just trade 26yo AA caliber midfielders for pick 12-15 in a 10 player draft, particularly when you have 2m in cap space anyway. At least good clubs dont.

As far as effective disposals go, any kick over 40m that isn't a direct intercept is automatically counted as effective. So if he kicks it to a 3-on-1 45 metres away, it gets spoiler and the Oppo crumb it it still counts as an effective disposal because technically the contest he kicked it to was halved. And again, is it that high because he gets a s**t ton of possessions? Highly likely.

So if it so easy to get a high effective disposal stat, how come he still leads the team despite not being damaging?
Like you might think it's a rubbish stat, but the fact you say he isn't damaging and he leads the stat is of significance due to its relativity to the rest of the team.

 

[cAsEy_18]

Yeah there's a middle ground.

Comparisons to Bont, Petracca, Rozee, Butters types are silly. They are genuinely the best players in the game. No-one is saying Parish is that level (or if they are, then that is also silly).

Doesn't mean we're a better team without Parish. It's all to do with the fit and balance. Find the right mix of guys in the midfield, that includes Parish, so we have a balance of defensiveness, a balance of size, a balance of good usage, and Parish is a huge asset then. Sure, it'd be nice if Parish did all those things as well, but if he did he'd win 6 straight Brownlows. Need to balance looking at what a guys strengths are and what he brings to the table vs what his limitations are. Far too much one-eyed (both ways) going on here, with stats to prove he's either apparently incredible or a liability. There's an in between.

 

[boncer34]

 

[Vindicater]

 

[faible]

Yeah there's a middle ground.

Comparisons to Bont, Petracca, Rozee, Butters types are silly. They are genuinely the best players in the game. No-one is saying Parish is that level (or if they are, then that is also silly).

Doesn't mean we're a better team without Parish. It's all to do with the fit and balance. Find the right mix of guys in the midfield, that includes Parish, so we have a balance of defensiveness, a balance of size, a balance of good usage, and Parish is a huge asset then. Sure, it'd be nice if Parish did all those things as well, but if he did he'd win 6 straight Brownlows. Need to balance looking at what a guys strengths are and what he brings to the table vs what his limitations are. Far too much one-eyed (both ways) going on here, with stats to prove he's either apparently incredible or a liability. There's an in between.

I don't think anyone is really arguing we're a better team tomorrow without Parish, just that it allows us the opportunity to rebalance the midfield with a player who'll generate a high trade / FA return;

I would say that if you compare a Parish to a Jobe Watson; Parish is elite at winning contested possession from things like looseball-gets and gathers from a hit-out. Jobe was elite at hardball-gets.

Due to Parish's skillset, and role, he's able to win a lot of contested possessions and clearances by doing what he's good at - running offensively from stoppages and reading the ball quickly. He's also not a player who is a strong defensive runner.

The problem is, pretty much every other midfielder we have is also good at the looseball-gets and gathers from a hit-out method of winning clearances and contested possessions, but not hardball-gets.

For the sake of list balance, Parish is the one that would net an extremely high trade return, and opens up a hole for a player like Hobbs who is a hardball-get type winner, that also has a better balance of defensive running.

Undoubtedly Parish is a good midfielder, and you don't let them go lightly, but if you're trying to revamp the midfield to be one that will win the ball in big moments in hotly contested games, Parish is the piece with the most trade value that opens up a hole for other players on the list to potentially fill.

No one is arguing that whoever we draft in 2023 is the Parish replacement, they're arguing that a combination of Hobbs, Caldwell, Perkins & Tsatas can replace Parish's midfield minutes and provide a different balance to our midfield.

 

[eth-dog]

So Merrett and Parish get involved in as many scores as each other (woth only a 3 disposal difference per game)
You trading Merrett as well? Not damaging enough?

Of course Langford (a forward) and Martin (an attacking wingman) would have better percentage, they would have to by design and virtue of wher ethey get the ball.
Ridley has 2.65 score involvements per game for 20 disposals (so 10%). Therefore, he isn't damaging enough for you?

Or is there a folly to comparing percentage stats across positions?

Let's be clear.
I have never - ever- said that Parish is in that mould of player. And I can't recall anyone posting as such. That is a made up argument in your own head.

But let's follow that logic, so he isnt as good as the best 5 mids in the comp (Bont, Butters, Petracca, Rozee) therefore we should trade him?
Like is your logic that if they aren't as good as those guys then trade him and draft someone who is? If only it was that easy.

Parish will never be those players, nor can I recall one post that says he would be from anyone. But for every Bont there is a Libba and Macrae, for every Rozee and Butters there is a Wines, for every Petracce there is a Viney and Brayshaw, for every Pendlebury there is a Taylor Adams. Those guys don't get let go for a middling first round pick.

Parish, statistically and in talent, is the equal of all those other guys. He can easily be an Uber talented right hand man to Merrett provided the right mix is around him (which we had earlier in the year with Setterfield and Caldwell both fit).

You dont just trade 26yo AA caliber midfielders for pick 12-15 in a 10 player draft, particularly when you have 2m in cap space anyway. At least good clubs dont.

So if it so easy to get a high effective disposal stat, how come he still leads the team despite not being damaging?
Like you might think it's a rubbish stat, but the fact you say he isn't damaging and he leads the stat is of significance due to its relativity to the rest of the team.

Merrett is more damaging, he gets 10% fewer disposals for the same amount of SI... And he's probably the 6th or 7th best mid in the game.

Okay, the Langford comparison was harsh but comparing a purely offensive mid to a purely offensive winger is a bad comparison? Seriously?

Made up argument? He's a second tier mid (which is a ****ing high standard) and yet any time anyone dates criticise him you jump up and down waving your arms around as if he's a top 5 mid in the game.

Oh so you want him to be those guys? Great, so do I, but he isn't. He's better offensively than a few of them but the difference is they don't pick and choose when to work defensively. Caldwell and Hobbs will be our guys in that regard.

I'd trade Parish because in terms of value he's the most likely to nab us quality without affecting us as much on field.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Yeah there's a middle ground.

Comparisons to Bont, Petracca, Rozee, Butters types are silly. They are genuinely the best players in the game. No-one is saying Parish is that level (or if they are, then that is also silly).

Doesn't mean we're a better team without Parish. It's all to do with the fit and balance. Find the right mix of guys in the midfield, that includes Parish, so we have a balance of defensiveness, a balance of size, a balance of good usage, and Parish is a huge asset then. Sure, it'd be nice if Parish did all those things as well, but if he did he'd win 6 straight Brownlows. Need to balance looking at what a guys strengths are and what he brings to the table vs what his limitations are. Far too much one-eyed (both ways) going on here, with stats to prove he's either apparently incredible or a liability. There's an in between.

forget all of that IMO.

If Parish improved his kicking and tackling/defensive pressure alone, he'd be the AA captain for the next 5 years.

The kid is an absolute gun and the stuff he needs to improve to be counted as one of the best players in the game can be taught.

The question is, is he capable of pushing himself to be better in areas he is lacking.

IMO i'd love to keep him, but if he's demanding elite money, when he isn't an elite player. Then he we need to part ways.

 

[TheGrizz]

Made up argument? He's a second tier mid (which is a ******* high standard) and yet any time anyone dates criticise him you jump up and down waving your arms around as if he's a top 5 mid in the game.

Point me to one post where I have said he is a top 5 mid in the game.
You can't? so yeah, that's a made up argument.

I dont have a problem with people saying he is a tier below those guys - like I said that's true.

But you don't just say that.
The comments you post (including that I quoted originally) is that he is a stat hound who isnt at all damaging, and that he is only doing it in contract years, and that you would get rid of him at all costs.
Which, objectively, just doesn't hold up.

 

[donlav99]

Merrett is more damaging, he gets 10% fewer disposals for the same amount of SI... And he's probably the 6th or 7th best mid in the game.

Okay, the Langford comparison was harsh but comparing a purely offensive mid to a purely offensive winger is a bad comparison? Seriously?

Made up argument? He's a second tier mid (which is a ******* high standard) and yet any time anyone dates criticise him you jump up and down waving your arms around as if he's a top 5 mid in the game.

Oh so you want him to be those guys? Great, so do I, but he isn't. He's better offensively than a few of them but the difference is they don't pick and choose when to work defensively. Caldwell and Hobbs will be our guys in that regard.

I'd trade Parish because in terms of value he's the most likely to nab us quality without affecting us as much on field.

spot on.

 

[andleanback]

Stats don't lie.

Not sure how he became the whipping boy. Our first genuine AA in a decade and people want to start again with an unknown.

Some just don't know footy me thinks.

Our first genuine all in a decade ? Ah Zach merrett

 

[andleanback]

* me.

So because Parish is not better than the best player in the game he is s**t?

Kinda missing the point of the arguement

 

[Westlo]

Hope he goes to geelong, stars and wins a premiership because we certainly don’t deserve him.

Maybe when the best run team of the last 20 years wants a player it might be smart to keep them.

I’m also positive the parish can F off crowd will be the loudest calling him scum for leaving as well.

 

[eth-dog]

Hope he goes to geelong, stars and wins a premiership because we certainly don’t deserve him.

Maybe when the best run team of the last 20 years wants a player it might be smart to keep them.

I’m also positive the parish can F off crowd will be the loudest calling him scum for leaving as well.

Not me. The only ones I genuinely did that for were Ryder (for lying), McPhee (for waiting until after trade period to leave and Saad (for going there)

 

[Milanista28]

Hope he goes to geelong, stars and wins a premiership because we certainly don’t deserve him.

Maybe when the best run team of the last 20 years wants a player it might be smart to keep them.

I’m also positive the parish can F off crowd will be the loudest calling him scum for leaving as well.

Hope this happens as well.

 

[andleanback]

Hope he goes to geelong, stars and wins a premiership because we certainly don’t deserve him.

Maybe when the best run team of the last 20 years wants a player it might be smart to keep them.

I’m also positive the parish can F off crowd will be the loudest calling him scum for leaving as well.

They haven’t even been pushing for him hard. Like if they were actually courting him hard, it would be on every news hounds lips. It hasn’t even been rumored if they’ve put a compelling offer towards him.
And the interest in darcy starts at
1. They chase every out of contract former geelong area boy
2. He’s a free agent, so they don’t have to give up capital.

It’s not because they see something in darcy, that we somehow are missing. He’s a good mid from the area that could be aquired without giving up trade capital. It’s not like they’re going after him like cameron or dangerfield.

 

[The Devils Advocate]

Some just don't know footy me thinks.

Ding ding ding.
The Stanton and Parish bashers are the same people. Just don't know a thing about footy.

 

[donlav99]

Ding ding ding.
The Stanton and Parish bashers are the same people. Just don't know a thing about footy.

Aligning Stanton and Parish only strengthens the anti-parish argument.

 

[boncer34]

I'm sure someone said it early but the reality is both sides have merit. Parish does make us a better team but at the same time trading him does give us assets to use to fix our team balance.

 

[Mercurial89]

I'm sure someone said it early but the reality is both sides have merit. Parish does make us a better team but at the same time trading him does give us assets to use to fix our team balance.

It's been said multiple times by multiple people.

Instead those comments are ignored and we get the constant back and forth arguments with both sides seizing on inane things in each other's posts.
Bloody tiresome.
Good player can be good whilst also opportunity to get better as a team if they leave. Perfectly acceptable stance.
Instead we are getting comparisons to players who aren't out of contract (Merrett) and the best players in the comp.

It's moot anyway, he's going to re-sign with us and we will need to find a balance that works.

 

[bombreys]

Stats don't lie.

Not sure how he became the whipping boy. Our first genuine AA in a decade and people want to start again with an unknown.

Some just don't know footy me thinks.

The 'whipping boy' term gets thrown around far too often.

It seems like about half want to keep him and half don't.

And of the half that don't, most, if not all aren't saying he's a s**t footballer, just that he should get us a solid return and that he should be somewhat replaceable. If you could give Hobbs/Caldwell/Archie/Tstats/Etc. the midfield minutes Parish has had - plus we get a pick back, would you not think that's worth considering?

 

[andleanback]

Ding ding ding.
The Stanton and Parish bashers are the same people. Just don't know a thing about footy.

Hardly
Stanton was a good honest footballer. He never was a star and never got paid like a star, because he got the heap of the ball in poor sides, his errors used to stand out. Parish on the other hand is a different kettle of fish. Wanting parish to go, its not just about what he is as a player, is about the younger guys who will get the opportunity in his absence and the belief that they’ll create a better rounded midfield. It’s not that parish is a bad player, he’s a good midfielder, but do we need to pay him a long term deal? Or can we turn him into another young kid and have some extra salary cap room for the next couple of years to really target someone. Friday night gave a perfect window into the parish arguement, he played okay, got a lot of clearances but did nothing with them and allowed his direct opponent (libba) to do whatever the hell he wanted to do at stoppage and never thought to go and put any physical body on him and try to nullify. Or when the game was slipping go and put his head in the trenches for 10 minutes and really turn the tide.

 

[cAsEy_18]

What are people's thoughts on Parish?

 

[Beerfish]

What are people's thoughts on Parish?

His haircut has certainly improved.