Player Watch #34: Jack Graham - MOVED TO WCE - PICK 42 Received

[TigerImposter]

Deledio 110w 128 losses in his time at Richmond. 46% win rate.

Overall during his career Richmond went 114w 148l. 44% win rate.

Without Deledio Richmond went 4w 20l. 17% win rate.

So there was a big difference in the win rate with and without Deledio. But when he left after 2016, Richmond added Prestia, Caddy, Nankervis, Bolton, Graham, then the next year Baker and Bolton, as well as debuting Butler in 2017, and players like Lambert, Castagna, Broad finding their feet at AFL level. So the sides Deledio played in were a lot lot different to those Richmond fielded after he departed.

Similarly we could go from strength to strength if we released Graham and added several important players and several other existing players came good at the same time. But this does not in any way establish he has not generally improved the team when he has played up until now.

All known as variables, but only a small percentage of the total number of variables. You forgot to add Caracella and Balme.

 

[mauricerioli]

Number 1 for not finding the ball? haha

That’s why I said he can be dropped on form.

To say he’s overweight and unfit is incorrect.

 

[Wooden Robot]

He is not in his prime mate. He might only be 25 but he has the body of a 33-year-old with the bad shoulders x 2 hammy issues and now turf toe and general wear and tear and he ain’t getting any faster plus the rules have made him almost obsolete. The once great tackling machine is now someone who struggles to get from contest to contest.

All very true.
And the way we play is a reason why many of our players have lingering injury worries and seem to miss every four weeks.

 

[tora tora tora]

What I have provided is 100% factual. You may draw different inferences than I do from those facts but they are facts nonetheless.

There is nothing questionable about "numbers and figures provided." They are a matter of easily accessible record.

Across Graham's career the team wins 66% of the games he plays and 60% of the games he misses.

Since the start of 2022 we win 58% when he plays and 29% when he doesn't play.

This year we have won 59% when he has played, and actually lose all 3 games he missed.


You may not like those facts, but you cannot deny they are facts. You may not think they prove Graham has improved the team when he has played, but these facts certainly do not lend themselves to him weakening the team when he has played.

I don't get why people are getting so upset over a few simple facts. I didn't make them up.

You are providing statistics. And as we well know 85% of statistics are made up on the spot

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You are providing statistics. And as we well know 85% of statistics are made up on the spot

You guys are nailing this.

In the absence of a coherent argument, when I am starting from a prejudiced position, I always look to create a propaganda war against the facts as well.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

All known as variables, but only a small percentage of the total number of variables. You forgot to add Caracella and Balme.

You are right here of course. You guys should be free to discuss known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns without living in fear of me forcing known knowns upon you.

 

[tunksy]

Stats. Circumstantial evidence at best.

There a many many reasons teams win or lose.

It’s way too basic to provide a percentage win loss with and without a player.

Literally gives you no insight besides if we win or lose. Far too basic.

 

[Harrison Bergeron]

Jack Graham Tiger Imposter?

 

[TigerImposter]

Jack Graham Tiger Imposter?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Stats. Circumstantial evidence at best.

There a many many reasons teams win or lose.

It’s way too basic to provide a percentage win loss with and without a player.

Literally gives you no insight besides if we win or lose. Far too basic.

But the principle is correct do you agree? In all normal circumstances, you select the players most likely to make to improve the performance of the team. As opposed to omitting players who increase the chances of the team performing better because their own performances don't please our circus-crowd senses.

If you agree with that principle then you have to ask yourself some questions. Is there a perfect correlation between performances that please our eyes more and performances that help the team win more? If there is no such correlation, then where do we start to look for answers other than:

a) results
b) what more informed people prefer, ie, the selectors?

Where you might demote a player for a dip in form where you have a viable alternative who is likely to improve the team's performance, the equation becomes a lot different when a suitable replacement is not available.

Don't be hoodwinked by Tiger Limp-poster and his cronies, Graham's presence within the team has been beneficial throughout his career, otherwise the selectors would not be selecting him. All I have done is locate some objective data that supports that perfectly sound conclusion. Also, don't be like Pleasedon'tbreed, who thinks a team full of quarterbacks, punters and wide receivers without any of those dudes that specialise in inconveniencing the opposition will win you everything.

You guys take Adelaide's supercoach win in the 2017 GF. The rest of us will take Richmond's 8 goal victory, on the scoreboard.

 

[Old M8]

But this does not in any way establish he has not generally improved the team when he has played up until now.

You’re right, so the win percentage crap means absolutely nothing like I was saying.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You’re right, so the win percentage crap means absolutely nothing like I was saying.

"win percentage crap." Lol, literally the most important thing in football.

 

[tora tora tora]

You are right here of course. You guys should be free to discuss known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns without living in fear of me forcing known knowns upon you.

thank you Donald

 

[Meteoric Rise]

thank you Donald

First time I have ever been called Donald...so it seems I've broken my Donald duck.

 

[Grrr]

But the principle is correct do you agree? In all normal circumstances, you select the players most likely to make to improve the performance of the team. As opposed to omitting players who increase the chances of the team performing better because their own performances don't please our circus-crowd senses.

If you agree with that principle then you have to ask yourself some questions. Is there a perfect correlation between performances that please our eyes more and performances that help the team win more? If there is no such correlation, then where do we start to look for answers other than:

a) results
b) what more informed people prefer, ie, the selectors?

Where you might demote a player for a dip in form where you have a viable alternative who is likely to improve the team's performance, the equation becomes a lot different when a suitable replacement is not available.

Don't be hoodwinked by Tiger Limp-poster and his cronies, Graham's presence within the team has been beneficial throughout his career, otherwise the selectors would not be selecting him. All I have done is locate some objective data that supports that perfectly sound conclusion. Also, don't be like Pleasedon'tbreed, who thinks a team full of quarterbacks, punters and wide receivers without any of those dudes that specialise in inconveniencing the opposition will win you everything.

You guys take Adelaide's supercoach win in the 2017 GF. The rest of us will take Richmond's 8 goal victory, on the scoreboard.

You used the same argument with Cumberland, we won more games without him. Well go figure. When Cumberland was playing, Lynch and Nank were out injured, Bolton was unsighted, Prestia awful.... et. we were awful, the coach quit. We have come good to a point because those players mentioned have all come good bar Lynch. Stuff all to do with Cumberland or in fact Graham, because there are 22 players in the side, two average players don't make jack of a difference in those games.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You used the same argument with Cumberland, we won more games without him. Well go figure. When Cumberland was playing, Lynch and Nank were out injured, Bolton was unsighted, Prestia awful.... et. we were awful, the coach quit. We have come good to a point because those players mentioned have all come good bar Lynch. Stuff all to do with Cumberland or in fact Graham, because there are 22 players in the side, two average players don't make jack of a difference in those games.

If two average players made no difference in certain games....then why are people on here arguing Graham should be dropped? What differece would it make?

Every player makes some difference. What it might be correct to say is it is often difficult to isolate what that difference is.

I would wager good money given a choice between the two, the team functions better with Graham in it than Cumberland. This is because those in the best position to judge, ie the selectors, select Graham and not Cumberland when the best 22 is available.

 

[Old M8]

"win percentage crap." Lol, literally the most important thing in football.

“He averages mid-teens possessions as a fat, slow inside mid that can’t actually play inside mid, but gee, look at his 66% personal win percentage, it’s the most important thing in football”

“We’d accept your first rounder and that Zak Butters with his pathetic 63% win ratio”

You’re having an absolute laugh

 

[TigerImposter]

If two average players made no difference in certain games....then why are people on here arguing Graham should be dropped? What differece would it make?

Every player makes some difference. What it might be correct to say is it is often difficult to isolate what that difference is.

I would wager good money given a choice between the two, the team functions better with Graham in it than Cumberland. This is because those in the best position to judge, ie the selectors, select Graham and not Cumberland when the best 22 is available.

Bc our argument is two upgrade the average players. You don’t reward mediocrity.

 

[TigerImposter]

“He averages mid-teens possessions as a fat, slow inside mid that can’t actually play inside mid, but gee, look at his 66% personal win percentage, it’s the most important thing in football”

“We’d accept your first rounder and that Zak Butters with his pathetic 63% win ratio”

You’re having an absolute laugh

He’s being that school kid brat. Meteoric Rise loves trolling threads with irrelevant stats , but he’s gone too far in here. It’s been fun as usual as for once I’m not getting the cuts . Lol

 

[Meteoric Rise]

“He averages mid-teens possessions as a fat, slow inside mid that can’t actually play inside mid, but gee, look at his 66% personal win percentage, it’s the most important thing in football”

“We’d accept your first rounder and that Zak Butters with his pathetic 63% win ratio”

You’re having an absolute laugh

The reason you think that is because you don't even understand what I am saying. Because I have never argued a player with a higher win percentage is automatically better than a player with a lower win percentage.

If you want to discuss it, go back to the table that I posted in post #2822 on this thread that shows the team win % differences for each player in question in 2 samples, when they did play, and when they did not play. If you want to discuss the value of that, discuss away, I will talk to you about it all day and night until we get to the bottom of the value of such analysis.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Bc our argument is two upgrade the average players. You don’t reward mediocrity.

Who are you "upgrading" Graham to?

 

[TigerImposter]

Who are you "upgrading" Graham to?

Any player that can have future long term success in the team creating play and opponents have to stop. That’s how the team gets better.
JH has really replaced JGTIsn’t and we’re too slow with both in the team . I want a player in like Brown so opponents can be running and sprinting hard chasing him all day. JGTI favourite Disney story as a boy was The Tortoise and the Hare. In real life on a football field it’s mostly untrue especially for blokes his size.

 

[tigers12]

God there is some useless stats on here about graham I give you a stat my stat is he has been ****ing shithouse for nearly 2 years

 

[Old M8]

The reason you think that is because you don't even understand what I am saying. Because I have never argued a player with a higher win percentage is automatically better than a player with a lower win percentage.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying. No one gives a flying duck about Jack Grahams win percentage.

He is not playing well, he needs to be a lot better than he is.

 

[Grrr]

Becauwe

If two average players made no difference in certain games....then why are people on here arguing Graham should be dropped? What differece would it make?

Every player makes some difference. What it might be correct to say is it is often difficult to isolate what that difference is.

I would wager good money given a choice between the two, the team functions better with Graham in it than Cumberland. This is because those in the best position to judge, ie the selectors, select Graham and not Cumberland when the best 22 is available.

Because like every 'average' player, they should go and play VFL to get their game back to a higher level. I am not a basher of any player. I can see the good of Graham, but feel he is a better than average player when he is very, very fit and has continuity in his game. Right now he seems off the pace, which usually means out of form. He has been very good as that high forward Lambert type that runs up and down the line. But he is not getting the run and overlap that he used to. Injuries have slowed him down and it has affected his form. Needs to find that in the VFL. He is still a fair player, but not what he was in his prime.

Cumberland likewise has played just 3 VFL games. If he had played more I guarantee he would be a better player when he comes up to the higher level. That is what the VFL is for, and it has really hurt his game. He has some shortcomings that are easily fixed by putting his nose to the grindstone in the VFL. Right now, give the state of the year, maybe keep him in because he has been up and down like a yo-yo. Give him some games and tell him he is being backed in for a few games and see what happens. He has plenty of talent that we need.

But neither of these players are influencing matches. Of course Graham is more valuable than Cumberland, he is a seasoned veteran and adds pressure etc while Cumberland adds moments. But right now Richmond need to try some new players in his position. Banks, Tresize, Brown to the wing, Ross to half forward. Coultard maybe because he looks all class to me, might even be better than Clarke right now. Bauer for Ryan... I hate seeing the same names pencilled in every week no matter what, especially given how poor we were last week.