Analysis A metric for Midfield Impact Factor

[bergholt]

It also works well for forwards (without going into too much detail - they tend to fluctuate more match to match, but the metric holds up ok generally) so how about this:
- Gary Ablett SR in 1993 played 17 games for an average score of 62.
- Plugger Lockett also managed a 61 in 17 games in 1995. He only bothered to lay 5 tackles for the year, too...
- Buddy Franklin had a 47.9 in 2008
- Harry McKay will likely win the Coleman but has a rating of 31.5. It's a seriously weak year for forwards.

Just on this - ranking forwards is pretty easy, isn't it? Scoreboard impact, maybe add assists if you want?

For instance: Goals * 6 + Behinds + Goal assists * 2

20: McKay, Walker
19: Franklin, Greene, J Cameron
18: Hawkins, Riewoldt
17: Taberner
16: JJ Kennedy, Hogan, Lynch (Rich), Bruce
15: B King, Naughton, Stringer
14: Fritsch, McDonald-Tipungwuti, Fantasia
13: J Elliott, C Cameron, Dixon, T McDonald, Papley, Hooker, Weightman
12: Darling, Garner, Rohan, Finlayson, Daniher, Betts, Georgiades, Allen
11: M King, Breust, Heeney, Ryan, Hipwood, Himmelberg, Lobb, Mihocek, Pickett, Membrey

I guess that's a bit biased against players in shit teams, if you want a completely objective measurement. Is Ben King's season better than Naughton's? Given the relative quality of the two sides maybe you have to say yes, I don't know.

 

[btdg]

Yeah interesting!

For 2021:

41: Steele, Bontempelli, Miller
40: Mitchell, Macrae, Petracca
39: Wines, Dunkley, Oliver
38: Walsh, Parish, Merrett, Laird
37: Keays
36: Greene, J Kelly, Cunnington, Lyons, Parker, Taranto
35: Crouch, Brayshaw, Stringer, Guthrie
34: Zorko, Mills, T Walker, Mundy, Treloar, Boak
33: Adams, Hopper, Liberatore, McCluggage, Dunstan, Franklin, Fyfe
32: Neale, Seedsman, Martin, Cripps, Bolton
31: Hawkins, Sheed, O'Meara, J Cameron, Duncan, Simpkin, Dangerfield, Crisp, Amon, T Kelly, McKay
30: Gaff, Selwood, Viney, McGrath, Harmes, J Lloyd, Bailey Smith

Eye test for mine:

- Steele and Miller too high, both very good but not absolute top echelon for mine
- Mitchell way too high
- Mitchell much higher than Stringer looks wrong, Stringer heaps more impact on games this year
- Macrae much higher than Libba looks wrong, both great but Libba much more impact
- Libba too low just because he doesn't get that much ball
- Laird probably too high
- Bolton too low imo

Overall just doesn't quite ring true for mine. Has the usual drawbacks of a disposals-based metric, that you get Tom Mitchell types way too high even though their impact isn't proportionate. Mitchell doesn't kick many goals, isn't outstanding in tackles, clearances, inside 50s - but averages 20 handballs a game so gets to be fourth ranked.

Interesting one but not for my personal taste.

I think it's only ever part of the story. And remember, it's looking at averages, and we only watch a proportion of the games... I think there is a tendency for us to overlook bad performances by players in good teams (ie: Libba, Dangerfield this year) and miss good performances by players in bad teams against other bad teams (ie: anything Mitchell has done this year, Steele, Miller until his 60 a couple of weeks ago got everyone talking).

To defend some specifics: Jack Steele is on pace for the fourth best season ever for tackles... while also contributing almost a goal per game, and winning the ball well. He's an absolute ripper IMO - Carlton would killl for someone who could lay 8 tackles in a match, let alone every week.

Liberatore vs Macrae? Libba has had quite a few below-par games this year: 22 vs Melbourne, 25 vs Sydney, 28 vs Brisbane, 29 vs Port. Interestingly - these are all against good teams, but to even be flirting with the 'Nick Graham line' suggests he isn't elite level. Macrae just has incredible consistency - hasn't dropped lower than a 34. Now... does Libba really have 'much more impact' when you look at those individual games? Maybe sometimes, but he's had some bad ones too. Libba is too low, because he simply doesn't play as well every week.

Similarly, Stringer vs Mitchell. Stringer can have an impact... and he can be very ordinary. Not sure if injured, but he had a 9 against GWS in one of Essendon's bad losses. He's dropped below the Nick Graham line on three other occasions. That's 4 very, very ordinary games out of 13.

Bolton is another: he's low on average because he has some very poor games. 12 vs Sydney. 16 vs St Kilda. 25 vs Gold Coast. three matches below the Nick Graham line, all in bad losses for Richmond... sorry, but you aren't being underrated if you play that badly 20% of the time. Give him a year or two to convert hose bad games into solid ones, and he'll rocket up the list.

Overall, I reckon it holds up well. Surprisigly, I think 'disposals' has somehow become underrated as a stat as everyone tries to overcomplicate things. True, not all disposals are equal, but every touch is a link in the chain and leads somewhere, and there's no easy possessions in footy. And, if you don't have the ball, you can't do much with it. Tom Mitchell is arguably the most underrated player in the league as a result - sure, he gets 20 handballs, but they all contribute and matter and if it was easy, why don't we see more players do it?

 

[Mullarkey]

If you are trying to pick who wins the brownlow, you are all looking at it wrong.

The umpires vote, you all need to work out who the umpires like more

So you need to add in Likability

Midfield Impact Likability Factor....

 

[faible]

I think it's only ever part of the story. And remember, it's looking at averages, and we only watch a proportion of the games... I think there is a tendency for us to overlook bad performances by players in good teams (ie: Libba, Dangerfield this year) and miss good performances by players in bad teams against other bad teams (ie: anything Mitchell has done this year, Steele, Miller until his 60 a couple of weeks ago got everyone talking).

To defend some specifics: Jack Steele is on pace for the fourth best season ever for tackles... while also contributing almost a goal per game, and winning the ball well. He's an absolute ripper IMO - Carlton would killl for someone who could lay 8 tackles in a match, let alone every week.

Liberatore vs Macrae? Libba has had quite a few below-par games this year: 22 vs Melbourne, 25 vs Sydney, 28 vs Brisbane, 29 vs Port. Interestingly - these are all against good teams, but to even be flirting with the 'Nick Graham line' suggests he isn't elite level. Macrae just has incredible consistency - hasn't dropped lower than a 34. Now... does Libba really have 'much more impact' when you look at those individual games? Maybe sometimes, but he's had some bad ones too. Libba is too low, because he simply doesn't play as well every week.

Similarly, Stringer vs Mitchell. Stringer can have an impact... and he can be very ordinary. Not sure if injured, but he had a 9 against GWS in one of Essendon's bad losses. He's dropped below the Nick Graham line on three other occasions. That's 4 very, very ordinary games out of 13.

Bolton is another: he's low on average because he has some very poor games. 12 vs Sydney. 16 vs St Kilda. 25 vs Gold Coast. three matches below the Nick Graham line, all in bad losses for Richmond... sorry, but you aren't being underrated if you play that badly 20% of the time. Give him a year or two to convert hose bad games into solid ones, and he'll rocket up the list.

Overall, I reckon it holds up well. Surprisigly, I think 'disposals' has somehow become underrated as a stat as everyone tries to overcomplicate things. True, not all disposals are equal, but every touch is a link in the chain and leads somewhere, and there's no easy possessions in footy. And, if you don't have the ball, you can't do much with it. Tom Mitchell is arguably the most underrated player in the league as a result - sure, he gets 20 handballs, but they all contribute and matter and if it was easy, why don't we see more players do it?

Disposals only tell part of the story; Liberatore vs Macrae for example, play totally differently and in a way, it's undervalues Liberatore's contribution.

The surprising statistic that highlights how important Tom Liberatore is

"Now that surprised me, but that just shows the importance of this guy in this group."

www.sen.com.au

I can't be bothered digging up all the old articles, but that one gives a sense that there's more to Liberatore's game than is measured simply via disposals.

 

[btdg]

Disposals only tell part of the story; Liberatore vs Macrae for example, play totally differently and in a way, it's undervalues Liberatore's contribution.

The surprising statistic that highlights how important Tom Liberatore is

"Now that surprised me, but that just shows the importance of this guy in this group."

www.sen.com.au

I can't be bothered digging up all the old articles, but that one gives a sense that there's more to Liberatore's game than is measured simply via disposals.

No doubt this is true. However, I think there's also a tendency to overlook the bleedingly obvious in searhc of the 'hidden truth'.

In Liberatore's case, sure, he ranks highly at 'generating' scores on aggregate across the year (although I'd probably argue that stat is highly unreliable, except for maybe edge cases like NicNat).

But he didn't rank low in my criteria because of simply 'disposals'. He generally does well in that area. He ranked low because he had 3-4 quite poor games (and coincidentally, those were against top 4 teams). Had his performance been better, he'd score well in my metric too.

 

[faible]

No doubt this is true. However, I think there's also a tendency to overlook the bleedingly obvious in searhc of the 'hidden truth'.

In Liberatore's case, sure, he ranks highly at 'generating' scores on aggregate across the year (although I'd probably argue that stat is highly unreliable, except for maybe edge cases like NicNat).

But he didn't rank low in my criteria because of simply 'disposals'. He generally does well in that area. He ranked low because he had 3-4 quite poor games (and coincidentally, those were against top 4 teams). Had his performance been better, he'd score well in my metric too.

There's no perfect metric, and poor games obviously are poor games.

It's more that disposals aren't always equal, depending on where and how you get them. A contested possession is - generally - likely to be more valuable than an uncontested possession, as you're having to directly win a disputed ball away from an opposition player. Liberatore is just a good illustration of that, because his possessions were tending to start scoring chains, whereas a 25 uncontested disposal HBFer often doesn't.

 

[GWT6]

I'm experimenting with this metric:
.
.
.
Is this a real metric or just one for supercoach?

Nice work!

Any chance you can do 2000? I've always believed that Woewodin's year was underrated, it would be interesting to see how he ranks under your system.

 

[btdg]

There's no perfect metric, and poor games obviously are poor games.

It's more that disposals aren't always equal, depending on where and how you get them. A contested possession is - generally - likely to be more valuable than an uncontested possession, as you're having to directly win a disputed ball away from an opposition player. Liberatore is just a good illustration of that, because his possessions were tending to start scoring chains, whereas a 25 uncontested disposal HBFer often doesn't.

That's true of every stat, not just disposals.

Not all score involvements are equal. Not all clearances are equal. Not all goals are equal (consider a Josh Jenkins 'Joe The Goose' vs a Dustin Martin fend-off and snap). And even then: getting 30 touches vs Melbourne is different to 30 touches vs Gold Coast. 12 disposals in the last quarter of a close game is better than 12 touches in the third quarter of a blowout, etc.

Question is what do you do with the metric.

I've used my metric in the past as a quick snapshot of 'involvement' in games. IT's been a real issue for our young blokes (even now: Paddy Dow is struggling to get to the Nick Graham line, whereas Kennedy has slingshotted himself well above - useful comparison imo).

 

[faible]

That's true of every stat, not just disposals.

Not all score involvements are equal. Not all clearances are equal. Not all goals are equal (consider a Josh Jenkins 'Joe The Goose' vs a Dustin Martin fend-off and snap). And even then: getting 30 touches vs Melbourne is different to 30 touches vs Gold Coast. 12 disposals in the last quarter of a close game is better than 12 touches in the third quarter of a blowout, etc.

Question is what do you do with the metric.

I've used my metric in the past as a quick snapshot of 'involvement' in games. IT's been a real issue for our young blokes (even now: Paddy Dow is struggling to get to the Nick Graham line, whereas Kennedy has slingshotted himself well above - useful comparison imo).

It's all about the data available, going back to the OP; Possessions / UPs / CPs are all available metrics, which subjective stuff like 'goal snapped from stoppage' versus 'goal over the back' isn't.

Arguably a CP is generally more valuable than an UP, a kick more valuable than a handball, etc..

 

[btdg]

Nice work!

Any chance you can do 2000? I've always believed that Woewodin's year was underrated, it would be interesting to see how he ranks under your system.

I know you weren't looking at my metric, but I'm here anyway...

On mine, Woewodin ranks as a 30.16: which is a good-very good year for a midfielder. Obviously this is before stats explosions but even in 2000 that was ordinary, althoguh it came in a slightly weak run of Brownlows: Crawford scored 35.0 the previous year, and Akermanis 33.2 the following year. Aker himself scored 37+ in 2002. Robert Harvey was 36.9 and Simon Black in 2002 was 34.9.

Woewodin's was the weakest; it also included votes in some incredibly weak games:
- 3 votes for a 19 disposal, 1 behind, 1 tackle (21 total points - below the Nick Graham line!) win over North (Peter Bell and Cameron Bruce both score 40 points in that game, James Cook kicked 6 goals)
- 2 votes in a 17 dipsosal, 1.1, 5 tackles (29 points) game vs WC: Stephen Powell had 44 points and got 1 vote but it was otherwise a weird match)

He also had some strong games: a 66 point match vs Geelong that standout, altohugh that was the only game in the 50s.

But... I reckon he stands as the weakest winner. A combination of a slightly weak year across the league (aside from Essendon) and just getting lucky in a few games...

 

[The Prosecutor]

Similarly, Stringer vs Mitchell. Stringer can have an impact... and he can be very ordinary. Not sure if injured, but he had a 9 against GWS in one of Essendon's bad losses. He's dropped below the Nick Graham line on three other occasions. That's 4 very, very ordinary games out of 13.

players do it?

Did his hamstring in the first quarter, tried to continue before being subbed out and missing a few weeks.

Also worth mentioning his midfield time has increased to replace McGrath's minutes. On the weekend against North for instance I believe he attended all but 3 centre bounces, one less than Merrett and Parish.

Would be curious what the other three games were?

 

[bergholt]

Nice work!

Any chance you can do 2000? I've always believed that Woewodin's year was underrated, it would be interesting to see how he ranks under your system.

Ah yeah, let's see if we can finally settle that "worst Brownlow medallist ever" argument between him and Cooney! Cooney got 7.6 on this metric in his Brownlow year, ranking 38th in the comp.

2000: Buckley (14.2), Black, Ricciuto, Ratten, Cresswell (Woewodin in 20th with 10.3)

So not a terrible number. I don't remember that year super well but looks like he just had some low impact games which would have really dragged down his rating:

R1: 12 touches, no scoring, 2 inside 50s, 3 clearances
R7: 13 touches, no scoring, 2 inside 50s, 6 clearances
R10: 14 touches, no scoring, 2 inside 50s, 4 clearances
R14: 10 touches, no scoring, 4 inside 50s, 2 clearances
R19: 16 touches, no scoring, 4 inside 50s, 2 clearances

 

[bergholt]

I know you weren't looking at my metric, but I'm here anyway...

On mine, Woewodin ranks as a 30.16: which is a good-very good year for a midfielder. Obviously this is before stats explosions but even in 2000 that was ordinary, althoguh it came in a slightly weak run of Brownlows: Crawford scored 35.0 the previous year, and Akermanis 33.2 the following year. Aker himself scored 37+ in 2002. Robert Harvey was 36.9 and Simon Black in 2002 was 34.9.

Woewodin's was the weakest; it also included votes in some incredibly weak games:
- 3 votes for a 19 disposal, 1 behind, 1 tackle (21 total points - below the Nick Graham line!) win over North (Peter Bell and Cameron Bruce both score 40 points in that game, James Cook kicked 6 goals)
- 2 votes in a 17 dipsosal, 1.1, 5 tackles (29 points) game vs WC: Stephen Powell had 44 points and got 1 vote but it was otherwise a weird match)

He also had some strong games: a 66 point match vs Geelong that standout, altohugh that was the only game in the 50s.

But... I reckon he stands as the weakest winner. A combination of a slightly weak year across the league (aside from Essendon) and just getting lucky in a few games...

Yeah I have him 46th in the league that year on your metric. Interesting though that forwards were still mixed with mids on this metric back then.

45: Richardson, Lloyd
44:
43:
42:
41: Buckley
40:
39: McLeod, Carey
38:
37: Camporeale, Ratten
36:
35: Hird, Whitnall, Bell, Power, Farmer, O'Loughlin
34: McLeod, Ricciuto
33: Cresswell, B Johnson, Lucas, N Holland, B Harvey
32: Yze, S Black, West, Powell, Hamill, C Grant, Loewe, Romero
31: N Brown, Akermanis, Caracella, Schwass, Cousins, Misiti, Voss, Lynch, R Harvey
30: Hickmott, Cummings, J Bowden, Waterhouse, D Jarman, Crawford, G Hocking, Mercuri, Woewodin, W Campbell, Phil Matera, Everitt

 

[bergholt]

I think it's only ever part of the story. And remember, it's looking at averages, and we only watch a proportion of the games... I think there is a tendency for us to overlook bad performances by players in good teams (ie: Libba, Dangerfield this year) and miss good performances by players in bad teams against other bad teams (ie: anything Mitchell has done this year, Steele, Miller until his 60 a couple of weeks ago got everyone talking).

To defend some specifics: Jack Steele is on pace for the fourth best season ever for tackles... while also contributing almost a goal per game, and winning the ball well. He's an absolute ripper IMO - Carlton would killl for someone who could lay 8 tackles in a match, let alone every week.

Liberatore vs Macrae? Libba has had quite a few below-par games this year: 22 vs Melbourne, 25 vs Sydney, 28 vs Brisbane, 29 vs Port. Interestingly - these are all against good teams, but to even be flirting with the 'Nick Graham line' suggests he isn't elite level. Macrae just has incredible consistency - hasn't dropped lower than a 34. Now... does Libba really have 'much more impact' when you look at those individual games? Maybe sometimes, but he's had some bad ones too. Libba is too low, because he simply doesn't play as well every week.

Similarly, Stringer vs Mitchell. Stringer can have an impact... and he can be very ordinary. Not sure if injured, but he had a 9 against GWS in one of Essendon's bad losses. He's dropped below the Nick Graham line on three other occasions. That's 4 very, very ordinary games out of 13.

Bolton is another: he's low on average because he has some very poor games. 12 vs Sydney. 16 vs St Kilda. 25 vs Gold Coast. three matches below the Nick Graham line, all in bad losses for Richmond... sorry, but you aren't being underrated if you play that badly 20% of the time. Give him a year or two to convert hose bad games into solid ones, and he'll rocket up the list.

Overall, I reckon it holds up well. Surprisigly, I think 'disposals' has somehow become underrated as a stat as everyone tries to overcomplicate things. True, not all disposals are equal, but every touch is a link in the chain and leads somewhere, and there's no easy possessions in footy. And, if you don't have the ball, you can't do much with it. Tom Mitchell is arguably the most underrated player in the league as a result - sure, he gets 20 handballs, but they all contribute and matter and if it was easy, why don't we see more players do it?

Yeah I think your point on averages is a good one, clearly I'm not watching every game so just going on media noise which is a notoriously poor ranking of how good a player is.

That said my Bulldogs mates think Libba is crucial to them - I suspect those below-par games on your metric might underplay his contribution. Against Melbourne, for example, 11 kicks/5 handballs, 6 tackles, 6 inside 50s, 4 clearances. Definitely a quiet game but sounds like he could have been useful enough still.

No idea really about Mitchell, I don't watch Hawthorn enough to have a solid opinion. But one argument could be that we don't see it more because coaches don't want to see players running round the back for cheapies, or giving little handballs that just transfer pressure to their teammate. Again, not saying Mitchell necessarily does that, but that there's two sides to the coin.

 

[btdg]

Did his hamstring in the first quarter, tried to continue before being subbed out and missing a few weeks.

Also worth mentioning his midfield time has increased to replace McGrath's minutes. On the weekend against North for instance I believe he attended all but 3 centre bounces, one less than Merrett and Parish.

Would be curious what the other three games were?

Richmond (might also be an injury - he missed the followign one) - 13 disposals, 1 goal, 3 tackles (=22 total points)
Brisbane - 9 disposals, 1.1, 2 tackles (=18 total points)

I think I must have miscalculate the another one - maybe Collingwood (17, 1 goal, 8 tackles = 31) or St Kilda (12 disposals, 4 goals, 0 tackles = 36pts - I might have put the goals in as 1 rather than 6?)

Take out the two possible injury games and Stringer comes up as a 38.39 with only one sub-par match. That's actually pretty bloody good and would put him in the top echelon in the league. The Richmond one should probably stay in but even then he's a lot closer to Mitchell than the initial analysis.

 

[btdg]

Yeah I think your point on averages is a good one, clearly I'm not watching every game so just going on media noise which is a notoriously poor ranking of how good a player is.

That said my Bulldogs mates think Libba is crucial to them - I suspect those below-par games on your metric might underplay his contribution. Against Melbourne, for example, 11 kicks/5 handballs, 6 tackles, 6 inside 50s, 4 clearances. Definitely a quiet game but sounds like he could have been useful enough still.

No idea really about Mitchell, I don't watch Hawthorn enough to have a solid opinion. But one argument could be that we don't see it more because coaches don't want to see players running round the back for cheapies, or giving little handballs that just transfer pressure to their teammate. Again, not saying Mitchell necessarily does that, but that there's two sides to the coin.

I think the Libba one is interesting mainly becuase his lowest scores are against really good teams. Sometimes, that's where a stat is useful - identifying a pattern, that you then have to go and watch a bit more closely. The pattern could just be noise too...

With Mitchell... let's face it, if a bloke in a bottom team is racking up 35 touches, probably all we need to know is that he's playing good footy in tough circumstances. It becomes impossible to 'rank' guys in a certain frame. We saw this with Cripps a few years back - I think he had a 38 disposal-2 goal-9 tackle game in a match we lost to Melbourne by 100+ points. Is that a good game? It's not really comparable... but we know he was doing something right...

I do think this sort of thing has a place in identifying guys who might not get recognition. Mitchell is one where because no one is watching, I guess he gets overlooked. Miller and Steele too. On the flipside, one big Dustin Martin game on Friday night footy and suddenly everyone has him back in the AA team. Not that isn't important, just part of the package.

 

[SSSSSS]

Anyway to factor in tackles/pressure acts?

 

[00Stinger]

I've used a measure on the Carlton board to evaluate young players: disposals + score (goalsx6 + points) + tackles. I like this measure because it incoroprates the defensive element.

As a general guide:
25 = 'The Nick Graham Line': named after the most dropped player in AFL history and a guy who tended to come in, play a couple of games in the 25-27 range, then have a down game at around 24 and get dropped
30 = solid game for a midfielder = "The Ed Curnow line" (hit this line every game and you'll have a long and undistinguished career)
35 = good game
40+ = outstanding/excellent
50+ = matchwinner
60 = people are going to talk about this one...

That measure gives:
Steele 41.4
Bontempelli 41.2
Miller 40.9
Mitchell 40.6
Petracca 40.3
Macrae 40.3
Wines 39.8
Oliver 39.2
Walsh 38.6
Parish 38.3
Merrett 38.3

Some lesser lights:
Adams 33.6
Liberatore 33.5
Bolton 32.0

Not sure who else to include this year but it aligns pretty well with my observations. Steele ranks highly for putting up absolutely absurd tackle numbers, while also winning a lot of the ball and kicking goals - just incredible all round footy. Miller in a similar boat and only just starting to get recognition. The others at the top end of the list have had lots of recognition and I think Bont does sit ahead. Mitchell also very underrated this year IMO.

Historical numbers:
Fyfe in 2019 = 38.5
Mitchell in 2018 = 45.2
Martin in 2017 = 43.3
Dangerield in 2017 = 48.4: This is an utterly astonishing season IMO. He was way above his career numbers in goals and tackles
Priddis' Brownlow year was a 38.5; rightfully considered one of the weaker efforts
Ablett Jr had a 47.8 in 2010 - also an astonishing year
Judd had a 43.3 in 2005 - given how much tackle numbers have risen, that was a standout.

It also works well for forwards (without going into too much detail - they tend to fluctuate more match to match, but the metric holds up ok generally) so how about this:
- Gary Ablett SR in 1993 played 17 games for an average score of 62.
- Plugger Lockett also managed a 61 in 17 games in 1995. He only bothered to lay 5 tackles for the year, too...
- Buddy Franklin had a 47.9 in 2008
- Harry McKay will likely win the Coleman but has a rating of 31.5. It's a seriously weak year for forwards.

It also works as a rating for individual games. Some noticeable stats this year:
- Clayton Oliver had a 66 vs Adelaide - the best game of the year. IT's his only 50+ but that's a huge match
- Touk Miller vs GWS = 61 points (35 disposals, 2 goals, 14 tackles). This was the game that got everyone talking...
- The Bont: 58pts vs GC, 59vs StK, 55 and 51 vs WC = the most 'Big' games of anyone. I think we all knew that
- Petracca has 3x games in the 50s. Not quite on the level of Bont but not far off.
- Darcy Parish has 3x games in the low 50s. Interestingly, all feel like missed opportunities. Kicked 0.2 vs Richmond. Only 3 tackles vs Collingwood and Geelong. We might not have seen the best of Parish yet - i think he can still go up another level. I might be wrong, but I think he won 'awards' for all 3? Definitely a big game player...
- Steele has nudged right on '50' 3x but not really gone much over. I think that's why he maybe doesn't get the recognition.
- Mitchell has a high of 48 and is consistent, but hasn't hit 50 despite being high on average
- Merrett, Wines, Walsh all have only one '50' for the year - consistently good without winning games off their own boot

Petraccas 3 50+ games would be against Richmond when they were doing well early on, Geelong & Port Adelaide over in Adelaide

3 pretty big games to pull 50+ scores in

 

[btdg]

Petraccas 3 50+ games would be against Richmond when they were doing well early on, Geelong & Port Adelaide over in Adelaide

3 pretty big games to pull 50+ scores in

Correct. Had a very nice 45 vs Brisbane as well. Only other game against top 4 opposition was 33 vs Bulldogs (still not a bad game). Definitley bodes well for finals...

 

[The Prosecutor]

Richmond (might also be an injury - he missed the followign one) - 13 disposals, 1 goal, 3 tackles (=22 total points)
Brisbane - 9 disposals, 1.1, 2 tackles (=18 total points)

I think I must have miscalculate the another one - maybe Collingwood (17, 1 goal, 8 tackles = 31) or St Kilda (12 disposals, 4 goals, 0 tackles = 36pts - I might have put the goals in as 1 rather than 6?)

Take out the two possible injury games and Stringer comes up as a 38.39 with only one sub-par match. That's actually pretty bloody good and would put him in the top echelon in the league. The Richmond one should probably stay in but even then he's a lot closer to Mitchell than the initial analysis.

Richmond was just a below par game, we had the bye immediately after hence the gap. The Brisbane game was played in a pond with Jake as a permanent forward, but yes, a dirty night for him.

Stringer is a tough one to quantify this year just because of how his role has changed over the course of the year. Prior to the bye, he was predominately a forward but would take centre bounces here-and-there. For the aforementioned Brisbane game in round five as an example, he only had 3 centre bounces attended. Even in the Richmond game he only had 12 CBAs compared to 30+ each for Merrett & Parish.

Since McGrath's injury against Richmond, Stringer has taken on those minutes (in his own words, about 75-25 Mid/Fwd) and his last five weeks I'd imagine he'd have an incredible average.

 

[btdg]

Richmond was just a below par game, we had the bye immediately after hence the gap. The Brisbane game was played in a pond with Jake as a permanent forward, but yes, a dirty night for him.

Stringer is a tough one to quantify this year just because of how his role has changed over the course of the year. Prior to the bye, he was predominately a forward but would take centre bounces here-and-there. For the aforementioned Brisbane game in round five as an example, he only had 3 centre bounces attended. Even in the Richmond game he only had 12 CBAs compared to 30+ each for Merrett & Parish.

Since McGrath's injury against Richmond, Stringer has taken on those minutes (in his own words, about 75-25 Mid/Fwd) and his last five weeks I'd imagine he'd have an incredible average.

Yep - his average across the last 5 weeks is a whopping 45.6 - that includes a 61 point game vs Hawthorn.

Obviously a 5 week stretch that includes 3x bottom 4 teams (and two losses to good teams) isn't totally representative, but if he kept going at that pace it would be historic levels of output - up there with Judd, Fyfe, Ablett in their best seasons.

 

[GWT6]

Ah yeah, let's see if we can finally settle that "worst Brownlow medallist ever" argument between him and Cooney! Cooney got 7.6 on this metric in his Brownlow year, ranking 38th in the comp.

2000: Buckley (14.2), Black, Ricciuto, Ratten, Cresswell (Woewodin in 20th with 10.3)

So not a terrible number. I don't remember that year super well but looks like he just had some low impact games which would have really dragged down his rating:

R1: 12 touches, no scoring, 2 inside 50s, 3 clearances
R7: 13 touches, no scoring, 2 inside 50s, 6 clearances
R10: 14 touches, no scoring, 2 inside 50s, 4 clearances
R14: 10 touches, no scoring, 4 inside 50s, 2 clearances
R19: 16 touches, no scoring, 4 inside 50s, 2 clearances

Thanks, I appreciated the response.

 

[GWT6]

I know you weren't looking at my metric, but I'm here anyway...

On mine, Woewodin ranks as a 30.16: which is a good-very good year for a midfielder. Obviously this is before stats explosions but even in 2000 that was ordinary, althoguh it came in a slightly weak run of Brownlows: Crawford scored 35.0 the previous year, and Akermanis 33.2 the following year. Aker himself scored 37+ in 2002. Robert Harvey was 36.9 and Simon Black in 2002 was 34.9.

Woewodin's was the weakest; it also included votes in some incredibly weak games:
- 3 votes for a 19 disposal, 1 behind, 1 tackle (21 total points - below the Nick Graham line!) win over North (Peter Bell and Cameron Bruce both score 40 points in that game, James Cook kicked 6 goals)
- 2 votes in a 17 dipsosal, 1.1, 5 tackles (29 points) game vs WC: Stephen Powell had 44 points and got 1 vote but it was otherwise a weird match)

He also had some strong games: a 66 point match vs Geelong that standout, altohugh that was the only game in the 50s.

But... I reckon he stands as the weakest winner. A combination of a slightly weak year across the league (aside from Essendon) and just getting lucky in a few games...

Thanks, was going to ask others with metrics also. Not a stan and was asking a genuine question, so I appreciate the reply and the work you put in.