All Australian Team 2016

[Gysberts2Bate]

The ratings system loves the Bont. He's had a decent year, but top 10 in the comp? Probably not.

 

[Bollox]

Rampe only defender in that list? Cool.

I said pet, I said Love, I said pet.


Bloke has been going at AA standard since Rnd 1 when he impressed.
Fair bit of competition for defender slots due to no real standouts...and still early in season.

 

[Substance]

How are these listings worked out? These statistics are a joke. Here is the current 2016 AFL Schick Player Ratings. Nat Fyffe No 1? Pft!!

View attachment 245636

Maybe you should read up on it. Those on the AFL sire are the official champion data ratings accrued over the last 24 months, with a maximum of past 40 games per player, to give a boost to those who missed a few games through injury. so yes, nat fyfe is still no.1, but won't be for long, since he's losing about 17 points every week he doesn't play.

 

[Watson_my_mind]

Top rated players for the year so far from AFL Player Ratings

This is actually very good and accurate. Only surprising omission is Joel Selwood and Dayne Zorko. Naitanui Gawn Goldstein pretty even with Mumford a level below.

Callan Ward having a great year too instrumental in GWS success.

 

[wattoxi]

This is actually very good and accurate. Only surprising omission is Joel Selwood and Dayne Zorko. Naitanui Gawn Goldstein pretty even with Mumford a level below.

Callan Ward having a great year too instrumental in GWS success.

Zorko has missed games and there for at this stage only the players that have played all games are up their, Selwood is hugely surprising though, says a lot about the ratings system.

 

[Trav 20]

Carlton finishing 2nd for average centre clearances last year shows they are just another arbitrary statistic.

I don't agree. Getting the ball into your forward 50 quickly is a valuable commodity.

If you have a crap forward-line and can't capitalise on those opportunities, or can't keep it in when you get it there, is an entirely different matter.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Zorko has missed games and there for at this stage only the players that have played all games are up their, Selwood is hugely surprising though, says a lot about the ratings system.

Selwood started the year pretty slowly, would be right up there in terms of the last 3 weeks though.

 

[Wargreymon90]

I said pet, I said Love, I said pet.
View attachment 245726

Bloke has been going at AA standard since Rnd 1 when he impressed.
Fair bit of competition for defender slots due to no real standouts...and still early in season.

I think it's more the fact that there is only one defender

 

[Champion_Data]

Selwood started the year pretty slowly, would be right up there in terms of the last 3 weeks though.

Zorko 25th for average per game.
Selwood 20th Rounds 5-7.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Zorko 25th for average per game.
Selwood 20th Rounds 5-7.

Thanks for that.

Are you ratings impacted at all by if your team wins or loses? Just thinking of someone like Zorko, is the fact hsi team loses more than it wins going to play against him?

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Very quick go at a squad of 40:

Adelaide (3): Rory Sloane, Eddie Betts, Rory Laird
Brisbane (1): Dayne Zorko
Carlton (1): Patrick Cripps
Collingwood (1): Scott Pendlebury
Essendon (1): David Zaharakis
Fremantle (0): Nil
Geelong (2): Patrick Dangerfield, Joel Selwood
Gold Coast (3): Aaron Hall, Gary Ablett, Tom Lynch
GWS (5): Phil Davis, Dylan Shiel, Callan Ward, Tom Scully, Heath Shaw
Hawthorn (3): Josh Gibson, Sam Mitchell, Ben Stratton
Melbourne (2): Jack Viney, Max Gawn
North Melbourne (3): Jack Ziebell, Todd Goldstein, Jarrad Waite
Port Adelaide (1): Jasper Pittard
Richmond (0): Nil
St Kilda (2): Nick Riewoldt, Leigh Montagna
Sydney (6): Dan Hannebery, Tom Mitchell, Josh Kennedy, Lance Franklin, Luke Parker, Heath Grundy
West Coast (3): Nic Naitanui, Luke Shuey, Jeremy McGovern
Western Bulldogs (3): Luke Dahlhaus, Dale Morris, Lachie Hunter

Could probably go up to 60 odd players that would be deserving so there are obviously quite a few unlucky to miss. May be some oversights.

 

[robertg22]

Very quick go at a squad of 40:

Adelaide (3): Rory Sloane, Eddie Betts, Rory Laird
Brisbane (1): Dayne Zorko
Carlton (1): Patrick Cripps
Collingwood (1): Scott Pendlebury
Essendon (1): David Zaharakis
Fremantle (0): Nil
Geelong (2): Patrick Dangerfield, Joel Selwood
Gold Coast (3): Aaron Hall, Gary Ablett, Tom Lynch
GWS (5): Phil Davis, Dylan Shiel, Callan Ward, Tom Scully, Heath Shaw
Hawthorn (3): Josh Gibson, Sam Mitchell, Ben Stratton
Melbourne (2): Jack Viney, Max Gawn
North Melbourne (3): Jack Ziebell, Todd Goldstein, Jarrad Waite
Port Adelaide (1): Jasper Pittard
Richmond (0): Nil
St Kilda (2): Nick Riewoldt, Leigh Montagna
Sydney (6): Dan Hannebery, Tom Mitchell, Josh Kennedy, Lance Franklin, Luke Parker, Heath Grundy
West Coast (3): Nic Naitanui, Luke Shuey, Jeremy McGovern
Western Bulldogs (3): Luke Dahlhaus, Dale Morris, Lachie Hunter

Could probably go up to 60 odd players that would be deserving so there are obviously quite a few unlucky to miss. May be some oversights.

The only two who would remotely be in contention for the squad at Collingwood would be Treloar and Fasolo. Pendles has not played at that level this year.

 

[Champion_Data]

Thanks for that.

Are you ratings impacted at all by if your team wins or loses? Just thinking of someone like Zorko, is the fact hsi team loses more than it wins going to play against him?

No, points are unchanged based on result. The only effect of being in a weaker teams is a lack of opportunity (supply from teammates). Two players doing exactly the same thing will get the same points whether their team wins by 100 or loses by 100.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

The only two who would remotely be in contention for the squad at Collingwood would be Treloar and Fasolo. Pendles has not played at that level this year.

Pendlebury was pretty much the last one into the squad to be honest, so I get where you're coming from. I think he's been very good over the past three weeks or so; there's probably a bit of recency bias there.

 

[Watson_my_mind]

No, points are unchanged based on result. The only effect of being in a weaker teams is a lack of opportunity (supply from teammates). Two players doing exactly the same thing will get the same points whether their team wins by 100 or loses by 100.

Which do you believe to be your superior ratings system, the one you use for AFL player rankings or Supercoach? If you can't answer that, which one has more metrics and is more complex

 

[Murraj1966]

Roo would be looking at his 6th AA jumper this year.

He's just a freak.

 

[deflated]

Sydney (6): Dan Hannebery, Tom Mitchell, Josh Kennedy, Lance Franklin, Luke Parker, Heath Grundy

Dunno if the Swans midfield has been that good. Dunno which I'd leave out either.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Dunno if the Swans midfield has been that good. Dunno which I'd leave out either.

Tom Mitchell shouldn't be in there.

 

[Champion_Data]

Which do you believe to be your superior ratings system, the one you use for AFL player rankings or Supercoach? If you can't answer that, which one has more metrics and is more complex

Ratings > Supercoach, but Supercoach has the advantage that it can be applied to lower level competition and compared back to 2003 AFL.
Ratings requires X,Y co-ordinates of game events and pressure applied on ball carriers, which only started in 2010 and isn't applied to lower levels.
Supercoach rewards quality, but only in the sense that effective kicks are worth more than ineffective kicks and clanger kicks are negative. Every effective kick is treated the same, whether it's a 60m pass to an open teammate in the goalsquare or a 15m chip to the boundary line. There are 50+ events that go into the formula.

Ratings treats every kick on its merits, with the starting "equity" for a kick being the average value of the next score that happens after a kick from that part of the ground under the same level of pressure. The final "equity" for the kick uses the same calculation, but based on the end result of the kick and the distance of the kick - either marking contest, ground-level contest (including stoppage), retained uncontested mark, retained gather, uncontested mark turnover, uncontested ground-level turnover. A 15m kick to an uncontested teammate down the ground is worth less than a 16m kick, less than a 17m kick, etc. All of the 50+ events measured in Supercoach are also measured in Ratings, but are treated as above, with the value being relative to how the position of the team has improved (or not) based on your involvement, rather than just a flat value for every stat type. This includes winning the ball, disposals, hitouts, tackles, spoils, smothers, pressure acts, etc. It's still not perfect (especially for defensive, nullifying players) but it does a better job than Supercoach at measuring a player's impact on the result.

 

[liz]

Tom Mitchell shouldn't be in there.

I'd agree with that. He's been very solid, but not AA level.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Top rated players for the year so far from AFL Player Ratings

I've always found the Hawthorn player ratings really strange. Rioli is good but 6th best player in the comp? Puopolo has had a great game and a couple of good ones but surely not top 2 at Hawthorn? Also, Sam Mitchell is the number 1 ball winner in the comp (last season and this season until rested), a brilliant user and easily the best player at Hawthorn (carried us a few times this year) and I've never seen him in the top 40.

 

[benbanjo]

I've always found the Hawthorn player ratings really strange. Rioli is good but 6th best player in the comp? Puopolo has had a great game and a couple of good ones but surely not top 2 at Hawthorn? Also, Sam Mitchell is the number 1 ball winner in the comp (last season and this season until rested), a brilliant user and easily the best player at Hawthorn (carried us a few times this year) and I've never seen him in the top 40.

That train crossing! you must hate it!!!

 

[Guardian Hawk]

That train crossing! you must hate it!!!

Haha, yep. It's a nightmare - the last kilometre home can add half an hour! They're fixing it which is great but it means it will get even worse in the process (which is hard to believe).

 

[Underdog]

Ratings > Supercoach, but Supercoach has the advantage that it can be applied to lower level competition and compared back to 2003 AFL.
Ratings requires X,Y co-ordinates of game events and pressure applied on ball carriers, which only started in 2010 and isn't applied to lower levels.
Supercoach rewards quality, but only in the sense that effective kicks are worth more than ineffective kicks and clanger kicks are negative. Every effective kick is treated the same, whether it's a 60m pass to an open teammate in the goalsquare or a 15m chip to the boundary line. There are 50+ events that go into the formula.

Ratings treats every kick on its merits, with the starting "equity" for a kick being the average value of the next score that happens after a kick from that part of the ground under the same level of pressure. The final "equity" for the kick uses the same calculation, but based on the end result of the kick and the distance of the kick - either marking contest, ground-level contest (including stoppage), retained uncontested mark, retained gather, uncontested mark turnover, uncontested ground-level turnover. A 15m kick to an uncontested teammate down the ground is worth less than a 16m kick, less than a 17m kick, etc. All of the 50+ events measured in Supercoach are also measured in Ratings, but are treated as above, with the value being relative to how the position of the team has improved (or not) based on your involvement, rather than just a flat value for every stat type. This includes winning the ball, disposals, hitouts, tackles, spoils, smothers, pressure acts, etc. It's still not perfect (especially for defensive, nullifying players) but it does a better job than Supercoach at measuring a player's impact on the result.

Thanks for the insight, that's impressive. Really shows how much average Joe doesn't take in on game day or looking at Footywire.

 

[benbanjo]

Haha, yep. It's a nightmare - the last kilometre home can add half an hour! They're fixing it which is great but it means it will get even worse in the process (which is hard to believe).

LOL, yep i hear they are making it underground, i lived there when i was a teenager, ahh the memories! they might as well get the fremantle boys to come in and fix it since they dont doing anything on field anyway.....