Matthew Lloyd (2001) vs. Lance Franklin (2008)

[whatimtalkingbout]

If this was a boxing bout your corner would have thrown in the towel long ago. Your only evidence is "because he just is" and a couple of short videos on YouTube - you’ve been beaten and so has Franklin in this poll. Give up.

Well yeah, it's just so irrefutably true that Franklin is superior to Lloyd. Matty's just a frontrunner, Franklin gets his goals with three guys against him and allows our other forwards to play unchecked in the middle. james mahoney's stats were so dodgy i don't know where to begin. He got his field disposal efficiency by counting his goalkicking and actually subtracted disposals from Franklin's average, saying they didn't count Good stuff james.

 

[james_omahoney]

When was this? I must've been so smashed i can't remember Mahoney made lots of positive assumptions about Lloyd and lots of negative assumptions about Franklin, leading to some very dodgy mathematics where he calculated that Franklin's disposal efficiency was the same as his goalkicking accuracy

no i didn't u simpleton. see below.

Well yeah, it's just so irrefutably true that Franklin is superior to Lloyd. Matty's just a frontrunner, Franklin gets his goals with three guys against him and allows our other forwards to play unchecked in the middle. james mahoney's stats were so dodgy i don't know where to begin. He got his field disposal efficiency by counting his goalkicking and actually subtracted disposals from Franklin's average, saying they didn't count Good stuff james.

Again, not even close to the truth. Mate if you can't understand Maths, doesn't make them dodgy. I can't believe I've been brought to this, but:


GA% = 50.22%
DE% = 59.53%
Kicks = 308
Handballs = 75
Goals = 113
Points = 88

Find shots on goal to determine the amount of 'general play' disposals:
let y = total shots on goal
let g = total general play disposals

g = 308 - y + 75
113/y = 50.22%
therefore y = 133/50.22% = 225

therefore g = 308 - 225 + 75 = 158

ave. general play disposals per game = 158 / 25 = 6.32

Determine distribution of shots on goal
average shots on goal per game = 225/25 = 9
average goals per game = 113 / 25 = 4.52
average behinds per game = 88 / 25 = 3.52
average non-scoring shots per game = (225 - (113 + 88)) / 25 = 0.96

Find 'general play' disposal efficiency
total ineffective disposals = 383 * (1 - 59.53%) = 155
total missed shots on goal = 225 - 113 = 112

total ineffective 'general play' disposals = 155 - 112 = 43

'General Play' efficiency rate = 1 - (43 / 158) = 72.78%

Therefore, total effective 'general play' possessions = 6.32 * 72.78% = 4.60

Also - Therefore, total effective Inside 50s = 54 / 25 * 72.78% = 1.57


I was accurate to within 0.1, and I've gone super accurate here so that you do not have a single toe left to stand on.

I'd call that an absolute smashing, WITB! Why do you do this to yourself???

 

[aussieicon91]

You have GOT to be kidding. You mean to tell me that it is HARDER to kick more goals when you have another highly regarded forward in the team?

Idiot.....

one spearhead = majority of the defense concentrated on nullifying you
two spearheads = same defense split between two players

Very very true. Bit hard to nullify Buddy when you have to stick close to Roughead and Williams. Lance wasn't at all denied of opportunities because of Roughead, in fact the general Hawks gameplan was to leave Buddy 1-on-1 in the 50 and try to move it down to his contest as quickly as possible. Lance was a target just as much as Lloyd was. Are you trying to say he was a target of 50 entries less than Lloyd?

Roughead's tally is more of a credit to Roughead himself. From memory a lot of his goals came from short leads in a congested forward 50 arc, but not so much as an alternative target to Franklin when the ball was moved quickly.

A massive generalistion by aussieicon. A key forward standing next to Buddy? Don't embarrass yourself any further.

Well clearly statistics prove that over time it has been easier as the lone ranger. That's why it's rare that you see (if ever) a forward kick 100 goals and another forward contribute over 70 aswell. Neither of you can dispute this. Maybe if Lucas was as good as what Roughead is then maybe Llyod would've never had reached the 100 mark.

It's not as if Franklin was still triple-teamed every match either.

 

[bluesforever]

Lloyd

 

[james_omahoney]

Well clearly statistics prove that over time it has been easier as the lone ranger. That's why it's rare that you see (if ever) a forward kick 100 goals and another forward contribute over 70 aswell. Neither of you can dispute this. Maybe if Lucas was as good as what Roughead is then maybe Llyod would've never had reached the 100 mark.

It's not as if Franklin was still triple-teamed every match either.

You make a massive assumption at "what history shows". Just because Roughead got 70 odd goals this year doesn't mean that took away from Franklin's opportunities compared to any other team. It just means that the distribution of goals between secondary goalkickers at Hawthorn was skewed, and this is what is abnormal, primarily because Roughead was such a quality second option. Perhaps Hawks didn't have as many good crumbing midfielder type players who actually took away from Scott Lucas as Essendon's second option.

Haha, but Franklin was the lone ranger so often. Have you looked at the stats for targetted inside 50s? Franklin was roughly, on average, the target of inside 50s for 30% of all of Hawks entries to the 50 zone. I'm pretty sure he was second only in the AFL to Fevola in this area.

The difference between him and Lloyd is that Lloyd would usually hold the mark, whereas Buddy might drop it, but then crumb it and have a shot.

Just because Roughead/Williams consumed a large percentage of Hawks' secondary goals does not mean that Franklin had less opportunity, it just means the bombers had so many more quality secondary options.

 

[Jade]

Well clearly statistics prove that over time it has been easier as the lone ranger. That's why it's rare that you see (if ever) a forward kick 100 goals and another forward contribute over 70 aswell. Neither of you can dispute this. Maybe if Lucas was as good as what Roughead is then maybe Llyod would've never had reached the 100 mark.

It's not as if Franklin was still triple-teamed every match either.

Do you actually READ threads? Or do you just stare at the screen and slobber as you mash the keyboard with your oversized palm....

The REASON Roughead kicked 70+ goals is due to the fact that Hawthorn DID NOT have the quality of shared support that Essendon had in 2001. Yet another cold, hard undeniably black and white statistical fact that you and your like can't seem to grasp - Even when it is posted a dozen times in the very thread you are responding to.

Look at the poll result peon, you lose.

 

[da_wog_from_so]

All i've found out is the bias level of some bomber supporters. I didn't think anybody thought more of himself than Matthew Lloyd did. But i was wrong

mate i support the dogs and i think you're a ****ing twit. id love to have a beer with you in real life. imagine if you didn't get the correct change. oh lord!

 

[whatimtalkingbout]

mate i support the dogs and i think you're a ****ing twit. id love to have a beer with you in real life. imagine if you didn't get the correct change. oh lord!

you support the crows

 

[Red Black and Blue]

you support the crows

He isn't allowed to have an opinion cause he supports the Crows?

 

[whatimtalkingbout]

'General Play' efficiency rate = 1 - (43 / 158) = 72.78%

Therefore, total effective 'general play' possessions = 6.32 * 72.78% = 4.60

Also - Therefore, total effective Inside 50s = 54 / 25 * 72.78% = 1.57


I was accurate to within 0.1, and I've gone super accurate here so that you do not have a single toe left to stand on.

I'd call that an absolute smashing, WITB! Why do you do this to yourself???

You just smashed yourself. Thanks for doing my work for me. You said 1 in 2 of franklin's disposals were ineffective and that 70% efficiency was very generous . . . remember that?

72% Efficiency in general disposal is very good for a forward. It doesn't mean 28% are clangers either. An inefficient disposal is one that doesn't go to completely to a teammate. It could be a long kick to a contest. That's counted as an inefficient disposal. It's still an effective disposal. Can we count all of Franklin's I50s now?

Remember when you said that his general disposal was probably close to 58%? What happened to that theory?

 

[james_omahoney]

You just smashed yourself. Thanks for doing my work for me. You said 1 in 2 of franklin's disposals were ineffective and that 70% efficiency was very generous . . . remember that?

72% Efficiency in general disposal is very good for a forward. It doesn't mean 28% are clangers either. An inefficient disposal is one that doesn't go to completely to a teammate. It could be a long kick to a contest. That's counted as an inefficient disposal. It's still an effective disposal. Can we count all of Franklin's I50s now?

Remember when you said that his general disposal was probably close to 58%? What happened to that theory?

Oh you still don't get it do you? 70% is generous and I'll explain why:

We actually have no real way of telling exactly how many of his inside 50s were inefficient. The reason is because inside 50s are not necessarily exclusively 'general play' disposals. What happens if he has a shot from outside 50 and it falls short into play? This is counted as a missed shot on goal, but also an inside 50.

What this means is that we can only guess what range his inside 50s were effective, based on a minimum of total DE% of 60% and a maximum of the 'general play' disposal efficiency rate of 72%. Therefore when I said he had 1-2 effective inside 50s per game, that was based on this range. So as you can see, a calculated inside 50 efficiency rate of 72% can very reasonably be considered generous. We're talking a difference of a couple of 10ths of a possession based on this range - what are you still arguing for???

4.6 effective general play disposals per game and 1.57 inside 50s is the absolute maximum that he could have achieved - the upper rate was applied so that you wouldn't have a whinge that I was misrepresenting the facts.

So are you still disputing the maths or not? Or are you just changing the subject now that you realise they're solid .

As for kicking long to a contest - I have a few points. Champion data technically defines their rate (on AFL.com) as Effective Disposal rate. They actually don't call it Efficiency. This means that in fact the ball would have ended up in the hands of an opponent, or out of bounds or whatever. You also talk of Franklin as a playmaker, yet somehow now he is being hard done by because of "kicking long to contests". Well which is it? Can't any man and his dog kick long to a contest? Should a disposal like this really be considered efficient/effective if your teammate doesn't mark/take possession because he was put into a tough contest. That's 70s football mate.

Where did I say "1 in 2 of franklin's disposals were ineffective". Are you just making up quotes now? I NEVER applied his goalkicking efficiency rate of 50% to any of the other stats mentioned. I said Franklin would either kick 1 or 2 effective inside 50s per game, which gives an average of about 1.5. This is not the same as saying "1 in 2 of franklin's disposals were ineffective". Your quote means 50%, mine means 70% of 2.16.

Mate you are a muppet. I'm seriously doubting whether or not you are just taking the piss or actually so stupid that you need every letter spelled out.

 

[whatimtalkingbout]

Oh you still don't get it do you? 70% is generous and I'll explain why:

We actually have no real way of telling exactly how many of his inside 50s were inefficient. The reason is because inside 50s are not necessarily exclusively 'general play' disposals. What happens if he has a shot from outside 50 and it falls short into play? This is counted as a missed shot on goal, but also an inside 50.

What this means is that we can only guess what range his inside 50s were effective, based on a minimum of total DE% of 60% and a maximum of the 'general play' disposal efficiency rate of 72%. Therefore when I said he had 1-2 effective inside 50s per game, that was based on this range. So as you can see, a calculated inside 50 efficiency rate of 72% can very reasonably be considered generous. We're talking a difference of a couple of 10ths of a possession based on this range - what are you still arguing for???

4.6 effective general play disposals per game and 1.57 inside 50s is the absolute maximum that he could have achieved - the upper rate was applied so that you wouldn't have a whinge that I was misrepresenting the facts.

So are you still disputing the maths or not? Or are you just changing the subject now that you realise they're solid .

As for kicking long to a contest - I have a few points. Champion data technically defines their rate (on AFL.com) as Effective Disposal rate. They actually don't call it Efficiency. This means that in fact the ball would have ended up in the hands of an opponent, or out of bounds or whatever. You also talk of Franklin as a playmaker, yet somehow now he is being hard done by because of "kicking long to contests". Well which is it? Can't any man and his dog kick long to a contest? Should a disposal like this really be considered efficient/effective if your teammate doesn't mark/take possession because he was in a fair contest?

Once again you fail. Ineffective disposals according to CD aren't clangers, like out of bounds or in the hands of the opponent. They're kicking to a contest or kicking a behind. Clangers are out of bounds, straight to an opponent.

Again you want to make an argument that his inside50s are ineffective because some of them 'could be' long shots at goal A long shot at goal that falls short would be classed as ineffective too, don't worry. But it's still an inside50 . . . get it? Get over the fact that his general disposal is actually very good and 72% effective disposal is very good for a forward. I know it's a bit of a departure from 58% that you were suggesting earlier on And he whips Lloyd in inside50s. Ineffective disposals aren't the total waste you want to make them out to be. Again I ask, can we count all the inside 50s now or do you want to divide them so you can make an argument for one-position-Lloyd?

 

[whatimtalkingbout]

As for kicking long to a contest - I have a few points. Champion data technically defines their rate (on AFL.com) as Effective Disposal rate. They actually don't call it Efficiency. This means that in fact the ball would have ended up in the hands of an opponent, or out of bounds or whatever. You also talk of Franklin as a playmaker, yet somehow now he is being hard done by because of "kicking long to contests". Well which is it? Can't any man and his dog kick long to a contest? Should a disposal like this really be considered efficient/effective if your teammate doesn't mark/take possession because he was put into a tough contest. That's 70s football mate.

Lol 70s football. There is still the odd contested marking contest alive in our game, thankfully. And a long kick to a contest shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. While CD will put this down as ineffective/efficient . . . it's still a good possession and often leads to a crumbing situation or puts the defence under pressure. But according to you we shouldn't even count that as a kick

 

[Jade]

Once again you fail. Ineffective disposals according to CD aren't clangers, like out of bounds or in the hands of the opponent. They're kicking to a contest or kicking a behind. Clangers are out of bounds, straight to an opponent.

Again you want to make an argument that his inside50s are ineffective because some of them 'could be' long shots at goal A long shot at goal that falls short would be classed as ineffective too, don't worry. But it's still an inside50 . . . get it? Get over the fact that his general disposal is actually very good and 72% effective disposal is very good for a forward. I know it's a bit of a departure from 58% that you were suggesting earlier on And he whips Lloyd in inside50s. Ineffective disposals aren't the total waste you want to make them out to be. Again I ask, can we count all the inside 50s now or do you want to divide them so you can make an argument for one-position-Lloyd?

Geez - the emoticons ACTUALLY make you look even more braindead....

You have had foot after foot broken off in your a$$ in this thread, been absolutely smashed in all facets, and even had mahoney give you a lesson in basic mathematics.

All arguments for Lloyd, and for Franklin have been made - the results are in, and you lose.

 

[whatimtalkingbout]

Geez - the emoticons ACTUALLY make you look even more braindead....

You have had foot after foot broken off in your a$$ in this thread, been absolutely smashed in all facets, and even had mahoney give you a lesson in basic mathematics.

All arguments for Lloyd, and for Franklin have been made - the results are in, and you lose.

Nah, mahoney just likes to nitpick when the stats don't go his way. And he still hasn't made up his mind as to whether or not they actually mean anything.

So far the only thing Lloyd has in his favour are his averages for that year having played less games than Franklin. And any cricketer will tell you the more games you play the harder it is to keep these averages up. Hell, any AFL spearhead will tell you the same thing.

 

[whatimtalkingbout]

Looks like mahoney's on his calculator again

 

[Jade]

Nah, mahoney just likes to nitpick when the stats don't go his way. And he still hasn't made up his mind as to whether or not they actually mean anything.

Actually he gave you an absolute spanking when you asked him to explain - then you just chose to ignore it.

So far the only thing Lloyd has in his favour are his averages for that year having played less games than Franklin. And any cricketer will tell you the more games you play the harder it is to keep these averages up. Hell, any AFL spearhead will tell you the same thing.

So Lloyd would have had to have kicked LESS THEN HALF of his season average in the four games he missed in order for Franklin to have had the superior record........ yeah mate, good luck with that.

 

[whatimtalkingbout]

Actually he gave you an absolute spanking when you asked him to explain - then you just chose to ignore it.



So Lloyd would have had to have kicked LESS THEN HALF of his season average in the four games he missed in order for Franklin to have had the superior record........ yeah mate, good luck with that.

He actually backed me up, he initially was saying that half franklin's possessions were clangers. Now he's accepted that 72% of franklin's possessions are straight to a teammate and most of the others are at least to a contest.

Mr. 3.5 will tell you that averages are harder to maintain over longer periods.

 

[james_omahoney]

Once again you fail. Ineffective disposals according to CD aren't clangers, like out of bounds or in the hands of the opponent. They're kicking to a contest or kicking a behind. Clangers are out of bounds, straight to an opponent.

Again you want to make an argument that his inside50s are ineffective because some of them 'could be' long shots at goal A long shot at goal that falls short would be classed as ineffective too, don't worry. But it's still an inside50 . . . get it? Get over the fact that his general disposal is actually very good and 72% effective disposal is very good for a forward. I know it's a bit of a departure from 58% that you were suggesting earlier on And he whips Lloyd in inside50s. Ineffective disposals aren't the total waste you want to make them out to be. Again I ask, can we count all the inside 50s now or do you want to divide them so you can make an argument for one-position-Lloyd?

Oi dipsh1t. You're not smart enough to understand. Get over it.

a clanger DOES count as an ineffective disposal, but an ineffective disposal is not necessarily a clanger. Get it?

"A long shot at goal that falls short would be classed as ineffective too, don't worry. " Yeah that's what I actually said.

72% is accurate for the upper range of his GP disposals. This gives him a maximum 4.6 effective disposals per game (as defined by champion data). What are you arguing about?

But look, if you want to be ignorant and say 100% of Franklin's GP disposals were accurate, that still leaves him short of Lloyd in GP disposals. It also still means he had more Frees Against than Inside 50s, a crappy goal assists rate, less marks per game than Lloyd, less goals per game and a poorer finals performance.

It doesn't matter how you want to try to divert attention, you still lose.

Oh and I never said half of Franklin's disposals were clangers - you interpreted it that way because you are severly lacking.

 

[whatimtalkingbout]

Oi dipsh1t. You're not smart enough to understand. Get over it.

a clanger DOES count as an ineffective disposal, but an ineffective disposal is not necessarily a clanger. Get it?

"A long shot at goal that falls short would be classed as ineffective too, don't worry. " Yeah that's what I actually said.

72% is accurate for the upper range of his GP disposals. This gives him a maximum 4.6 effective disposals per game (as defined by champion data). What are you arguing about?

But look, if you want to be ignorant and say 100% of Franklin's GP disposals were accurate, that still leaves him short of Lloyd in GP disposals. It also still means he had more Frees Against than Inside 50s, a crappy goal assists rate, less marks per game than Lloyd, less goals per game and a poorer finals performance.

It doesn't matter how you want to try to divert attention, you still lose.

Oh and I never said half of Franklin's disposals were clangers - you interpreted it that way because you are severly lacking.

I know an ineffective disposal isn't a clanger, we're in agreement here. At least you're not refusing to count all Franklin's disposals anymore. We've achieved something. We also agree that a long shot at goal would count as an ineffective disposal. Well done.

We also agree now that his effective disposals are in the 70% range, rather than the initial 50% range that you earlier proposed. A nice upgrade.

Franklin played his finals with injuries to his quad, finger, shoulder, wrist, but did stand up to be counted and kicked some important goals, had a few assists, kept Scarlett accountable and took multiple defenders, allowing our half forwards a lot of space and time. But that's not on the stat sheet so it doesn't count

what was lloyd's goal assist rate in 2001? I can't find some of these stats, all i have is raw data like possessions and goals kicked. The rest is guesswork.

 

[james_omahoney]

I know an ineffective disposal isn't a clanger, we're in agreement here. At least you're not refusing to count all Franklin's disposals anymore. We've achieved something. We also agree that a long shot at goal would count as an ineffective disposal. Well done.

We also agree now that his effective disposals are in the 70% range, rather than the initial 50% range that you earlier proposed. A nice upgrade.

Franklin played his finals with injuries to his quad, finger, shoulder, wrist, but did stand up to be counted and kicked some important goals, had a few assists, kept Scarlett accountable and took multiple defenders, allowing our half forwards a lot of space and time. But that's not on the stat sheet so it doesn't count

what was lloyd's goal assist rate in 2001? I can't find some of these stats, all i have is raw data like possessions and goals kicked. The rest is guesswork.

"At least you're not refusing to count all Franklin's disposals anymore." What? What are you talking about?

"We also agree now that his effective disposals are in the 70% range, rather than the initial 50% range that you earlier proposed" This is the third time i've told you today, I didn't say his GP disposals were at 50%. Show me where I said that t-bag.

So now you're getting into the 'injuries' excuse for Franklin, but somehow that didn't seem to matter to you earlier when bagging out Lloyd's career. In fact you said he had been "relatively injury free" - clearly an example of your complete lack of knowledge.

I said all along Franklin's effective GP disposals per game were 4.5 - so how does that mean I've "upgraded" my figures from 50% to 70%?

Give up.

 

[smooth mover]

As a very avid essendon supporter i'm not guna get on here & slag these 2 absolute guns out against each other! In 2001 the game was a bit slower bit more contact & thats where lloydy shone! he has great hands, good timed lead & very accurate goal kicking so that was a perfect era for him! In 2008 the game has moved into more of an athletes sport where that suits franklin down to a T! very fast big tank & can get the ball in the air or on the ground! so if you ask me i think they where both guns for their respective era's! what we should be doing instead of arguing about it is sitting back & watching a legend & an up & coming legend play the game! but 1 thing i will leave you with hawks supporters is that you should be thanking the great Kevin Sheedy for spotting franklins talent at such a young age & making other teams realise what a great catch he would be! thanks sheeds!!!

 

[whatimtalkingbout]

I said all along Franklin's effective GP disposals per game were 4.5 - so how does that mean I've "upgraded" my figures from 50% to 70%?

Give up.

The fact is that Buddy's efficiency is consistently 10-20%, and as much as 30%, lower than any other AA player in the competition. If you're going to say that Buddy's percentage is skewed because of his shots at goal then you're going to have to provide something tangible. Otherwise, suck it up!

I'd say his efficiency overall (58%) is skewed by his goal accuracy (50%) from his disposal accuracy (72%)

I guess i won't have to suck it up now

Thanks for doing the math for me though

 

[whatimtalkingbout]

S Lloyd got 14 possies a game in 01 - 5 of which were usually goals. What did he do with the other 9? .

What, he didn't kick behinds? 7.2 disposals in general play. Not 9 at all. I might have to go back through your mathematics and make a few more corrections.

Franklin's disposals . . . well you've seen what he can do

 

[james_omahoney]

What, he didn't kick behinds? 7.2 disposals in general play. Franklin's disposals . . . well you've seen what he can do

Yeah he did kick behinds, and I'm pretty sure I followed that post with another that gave that figure of 7.2, if you had bothered to read through properly. You didn't correct me at all.

At the end of the day, you can misquote me all you like. You can try to divert attention. You can even get more non-biased people reading through the thread and thinking you're a complete moron - but Lloyd had a better season, and the facts are irrefutable.