Scott Pendlebury - Standing in the game?

[Meteoric Rise]

You haven't answered the question.

It wasn't about 'who had the season a player would prefer to have'.

It was 'who had the better season - Martin or Pendlebury?'

What's your answer?

Who had the better season against what criteria?

Give me some help to understand the question here Fadge.

If it is who played better, then Dusty, as I have already said.

 

[Fadge]

Haha, yes back to that inconvenient thing, the facts. Not only your binary Premierships Fadge, which alone should count for a lot, but Pendlebury also had clearly the worst w/l rate of the last 3 Collingwood Captains in all games. So the question is, if you are not judging a player's leadership by his team's performance, then exactly what are you judging it by?

You ask who was the best leader on the ground in the 2023 Grand Final? Now what criteria am I supposed to use to judge that? Who pointed their finger the most at stoppages? Who gave a rousing speech prior to play? Who spoke best post-match?

Best if you have a view on this then just set it out and give your reasons. I am not prepared to form any view on it.

All good.

You don't need to form any view on it nor do I need to set out my reasons.

There's been enough reported by the media throughout the week to make it crystal clear as to who was the best and most important leader on the ground in this year's Grand Final, and you don't need me to tell you who that player is.

 

[Pistol Night]

What did you see from Crisp that made him the best leader on the ground in this year's Grand Final?

Pendles is the on field general out there without question. Fly has said it constantly. Look at the footage before the DeGoey goal stoppage and before Sideys goal. Hes an on field coach. Not even bothering ranking him playing wise in here though.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

All good.

You don't need to form any view on it nor do I need to set out my reasons.

There's been enough reported by the media throughout the week to make it crystal clear as to who was the best and most important leader on the ground in this year's Grand Final, and you don't need me to tell you who that player is.

Proof that Fadge believes what the AFL media industry tells him to believe.

 

[Seeds]

Who is 4th and 5th?

A player with 30 less games then pendlbury and harvey And whose average disposal count was reduced by the fact he spent his first 6 seasons as a foward pocket unlike pendlebury who was always a mid.

abletts greatness isnt driven by his total disposals over his career. Its driven by other aspects of his game.

 

[Fadge]

If it is who played better, then Dusty, as I have already said.

So you're saying that Pendlebury's finals performances weren't enough to bridge the gap between a player who finished 20% of votes behind the winner of the best and fairest in the 13th placed team, despite Pendlebury finishing 6% of votes behind the winner of the best and fairest for the premiership team?

Despite Pendlebury being highly influential in the 'games that matter', whilst Martin was 'managed' for the must win game against St Kilda to keep Richmond's season alive, before returning to pad his coaches votes and Brownlow votes in meaningless games when Richmond were no longer in finals calculations?

Some would suggest that assessment is somewhat hypocritical of you, given your musings in other threads...

 

[Fadge]

Proof that Fadge believes what the AFL media industry tells him to believe.

Maybe you should start listening to what former greats of the game see and report, as opposed you basing your assessments off of a stats sheet...

 

[Fadge]

abletts greatness isnt driven by his total disposals over his carrer. Its driven by other aspects of his game.

And Pendlebury's isn't?

It's just one of many data points that highlights Pendlebury's greatness.

 

[RichLeMonde]

Ah yes... one of your three 'convenient statistics'...

Let's be serious for a minute.

You say I've used 3 convenient stats, but what stats would you suggest we use to quantify SP's greatness?

What stats would you say are useful to help us measure the impact of a mid?

I think it's pretty reasonable that I've looked at clearances and contested possessions, as measures of the degree to which a mid is an in and under extractor.

I think it's pretty reasonable that I've looked at goals + goal assists, as measures of the degree to which a mid is a finisher.

I think it's pretty reasonable that I've looked as score involvements, as a measure of the degree to which a mid uses the ball in a damaging way, setting up chains of possession culminating in scores.

What other stats would you suggest we use?

Others possibilities that spring to mind include: metres gained (but only if combined with high disposal efficiency). This would reflect mids who play a quarter-backing role.

There are other stats, but none seem particularly useful:

• inside 50s, but this stat doesn't reflect whether those kicks are actually effective, and so is far less significant than goal assists
• rebound 50s, doesn't mean much, especially for a mid
• intercepts, contested marks - not so relevant for a mid
• effective disposals, disposal efficiency - this is an interesting one. I don't think these stats, by themselves, mean much. You can have a guy who is a classic sea-gull, kicking short, kicking sideways, never taking the game on, etc, and they can have high disposal efficiency. High disposal efficiency and effective disposal numbers become impressive only when combined with other stats, such as high metres gained, high score involvements, high goal assists etc.

I accept that there are other aspects of being a great player that can't be quantified, such as leadership, or executing in big moments.

But all the truly great players also performed on the field in ways that were reflected in certain statistics. All of them. It would be very strange if SP was the only player where this wasn't the case.

So what stats actually best reflect what SP does on the field?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So you're saying that Pendlebury's finals performances weren't enough to bridge the gap between a player who finished 20% of votes behind the winner of the best and fairest in the 13th placed team, despite Pendlebury finishing 6% of votes behind the winner of the best and fairest for the premiership team?

Despite Pendlebury being highly influential in the 'games that matter', whilst Martin was 'managed' for the must win game against St Kilda to keep Richmond's season alive, before returning to pad his coaches votes and Brownlow votes in meaningless games when Richmond were no longer in finals calculations?

Some would suggest that assessment is somewhat hypocritical of you, given your musings in other threads...

So ok your agenda is becoming slightly less vague now.

I would not have a huge problem Fadge if you said Pendlebury's sub top 20 in the Ayres Medal finals series elevates his season above Dusty's, but it is entirely arguable, and more probably correct, that it did not.

But is that what you are saying? Because if so, this is clearly at odds with things YOU have submitted on other threads, where Dusty being by miles the best player in a finals series does not elevate him above players who were strong in the home and away season but weak in finals. How you manage to turn that queer position into trying to make me look like I am hypocritical is some classic Fagic right there. Fadge logic.

 

[Jimmybob]

He’s probably the most consistent player of the modern era.. a great of the game for sure.

 

[Cdog71]

What did you see from Crisp that made him the best leader on the ground in this year's Grand Final?

Only NDaicos had more possessions
2goals
Highest mtr gained (the real ones)456
Only Howe and Hill had more marks
No running player for the Pies spent more time on the ground 91%
Howe 94
Mihocheck 92
Maynard 93

Pendlebury had 4 possessions 2nd quarter
3 possessions 3rd quarter.

I wouldn’t be surprised if that was a tactic for the last quarter from the Pies and it worked great.

I think Crisp was there all game and won his position every quarter and more.

Could’ve been Captain that bloke and I think he played like one.

 

[Mr Meow]

Martin was top 5 in the AFL for score involvements in 2023.

That is higher than SP has ever achieved in a season (as measured from 2012, when SP was 24 years old)

As a forward flanker with a license to both be a spare midfielder or drift deep into attack, I'd expect his SI numbers to be higher than Pendlebury - who in soccer terms would be more of a central defensive midfielder. 3x as many rebound 50s and ~50% more tackles/pressure acts speaks to that fact.

68.5% kicking efficiency for SP compared to 50.4% to Martin. So they're a different profile of player, but Martin's SIs do come at a cost - important to remember that.

Yes Martin had a million disposals in that role as a hybrid forward/mid, just as he did in his peak as a hybrid mid/forward - and that deserves kudos. But a BnF top 5 in a premiership side I'd give as much merit as a half forward/mid being prolific for SIs.

Player ratings, Fantasy points and Supercoach points all gave the edge to Martin but they were all within 5%.

A vital POD in two very tight knockout finals deserves kudos, but then Martin had the edge in coaches votes. They both cleaned up in their sides two dead rubber games to finish the H&A season so that wasn't a factor. There is the little curio that Pendlebury had more high quality team mates to compete with for coaches votes, all in their prime besides Sidebottom.

It's pretty close overall depending how you weigh things. Possibly on a per game basis Martin gets the nod, but his slow start came while Richmond's season never got a chance to take off. The hot finish didn't mean much. Pendlebury did last a full 25 games without need for rotation and Collingwood had enough close games for that to be an important factor.

 

[Fadge]

So ok your agenda is becoming slightly less vague now.

I would not have a huge problem Fadge if you said Pendlebury's sub top 20 in the Ayres Medal finals series elevates his season above Dusty's, but it is entirely arguable, and more probably correct, that it did not.

But is that what you are saying? Because if so, this is clearly at odds with things YOU have submitted on other threads, where Dusty being by miles the best player in a finals series does not elevate him above players who were strong in the home and away season but weak in finals. How you manage to turn that queer position into trying to make me look like I am hypocritical is some classic Fagic right there. Fadge logic.

No. It's not what I'm saying.

It is indeed how I'd expect you to assess it though, if you were consistent and unbiased in your views.

But as expected, you're not.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Maybe you should start listening to what former greats of the game see and report, as opposed you basing your assessments off of a stats sheet...

What you of course mean is I should listen to the mainstream media narrative when it tell me how great Collingwood and its players are.


Hopefully you will understand if I refuse your entreaty Fadge, it doesn't seem very appealing.

 

[RichLeMonde]

Also I think your comparisons in some cases were unfair given they missed two of Pendlebury's very best years (for SIs) but include his many years 30+. That has a big effect compared to Fyfe for instance who just got injured/fell off a cliff young so "protected" his career averages. And Bont etc haven't even reached veteran status yet.

I don't think it's unfair to include SP's seasons aged 30 plus, when those claiming he is a top 5 modern player cite longevity as one of the main reasons.

Yes, it's not ideal that we can't include SP's SIs for 2009-2011, but the same also applies to Mitchell and Selwood, who also had incredible seasons before 2012.

Don't agree about Fyfe. Fyfe had seasons where he could only manage 11, 5, 15, 14, 15, 7, and 9 games. His body was clearly cooked in those seasons, and yet I've included his stats from those seasons, in looking at his overall career averages. And they still blow SP's out of the water. It's not like Fyfe's career averages only reflect when his body was in mint condition.

Bont and Oliver haven't reached veteran status, and so their first 2 or 3 seasons actually drag down their career averages more so than for a guy who's played 12 seasons, since those early years make up a larger percentage of the total careers of guys like Bont and Oliver. But yes, it's not perfect to compare guys at quite different career points. Nonetheless, the fact that Bont has better numbers than SP as an insider player, and in terms of scoreboard impact, tells you something.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

No. It's not what I'm saying.

It is indeed how I'd expect you to assess it though, if you were consistent and unbiased in your views.

But as expected, you're not.

If Pendlebury won the Ayres or Smith Medals, or maybe was even in the top 10 finals players or something, then perhaps....here you are trying equate things that bear no resemblance whatsoever. When you stoop to that it is pretty clear you are losing the argument to elevate Pendlebury above his station.

 

[Seeds]

pendlebury is the simon black of this era.

a player who never quite made it to being the best mid in the game but had longevity and for some reason people confuse it with ability.

ablett, fyfe, judd, danger, martin all had periods where they were considered the games clear best mid. Pendlebury never got there.

 

[Cdog71]

The BBall stuff is a moot point but I reckon if he hadve played any Olympic sport (not swimming)there’s a better than average chance he would’ve been one of Australia’s most decorated Olympians.
Pretty incredible the standard he gets himself to and stays at to preform.

 

[Fadge]

Don't agree about Fyfe. Fyfe had seasons where he could only manage 11, 5, 15, 14, 15, 7, and 9 games. His body was clearly cooked in those seasons, and yet I've included his stats from those seasons, in looking at his overall career averages. And they still blow SP's out of the water.

'Fyfe's stats blow SP's out of the water', based on the selective subset of data you choose to use when performing these comparisons...

Pendlebury is clearly more and outside player than the likes of Fyfe and Dangerfield, so clearly he will have inferior numbers for clearances and contested possessions. Pendlebury, like Daicos, are elite decision makers and ball users, so naturally you want then playing the role that is most beneficial to the team.

Pendlebury also has spent much less time forward of centre than the likes of Dangerfield and Martin, hence one would reasonably expect lower SI's for Pendlebury.

But hey, it's your flawed story. Unfortunately we can see straight through you...

 

[Mr Meow]

Let's be serious for a minute.

You say I've used 3 convenient stats, but what stats would you suggest we use to quantify SP's greatness?

What stats would you say are useful to help us measure the impact of a mid?

I think it's pretty reasonable that I've looked at clearances and contested possessions, as measures of the degree to which a mid is an in and under extractor.

I think it's pretty reasonable that I've looked at goals + goal assists, as measures of the degree to which a mid is a finisher.

I think it's pretty reasonable that I've looked as score involvements, as a measure of the degree to which a mid uses the ball in a damaging way, setting up chains of possession culminating in scores.

What other stats would you suggest we use?

Others possibilities that spring to mind include: metres gained (but only if combined with high disposal efficiency). This would reflect mids who play a quarter-backing role.

There are other stats, but none seem particularly useful:

• inside 50s, but this stat doesn't reflect whether those kicks are actually effective, and so is far less significant than goal assists
• rebound 50s, doesn't mean much, especially for a mid
• intercepts, contested marks - not so relevant for a mid
• effective disposals, disposal efficiency - this is an interesting one. I don't think these stats, by themselves, mean much. You can have a guy who is a classic sea-gull, kicking short, kicking sideways, never taking the game on, etc, and they can have high disposal efficiency. High disposal efficiency and effective disposal numbers become impressive only when combined with other stats, such as high metres gained, high score involvements, high goal assists etc.

I accept that there are other aspects of being a great player that can't be quantified, such as leadership, or executing in big moments.

But all the truly great players also performed on the field in ways that were reflected in certain statistics. All of them. It would be very strange if SP was the only player where this wasn't the case.

So what stats actually best reflect what SP does on the field?

More effective disposals, higher kicking efficiency, more clearances, uncontested possessions, score launches, intercepts, rebound 50s, tackles, 1%ers, pressure acts and less turnovers. It was close enough on a few metrics that playing an extra couple of H&A games and then playing very well through finals could be considered deciding factors, dependent on what you weigh more heavily.

 

[Fadge]

If Pendlebury won the Ayres or Smith Medals, or maybe was even in the top 10 finals players or something, then perhaps....here you are trying equate things that bear no resemblance whatsoever. When you stoop to that it is pretty clear you are losing the argument to elevate Pendlebury above his station.

Oh look, referring to coaches votes again?

Maybe my assumption that you watched last week's Grand Final wasn't correct after all?

Not surprising in the least.

 

[Mr Meow]

I don't think it's unfair to include SP's seasons aged 30 plus, when those claiming he is a top 5 modern player cite longevity as one of the main reasons.

Yes, it's not ideal that we can't include SP's SIs for 2009-2011, but the same also applies to Mitchell and Selwood, who also had incredible seasons before 2012.

Don't agree about Fyfe. Fyfe had seasons where he could only manage 11, 5, 15, 14, 15, 7, and 9 games. His body was clearly cooked in those seasons, and yet I've included his stats from those seasons, in looking at his overall career averages. And they still blow SP's out of the water. It's not like Fyfe's career averages only reflect when his body was in mint condition.

Bont and Oliver haven't reached veteran status, and so their first 2 or 3 seasons actually drag down their career averages more so than for a guy who's played 12 seasons, since those early years make up a larger percentage of the total careers of guys like Bont and Oliver. But yes, it's not perfect to compare guys at quite different career points. Nonetheless, the fact that Bont has better numbers than SP as an insider player, and in terms of scoreboard impact, tells you something.

Rank them against other champions 30-35 year old seasons then, and accept that very few players are good enough to play an important role through that age bracket (if they don't have full seasons through that bracket after career completion, they are marked down on longevity and so you have to defend their peak being better - that's what you should be doing).

It's too early to rank Bontempelli etc against anyone except his own peers as active players.

 

[RichLeMonde]

pendlebury is the simon black of this era.

a player who never quite made it to being the best mid in the game but had longevity and for some reason people confuse it with ability.

ablett, fyfe, judd, danger, martin all had periods where they were considered the games clear best mid. Pendlebury never got there.

They generally name the 3 best mids in a season to the starting on-ball positions in the AA team.

Here's how many times those guys you mentioned, and a few others, got named to one of those spots

Player	No. of times in AA team as ruck-rover, rover or centre
GAJ	8
Judd	4
Fyfe	2
Danger	3
Dusty	2
Hodge	1
Bartel	1
Swan	2
S Mitchell	1
Selwood	3
JPK	2
Cripps	3
Trac	1
Neale	3
Oliver	2
Bont	1
Pendlebury	0

 

[RichLeMonde]

More effective disposals, higher kicking efficiency, more clearances, uncontested possessions, score launches, intercepts, rebound 50s, tackles, 1%ers, pressure acts and less turnovers. It was close enough on a few metrics that playing an extra couple of H&A games and then playing very well through finals could be considered deciding factors, dependent on what you weigh more heavily.

Hang on, I'm not talking about season 2023.

I'm asking about which stats, in general, are the best to measure the impact of a SP (or different facets of midfield play in general)