Scott Pendlebury - Standing in the game?
- Thread starter Fadge
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Wait... did you create the data you shared in a screen shot a few pages ago? The one with like 10 data points and free text in a single cell? The one that someone took the time and effort to enter the data in, but didn't do it in a way that would facilitate use of Excel's most basic features? You're THAT analyst? It doesn't even pass data entry standards, let alone analysis...
I bet you use a calculator to tally up numbers manually from your sheet and enter the sums that way too, yeah?
Welcome to Fagic. = Fadge logic.
Where winning awards means less than leading awards at round 17, because the former is binary apparently.
Where being the highest rated player on the ground in each of 3 Grand Finals, and getting 28 of a possible 30 Coach's votes and 43 of a possible 45 Norm Smith Medal votes across the 3 matches doesn't mean anything because another person another time may have been recognised for a performance only marginally better than another player. Sort of like Pendlebury's 10 of a possible 15 vote Norm Smith Medal...
Fadge is Mr Non-Binary. Or Mrs Non-Binary. Or whatever pronoun Fadge prefers. But you will find nobody is less binary than Fadge.
He sure knows how to use Excel as little more than a chalkboard though, no one has even thought to just dump all the data in one cell along with free text, eye ball it, and call the block of rambling text that followed it analysis.
- Thread starter
- #1,379
Yes. Because capturing and presenting the data in the manner you suggest would have added so much more value when the intention of the analysis was to rank each finals game from each of the players relative to one another....
But as I said, critical thinking and data analysis isn't for everyone.
Welcome to Fagic. = Fadge logic.
Where winning awards means less than leading awards at round 17, because the former is binary apparently.
Where being the highest rated player on the ground in each of 3 Grand Finals, and getting 28 of a possible 30 Coach's votes and 43 of a possible 45 Norm Smith Medal votes across the 3 matches doesn't mean anything because another person another time may have been recognised for a performance only marginally better than another player. Sort of like Pendlebury's 10 of a possible 15 vote Norm Smith Medal...
Fadge is Mr Non-Binary. Or Mrs Non-Binary. Or whatever pronoun Fadge prefers. But you will find nobody is less binary than Fadge.
He's written hundreds of words and did and Excel finger painting to support his position and I don't even really know what his main points were, just the conclusion he was scrambling backwards from. 3 NS and 3 flags is simple enough for those of us that don't carry a DSM on us every time we need to crack someone's crazy code.
You haven't even gotten past the most basic level of data entry, start there before you go throwing the a word around. It's clear you can't even comprehend how bad that sheet was, and how much worse you're making it doubling down on critical thinking and data analysis flexes... I feel bad. I'll drop it now, but my guy, if you love spending hours on 'analysis', invest 10 hours in some free online Excel courses, the difference between not being able to enter data and a modest level of proficiency will change your world. You'll use spreadsheets for everything when the penny drops that they can do more than serve as a note pad.
You actually speak a lot of sense and have come up with a much simpler, more effective system to rank players careers
Greatest players of all time
1. Dustin Martin (3 Norm Smith's)
2. Andrew McLeod (2 Norm Smith's)
Luke Hodge (2 Norm Smith's)
Gary Ayres (2 Norm Smith's)
3. The 37 other players with a single Norm Smith
4. Every player in history without a Norm Smith medal
Ranking by number of premierships won is the only other system I can think of. Maybe somebody else can tally those up and come up with a top 5 or 10 players of all time using that.
You don't want to hear my analysis and I don't want to give it. Look into those online Excel courses if you're not too busy.
You can look at it many ways. But made up criteria and fluffing up your guy with it to favorably compare him to something objective and superior in favor of the other guy if comparing apples to apples is what we're talking about here. He failed to convince me that possessions in EF losses count toward anything of meaning vs. what he was comparing it to.
What are your 5 best methods to assess player careers? You've offered the best two
1. Number of Norm Smith's
2. Number of premierships
Are there a 3, 4 and 5 or would the above be the only gold standards?
I haven't thought about it. These things are what they are and it's kinda stupid to use a measure for one thing and something different for the other then 'rank' them on subjective feels. They're just two different measures. So I didn't recognize the made up criteria as a credible way to put SP ahead of DM in response to the 3NS/Ps it was responding to and defaulted to the one I did find credible without there being any other agreed upon standard. Just because someone put one forward it doesn't automatically align us all to agree it's the way especially when the intent was just to say my guy is better. If we agreed on a method/framework, and how we'd measure it, the data would probably speak for itself relative to that exact way of measuring. Which can be an authentic and interesting conversation. That wasn't at all the intent here though and none of the desperate rantings did anything to invalidate the objective greatness of 3NS/P's in and of itself.
Last edited:
Yeah I get that - you've pointed out that you don't think ranking finals is possible outside of Grand Finals (in which we can at least know the highest rated player by the Norm smith). Remembering these would be subjective opinions anyway and could always be disputed. That's how football forums work.
But I was just wondering what your actual solutions were, because on the surface it looks like your only accepted methods for ranking players careers are:
-Number of NS medals
-Number of premierships
Do any other awards factor in? What about the best players of a finals series before the Gary Ayres award was invented? Or can we only really have an opinion on finals 2016 onwards?
Someone passing their opinion of a players performance in a match as "fact" is no better or worse than claiming a players award(s) in another match (e.g Norm Smith) automatically make them a better finals player. Or else I can just say JJ and Byron Pickett were better finals players than Gary Ablett Junior and Michael Voss - simply because they won a NS.
I'm not really ranking, though. There just isn't a higher level of finals achievement than premierships from a team perspective or Norm Smith's from an individual perspective. There's plenty of ways to demonstrate something else, but those are objectively the absolute highest level of achievement within the context of the attempt to present a superior alternative by way of finger paintings.
South of the Yarra
Brownlow Medallist
- Jul 23, 2006
- 12,257
- 21,657
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
So you’re saying Gordon Coventry is the greatest player of All time.
Fair enough. You aren't ranking but you do have an accepted "system" for distinguishing between players careers: number of NS and/or premiership medals. Inadvertently this would already reveal your rankings unless you suggested other criteria.
And using that system I could easily conclude that Jason Johannisen was a better player than either Gary Ablett. They had a NS and premiership(s) respectively - but not both like JJ.
Easy to get lost in it all, but I'm not debating better. I'm debating that the alternative measure was comparable (favorably none the less) to the far more objective measure. That's it. It didn't stack up regardless, it was it's own measure, of no relevance to the credible achievements it was offered as some kind of superior alternative to.
Probably could have just left it with the first reply
for your ref below, who knows what's been said since, the Fadges of the world have a way of convoluting the hell out of it. Scott Pendlebury - Standing in the game?
Yep that's right, bloke kills it for 4 years through hell and high water than decides to turn it up in the 15th season because he is weak after all. Lol. EFA 
On SM-A225F using BigFooty.com mobile app
On SM-A225F using BigFooty.com mobile app
www.bigfooty.com
Any player who couldn't win a Norm Smith (i.e before it was introduced) would also be automatically disqualified.
Coventry's finals performances cannot be ranked unless he received an individual medal for them.
Not my system, but this is the way PizzaPie's would work.
My favourite Fadge Ratings trick on another thread was to rate some Pendlebury finals 90(or maybe even 95?) out of 100 on his scale . Which meant if Martin played 100% better than that he could only rate 5 or 10% better.
And then after this process we get Fadge declaring Pendlebury basically has as good a finals record as Dusty, just didn't get the same recognition, lol.
But his table submitted on this thread is itself full of such deceit. No allowance for goal assists or score involvements, where Dusty is miles ahead of Pendlebury, to the extent where Dusty averages 2.8(rounded down) goals + assists per career final. And Pendlebury averages 0.8(rounded up) goals + assists per career final. Nor any consideration of many other measures, some of which Pendlebury leads.
But fortunately, we have a system in place since 2012 that considers every recordable act a player does. The official Ratings system provided by Champion Data. And when we compared Fadge's ratings to CD's objective and comprehensive ratings, guess what we found? You would never have thought so but it turns out Fadge rated Pendlebury's finals no less than 20% higher than CD when compared to Dusty's finals. I myself was utterly astonished to find that such a great analyst as Fadge was 20% biased towards Scott Pendlebury over Dustin Martin.
But how can I say Ablett Junior was a better finals player than Sam Walsh or Luke Shuey? What, by referencing other finals I and others thought he starred in (opinions...but there wasn't a panel at the non-GFs that voted for him)? He didn't have the awards to show for it so ultimately I am left to concede Walsh and Shuey would be picked in any merged finals side before Ablett. Likewise Bobby Hill has more to show than Buddy Franklin.Easy to get lost in it all, but I'm not debating better. I'm debating that the alternative measure was comparable (favorably none the less) to the far more objective measure. That's it. It didn't stack up regardless, it was it's own measure, of no relevance to the credible achievements it was offered as some kind of superior alternative to.
Probably could have just left it with the first reply
Scott Pendlebury - Standing in the game?
Yep that's right, bloke kills it for 4 years through hell and high water than decides to turn it up in the 15th season because he is weak after all. Lol. EFA
