Scott Pendlebury - Standing in the game?

[Fadge]

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.

Feel free to share your own analysis, using your own data, if you don't agree with mine.

And I'm tipping that if I gave Pendlebury a 90 or 95 out of 100 for his performance in a particular game, it would take one hell of an effort for Martin to play 100% better than him. Because that's how AFL players' performances work - A player who is best on ground is generally only marginally better than the next best on ground (and on many occasions, the best player on the ground is disputable).

Which is what is on display by the data I shared earlier (and yes, there may be other metrics that can be used - For example, I could throw in tackles which would significantly favour Pendlebury) - But I am content that the data I shared was sufficient for me to form a reasonable conclusion.

So, go ahead and share your detailed analysis, if you believe it would produce a different result than mine.

Or, stick with the PizzaPie level of analysis, where it's Norm Smith and Premiership, or GTF outta here...

 

[Mr Meow]

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.

 

[PizzaPie]

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 only system is that when comparing SP to DM in direct response to his record of NMs and P's, the one with more than the other has the better results. And the alternative 'results' (possession tally's are not results) didn't change anything. Nothing said since has. They're just different measures, and none of them stand up alone against the highest possible levels of achievement in finals of which one player has a better record than the other if comparing them. Measuring something else doesn't change that, it's just something else.

 

[Mr Meow]

My only system is that when comparing SP to DM in direct response to his record of NMs and P's, the one with more than the other has the better results. And the alternative 'results' (possession tally's are not results) didn't change anything. Nothing said since has. They're just different measures, and none of them stand up alone against the highest possible levels of achievement of which one player has a better record than the other if comparing them. Measuring something else doesn't change that, it's just something else.

But the system you critiqued attempted to rank their their best seasons, and not just the premiership ones. And of course they will be subjective, which lets people offer their own opinion. But remember you were critiquing the system, while saying NS and premierships were the only methods that could be used.

It seems that you're acting as if the said poster tried to claim SP had more NS and premierships than Martin. That wasn't how I read the posts.

 

[Fadge]

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.

Ah yes.

The algorithm that determined Nick Daicos was the 25th best player on the ground last weekend, despite unanimously being voted as the best player on the ground by both coaches...

The algorithm that had Bobby Hill as the 14th best player on the ground in the 2023 Grand Final, despite being the unanimous best player as voted by all Norm Smith Medal voters AND both coaches.

An infallible system.

 

[PizzaPie]

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.

Just say it? or measure something? I couldn't care less about made up titles. DM has achieved more than SP in finals, objectively. It's tangible. Who is 'better', I dunno... better at what? DM has the better results. SP is better in many ways, not the least of which being a Collingwood player.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

PizzaPie Mr Meow

There is since 2012 a very credible way to rate finals performances. AFL official player ratings. It is objective, comprehensive and not capped at x votes, so we can objectively compare Dustin Martin's 2017 Grand Final performance with say Josh Kennedy's 2016 Grand Final performance, or Nathan Fyfe

7

Nathan Fyfe

Age

33

Ht

191cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

25.5

5star

K

12.7

5star

HB

12.8

5star

M

4.5

4star

T

4.0

5star

CL

5.6

5star

D

20.4

5star

K

8.6

3star

HB

11.8

5star

M

2.6

3star

T

3.0

4star

CL

2.8

4star

D

13.8

4star

K

8.6

4star

HB

5.2

4star

M

4.4

4star

T

3.2

5star

CL

2.0

4star

's 2013 Grand Final performance for eg.

And since 2016 a second very credible way to rate finals performances, Coaches votes.

Before those we had just Norm Smith voting in Grand Finals, best player lists, obvious achievements(like a lot of goals) and our own observations, replete with all of our own biases.

But when it comes to the Grand Finals Dustin martin played in, there are 3 credible measures available.

Player Ratings

Martin was BOG(extremely high rating) BOG BOG(extremely high rating) in 2017 and 2020 by big margins.

Norm Smith Medal voting

Martin was BOG(13 of 15 votes) BOG(15 of 15) BOG(15 of 15)

Coaches Votes

Martin was 2nd BOG(8 of a possible 10 votes) BOG(10 of 10) BOG(10 of 10)


So within that wall of unanimity, guess exactly what part of it Fadge and others have tried to wage a war against the credibility of Dusty's Grand Final awards based upon?

2 missing votes Norm Smith votes out of 45. And 2 missing Coaches votes out of 30. Lol.

 

[Mr Meow]

Just say it? or measure something? I couldn't care less about made up titles. DM has achieved more than SP in finals, objectively. It's tangible. Who is 'better', I dunno... better at what? DM has the better results. SP is better in many ways, not the least of which being a Collingwood player.

Fair enough. It is obviously their opinion. I thought that went without saying. I get that it annoyed you that it was put into an excel spreadsheet, rather than listed as bullet points or something. That seems more of a stylistic issue.

It is certainly a fact that Martin was ranked higher in grand finals (relative to peers on the day) than any other players since the Norm Smith medal was introduced. Maybe even all time.

It is also a fact that Martin has been the strongest finals performer on average since the Gary Ayres medal was introduced in 2016 (after Pendles peak).

Plenty of debate could be had about the rest and nobody will ever be proved right either way, but opinions don't have to be backed by certainty.

 

[Mr Meow]

PizzaPie Mr Meow

There is since 2012 a very credible way to rate finals performances. AFL official player ratings. It is objective, comprehensive and not capped at x votes, so we can objectively compare Dustin Martin's 2017 Grand Final performance with say Josh Kennedy's 2016 Grand Final performance, or Nathan Fyfe's 2013 Grand Final performance for eg.

And since 2016 a second very credible way to rate finals performances, Coaches votes.

Before those we had just Norm Smith voting in Grand Finals, best player lists, obvious achievements(like a lot of goals) and our own observations, replete with all of our own biases.

But when it comes to the Grand Finals Dustin martin played in, there are 3 credible measures available.

Player Ratings

Martin was BOG(extremely high rating) BOG BOG(extremely high rating) in 2017 and 2020 by big margins.

Norm Smith Medal voting

Martin was BOG(13 of 15 votes) BOG(15 of 15) BOG(15 of 15)

Coaches Votes

Martin was 2nd BOG(8 of a possible 10 votes) BOG(10 of 10) BOG(10 of 10)


So within that wall of unanimity, guess exactly what part of it Fadge and others have tried to wage a war against the credibility of Dusty's Grand Final awards based upon?

2 missing votes Norm Smith votes out of 45. And 2 missing Coaches votes out of 30. Lol.

Coaches votes are valid, yes, for players finals 2016 onwards.

Player Ratings are not and I would trust a consensus opinion of 6 drunken Carlton supporters watching the game on a phone, more than I would the Player Ratings for games that CD provides.

 

[PizzaPie]

But the system you critiqued attempted to rank their their best seasons, and not just the premiership ones. And of course they will be subjective, which lets people offer their own opinion. But remember you were critiquing the system, while saying NS and premierships were the only methods that could be used.

It seems that you're acting as if the said poster tried to claim SP had more NS and premierships than Martin. That wasn't how I read the posts.

No, the opposite. They very deliberately introduced a tidal wave of numbers and feelings to package up 'results' that were superior to the objective and highest level of achievement possible ones DM was in front on.

 

[PizzaPie]

Coaches votes are valid, yes, for players finals 2016 onwards.

Player Ratings are not and I would trust a consensus opinion of 6 drunken Carlton supporters watching the game on a phone, more than I would the Player Ratings for games that CD provides.

I didn't write that....

 

[Mr Meow]

No, the opposite. They very deliberately introduced a tidal wave of numbers and feelings to package up 'results' that were superior to the objective and highest level of achievement possible ones DM was in front on.

Well I think you've said all you need to: that number of NS and premierships would automatically supersede "tidal wave of numbers" that include performance in the other awards, and stats in other finals.

Fair enough. Using the latter system would rank Ablett's 2008 and 2009 above JJ's 2016 and Sam Walsh's 2023...while your "premiership/NS system" would put JJ's 2016 and Walsh's 2023 seasons above both of those. So there are definitely flaws in your system too.

 

[PizzaPie]

I have to put my hand up though and admit anyone that gets sucked into however much time went into this needs to have a long hard look in the mirror. Actually, that's what got me so lit in the first place :/
I concede all points in recognition of the fact I even made so many is an L.

 

[Mr Meow]

I didn't write that....

I quoted Meteoric Rise in response to him quoting me and you in the same post. Is there an issue?

 

[Mr Meow]

I have to put my hand up though and admit anyone that gets sucked into however much time went into this needs to have a long hard look in the mirror. Actually, that's what got me so lit in the first place :/
I concede all points in recognition of the fact I even made so many is an L.

Sometimes sitting out and moving on is the best approach.

People discuss if they want to and don't if there's no interest.

Or in your case, discuss what other people discuss for ages.

 

[PizzaPie]

Well I think you've said all you need to: that number of NS and premierships would automatically supersede "tidal wave of numbers" that include performance in the other awards, and stats in other finals.

Fair enough. Using the latter system would rank Ablett's 2008 and 2009 above JJ's 2016 and Sam Walsh's 2023...while your "premiership/NS system" would put JJ's 2016 and Walsh's 2023 seasons above both of those. So there are definitely flaws in your system too.

The system is that 3 NS is more than 1. That's it. And it was finals results not seasons. Whoever of those people has more NSs, has more of them. Whoever has more of something else, has that. NS is the superior achievement in finals vs. performance statistics in finals matches, objectively.

 

[RAPPA]

At what point based on the countless previous pages does this thread title get changed to “Scott Pendlebury

10

Scott Pendlebury

Age

37

Ht

191cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

26.5

5star

K

13.2

5star

HB

13.3

5star

M

4.1

4star

T

4.9

5star

CL

4.9

5star

D

25.1

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

12.9

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

2.3

3star

CL

3.6

4star

D

12.4

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

4.8

4star

M

5.8

5star

T

2.6

4star

v Dustin Martin”?

 

[PizzaPie]

Sometimes sitting out and moving on is the best approach.

People discuss if they want to and don't if there's no interest.

Or in your case, discuss what other people discuss for ages.

In both our cases, actually ^^

 

[Cleansweep17]

Martin averages fewer disposals than Terry Wallace did at Richmond.

Maybe because he’s spent time as a forward as well.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Sometimes sitting out and moving on is the best approach.

People discuss if they want to and don't if there's no interest.

Or in your case, discuss what other people discuss for ages.

Take a leaf out of Pizza’s book even a Collingwood supporter can see what you and Fadge cannot.

 

[Mr Meow]

Take a leaf out of Pizza’s book even a Collingwood supporter can see what you and Fadge cannot.

Why are you talking to me?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Ah yes.

The algorithm that determined Nick Daicos was the 25th best player on the ground last weekend, despite unanimously being voted as the best player on the ground by both coaches...

The algorithm that had Bobby Hill as the 14th best player on the ground in the 2023 Grand Final, despite being the unanimous best player as voted by all Norm Smith Medal voters AND both coaches.

An infallible system.

Lol this would be like someone quoting all the games like last night where Bulldogs won everywhere bar the scoreboard and saying that is evidence the scoring system used to determine match results is wrong.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Coaches votes are valid, yes, for players finals 2016 onwards.

Player Ratings are not and I would trust a consensus opinion of 6 drunken Carlton supporters watching the game on a phone, more than I would the Player Ratings for games that CD provides.

Meow's admission he would rather trust something compiled based on no credible evidence or observation than a system based on observing and rating for value every single action a player undertakes in a match in fine detail.

Says. It. All.

 

[Mr Meow]

Meow's admission he would rather trust something compiled based on no credible evidence or observation than a system based on observing and rating for value every single action a player undertakes in a match in fine detail.

Says. It. All.

Puuuuurlaaaaaayeerrrrrrr Raaaaatingzzzzzzzz

My favourite is the Essendon poster who's mate worked for CD and said everything they do to rate players actions (i.e how they use the raw data) is complete trash. It kind of makes sense why you would then worship them.

 

[jannissary]

how many anzac day medals does dusty have.

that's truly the highest honour in this country, no bigger day