Analysis The Rebuilds of Geelong and Richmond and their Future Prospects

[Footy Smarts]

Well at least we aren’t talking about how Tanners the second coming of Christ anymore Smarts! Thanks for showing interest in all my posts, at least I know someone’s reading all of them
Enjoy your evening bud.

I'll make sure I keep an eye out for your posts whenever I need a good laugh. Thanks for your contribution.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Ratingz

He contributed 8 less goals total than the five-years-older Fritsch, playing as his side’s 3rd, and sometimes 4th forward, from two less total home and away games and with 3 of the games he did play adding up to a total of around three-quarters of football.

Spin it any way you want. All that does is just kick the player ratings in the dick yet again.

What's comparing him to Fritsch got to do with anything? Fritsch essentially had his worst year in the AFL, and was playing in a mess of a forward line, in a team struggling with midfield issues as well. Compare him with someone like Jack Gunston in a similar role at 22 in a high scoring top 4 team and see how he comes off. Or Tim Membrey as a 22yo in a similar role for a weak St Kilda team. Henry is not even at the races compared to those guys.

And kicking X goals less or more doesn't itself tell you how well a forward has played, there is a lot more to playing forward than just how many goals you kick....for most forwards anyway.

I mean you are denigrating player ratings, which take into account everything a player does, and next minute you are yourself making sweeping judgements based solely on how many goals a player has kicked.

 

[Rich01]

I'll make sure I keep an eye out for your posts whenever I need a good laugh. Thanks for your contribution.

All good, always know you what makes you bite Smarts. Keep up with that CBA stat. We may be able to pick a Brownlow winner next year by that stat the way you’ve been spruiking it.

And yeah, Guthrie lol.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Yep. Except when injured (remember them? Even some Geelong players have them!) he's currently a solid number 4 mid.

Let's see how he improves. Maybe you'll be as right about Bruhn as you were about Holmes. Is Tom Brown still the better footballer???

Brown has better skills than Holmes. Holmes is a much better athlete. Holmes is of course better overall right now, but don't be surprised if Brown becomes a very highly rated player when he builds his tank.

Bruhn's ratings etc obviously affected by his low time on ground in 2024, but even so, he hasn't had much of a season with 3 coaches votes from 9 games above 80% time on ground.

 

[PhatBoy]

What's comparing him to Fritsch got to do with anything? Fritsch essentially had his worst year in the AFL, and was playing in a mess of a forward line, in a team struggling with midfield issues as well. Compare him with someone like Jack Gunston in a similar role at 22 in a high scoring top 4 team and see how he comes off. Or Tim Membrey as a 22yo in a similar role for a weak St Kilda team. Henry is not even at the races compared to those guys.

And kicking X goals less or more doesn't itself tell you how well a forward has played, there is a lot more to playing forward than just how many goals you kick....for most forwards anyway.

I mean you are denigrating player ratings, which take into account everything a player does, and next minute you are yourself making sweeping judgements based solely on how many goals a player has kicked.

Because people actually gave Fritsch, from the general feeling I got anyway, a decent pass for his year. He’s a player with reasonable pedigree, he’s far more experienced, and he was basically his team’s number one avenue to goal even if he’s not a traditional key forward.

Jack Gunston is one of the greatest medium forwards of the last 30 years who played in a dynasty side with Sam Mitchell, Shaun Burgoyne, Jordan Lewis, Isaac Smith, Luke Hodge, Tom Mitchell for a while, sending it down his throat

Membrey had a great start to his career. No argument.

I’m denigrating player ratings because they’re an algorithm. They DONT take into account everything a player does. They take into account stats mate. That’s it. They’re numbers on a page. They give no context to anything at all. Keep telling yourself there’s something beyond that in them.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Because people actually gave Fritsch, from the general feeling I got anyway, a decent pass for his year. He’s a player with reasonable pedigree, he’s far more experienced, and he was basically his team’s number one avenue to goal even if he’s not a traditional key forward.

Jack Gunston is one of the greatest medium forwards of the last 30 years who played in a dynasty side with Sam Mitchell, Shaun Burgoyne, Jordan Lewis, Isaac Smith, Luke Hodge, Tom Mitchell for a while, sending it down his throat

Membrey had a great start to his career. No argument.

I’m denigrating player ratings because they’re an algorithm. They DONT take into account everything a player does. They take into account stats mate. That’s it. They’re numbers on a page. They give no context to anything at all. Keep telling yourself there’s something beyond that in them.

What are football stats other than "what a player does?" They are merely a record of whatever a player does during a match. Without them to guide us we might be fooled into thinking someone like Henry is the 22nd most valuable forward in the AFL because he has kicked the 22nd most goals for the season. In fact what is a player's total goals other than a statistic like any other?

 

[PhatBoy]

What are football stats other than "what a player does?" They are merely a record of whatever a player does during a match. Without them to guide us we might be fooled into thinking someone like Henry is the 22nd most valuable forward in the AFL because he has kicked the 22nd most goals for the season. In fact what is a player's total goals other than a statistic like any other?

Tom Hawkins kicked 3.3 in the 2011 grand final on paper.

He busted the game apart in reality and ripped it away from Collingwood.

For someone who injects himself with whatever kool aid the Punt Road News sends out in its monthly subscribers survival kit, you sure don’t seem to actually bother watching much football or ever actually apply any situational context to it.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Tom Hawkins kicked 3.3 in the 2011 grand final on paper.

He busted the game apart in reality and ripped it away from Collingwood.

For someone who injects himself with whatever kool aid the Punt Road News sends out in its monthly subscribers survival kit, you sure don’t seem to actually bother watching much football or ever actually apply any situational context to it.

You seem to be labouring under the illusion that I think Player Ratings are a precise and infallible guide to player merit in exact order. No system of rating players will ever achieve that. It is a readily quotable and credibly compiled system that takes into account more than you or I could ever see just from watching casually. So it is a useful guide.

Hawkins didn't kick 3.3 on paper. He kicked 3.3 in the match. Like, he acttually did it. It is just recorded "on paper."

If those goals were contests wins or from difficult positions player ratings would credit him for that on top of the goal. If they were lead out get hit on the chest marks converted from 30 in front, he will get credited for the goal, and players responsible for delivering it to him, blocking for him, and so on will get credited for those actions.

Your obsession with deriding player ratings or statistics is completely irrational. Below is your top 10 in the player ratings by average rating in 2024. Is that a credible top 10 or some random group of players that proves the ratings are rubbish?




And here is the bottom 20(far right column is % of time on ground per game played):

 

[PhatBoy]

You seem to be labouring under the illusion that I think Player Ratings are a precise and infallible guide to player merit in exact order. No system of rating players will ever achieve that. It is a readily quotable and credibly compiled system that takes into account more than you or I could ever see just from watching casually. So it is useful.

Hawkins didn't kick 3.3 on paper. He kicked 3.3 in the match. Like, he acttually did it. It is just recorded "on paper."

If those goals were contests wins or from difficult positions player ratings would credit him for that on top of the goal. If they were lead out get hit on the chest marks converted from 30 in front, he will get credited for the goal, and players responsible for delivering it to him, blocking for him, and so on will get credited for those actions.

Your obsession with deriding player ratings or statistics is completely irrational. Below is your top 10 in the player ratings by average rating in 2024. Is that a credible top 10 or some random group of players that proves the ratings are rubbish?


View attachment 2121964

And here is the bottom 20(far right column is % of time on ground per game played):

View attachment 2121965

Jesse Hogan waltzes into the top 7-8 players this season. Nowhere to be seen. Cameron probably does too, truth be told.

You can worship it all you want mate.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Jesse Hogan waltzes into the top 7-8 players this season. Nowhere to be seen. Cameron probably does too, truth be told.

You can worship it all you want mate.

Player Ratings probably under-rates key forwards, but this is only because opposition teams put so much energy into nullifying key forwards in modern footy. So it does probably, in reality, reflect what is actually happening on the ground.

But let's take your assertion about Hogan and Cameron. I will search where they sit in coaches votes.

You have them in the top 7-8.

Coaches votes have them Cameron 20th, Hogan 27th.

Player Ratings has them 61st and 77th.

But Player Ratings rated them the number 1 & 2 Key Forwards in the AFL. And the number 3 & 9 forwards. There is some contamination in that from guys who play time in and around the midfield where it is easier to accumulation impactful actions without necessarily beating your opponent.

Why they suffer a fair bit in Player Ratings is Hogan is pitiably low in pressure acts, and Cameron is very weak in contested possessions. If we didn't have the guidance of the records that are kept of events, then we might not notice those things. And a lot of the players who are strong in those type of areas will be doing useful things that we just don't pick up by watching. But the CD spotters are picking up all those things. And they are mostly very valuable actions.

Neither Player Ratings or Coaches Votes discriminate according to how important the game is you are playing in or how good your opponent is or conditions or anything like that, whereas by watching, we can do those things. But how effective do you think Cameron is for instance v top 8 teams just from watching? Or say in games decided by 6 goals or less? We can statistically isolate those performances and see all of his averages including Coaches Votes, Brownlow votes, Player Ratings, disposals, contest wins, goals, score involvements and so on.

A quick scan, Cameron has only done slightly worse on average v top the 8 teams bar Geelong compared to v the rest. So his average Player Rating probably accurately reflects his output in 2024. But of course when we see the system seems to be elevating rucks and midfielders, and relegating key forwards, we need to think our way through that.

I was coaching a cricket club once. I wanted to sack our pro mid-season. The club was aghast. He had our most runs, second most wickets and everyone who watched thought he was clearly our best player. I analysed his playing record statistically. Against bottom half of ladder teams he averaged 12 with the ball and 50+ with the bat. Against teams in the top half of the ladder he averaged 17 with the bat and 27 with the ball. Over 5 seasons. So in the games that mattered least he was heroic. In the games that really mattered, our "best player" was putting us behind. I said to the club we shouldn't be paying some campaigner to put us behind in all the games that matter most just because he makes us win games we would have won anyway by more. As an aside, they all agreed we would be better off without him but didn't want to sack him because it amounted to backing out on a pledge. The point here is, everyone thought from watching and following us over time he was a lot more valuable player than he actually was. Reference to his statistical record made it very clear he was of little real value.

The only way the analysis of statistics can ever harm you is if you analyse poorly.

 

[PhatBoy]

Player Ratings probably under-rates key forwards, but this is only because opposition teams put so much energy into nullifying key forwards in modern footy. So it does probably, in reality, refelct what is actually happening on the ground.

But let's take your assertion about Hogan and Cameron. I will serch where they sit in coaches votes.

You have them in the top 7-8.

Coaches votes have them Cameron 20th, Hogan 27th.

Player Ratings has them 61st and 77th. But Player Ratings rated them the number 1 & 2 Key Forwards in the AFL. And the number 3 & 9 forwards. There is some contamination in that from guys who play time in and around the midfield where it is easier to accumulation impactful actions without necessarily beating your opponent.

Why they suffer in Player Ratings is Hogan is pitiably low in pressure acts, and Cameron is very weak in contested possessions. A lot of the players who are strong in those type of areas will be doing useful things that we just don't pick up by watching.

Neither Player Ratings or Coaches Votes discriminate according to how important the game is you are playing in or how good your opponent is or conditions or anything like that, whereas by watching, we can do those things. But how effective do you think Cameron is for instance v top 8 teams just from watching? Or say in games decided by 6 goals or less? We can statistically isolate those performances and see all of his averages including Coaches Votes, Brownlow votes, Player Ratings, disposals, contest wins, goals, score involvements and so on.

A quick scan, Cameron has only done slightly worse on average v top the 8 teams bar Geelong compared to v the rest. So his average Player Rating probably accurately reflects his output in 2024. But of course when we see the system seems to be elevating rucks and relegating key forwards, we need to think our way through that.

I was coaching a cricket club once. I wanted to sack our pro mid-season. The club was aghast. He had our most runs, second most wickets and everyone who watched thought he was clearly our best player. I analysed his playing record statistically. Against bottom half of ladder teams he averaged 12 with the ball and 50+ with the bat. Against teams in the top half of the ladder he averaged 17 with the bat and 27 with the ball. Over 5 seasons. So in the games that mattered least he was heroic. In the games that really mattered, our "best player" was putting us behind. I said to the club we shouldn't be paying some campaigner to put us behind in all the games that matter most just because he makes us win games we would have won anyway by more. As an aside, they all agreed we would be better off without him but didn't want to sack him because it amounted to backing out on a pledge.

The only way the analysis of statistics can ever harm you is if you analyse them wrong.

Doesn’t factor in running, doesn’t factor in timing doesn’t factor in simply saying ‘I am going to get my side back into this game if I have to do it myself.’ There are so many intangibles, tangibles, whatever, that not just this game, but all sports, are built around, that hitching yourself so exclusively to an algorithm is like assessing the top 50 and using it to form your opinion on music

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Doesn’t factor in running, doesn’t factor in timing doesn’t factor in simply saying ‘I am going to get my side back into this game if I have to do it myself.’ There are so many intangibles, tangibles, whatever, that not just this game, but all sports, are built around, that hitching yourself so exclusively to an algorithm is like assessing the top 50 and using it to form your opinion on music

I have never hitched myself exclusively to an algorithm. You are imagining that.

The stuff you are talking about is not really what success is built on. It is uncommon for a player to just make the team win on his own, by a few inspirational deeds.

The coaches instruct their whole 22 players to focus on the things that will make the team perform best. Pretty much all of those things can be(and are) recorded. The main weakness of "the algorithm" is of course also one of its great strengths. It does not discriminate. So it doesn't take into account Joe Daniher took his match winning mark v Sam Taylor for eg, it treats that the same as if the mark was taken against Caleb Daniel. So as the consumer, we have to watch and adjust for things of this nature. We have to look and see Joel Amartey kick 9 goals and understand and work out why it happened, and that it is a radical outlier, unlikely to come even close to being repeated any time soon. But it isn't just Player Ratings that credited his performance. Also 3 Brownlow votes, 10 Coaches votes. 9 goals. All perfectly justified, but you wouldn't want to rely on those things in isolation to form future expectations. Any system of rating has outliers and just about all statistics require some skilful adjustment to be anywhere near truly reflective. But that doesn't mean the statistics are not useful. They are.

However bad you think Player Ratings are, every other system of judging player merit that is available to us will likely be worse, except probably the deeper analysis the clubs themselves do in order to select their best teams, make list management decisions, contract offers etc.

 

[PhatBoy]

I have never hitched myself exclusively to an algorithm. You are imagining that.

The stuff you are talking about is not really what success is built on. It is uncommon for a player to just make the team win on his own, by a few inspirational deeds.

The coaches instruct their whole 22 players to focus on the things that will make the team perform best. Pretty much all of those things can be(and are) recorded. The main weakness of "the algorithm" is of course also one of its great strengths. It does not discriminate. So it doesn't take into account Joe Daniher took his match winning mark v Sam Taylor for eg, it treats that the same as if the mark was taken against Caleb Daniel. So as the consumer, we have to watch and adjust for things of this nature. We have to look and see Joel Amartey kick 9 goals and understand and work out why it happened, and that it is a radical outlier, unlikely to come even close to being repeated any time soon. But it isn't just Player Ratings that credited his performance. Also 3 Brownlow votes, 10 Coaches votes. 9 goals. All perfectly justified, but you would want to rely on those things in isolation to form future expectations. Any system of rating has outliers and just about all statistics require some skilful adjustment to be anywhere near truly reflective. But that doesn't mean the statistics are not useful. They are.

I’ve never said statistics aren’t useful. They mean absolutely nothings without any context though.

No one remembers it at all because his teammate Vernon Philander had virtually ensured the game looked over before he batted but 8-9 years ago Quinton de Kock walked out onto Bellerive Oval with his team 5-not many and still a slight chance to lose the test against Australia despite rolling Australia for 90 on day one if they didn’t reply with a decent score on what was still a green top.

On a pitch where no one else could find the middle of the bat, he played like it was a net session against a local under 13s side but it was Starc, Hazlewood and Lyon (and Joe Mennie).


At the end of the day all the records will show is that he his 104 off 143 in the home country of Adam Gilchrist who makes that sort of innings look slow for a keeper batsman, and even slower still now considering how England plays, and Rishabh Pant, Yashaswi Jaiswal etc.

But no algorithm or ratings system can put a value on how much better than knock was than anything I’ve seen in probably the last decade from a batsman on a green wicket. He didn’t slog his way out of it. Didn’t edge his way through it. He just played like he was on another pitch. And no one will remember it.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I’ve never said statistics aren’t useful. They mean absolutely nothings without any context though.

No one remembers it at all because his teammate Vernon Philander had virtually ensured the game looked over before he batted but 8-9 years ago Quinton de Kock walked out onto Bellerive Oval with his team 5-not many and still a slight chance to lose the test against Australia despite rolling Australia for 90 on day one if they didn’t reply with a decent score on what was still a green top.

On a pitch where no one else could find the middle of the bat, he played like it was a net session against a local under 13s side but it was Starc, Hazlewood and Lyon (and Joe Mennie).


At the end of the day all the records will show is that he his 104 off 143 in the home country of Adam Gilchrist who makes that sort of innings look slow for a keeper batsman, and even slower still now considering how England plays, and Rishabh Pant, Yashaswi Jaiswal etc.

But no algorithm or ratings system can put a value on how much better than knock was than anything I’ve seen in probably the last decade from a batsman on a green wicket. He didn’t slog his way out of it. Didn’t edge his way through it. He just played like he was on another pitch. And no one will remember it.

That is all very nice but does nothing to add to the argument for laughing of Player Ratings. The ratings provide you with a level of information. It is up to the consumer to make the adjustments they see fit. But over the course of time, the ratings are a pretty good guide. They tell us the most dominant seasons played by any players from 2012 onwards were by Ablett, Martin, Dangerfield. They show us a pretty credible top 10 year after year. They even tell us who has done best in games of the most importance v games of least importance if you are prepared to drill into the game by game. Those 3 players at their best are pretty universally considered the best 3 of the last 13 seasons. And Dusty is universally considered the best big game player. You could simply look no further the the ratings to see those things, so they must have some credibility surely?

 

[PhatBoy]

That is all very nice but does nothing to add to the argument for laughing of Player Ratings. The ratings provide you with a level of information. It is up to the consumer to make the adjustments they see fit. But over the course of time, the ratings are a pretty good guide. They tell us the most dominant seasons played by any players from 2012 onwards were by Ablett, Martin, Dangerfield. They show us a pretty credible top 10 year after year. They even tell us who has done best in games of the most importance v games of least importance if you are prepared to drill into the game by game. Those 3 players at their best are pretty universally considered the best 3 of the last 13 seasons. And Dusty is universally considered the best big game player. You could simply look no further the the ratings to see those things, so they must have some credibility surely?

And I’m guessing Franklin’s season where he was contributing 4.8 goals a game and 17 touches probably doesn’t get near it.

Any system in the world would give those guys 3 of the top seasons

 

[Meteoric Rise]

And I’m guessing Franklin’s season where he was contributing 4.8 goals a game and 17 touches probably doesn’t get near it.

Any system in the world would give those guys 3 of the top seasons

There were no Player Ratings until 2012, so we don't know how the system would have treated Franklin's 100+ goal season. In his 2 highest rating seasons, 2012 & 2014 he was the 6th highest rated player in the AFL. I think he was something like 10th and 22nd for average coaches votes in those seasons, so the ratings were actually kinder to him than other systems. His ratings in both those seasons would have seen him th 4th highest rated player in 2024 behind Bontempelli, Heeney and Cripps.

When you say any system in the world....our "most prestigious" system, the Brownlow Medal system just told us Nick Daicos and Patrick Cripps played the two best seasons ever. Player Ratings, Coaches Votes and just about everyone else seem to be begging to differ. If the ratings were fatally flawed they would surely be a lot more random than to throw up Ablett, Martin, Dangerfield as the 3 players with the best seasons from 2012 onwards?

Cripps getting Brownlow votes amounting to 40% of his seasons' Coaches votes tally is not even the biggest outlier in that regard. When Swan and Judd won "each others'" Brownlows, they both polled 42%+ Brownlow Votes compared to Coaches votes. The modal range for a Brownlow winner is more like 29-34% range. Martin, Dangerfield and Ablett's Brownlows, all 4 of them, recorded 29% of their coaches votes. Only one Brownlow winner has a lesser percentage since Coaches votes started in 2005, Cousins a huge outlier only 22%.

So of the 2 systems, Brownlow votes & Player Ratings, which do you think is more likely out of step?

 

[PhatBoy]

There were no Player Ratings until 2012, so we don't know how the system would have treated Franklin's 100+ goal season.

When you say any system in the world....our "most prestigious" system, the Brownlow Medal system just told us Nick Daicos and Patrick Cripps played the two best seasons ever. Player Ratings, Coaches Votes and just about everyone else seem to be begging to differ. If the ratings were fatally flawed they would surely be a lot more random than to throw up Ablett, Martin, Dangerfield as the 3 players with the best seasons from 2012 onwards?

Cripps getting Brownlow votes amounting to 40% of his seasons' Coaches votes tally is not even the biggest outlier in that regard. When Swan and Judd won "each others'" Brownlows, they both polled 42%+ Brownlow Votes compared to Coaches votes. The modal range for a Brownlow winner is more like 29-34% range. Martin, Dangerfield and Ablett's Brownlows, all 4 of them, recorded 29% of their coaches votes. Only one Brownlow winner has a lesser percentage since Coaches votes started in 2005, Cousins a huge outlier only 22%.

So of the 2 systems, Brownlow votes & Player Ratings, which do you think is more likely out of step?

It was 2014. Franklin contributed 99 goals and assists in 22 games and averaged 17 disposals.

Literally an act as simple as making sure you are an option for your team, or making sure an opponent is not an option for their team, is something that has value for whether your side can win or lose but it’s never going to register a statistic.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

It was 2014. Franklin contributed 99 goals and assists in 22 games and averaged 17 disposals.

Literally an act as simple as making sure you are an option for your team, or making sure an opponent is not an option for their team, is something that has value for whether your side can win or lose but it’s never going to register a statistic.

It probably won't register a "statistic" but would do if that statistic was recorded. However, repeated over time if you do this type of action you are likely to record more disposals, goals, contest wins, score involvements, or whatever. The players who do this sort of thing over and over unrewarded, like say a Kamdyn McIntosh on a fat wing, these players are not being recognised by any voting or rating system, that is not confined to Champion Data's models.

It is a bit like you saying colour TV is no better than black & white because it also has the limitation of advertisements. Ie, you are arguing against the best available system of mass rating because it has certain imperfections that it mainly shares with every other available system.