Prediction Who will be better in 2025? Carlton or Hawthorn

Who will be better in 2025

  • Hawthorn

    Votes: 155 68.9%
  • Carlton

    Votes: 70 31.1%

  • Total voters
    225

Remove this Banner Ad

A perfect example of where stats can be completely misleading is game in 2012 rnd 17 against the pies. The pies had the 3 best possession winners and 4 of the best 5 on the ground. Swan had 49 and peddles and beams had 34 sidebottom with 30 odd. Mitchell with 33 for us. The scoreline an 8 goal win with some junk time goals from Collingwood. The difference 11 or 12 hawthorn players 18 or more possessions. This is what I mentioned earlier in the thread. An even spread across a team will always beat any output from Superstars in the other
 

Log in to remove this ad.

A perfect example of where stats can be completely misleading is game in 2012 rnd 17 against the pies. The pies had the 3 best possession winners and 4 of the best 5 on the ground. Swan had 49 and peddles and beams had 34 sidebottom with 30 odd. Mitchell with 33 for us. The scoreline an 8 goal win with some junk time goals from Collingwood. The difference 11 or 12 hawthorn players 18 or more possessions.
You are talking about one individual game. Stats can be misleading when the sample size is that small. If you use averages and the sample is larger the outliers will be smoothed out.

You are also referring to disposals which is a largely meaningless stat when used in isolation anyway.
 
Last edited:
You are talking about one individual game. Stats can be misleading when the sample size is that small. If you use averages and the sample is larger the outliers will be smoothed out.
I have seen many games like this as a hawthorn supporter. i mentioned earlier in this thread hawthorn have always been about the team. When u spread the workload you are often much more efficient and that's defending or attacking
 
I have seen many games like this as a hawthorn supporter. i mentioned earlier in this thread hawthorn have always been about the team. When u spread the workload you are often much more efficient and that's defending or attacking
We were talking about how stats can be a good form of evidence to support an argument about a player or team. I'm not sure how this can be argued.
 
We were talking about how stats can be a good form of evidence to support an argument about a player or team. I'm not sure how this can be argued.
Yeah i guess it's the word impact which i have also mentioned in this thread. A player can get 35 possessions and minimal impact on the game. I mentioned Day for us is an impact player. If he has had 25 or above for the day Hawthorn have generally won the game.
 
Stats are just one type of evidence you can use. They are useful because they are objective and are not impacted by factors like bias. However, it is not the only type of evidence you can have.
Agree, but you need to actually use them to support an argument properly.

Using a footywire player comparison and thinking the stats are "evidence" that the bloke with more stats is unequivocally better is a LoL.

Footywire comparison shows John Noble was busier than I.Quaynor in 2023, good luck finding a Pie fan who will use that as "evidence" that Noble was better.

But saying the Hawks have a better spread of goal kickers than Carlton and noting a stat that they had 8 players kick 20+ to just 3 for Carlton helps support the argument.
 
Yeah i guess it's the word impact which i have also mentioned in this thread. A player can get 35 possessions and minimal impact on the game. I mentioned Day for us is an impact player. If he has had 25 or above for the day Hawthorn have generally won the game.
That I agree with 100%
 
A perfect example of where stats can be completely misleading is game in 2012 rnd 17 against the pies. The pies had the 3 best possession winners and 4 of the best 5 on the ground. Swan had 49 and peddles and beams had 34 sidebottom with 30 odd. Mitchell with 33 for us. The scoreline an 8 goal win with some junk time goals from Collingwood. The difference 11 or 12 hawthorn players 18 or more possessions. This is what I mentioned earlier in the thread. An even spread across a team will always beat any output from Superstars in the other
Disposals are a meaningless stat on their own. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that.
 
Using a footywire player comparison and thinking the stats are "evidence" that the bloke with more stats is unequivocally better is a LoL.
I would argue using BnF finishes as justification one player is better than another despite the two players playing for different teams is even worse.
 
Each role has key metrics they're generally judged on, everyone with half a brain knows which ones they are for each role.

Nobody is going to be judging Jacob Weitering on his ruck contest stats for example. Intercepts, intercept marks, one on one contests, spoils etc are what he's judged on as a KPD.

Pretty simple I would have thought.
 
Each role has key metrics they're generally judged on, everyone with half a brain knows which ones they are for each role. Nobody y is going to be judging Jacob Weitering on his ruck contest stats for example. Intercepts, intercept marks, one on one contests, spoils etc are what he's judged on as a KPD.
Probably why the majority believe Hawks will be better in 2025.

They were better in 2024, and have added arguably the 2nd best KPD in the game (behind H.Andrews) according to Intercepts, intercept marks, one on one contests, spoils etc
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I would argue using BnF finishes as justification one player is better than another despite the two players playing for different teams is even worse.
The example used was that one player has had 11 top 5 best and fairest finishes in his career, including the past 4 seasons, compared to another player who has NEVER finished in the top 5..

'But they play for different teams'...
 
The example used was that one player has had 11 top 5 best and fairest finishes in his career, including the past 4 seasons, compared to another player who has NEVER finished in the top 5..

'But they play for different teams'...
I know what you have said. Doesn't discount my point.

And btw a player's play from a decade ago is not relevant to a discussion about now.
 
I would argue using BnF finishes as justification one player is better than another despite the two players playing for different teams is even worse.
BnF finishes give a reflection of how well players performed their role and are trusted by coaching staff to impact games.

IQ and Noble both play for Collingwood.

In 2023, Noble had a better stats and footywire profile than IQ...more effective disposals, more rebounds, more meters gained, more score involvements, better supercoach avg etc.

Yet IQ came 6th in the BnF in a premiership year, and Noble was dropped for finals.

I would argue that anyone with half a brain knows IQ was better than Noble, but some posters seem to think quoting stats is "evidence" that IQ had a poorer year.

Back to Hawks, if a fit W.Day has won a Hawks BnF, fair enough that Hawk fans talk him up as their best player...even more reason to expect further improvement in 2025 for the Hawks if their best player is fit.
 
BnF finishes give a reflection of how well players performed their role and are trusted by coaching staff to impact games.

IQ and Noble both play for Collingwood.

In 2023, Noble had a better stats and footywire profile than IQ...more effective disposals, more rebounds, more meters gained, more score involvements, better supercoach avg etc.

Yet IQ came 6th in the BnF in a premiership year, and Noble was dropped for finals.

I would argue that anyone with half a brain knows IQ was better than Noble, but some posters seem to think quoting stats is "evidence" that IQ had a poorer year.

Back to Hawks, if a fit W.Day has won a Hawks BnF, fair enough that Hawk fans talk him up as their best player...even more reason to expect further improvement in 2025 for the Hawks if their best player is fit.
I said comparing BnF finishes between players that play for different teams makes little sense. Whoever came 5th in North's BnF didn't automatically have a better season than the player that came 9th in Collingwood's or Hawthorn's or Carlton's BnF
 
I said comparing BnF finishes between players that play for different teams makes little sense. Whoever came 5th in North's BnF didn't automatically have a better season than the player that came 9th in Collingwood's.
I guess 11 times in the B&F top 5 (Collingwood player, 8 x top 4 finishes) v. 0 times in the B&F top 5 (has played for St. Kilda, Freo and Carlton - 0 x top 4 finishes) can just be a statistical anomaly due to the strength of the different teams the players have played for...
 
I guess 11 times in the top 5 v. 0 times in the top 5 is just a marginal difference...
Finishing top 5 in your club's BnF 11 times over your career is not relevant when comparing players going into 2025. This is especially the case when comparing players from different teams.
 
I said comparing BnF finishes between players that play for different teams makes little sense. Whoever came 5th in North's BnF didn't automatically have a better season than the player that came 9th in Collingwood's.
I think most would agree for example that comparatively a player coming 6th in BnF for the premier (who also made AA squad) had a better year than a player coming 8th for a team that didn't finish top 4 and didn't make AA squad.

But some ignore the above and prefer to lean on footywire profiles and who had more stats as their "evidence" of who had a better year.
 
Finishing top 5 in your club's BnF 11 times over your career is not relevant when comparing players going into 2025. This is especially the case when comparing players from different teams.
Why do you continue to only quote some of the data being used, and excluding:
  • 4 of those 11 seasons have been the past 4 years;
  • the player with the far better B&F results has played in a much stronger team.
 
I think most would agree for example that comparatively a player coming 6th in BnF for the premier (who also made AA squad) had a better year than a player coming 8th for a team that didn't finish top 4 and didn't make AA squad.

But some ignore the above and prefer to lean on footywire profiles and who had more stats as their "evidence" of who had a better year.
I definitely do not agree with that. BnFs are great for players to get recognised by their own coaches for the roles they played in the season. In no way are they useful when comparing players from different teams.
 
Why do you continue to only quote some of the data being used, and excluding:
  • 4 of those 11 seasons have been the past 4 years;
  • the player with the far better B&F results has played in a much stronger team.
I'm not excluding any data - my point is BnF results between players from different teams are not relevant to a discussion about who is better right now.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Prediction Who will be better in 2025? Carlton or Hawthorn


Write your reply...
Back
Top