Why is Cyril Rioli so highly rated?

[Sixpence]

30 to 50 best player n the comp? Can you elearate one that.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/features/players-top-50

Ranked 39 by the Players. Fits in the 30 to 50 range. Elaborate enough?

 

[Modified Dog]

30 to 50 best player n the comp? Can you elearate one that.

Maybe you could elaborate on how overrated Cyril Rioli is, ranked at no.11 on the AFL's player ratings, ahead of every Geelong player, bar Selwood.

People say he is inconsistent and he doesn't do enough. People reckon his stats are bad. But when the AFL's number-crunchers assign equity ratings to each possession or defensive act in order to measure a footballer's overall effectiveness, somehow Cyril comes out of it looking pretty good.

They even mention Cyril in their explanation of how it all works:

Actions that improve the position of the team are rewarded with a positive value but those that put teammates under pressure or turn the ball over are punished with a negative value. Players who consistently produce positive contributions will be rewarded higher than players with a high volume of stats running at competition average or below. As an example, an 18 disposal game by Cyril Rioli can have more of an impact as a 42 disposal game by Dane Swan.

 

[mike123]

Maybe you could elaborate on how overrated Cyril Rioli is, ranked at no.11 on the AFL's player ratings, ahead of every Geelong player, bar Selwood.

People say he is inconsistent and he doesn't do enough. People reckon his stats are bad. But when the AFL's number-crunchers assign equity ratings to each possession or defensive act in order to measure a footballer's overall effectiveness, somehow Cyril comes out of it looking pretty good.

They even mention Cyril in their explanation of how it all works:

They also give out negative ratings i'm pretty sure and Rioli wouldn't get too many of those.

 

[romeoh]

Maybe you could elaborate on how overrated Cyril Rioli is, ranked at no.11 on the AFL's player ratings, ahead of every Geelong player, bar Selwood.

People say he is inconsistent and he doesn't do enough. People reckon his stats are bad. But when the AFL's number-crunchers assign equity ratings to each possession or defensive act in order to measure a footballer's overall effectiveness, somehow Cyril comes out of it looking pretty good.

They even mention Cyril in their explanation of how it all works:

Yep but really this just shows the flaws of such assessments. The way you present this info suggests that after Selwood, Rioli would be selected in a Geelong team before any other current Geelong players. And that is unlikely.
I'd take Stevie, Hawkins, Enright, Taylor, Bartel, for starters before considering Cyril. Kelly probs.
That's not about 'ohh Geelong hate Cyril'-that's just the reality of how good those Geelong players are and how arbitrary those ratings are-eg are they mostly midfielders who rate well?

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

What? You're saying that the only reason Ablett is better then Rioli is because Ablett avg more possessions? haha turn it up...

He's not even best few players in your team, or damaging...

We have been informed on Bigfooty that Rioli is better than Ablett but it's only his hamstrings that have kept him from achieving this benchmark.....

 

[Modified Dog]

Yep but really this just shows the flaws of such assessments. The way you present this info suggests that after Selwood, Rioli would be selected in a Geelong team before any other current Geelong players.

No. Not at all. I simply pointed at another statistical model which shows Cyril Rioli has a far greater impact on games than many people think from just looking at the stats sheet.

People are obsessed by stats. Cyril's knockers continually use them to demonstrate how overrated he is. It's interesting how Rioli rockets up the ratings when these stats are quantified in greater detail. It comes as no surprise to me that he rates so highly when players' statistical output is measured by their overall impact on a game.

I think it makes sense to score each player by their good play and their bad play and their overall effectiveness. People have been so conditioned to checking the stats and judging players by how many possessions they get. So I can understand their reluctance to accept a system that rates Cyril's 16 possessions more highly than Dane Swan's 40 possessions.

And that is unlikely.

This is just a meaningless comment. How would you know something like that anyway? This "first one picked" is just a bullshit cliche anyway. What coach sits down and picks the team in order of how good each player is? It's mainly the fans and media who are obsessed with comparing players and ranking them according to some arbitrary scale of "greatness". It's all meaningless.

I'd take Stevie, Hawkins, Enright, Taylor, Bartel for starters before considering Cyril. That's not about 'ohh Geelong hate Cyril'-that's just the reality of how good those Geelong players are

It's just an opinion. Right or wrong, it has no basis in fact. You're a Geelong fan. Of course, you'd rather have all your Geelong stars than Cyril. We're not getting anywhere by making statements like that.

and [the reality of] how arbitrary those ratings are.

Arbitrary (adj) - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

There is nothing "arbitrary" about those ratings. Quite the opposite. They are very carefully devised to give 'equity' to the raw stats that people are so fond of quoting. It looks similar to the chapter in Moneyball where they break the game down into runs scored and every action from every player is measured in fractions of runs.

I don't know how good the system is for those AFL ratings. I'm not some idiot who just accepts anything, but I can appreciate they've attempted to make some sense of all the useless stats which are now counted. They attempt to measure the players effect on the game by analysing how each possession was won (intercept, contested, receive, etc), how much pressure the player was under and what eventuated from his play. Same with pressure acts, spoils, tackles and so on.

So the narky idiots can say "Cyril is overrated. He only got 16 possessions" but the AFL ratings would credit him for his 10-11 scoring involvements and his defensive pressure which led to 10-11 turnovers (and further scoring opportunities for the Hawks)

 

[Boston tiger]

He's highly rated because he can totally destroy you.

 

[H2F]

He's highly rated because he can totally destroy you.

This!!!

 

[Doss]

We're done here. The same arguments are just going around in circles and we're heading nowhere.

Certainly not enough to bother persisting with this thread.