Our most important players for team success

[The Red Fox 216]

Great players win games!

Simple comparison…

Let's say a players career has spanned from 2004-2008. Let us look at the Demons win/loss ratio in games they've played in, versus the win/loss ratio in games they've been absent.

Naturally players might have missed chunks of particularly good or bad seasons, and that might skew the numbers, but even considering that, I'm sure this analysis will give us some insight into who is most valuable with regards to getting us the four points. Or mosre precisely, just how valuable they are

And conversely, whose inclusion weakens the team.

Let's start with some obvious candidates for 'most important player'.

Brock McLean 2004-

Playing 33 wins, 41 losses, 44.6%

Missing 15 wins, 24 losses, 38.5%

Jared Rivers 2003-

Playing 34 wins, 35 losses, 49.3%

Missing 19 wins, 47 losses, 28.8%

Aaron Davey 2004-

Playing 44 wins, 52 losses, 45.8%

Missing 4 wins, 13 losses, 23.5%

Brad Miller 2002-

Playing 41 wins, 68 losses, 37.6%

Missing 25 wins, 25 losses, 50%

Russell Robertson 1997-

Playing 102 wins, 112 losses, 47.7%

Missing 16 wins, 45 losses, 26.2%

Cameron Bruce 2000-

Playing 81 wins, 102 losses, 44.3%

Missing 11 wins, 12 losses, 47.8%

I'll punch away at the numbers and come up with some more, as well as look at perceived weak players, and a few past match winners like Neita and TJ.

The figures above seem to underline the importance of having players like Robbo, Davey and Rivers fit and firing. Of course you could argue that their stats are flattered by the fact that they have missed most of the last two seasons when we've hardly won a game. The counter argument being that we've lost so many because the aforementioned players (and others) have been off the park. Hmmm...

[The Red Fox 216]

Garry Lyon 1986-1999

Playing 127 wins, 98 losses, 56.4%

Missing 29 wins, 70 losses, 29.3%

Trav Johnstone 1998-2007

Playing 78 wins, 81 losses, 49.1%

Missing 33 wins, 39 losses, 45.8%

David Neitz 1993-2008

Playing 140 wins, 166 losses, 45.8%

Missing 18 wins, 40 losses, 31%

Allen Jakovich 1991-1994

Playing 25 wins, 22 losses, 53.1%

Missing 20 wins, 23 losses, 46.7%

Stephen Tingay 1989-1999

Playing 88 wins, 74 losses, 54.3%

Missing 31 wins, 58 losses, 34.8%

[JACKATTACK 17]

Love your work Monkey. I'm a stats man myself and love stuff like this.

Of course all stats must be taken with a grain of salt but I do like this particular stat because it relates player with results directly.

From the ones you have here I would say that leadership and the ability to hold down a key position are of most value. (Miller excepted)

I would love to see these compared to some of the bigger names of the AFL. I once heard that Ashley Hansen was the most important player for the eagles during their 3 years of success when you made this comparison, probably not so much that he was an excellent player but rather that he played CHF and gave them structure.

[The Red Fox 216]

I once heard that Ashley Hansen was the most important player for the eagles during their 3 years of success when you made this comparison, probably not so much that he was an excellent player but rather that he played CHF and gave them structure.

Ashley Hansen 2004-

Playing 47 wins, 20 losses, 70.1%

Missing 24 wins, 29 losses, 45.3%

Nick Riewoldt 2001-

Playing 79 wins, 74 losses, 51.7%

Missing 10 wins, 14 losses, 41.7%

[45HG 1,539]

Always knew Robbie Flower was shite...

[The Red Fox 216]

Always knew Robbie Flower was shite...

You're missing the point...

FWIW

Robbie Flower 1973-1987

Playing 88 wins, 184 losses, 32.4%

Missing 17 wins, 44 losses, 27.9%

And mate given your disdain for Daniel Bell, here are his figures.

Daniel Bell 2004-

Playing 22 wins, 40 losses, 35.5%

Missing 26 wins, 25 losses, 50.9%

[titan_uranus 25,016]

Interesting stuff Wise Monkey, but surely the last 2 years have influenced these figures somewhat. Looking at Robbo's figures for example, he's missed a lot of the past 2 years, where we most likely would have lost regardless of him playing or missing. So, whilst it looks as though he's crucial to the team's success, I don't really think it would have mattered. Maybe what's more important would be to look at the same figures over the period 2004-2006, and see if any players stand out during the time when we were winning more than we were losing.

[45HG 1,539]

Haha mate I like Daniel Bell, indeed i can't recall ever saying anything negative about him (i wouldn't call questioning peripheral vision a negative comment)

I challenge you to find one. May have even been yesterday i said he was one of our better players.

But that stat for instance, he hardly played in 04, and played a little bit in 05-06 as he was still an up and comer. We had a good period on field while he was unable to break into the team being so young. And as such, i think it is useless

For instance, i could say that with Bell this year we're 2-16, but without him we're 1-3, so we were better off not playing him this year which doesn't make sense.

I think it makes interesting glance-at reading, but doesn't take into account any variables and shouldn't be taken too seriously

[praha 11,240]

Jared Rivers is our most important. Followed closely by Davey.

[The Red Fox 216]

Haha mate I like Daniel Bell, indeed i can't recall ever saying anything negative about him (i wouldn't call questioning peripheral vision a negative comment)

I challenge you to find one. May have even been yesterday i said he was one of our better players.

But that stat for instance, he hardly played in 04, and played a little bit in 05-06 as he was still an up and comer. We had a good period on field while he was unable to break into the team being so young. And as such, i think it is useless

For instance, i could say that with Bell this year we're 2-16, but without him we're 1-3, so we were better off not playing him this year which doesn't make sense.

I think it makes interesting glance-at reading, but doesn't take into account any variables and shouldn't be taken too seriously

No no I won't take you up on the challenge. Disdain was not only too strong a word, it was a totally inaccurate opinion I'd hastily formed based on your questioning of his skills and decision making. My apologies. Quick research suggests you're actually a staunch defender of Belly.

With regards to yours and Titans comments about the skew effect of the past two seasons, you're both absolutely right, and I touched on that in my first post. And while these stats don't reflect well on fringe players who often break into the side when the team is weakened with injuries and more susceptible to losses. It also demonstrates (the obvious) that fringe players are not match winners.

While these stats are trivial, they are somewhat accurate in intent to the extent that we haven't yet seen a gun player with a negative ratio, while players with question marks like Miller and Bell show just that.

[45HG 1,539]

Thanks mate.

I'm pretty sick too, so sorry if i sounded too harsh! In general i think it's an interesting stat. Something much harder to do, but would be interesting as well is if you could get combinations over time.

I remember Farmer, Schwarz and Lyon seemed to hardly ever get a game for us at the same time, but when they did we seemed to play much better.

[deanox 9,914]

good analysis, now you should work out which combination of players gets the best winning percentage. if you want to start simply with combinations of two i wont mind, you have to work up to it.

[JACKATTACK 17]

I don't rate Bell, i think he is a classic player that reads well on paper (fast, strong, reasonable disposal) but these attributes don't translate on the field.

He certainly shouldn't be villified based just on this stat but it could be added to an argument to say that we should no longer persist with him.

I hope I am proven wrong on him, if he can somehow get that ability to evade and his peripheral vision impoves he could be a very importnat player, sadly i think it is these traits that are the hardest to learn. Hopefully when our team matures and the players around him become better he will be freed up to use his pace.

[H_T 3,043]

These figures are inconclusive. Your opening statement is "Great players win games" . Interesting nevertheless.

[Swampfox 190]

Whilist i do appreciate the stats work the OP has done i cannot agree about his original statement of Great Players win Matches

Great Teams win Premierships and to me thats what counts

Gary Ablett , Bob Skilton , Tony Lockett , Robert Flower , Nathan Buckley for example never won a premiership

Just as a point of interest who can tell me who has the highest winning percentage as a player (criteria 100 games or more)

Clue - Played for Melbourne

[Eastie Boyz 0]

Ron Barassi?

[maximum bob 462]

Frank 'Bluey' Adams?

[Toad33 57]

Whilist i do appreciate the stats work the OP has done i cannot agree about his original statement of Great Players win Matches

Great Teams win Premierships and to me thats what counts

Gary Ablett , Bob Skilton , Tony Lockett , Robert Flower , Nathan Buckley for example never won a premiership

Just as a point of interest who can tell me who has the highest winning percentage as a player (criteria 100 games or more)

Clue - Played for Melbourne

Beat me to the punch 'SW'.

This whole thread reads a bit like someone trying to find the stats to back up a flimsy argument. But its an interesting read none the less.

If any of you have the time, sorry I don't, how about some stats on players who did/didn't finish a full pre-season and how they faired in the following season. ie. Number of games and match stats.

Something a bit simpler and maybe more useful perhaps.

How about a list of the players who appeared in our 'best players' of winning a losing teams this year and perhaps over the last two years. I know it's simple but it would give an general indication of players who are consistent and those who might be down hill skiers (only appearing in the best in winning teams) and may reveal some who regularly have a crack when the chips are down.

Something simpler?

How many team/player changes did we have each week (forced and unforced) compared to the top four sides of the competition; and how many players did each of those teams debut.

Sorry for all the homework for anyone who can be bothered.

Go Dees - Building for the Future

[Trisul 664]

In light of the great team comments, perhaps placing the teams corresponding 'players used' average alongside the individuals stat would be more illuminating? Individual differential / avg yearly players used ? ...

[Swampfox 190]

Clyde Laidlaw

Wins 99

Draws 3

Losses 22

Percent 81

Oh and 4 Preimerships just for good measure