Dees still young after three rebuilds: Champion Data

4 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Dees still young after three rebuilds: Champion Data

Will not work for me WJ.

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

Will not work for me WJ.

Try again OD.

They're a bit less optimistic over at Champion Data than we are on here...

Pretty realistic you would have to think. Except for Tommy Mac who should be in the category that he has improved and has more to go. Fix his disposal and he will be elite,

We have brought in a lot of players that have simply failed to make the grade regardless of whether we think it is culture or talent. The CData team are looking purely at stats and effectiveness so guys like Dunn, Lumumba, Dawes, Garland don't really cut it.

We just have to find players that will step up whether it is VDB, Stretch ANB etc

Quite sobering really

2 hours ago, Good Times Grimes said:

They're a bit less optimistic over at Champion Data than we are on here...

True ... but I think that's only natural given that we rigorously put every player under the microscope from the moment they're recruited (and often well before).

I was looking back into our archives on Demonland and found our team lists from 2011-2012. Irrespective of whether or not we're still as young a side as we were back then, I'm confident that we're in front on quality and depth but more importantly, well ahead in terms of fitness and commitment to the club than where we were at three or four years ago. 

 

We need to be more consistent from week to week but inconsistency is what you get with youth. That's why we've invested heavily in our development team. 

 

With that and the combination of Roos and Goodwin set to take a better list into 2016, I'm looking forward to being better equipped to produce a more attacking style of game that will have us competing with the AFL's big boys in the not too distant future.

 

If we weren't young after another rebuild then it wouldn't have been a rebuild........

The draft is the only way to build from scratch and when Roos came to the club that was the job. 

We've traded for Vince, Tyson (a young player), Michie, Cross (did the job), Garlett, Lumumba, Frost, Melksham, Bugg, Kennedy but most of those deals were about paving the way for the young group. 

We've got experienced talls in most spots, experienced defenders like Melksham and Jetta and some mix of mature mids in Jones, Vince, Viney, Vanders at least having the bodies to mix it inside. I wouldn't want us to be more experienced unless it was due to having quality mature players and you can't manufacture them.

another uninformed muppet taking a shot.. no mention of jetta, dunn, salem, vandenberg, garlett, tyson, garland or frost... and apparently he's got no time for Kent or Watts. Fairly handy group of players to add to the 9 that are mentioned I would have thought. Then there's the 3 recruits and the other youngsters in Harmes, ANB and Stretch, our cattle is OK thanks very much data man.

PS I'd like to add that this group was good enough to finish ahead of 5 sides, and beat 5 others on the day - two of whom finished in the 8... and is fairly self-evident that a team you have acknowledged to be very young is likely to improve over the next few years. Maybe the writer hasn't glanced at the ladder since '13. Grr.

Edited December 12, 20159 yr by Curry & Beer

56 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

another uninformed muppet taking a shot.. no mention of jetta, dunn, salem, vandenberg, garlett, tyson, garland or frost... and apparently he's got no time for Kent or Watts. Fairly handy group of players to add to the 9 that are mentioned I would have thought. Then there's the 3 recruits and the other youngsters in Harmes, ANB and Stretch, our cattle is OK thanks very much data man.

No mention of Salem alone is sufficient to discredit the article.  Others that you mention C&B, just reinforce the the authors lack of knowledge about our list, and laziness in not finding out.

1 hour ago, Curry & Beer said:

another uninformed muppet taking a shot.. no mention of jetta, dunn, salem, vandenberg, garlett, tyson, garland or frost... and apparently he's got no time for Kent or Watts. Fairly handy group of players to add to the 9 that are mentioned I would have thought. Then there's the 3 recruits and the other youngsters in Harmes, ANB and Stretch, our cattle is OK thanks very much data man.

The article was a bit all over the shop.

How do I pull a post from another thread to post here?

 

cheers

14 hours ago, Georgiou R.R. Martin said:

If we weren't young after another rebuild then it wouldn't have been a rebuild........

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Champion Data rate each list purely according to CD ranking points (aka SuperCoach scores). Elite is the top 10% in each category. Above average is the next 20%, average the middle 40%. 

Context is everything when using this data. A side that isn't very good, or at least has a number of poor games, is going to end up with lower overall CD ranking points than one that is consistently winning. Naturally, player who play in better teams are going to end up with a higher ranking, even though they may not actually be better players. 

Another issue is that it backward looking, and in no way a prediction of future performance; so it is a poor basis for making an assessment of the future prospects of a team. To use the dogs as an example: most had them bottom 4 before the start of the season. Guys like Murphy, M Boyd, Bontempelli, Stringer and Wood were in the average category before the season. All had career best years - well into above average or elite - and drove them up the ladder. Stats would never have predicted that. 

We also don't play a game that suits fantasy scores either, perhaps Vince excepted.

No Mention of Tyson, Garlett,Salem, Vandenberg?

i don't rate this article at all.

What's that they say about statistics and damn lies?

Edited December 13, 20159 yr by Blistering

Heard them on the radio the other day...these stats are based on all they can be, past performance. Then guys with little ability other than compiling and reading stat sheets make their informed (ill) opinion.

I remember last year getting howled down by them and King for saying Carlton would finish bottom 2...

I don't think they are overly keen on my Richmond to finish bottom 6 in 2016, we will see.

I don't like that the guy they have on the radio "Luffy" goes out of his area of expertise making predictions he is not any more qualified than you or I to give. Let him read and interpret his stats and leave it at that. 

King wasn't part of the discussion on Thursday but he's been smart enough to create a nice little niche for himself as the guru in this area. As with most guru's, it's all an illusion...

Edited December 13, 20159 yr by rjay

7 hours ago, DemonAndrew said:

We also don't play a game that suits fantasy scores either, perhaps Vince excepted.

how's that mate? I'm not au fait with this ranking stuff

We are young.

Heartache to heartache we stand

No promises No demands.

13 hours ago, Curry & Beer said:

how's that mate? I'm not au fait with this ranking stuff

fantasy scores are boosted by high possession counts, more or less.

 

we play a contested brand of football - it's not geared around that sort of points allocation.

The CD scoring system is based around impact on the game. It takes into account things like score involvements, contested possessions, intercept possessions, inside 50s etc to determine the score. It's not like the AFL version which is purely stats based. Given that the team that wins will have had a higher cumulative impact on the game, those teams that win more will produce players with higher averages. It's not a perfect system, but it serves its purpose for this end. 

Nonetheless, my contention is that this approach is backward looking. Nothing in those stats would indicate that a player is going to improve, or indeed how a team will perform overall in the future. 

The list analysis from champion data is based upon the afl ranking points system available on the afl website. This is a different rating system that dream team and SuperCoach. I'm pretty sure karl Jackson at CD is the one who implemented it as a way compare a full forward who touches it 8 times a game to a loose back flanker who touches it 20 times a game. The afl is the one who is backing this system that attempts to measure impact and influence rather than just stats with a hope that in a few years it will be a huge point of interest within afl fans.

i can't remember how the system is scored but I'm pretty sure the magic number is 40 games whether it be accumulation or a rolling average.

Nothing against the two on the radio.  They don't come from a background like  dr Jackson or  Crusoe but I think they do a good job. Hoynes main area is maintaining the data of junior comps and luff is more the running of the day to day.