I picked up the Herald Sun footy magazine and, this year, they've had Champion Data rate each list from Elite through to poor and inconclusive based on that player's performance over the last two years.  Here is how they have rated ours, and it makes for some interesting results.

As a guide, to rank as Elite you must rank in the top 10% for that position in the AFL (90-100%), and it obviously goes down from there.  Here is where we sit:

Elite:  Tom McDonald and Max Gawn

Above Average:  Christian Petracca, Jayden Hunt, Neville Jetta, Dean Kent, Jack Watts, Bernie Vince, Michael Hibberd, Jeff Garlett

Average:  Cam Pedersen, Jack Viney, Nathan Jones, Aaron vandenBerg, Gus Brayshaw, Jordan Lewis, James Harmes, Colin Garland, Oscar McDonald, Jesse Hogan, Dom Tyson, Clayton Oliver, Muhammad Ali

Below Average:  Christian Salem, Ben Kennedy, Josh Wagner, Jake Melksham, Billy Stretch

Poor:  Tom Bugg, Sam Frist, Alex Neal-Bullen

Inconclusive:  All other players not listed above.

Interested in everyone's thoughts.  For me, I can see so much improvement still to come in our list.  We have plenty of players there who can move categories which, coincidentally, will further improve our chances for finals in the coming years.

Edit - just want to add that their ratings are against the rest of the players in the AFL that play in their position.  I know that seeing Pedersen in the same catergory as someone like Viney, Jones or Lewis seems absurd, it's because he plays forward and the others are midfielders where there are far more players to compete against across the league.

Edited March 4, 20178 yr by Wiseblood

To have Kent, Vince and Hibberd ahead of Lewis, Oliver, Brayshaw, Hogan and Salem is seriously undervaluing our list. IMO, neither Salem nor Stretch are below average either.

5 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I picked up the Herald Sun footy magazine 

Was it free?

Can Pedersen is average. Just like Hogan, Viney, Jones and Lewis.

What a heap of [censored]

 

Just now, CBDees said:

To have Kent, Vince and Hibberd ahead of Lewis, Oliver, Brayshaw, Hogan and Salem is seriously undervaluing our list. IMO, neither Salem nor Stretch are below average either.

Absolutely, but their rating is based on their standing against the rest of the competition.  Midfielders would find it harder to break into the above categories with so much competition, while many of our elite and above average players are from the ruck, forward and back line positions.

Just now, Night Crawler said:

Was it free?

Can Pedersen is average. Just like Hogan, Viney, Jones and Lewis.

What a heap of [censored]

 

It was $5.  Well worth a read, I enjoy it over a cuppa.

I edited my opening post to say that the ratings are based on their position and they are up against all players in that position across the league.

What a load of shyte.

I don't know how this crowd gets air time.

PFFFT

The players just rated Jones as the 33rd best player in the league heading into the season. Likewise Lewis and Viney were rated inside the top 50. Not bad for "average" players.

 

I'd dig deeper to figure out how Petracca was ranked above average in his position over the past two years but I don't care enough to do so.

 

As always this is a waste of time. We'll have a top 6 midfield in 2017. That much I do know.

 

 

Edited March 4, 20178 yr by P-man

If Tom McDonald's elite they've obviously decided kicking's a minor skill.

Data corrupted.

Champion Data has not showered itself in glory this preseason.  Rating Collingwood's midfield as the best in the league was the moment they jumped the shark and the above assessment is very poor and misguided.

There is either something seriously wrong with their data model or they epitomise the fact that stats don't tell the whole story.

Champion data are muppets. That Hoyne fella should be sacked.

Data analysis can be useful, but they're highlighting and analysing the data in the wrong way, obviously.

22 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

Champion data are muppets. That Hoyne fella should be sacked.

Data analysis can be useful, but they're highlighting and analysing the data in the wrong way, obviously.

It just goes to show how data can be manipulated to be whatever you want it to be.

In saying that it does highlight while we have an exciting young list the reality is we haven't achieved anything yet. For me I know a guy like Salem is close to elite IMO but the reality is he hasn't played many games at all nor has he built consistency.

So there is some value in the data, it's just about how you process it

I stopped, and carefully considered the rankings (trying my best to eliminate my MFC bias).  My conclusion is that the Champion Data conclusions are a load of tripe.  Without doing a head count, I reckon that no more than 50% of our boys are rated where I would have them.

Edited March 4, 20178 yr by Deeoldfart
typo

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

I picked up the Herald Sun footy magazine and, this year, they've had Champion Data rate each list from Elite through to poor and inconclusive based on that player's performance over the last two years.  Here is how they have rated ours, and it makes for some interesting results.

As a guide, to rank as Elite you must rank in the top 10% for that position in the AFL (90-100%), and it obviously goes down from there.  Here is where we sit:

Elite:  Tom McDonald and Max Gawn

Above Average:  Christian Petracca, Jayden Hunt, Neville Jetta, Dean Kent, Jack Watts, Bernie Vince, Michael Hibberd, Jeff Garlett

Average:  Cam Pedersen, Jack Viney, Nathan Jones, Aaron vandenBerg, Gus Brayshaw, Jordan Lewis, James Harmes, Colin Garland, Oscar McDonald, Jesse Hogan, Dom Tyson, Clayton Oliver, Muhammad Ali

Below Average:  Christian Salem, Ben Kennedy, Josh Wagner, Jake Melksham, Billy Stretch

Poor:  Tom Bugg, Sam Frist, Alex Neal-Bullen

Inconclusive:  All other players not listed above.

Interested in everyone's thoughts.  For me, I can see so much improvement still to come in our list.  We have plenty of players there who can move categories which, coincidentally, will further improve our chances for finals in the coming years.

Edit - just want to add that their ratings are against the rest of the players in the AFL that play in their position.  I know that seeing Pedersen in the same catergory as someone like Viney, Jones or Lewis seems absurd, it's because he plays forward and the others are midfielders where there are far more players to compete against across the league.

Muhammad Ali only average? I thought he proved to the world that he was the greatest?

I was getting ready to dismiss it as being a bit like 'rating' the clubs by telling us where they finished last year, but then I realised the data methods they are using must be a whole lot more sophisticated than that.

More sophisticated, but not more accurate or informative.

Weighting 'by position' is a nice idea but completely unworkable when players need to be so flexible.

Might as well just go by supercoach scores.

I thought I might rank Champion Data...

Rating: Poor to very poor

Ratings based on previous years really don't tell the story of a young list so they've about as useful as...

What a pile of excrement.

1 hour ago, Return to Glory said:

If Tom McDonald's elite they've obviously decided kicking's a minor skill.

And ..... BANG! There you have it.

 

1 hour ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

There is either something seriously wrong with their data model or they epitomise the fact that stats don't tell the whole story.

 

BANG! again.

These are all ultimately based on someone's opinion, they then put numbers to their opinion, and then they put absolute trust in the numbers because ... they're numbers, man, and the computer doesn't lie!

Simple example: some one decides a kick is worth 5 Champion Points and a handball is 3. Someone else says, no, a handball should be worth 4. Someone else: no, 2. And a mark is worth 4. But a contested mark is 8, and a contested mark against a top defender is 12.

It's all subjectivity dressed up as science and they don't notice when it generates garbage results, like for our list, because they basically don't know our list.

They end up really believing C'wood must have the best midfield, even in the face of Danger and Selwood being a better midfield all by themselves.

Lewis was second in hawthorn team which is a top 4 side he is above average theses rating are full of sht.

load of codswallop

doesn't even pass the sniff test

i'd be embarrassed to put my name to this pile of bovine stools

It highlights the folly of using past results to try and predict the future. It does prove that we've been pretty avaerage over the past 2 years, so no surprises there.

But, there is not much that is inherently wrong in the assessments. It is uses the AFL player ratings, which is highly skewed toward scoring involvements. It's based upon statistics analysis of matches as to which acts are the most crucial in determining the outcome of a match. It's also why players like Trac and Hunt rate as above average after 1 season - I'd expect them to be edging elite by the end of this year.

Those bemused by Hogan need to remember who he is being rated against. 40 goals from the no1 kpf is the very definition of average. 

And as for TMac: being the primary intercept player leads to him being the beginning of many scoring chains. And think about that role across the league - who's better: Rance obviously, but then who? Jeremy McGovern? well he's elite too. The only other might be Steven May. 

And another point: is it really any less accurate than general punditry? 

Even people on this site were lining up to lay the boots into David King over his assertion that we are the toughest midfield in the league. You can only imagine the reaction of 17 other clubs supporters.

At least CD stand by their claims and methods rather than changing their mind half way through the season when their prediction fails.

40 minutes ago, Thrice said:

It highlights the folly of using past results to try and predict the future. It does prove that we've been pretty avaerage over the past 2 years, so no surprises there.

But, there is not much that is inherently wrong in the assessments. It is uses the AFL player ratings, which is highly skewed toward scoring involvements. It's based upon statistics analysis of matches as to which acts are the most crucial in determining the outcome of a match. It's also why players like Trac and Hunt rate as above average after 1 season - I'd expect them to be edging elite by the end of this year.

Those bemused by Hogan need to remember who he is being rated against. 40 goals from the no1 kpf is the very definition of average. 

And as for TMac: being the primary intercept player leads to him being the beginning of many scoring chains. And think about that role across the league - who's better: Rance obviously, but then who? Jeremy McGovern? well he's elite too. The only other might be Steven May. 

I agree. I think it's pretty accurate. I love Viney and Lewis, but there are a lot more midfielders ahead of them which puts them in the average category... e.g. Parker, Dangerfield, Cripps, Hannebery, Shiel, Kennedy the list goes on.

Stats can be manipulated to suit the author of the subject. What is strange is Hibberd and Melksham get a rating considering they havn't played footy for over a year.