According to Champion Data. 

2019 LIST RANKING

1. Melbourne

2. Adelaide

3. Richmond

4. Essendon

5. Collingwood

6. Geelong

7. GWS

8. North Melbourne

9. Hawthorn

10. Brisbane

11. West Coast

12. Port Adelaide

13. Sydney

14. St Kilda

15. Western Bulldogs

16. Carlton

17. Fremantle

18. Gold Coast

Well we all know they said we had the worst midfield in 2017..so it's a turnaround for them i guess.....

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/champion-data-ranks-every-afl-clubs-list-for-2019-season/news-story/bbf9675e7653e4c21dedd9a8bade9684

"The Demons boast the league’s second-best backline, fifth-best forward line and No.1 midfield."

 

 

Champion Data is garbage.

I think Champion Data read the thread I posted late on Melbourne Cup night about celebrating a certain Demons’ flag in 2019.

It was compelling stuff.

 

7 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Champion Data is garbage.

Its purely on sats, they base everything on raw numbers. 

So are you saying the stats are wrong? or that you just don't like the organisation? 

 

30 minutes ago, Brenno said:

Its purely on sats, they base everything on raw numbers. 

So are you saying the stats are wrong? or that you just don't like the organisation? 

 

That's not quite true.

Yes they base their output on stats.

...but it's the stats they use & the assumptions made based on those stats that can be argued with.

If it was pure stats then they would just release the stats sheet (the raw numbers) & let us draw our own conclusions.

They don't, they give their opinion. It's not infallible & is arguable.

1 hour ago, Brenno said:

Its purely on sats, they base everything on raw numbers. 

So are you saying the stats are wrong? or that you just don't like the organisation? 

 

Correct - and such statistics in the main (statistically speaking) are accumulated not from  the subject's talent or median configuration but moreso from the errors of other teams with whom the subject team meets at random intervals of poor play and decision-making. Champion Data can thus depart in most of their activities, one would hope. 

I've always liked their ratings.  They're never wrong.  I mean, they've been wrong every other year, but this year seems spot on to me.

Clarry 5th best while Tom Mitchell is 28th. 

Max second best ruckman behind Grundy. 

6 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Max second best ruckman behind Grundy. 

Probably because Grundy gets more possessions??

We're doomed.

26 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Clarry 5th best while Tom Mitchell is 28th. 

Max second best ruckman behind Grundy. 

That is handy company our Clarrie is keeping; Dangerfield, Dusty, Fyfe and Franklin. 

Given it is over a two year period you would think even a marginal improvement in ‘19 would see him rated very close to #1

21 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

We're doomed.

Would love to see how their track record is with this stuff.  I remember only a year or two ago they were saying that Collingwood had the best midfield, and we all laughed.  Obviously this year they nearly pinched a flag.

I'm all for unwarranted criticism, but if they have a history of their figures proving to show a high level of success, then I will go and get my premiership tattoo for Christmas!

12 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

Would love to see how their track record is with this stuff.  I remember only a year or two ago they were saying that Collingwood had the best midfield, and we all laughed.  Obviously this year they nearly pinched a flag.

I'm all for unwarranted criticism, but if they have a history of their figures proving to show a high level of success, then I will go and get my premiership tattoo for Christmas!

I have a similar recollection.

As much as we love to loath them, I don't know why anyone would find it hard to think Collingwood have a good midfeild.  Pendelbry, Treloar, Sidebottom, Maynard (does he play mid?) and probably a few others.  Scary thing is they have just added a rejuvenated Beams back into that mix.

Still I also recall the huge freak-out about us comming up against Geelong's 'star studded' midfeild in Rd one last year.  My hopes and expectations are that our guys will just keep getting stronger, more match hardened and experience in the next few years, whilst some of the elite players from other teams that represent the old gaurd will start to drop off.  If players like Selwood and Pendles output drops, the others around them could also start looking more second rate as well.

3 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Probably because Grundy gets more possessions??

It's based on a rolling 40 games I believe and Gawn was rubbish when he came back from his bad hamstring in 2017.

Note: the above isn't quite true.  See a few posts down.

Edited November 29, 20187 yr by ProDee

Collingwood have a great midfield no doubt but the reality is De Goey is a full forward, Pendles is starting to slow down and Adams & Treloar can’t kick

What are the odds/stats on Champion Data finally getting it right?

You lost me at Adelaide 2nd and West Coast 11th

In our backline we will have May and Lever, who were standout key defenders in their former teams, Hibbert is an All Aus, Nev who should be All Aus, OMac, Salem, Frost, Lewis, J Wagner, Fritsch, Smith, Kolo and others who can fill in.

In our midfield we will have a rotating mix of Clarrie, Viney, Jones, Harmes, Brayshaw, Nibbles, Hunt, AVB, Stretcher and others who can fill in. All serviced by All Aus Maxie and perhaps Preuss.

In our forward line we will have TMac, Weideman, Tracca, Melksham, Hannan, Garlett(?), Spargo and rotating midfielders and ruckmen who can kick goals.

The key element is depth. And no one knows who might step up from the draftees and rookies. Give them time to play together as a unit to develop the innate and intuitive understanding that top teams show and I am confident that we can be successful.

2020.

Go dees.

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

It's based on a rolling 40 games I believe and Gawn was rubbish when he came back from his bad hamstring in 2017.

This isn't correct.  It's a full two seasons finishing at the Grand Final.  It's also weighted with more recent games having a heavier loading than round 1, 2017.  Even the second half of 2018 has more weight than the first half of 2018.

Every player in the competition who has played at least 5 games is measured individually and then the algorithms spit out the values attributed to each player and then determine the list rankings.

The above can be attributed to a spokesperson from CD who was just interviewed on SEN.

Edited November 29, 20187 yr by ProDee

3 hours ago, rjay said:

That's not quite true.

Yes they base their output on stats.

...but it's the stats they use & the assumptions made based on those stats that can be argued with.

If it was pure stats then they would just release the stats sheet (the raw numbers) & let us draw our own conclusions.

They don't, they give their opinion. It's not infallible & is arguable.

They do post the raw stats, it is call the prospectus and it is released every year. Don't mistake the medias presentation of the stats as champion datas opinion. 

Of Course stats can be interpreted is many different ways which makes them somewhat debatable. However in this instance all the teams stats are counted and analysed in the exact same way,  they then present there findings based on those stats.  

 

 

2 hours ago, The Chazz said:

Would love to see how their track record is with this stuff.  I remember only a year or two ago they were saying that Collingwood had the best midfield, and we all laughed.  Obviously this year they nearly pinched a flag.

I'm all for unwarranted criticism, but if they have a history of their figures proving to show a high level of success, then I will go and get my premiership tattoo for Christmas!

It was Coll as the #1 midfield as well a Melb as the #18th best midfield that had everyone scoffing.

4 hours ago, rjay said:

That's not quite true.

Yes they base their output on stats.

...but it's the stats they use & the assumptions made based on those stats that can be argued with.

If it was pure stats then they would just release the stats sheet (the raw numbers) & let us draw our own conclusions.

They don't, they give their opinion. It's not infallible & is arguable.

I don't think this is correct.

CD said today on SEN that it is entirely stats based.

They may give more weight to some stats over others, but none of their assessments are linked to "opinion".

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

You lost me at Adelaide 2nd and West Coast 11th

Based on the stats West Coast's midfield was middle of the road for most of 2018.  They had a 3 week purple patch that just happened to co-incide with the finals, helped hugely by Gaff replaced by Redden who averaged around 15 CPs through the finals.

Adelaide will be top 4 this year.

1 hour ago, Brenno said:

They do post the raw stats, it is call the prospectus and it is released every year. Don't mistake the medias presentation of the stats as champion datas opinion. 

Of Course stats can be interpreted is many different ways which makes them somewhat debatable. However in this instance all the teams stats are counted and analysed in the exact same way,  they then present there findings based on those stats.  

 

 

18 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I don't think this is correct.

CD said today on SEN that it is entirely stats based.

They may give more weight to some stats over others, but none of their assessments are linked to "opinion".

Maybe opinion is the wrong word, maybe not..

My point is that they chose the stats and the weighting of those stats.

It's not an exact science. Someone else may find a different set of figures and weighting is more representative.

They sometimes overreach with their conclusions but it makes for an interesting debate and they are obviously refining the process each year.

I think your original post 'pro' on the rolling 40 games is a case in point, pretty sure that's how they did it in the past but have moved on and refined it.

5 hours ago, Brenno said:

Its purely on sats, they base everything on raw numbers. 

This is the point I was getting at...not everything is based on the raw numbers. The stats they chose and weighting are generated by their experts not raw numbers. It's still an opinion based business, in their case what they think is most important in the outcome of games or positions played.

1 hour ago, Brenno said:

Don't mistake the medias presentation of the stats as champion datas opinion. 

They (CD) do put out their conclusions and use the media to push their profile. The media presentation is usually their (CD) representation of the data in press releases and they have their people talking about it on as many shows as possible. Good for business.

Our game is a very difficult one to boil down to just a set of raw data...much easier for other games like Cricket & Baseball.

Whilst like you I don't agree with the post you were originally quoting 'Brenno', that champion data is garbage, I think they do bring some really interesting information to the table and create some good debate/arguments...I don't totally buy into what they have to say either, raw data or not it's not above reproach.