Demon Dynasty

SEN (read Collingwood's surrogate broadcaster) and it's hosts are a very hard listen now and have been ever since Hutchy took over. Super cringeworthy especially Radar and, aside from Brenton Sanderson's analysis on a Thurs, generally a very very boring lot that just talk AFL speak & pander to the Collingwood nuffies. Sando's session is available via the Thurs Whately podcast and is the only piece i bother listening too.

Kev if you are hitting training again this week i'd he interested in your views on Maysie pls. In terms of what sort of drills, the level he is involved at vs others in the def group like Lever & Hibb and his physicality in general if possible.

Reverse engineered 🤦‍♂️ 😂

Talking about exciting propects..... Ollie Sestan wow. Pretty raw and much to learn but jeepers this bloke could be a real star if he works super hard on the track & gym. The goal on the move at the ball up just outside the goal square in the 3rd.... as Bruce would say..." Deelicious!". Duursma was excellent at times also.

Jefferson's started his first season pretty nicely for mine. A little patchy, drifting in & out, but surely that's to be expected. The good patchy is all class and reads the ball nicely. Starting to get to a few more contests and even relieving down back at times. Need some patience with the tall fellas but i think we might be a little surprised here. Reminds me a little of the Duke with a better technique in front of the sticks. Exciting prospect!

In: Melk BOG performance on Sunday + VFL goal of the century An in form Melk with confidence sky high is a dangerous Melk Out: Somebody 😄

Crikey....im usually right behind you guys. Time for this old buzzard to visit a hearing specialist

Great to hear its still going WC. Do you also chant this with him?

I dunno ... there was always the maroon scarfs

Loved hearing and chanting that on game day. Could be i'm losing my hearing slowly but appears to have dropped away as a chant of late for some reason.

I had no idea he was a Taswegian

Barely tugging on the coat tails of great analysts layzie but thanks! A tinkerer at best. Speaking of pints... if i don't end up over board after a few too many on the goodship P&O brewhouse in the next 2 weeks will try & catch up at the Burnley if you're up for it before one of our home games as discussed

Woweee folks! Gotta be happy with that eh. Not every day you get a four year deal on one of the comp's best small forwards.

Howdy Bin I've managed to fish out my response to same question from 2020. Apologies for the length of that. I do suffer from writer's dihorea at times. In short (for me haha), these ratings have nothing to do with Champions' or other ratings. I would always disclose that if it were the case. Merely an amature proprietary attempt to (very roughly) try and capture some of what we witness on game day using 10 wasted years of Fund Manager analysis experience back in the 90s as the idea/method behind it. To cut a boring story short i just wanted a rating/score that roughly gave some resemblence of what i was witnessing when watching the game. I felt at the time some of the Super Coach ratings etc were, in some instances, a fair way off what i had seen at the game / on TV and on occasions a long way off. So i went back over 6 matches in 2017 and for want of a better term (and probably a very poor term to describe things), backward engineered a set of data to try to match, as closely as possible, the impact and performances of as many players as possible on the day. The idea was to try and have the data mimic what happened on the field as best as possible, rather than just have the data spit something out the other end that may or may not be close to what i was seeing. Of course like all things in life, nothing is perfect (with the exception of my kids, the 2021 premiership year, beating the Tigers on Anzac eve, a top notch pint etc) and the ratings i put up are no exception. I would however argue they are a reasonable rough guide as to how a player is tracking if taken over a period of approx 4 to 5 matches of data or more. The methodology is also very subjective as it was only my view of which players impacted / performed at a high / medium / sub par level in the 6 replays i covered. Ideally you would want a panel of experts to give their feedback etc then backward engineer the data based on their ratings. But who has the time, access and connections for such a venture!? And who's to say that method is even a sound one regardless. Ideally you would also need to run a separate rating system for Backs, Forwards, Mids & Followers but who has that time and besides, nowadays players rarely play in set positions. Champion might be capable but not possible for a solo amature. As i always recommend, do yourself a favour and watch the match, like seriously watch it. These tables are merely a rough guide and only include publicly available stats. And whether publicly available or exclusive to champion data, some of them can be pretty diabolical and majorly flawed at their attempt to capture what's going on. I'm sure most would agree, the eyes are often (but not in every case) your better judge of a player's / team's impact / performance and alot of the time stats fail to pick up the subtle nuances of what takes place on the field. There's only so much you can capture with stats. Hope this helps! On 8/8/2020 at 2:51 PM, Nascent said: Apologies Rusty if this has already been explained but where are these numbers derived from? I could be a bit daft but I can't make any sense of these random numbers without context. What stats combine to create a weighted score? Is it a combination of effective disposal, metres gained, score involvements etc...? Yes correct Nascent. Just a series of select weighted stats that are averaged as the weeks go by so that you can theoretically compare one player to another across a series of weeks, months or even an entire season, regardless of how many games each player has played. The score is therefore pretty relevant, regardless of whether the player has played say only 5 matches vs a fellow player who may have been lucky enough to play an entire season. The first thing i will say is.... there is a huge danger in looking at any stats (these included) without having watched the game you are deriving the stats from.... intently and in conjunction with the weights and the overall outcome / Score. So was there any testing done to ensure the scores were somewhat robust vs what was happening on the field? Yes, albeit limited. I watched replays of 6 matches in the second half of 2017 to ensure the player scores were, at the very least, "somewhat" reflective (to the best of my limited ability and the limited compromised data available) of how each of the players performed on match day. Fair to say the rewind and fast forward buttons received a pummelling. Obviously there are a myriad of inputs, flaws and subjective bias that goes into the end product and if a serious analyst got hold of this it would probably end up either in the bin or be given a major overhaul but there was some small but subjective back testing carried out over about 3 weeks. Do i think the scores somewhat reflect the outcome on game day in most cases? Not always for every player, but yes in most cases they would appear to (aside from the Maxy / ruckman hit outs to advantage issue / players given a lock down or forward pressure role etc) What stats are being weighted? Your assumption is accurate and certainly no rocket science involved. Each stat is subjectively weighted and includes... Effective disposals (the receiver actually receives the ball ie., there is some robustness in this one), Contested Marks (Maxy, Casboult, Kennedy et al), Marks inside 50 (forwards and mids pushing forward), 1%ers (a pretty dodgy stat but does cover all players, especially critical for defenders spoiling etc), Rebound 50s (covers defenders and mids running both ways to help out. Even forwards on the odd occasion), Clearances (mostly mids, but also covers forwards, rucks and possibly the odd defender. Basically anyone hitting in and getting the pill out), Inside 50s (very low weighting as anyone can bomb the ball in), tackles, score involvements, intercepts and goals. Then i deduct a significant factor off the score of each player for any turnovers. This last part is extremely arbitrary and something i have thought over for a while but my view is it is no good racking up 30 disposals if you just as easily gave back 10 of those straight to the opp. And often after game day we will hear those complaints from fans "So and so got plenty but much of it was junk and went straight to the opp" etc etc. This discount or deduction ensures that poor users of the ball are punished accordingly and the score is reflective of their poor use. Meters gained is not presently covered but given it's supposed importance in the finals/GF success metrics i am considering adding this in 2021. Is there a bench mark figure for what players should be attaining? No but it could be done if you had the time and wherewithal. If one could be bothered carving out the players that play a similar role or position and compare their relevant scores across the entire AFL then it could be possible but that's already covered and in a much more robust accurate way by AFL ratings. The only issue i have with their ratings is it is very laggy as it is based on a player's last 40 matches and therefore doesn't cover players who have been out for quite a while injured or rookies etc. Could i be bothered / do i have the time? No lol. Do i presently have any idea what a benchmark pass is by position or at all? Not really and anything on this topic is purely subjective. Also, in many ways you are only as good as your opponent and sometimes a benchmark or what i might consider a "good" score one week, might be off 20% the next but that same player might have played just as well on the day and/or have played a very good game, but, he did so playing on a better quality opponent / team and hence his score is off vs the previous week (usually the pressure factor). Does that make sense? This is why an average score over a minimum number of games (my guess is at least approx 5 or more) is obviously more robust than just one, two or three week scores. Is it affected by position, i.e will mids will have a higher number due to overall possession numbers but dour defenders and pressure forwards score lower. For example would that mean a "good" score for a mid might be >3 where as a small forward >1? A small pressure forward might be there to do just that and maybe score the odd goal. His stats and therefore his weighted score will generally not look great vs say a mid racking up plenty of effective disposals by handball / boot or a defender chipping plenty of short kicks around the back half or even backwards on occasions (transferring pressure). So then it comes down to comparing apples to apples while or after watching the game in question. Unfortunately we don't have access to Champion data's best data. Things like their 'kick rating' would be very handy as well as hit outs to advantage for ruckmen. Maxy presently suffers in these tables with this aspect not being captured, albeit the rest of his game still sees him mostly always at or very near the top of the tables. This would likely improve the robustness of the input data. The old saying rubbish in rubbish out is a great starting point and in that instance these tables should only ever be considered as a very rough guide and only taken into consideration after having watched the match in its entirety. What are the poor, average, good benchmarks for players and positions across the league and across and how do our players compare? Having said all the above my gut feel generally is.... a 1.80 to 2.0 or better is a bare minimum pass mark in almost any role / position unless said player is playing a lock down type role eg; shoulder to shoulder defender a la an Oscar or May type role, a mid or even as a small pressure forward who might be tasked to shut down a dangerous play making rebounding defender etc. In this instance a 1.30 (ish) to about 1.70 may well classify as a good pass if his opponent has had limited impact vs his usual impact. I would also apply that lowish approx score to a rookie for a rough pass mark. Looking at particular areas of the ground. As a rough guide... Score pass mark i would expect to be generally lower up forward....roughly 1.80 ish. Mids roughly a 2.5 to 3.0. And defenders roughly 1.80ish and above. Any player getting near a 3.0 or higher should (in theory) have had a good to quite good match or at least held his own on the day. Over 3 to 5.0 is a very good game. Over 5 to 6.9 outstanding. 7.0 and above is off the charts. Apologies again and I'm certainly don't expect you to do the leg work in some of those questions I asked, just trying to wrap my head around the theory behind the numbers.

Keep in mind May is coming off two stellar years GtG. Compared to his usual standards over this period, yes he's a bit off. More so prior to the Tiger's match. Since then he's started to peg things back a little! He was off his 2022 season by 22.5% after the game against the bombers. Coming back from a calf niggle. Might be still hanging about and bothering. Doesn't seem to have the same leap / zip (for him) in the contests just yet. Confidence in the contest might be off a little? Fingers crossed he will get his bod right as we move through the season. Bowey's probably the one that's struggled a bit so far vs his 2022 form (Harmes more so but possibly for personal reasons?). Having said that there's been signs in the last week or two of Bowey getting back to his best in patches. 10% off is very gettable so lets hope he is on the road to finding his mojo again. Thanks for pointing out Chandler. When i set this year's ratings up i used last year's table as a template. Of course when you do that you have to make sure everything's 100%. And guess what....i used LJ's slot for Chandler and forgot to remove LJ's rating haha! So you are looking at LJ's 2022 rating vs 2023 Chandler lol. Now corrected!

Cheers DZ. Yes sometimes it works like that. There is the reverse scanario of course where you watch a game and wonder how the hell a particular rating was achieved (ie the stats don't tell the tale much at all). Gus & Sparrow have certainly had two very good weeks now. Watched the Tiger's match after going to that and have to say that was one of the best Gussy matches for mine. We got his usual great read of the ball and positioning for intercepts but there was also some lovely field kicks in there.

Weighted Average Ratings up to & including Rnd 7, 2023 vs H&A Season 2022 Player 2023 Rating 2023 Rank 2022 Rating % Change vs 2022 2022 Rank Change in Rank vs 2022 C Oliver 5.482 1 5.320 3.05 1 0 C Petracca 4.936 2 4.456 10.77 2 0 T Rivers 3.999 3 2.423 65.04 18 15 Jack Viney 3.863 4 3.971 -2.72 3 -1 J Jordon > 3.845 5 3.164 21.52 9 4 A Brayshaw 3.779 6 3.839 -1.56 5 -1 Steven May 3.370 7 3.971 -15.13 3 -4 B Grundy # 3.325 8 - - - - Ed Langdon 3.304 9 3.109 6.27 11 2 A Tomlinson 3.233 10 2.079 55.51 22 12 Jake Lever 3.200 11 2.703 18.39 14 3 L Hunter 3.136 12 - - - - K Pickett 3.085 13 2.118 45.66 21 8 T Sparrow 3.082 14 2.665 15.65 16 2 Max Gawn # < 3.058 15 3.215 -4.88 8 -7 Alex N-Bullen 2.825 16 2.688 5.10 15 -1 K Chandler 2.793 17 3.128 -10.71 10 -7 M Hibberd 2.791 18 2.613 6.81 17 -1 Jake Bowey 2.596 19 2.856 -9.10 13 -6 H Petty # 2.483 20 2.392 3.80 19 -1 J V Rooyen # 2.415 21 - - - - J Harmes 2.407 22 3.082 -21.90 12 -10 B Fritsch 2.354 23 1.936 21.59 27 4 T McDonald # 2.344 24 1.939 20.89 26 2 Judd McVee 2.132 25 - - - - Ben Brown # < 2.033 26 1.759 15.58 29 3 C Spargo 1.935 27 1.981 -2.32 24 -3 J Melksham > 1.437 28 1.947 -26.19 25 -3 B Laurie < * 1.300 29 - - - - Team Rating 73.01 68.89 5.98 * Played less than two full matches (in total) - player rating compromised # Hit outs to advantage not counted < Subbed Out at least once or more > Subbed In at least once or more Stats courtesy of footwire.com

Petty is probably week after next earliest given concussion protocols. Spargo's a beauty but even he might need to work his way back in given the state of play at the moment. At this point the only spot that seems up for grabs is which tall forward gets the gig alongside JVR, assuming he maintains reasonable or better form. Petty (or even Disco subject to Casey form) as an extra tall down back at times when needed, depending on the oppo's forward line up.

In the time this thread was opened and now something must have gone down as his share price appears to have grown exponentially of late! Corporate raider or such? Some of the early page 1 forecasts were a bit gloomy to say the least.... now its all blue sky. Hmm ...a little over indulgence and exuberance about 🤔 Might be time to short this one!

Yes possibly for JJ but JJ was ok as well. Tough calls ahead this week. More mid field/on ball minutes for Kozzy ups our chances of converting with that last kick inside and general skills / clean looks forward of center as we saw last night. With Chin up and about it allows us the luxury of playing Kozzy in this role. Makes us a much more dangerous prospect in general. Nice move from the coach / FD. Let's hope they keep it going! Would be crazy to change this set up, injuries aside.

Nice LH Note: The AFL's love child (Carlton) is now in year 11 residing at AFL's boarding school. Rumour has it he has had to repeat a number of years, however officials from the AFL are still confident he will graduate very soon and are happy to continue his long running scholarship, free tuition etc. P.S. His older sister (Geelong) graduated last year.

Hasn't played senior footy for a while but was expecting a bit more from Shak tonight. Especially seeing as he already has 73 matches under his belt and bobbed up a few times at Casey recently (some nice contributions without setting the world on fire). Not sure two stay at home forwards is the best mix either. Yes i realise JVR roams a bit higher at times. But for the main part the two of them are two peas in a pod in terms of the approx areas they seem to like to roam. Reckon we need a leading forward like BBB or Macca with JVR playing deeper out of the square. That's not to say Shak wont be given another week. The brains trust might want to take another look? However, with that in mind, Shak would most likely need to improve on tonight's performance quite significantly to retain his place from there. I am also scratching my head to work out what it is (weapon/s wise) that he brings to the table? Certainly didn't seem to show anything special in this regard tonight from what i saw.

6. Tracc 5. Clarry 4. Chandler 3. Kozzy 2. Gus 1. Lingers