Pound for pound mvp

[Scott2016]

I like the idea. Look forward to seeing the ratings going forward

[FrediKanoute]

Love this. A different way of doing a best to worst. Will prompt some debate.

For what it is worth, I think you nailed Dureya and Williams. Been generous on JOD, Libba and Bramble. Been hard on Davidson, Harmes and Lobb.

[Rusty12]

I would think that he wouldn’t be in the bottom 20% of earners.

Could nit pick over lots of the ratings but the 2 that stand out for me were JOD and Dolan.

Yep, of course, I think we all can. My own 4-3-2-1 from the WOOF awards was done purely from watching the game, with no stats, which contradicts these ratings.
Naturally, with my own bias, I left VDM out of the votes.........

[Rusty12]

Can you share the underlying rating system?

Love the concept and discussion it will drive. Thanks for sharing.

Happy to answer any questions on weightings or, which stats etc are weighted more valuable or impactful than others, ect.

[Rusty12]

The other thing to consider, which may drive different opinions or make the ratings look wrong, is that the rating is compared to the average rating for that role. So Ed was probably BOG; however, as an inside mid, most likely, an inside mid should be; the rating for him to get a 9 is far higher than VDM or JOD for example.

Over a whole season, hopefully, the value of this structure is it awards availability, you score in every game you play, and it awards how much better a player was, Vs a 3-2-1 system, etc.

[Bulldog Joe]

I really like the concept.

It takes away from just give the Brownlow votes to the player who gets it most.

Lots of valuable contributions are made without possession.

Classic was the Naughton tap on that got us a goal in the last quarter (I think Sanders kicked it)

[jazzadogs]

Is this the first year you've trialled this system Rusty?

Would be interested to see, for example, the end of year ratings for our squad last year.

[Rusty12]

Is this the first year you've trialled this system Rusty?

Would be interested to see, for example, the end-of-year ratings for our squad last year.

Hey, not the first year for the ratings; I have done those for quite a while, and converting it like this for a Pound for Pound award is a bit of fun for WOOF.

Have also done similar things in elite sports in the past, however, in much more detail.

A bit too time-intensive to re-run last year, game-by-game; however, a scan of the upper list, a top 5 of Bont, Dale, Trelor, Naughton and Richards would have been the outcome, Bont with a huge gap, no surprises there.

[Bornadog]

Hey, not the first year for the ratings; I have done those for quite a while, and converting it like this for a Pound for Pound award is a bit of fun for WOOF.

Have also done similar things in elite sports in the past, however, in much more detail.

A bit too time-intensive to re-run last year, game-by-game; however, a scan of the upper list, a top 5 of Bont, Dale, Trelor, Naughton and Richards would have been the outcome, Bont with a huge gap, no surprises there.

Thanks Rusty, will be great to see how the players progress over the year.

[Grantysghost]

Hey, not the first year for the ratings; I have done those for quite a while, and converting it like this for a Pound for Pound award is a bit of fun for WOOF.

Have also done similar things in elite sports in the past, however, in much more detail.

A bit too time-intensive to re-run last year, game-by-game; however, a scan of the upper list, a top 5 of Bont, Dale, Trelor, Naughton and Richards would have been the outcome, Bont with a huge gap, no surprises there.

I'll have fun with the discussions and challenging your ratings ! Love the premise.

Interesting that LVDM didn't get any coaches votes.

It was Richards 10, Dale 8, Naughton and Libba 3 for dogs

[jazzadogs]

Hey, not the first year for the ratings; I have done those for quite a while, and converting it like this for a Pound for Pound award is a bit of fun for WOOF.

Have also done similar things in elite sports in the past, however, in much more detail.

A bit too time-intensive to re-run last year, game-by-game; however, a scan of the upper list, a top 5 of Bont, Dale, Trelor, Naughton and Richards would have been the outcome, Bont with a huge gap, no surprises there.

All good, appreciate the explanation and the thread.

I would have thought that Libba and Freijah maybe did enough statistically/objectively to get in the upper rankings. Does the performance of an opponent (e.g. JOD was on Larkey who kicked 5, or a tagger (lol) shuts down an oppo mid without much offensive impact) factor in?

What position did you have Freijah down as?

[Rusty12]

All good, appreciate the explanation and the thread.

I would have thought that Libba and Freijah maybe did enough statistically/objectively to get in the upper rankings. Does the performance of an opponent (e.g. JOD was on Larkey who kicked 5, or a tagger (lol) shuts down an oppo mid without much offensive impact) factor in?

What position did you have Freijah down as?

Hey Mate,

Freijah - It is based on game time, if in different positions or roles. Say 50% HB and 50% inside mid, he would be judged that exact % for each. In this case, if Freijah had his game rating, and was 100% HB, then he would have had a 9. However considering the expectations of an inside mid, to still have a 7, whilst being compared to the average inside mid in the comp for a large chunk of the game, is impressive.

Libba - Top tier salary, and being compared to the inside mid cohort. His rating was still very good, and as an inside mid, it should be.
I can see why the coaches gave him votes or why he would be in people's best.
7 is not a bad rating.
Compared to Ed and Mennedy, no way I can get him higher than 7.

Unfortunately, there is no automatic way for tagging or nullifying to then contribute to a player's score. Once you start manually adding things like that, it is a slippery slope. However, when looking at the final number, if it were a player like Toby Bedford, perhaps that can be done if you spot one like that.

Defenders are not penalised for someone kicking a goal. So many factors that go into why the goal was kicked. If they were involved in a contest, and lost it, or gave away a free kick or 50m penalty that led to a score, the rating absolutely smashes you for it. If you drop a mark, that leads to a score, or a back half turnover etc, the rating will also get smashed.
If Larkey kicked 0 goals, and failed to beat JOD in 10, 1v1s, then JOD would have a monster rating regardless.
if Larkey kicked 0 goals, and never had the ball kicked to him, then JOD would not get the credit for that.

[SquirrelGrip]

Hey Mate,

Freijah - It is based on game time, if in different positions or roles. Say 50% HB and 50% inside mid, he would be judged that exact % for each. In this case, if Freijah had his game rating, and was 100% HB, then he would have had a 9. However considering the expectations of an inside mid, to still have a 7, whilst being compared to the average inside mid in the comp for a large chunk of the game, is impressive.

I find this interesting, particularly after the new Bevo's Brief this week. He spent quite a bit of time explaining the extra effort for players who played a full last quarter on Saturday. Freijah was one of them. It's arguably an advantage having more rotations so that you refresh and perform at a higher level.

[Rusty12]

Hey this was a hypothetical.
And it could also mean a 50/50 in role split from 80% game time.

[Bornadog]

I find this interesting, particularly after the new Bevo's Brief this week. He spent quite a bit of time explaining the extra effort for players who played a full last quarter on Saturday. Freijah was one of them. It's arguably an advantage having more rotations so that you refresh and perform at a higher level.

Personally I think, there should be no limits on interchange - can't see the point

[Rusty12]

image.png


Apologies to the McNeil fan club.