Pound for pound mvp

[Mantis]

Pressure acts are not everything, but they are something, especially for pressure forwards. Most importantly, his acts led to turnovers.

6 score involvements.

He was tidy with ball in hand, on a night many were not.

He is compared to the Avg general forward across the comp.

Lower 1/3 cap.

The system ranking his game a 9 is laughable

At 3/4 time he had 4 disposals and 1 tackle, all whilst their HB’s gave them heaps of drive.

I can’t have it.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

I really love your perspective on weekly analysis Rusty. It fuels really positive discussion about what traits are considered valuable and also seeks to bring the context of player value value or cost into performance.
As an analysis kind of person, I'd like to see a breakdown of the elements each week, to see which aspects of their performance are contributing more to their overall score that week.
Again love this. There are a few new threads from relatively new WOOFers here like this one, and Palmy Bulldog's Take a Breath & Debrief weekly thread.
Really cool to see some new perspectives.

[1eyedog]

Is 6 score involvements from 26 scoring shots for a small forward who played +90% game time a 9 though? How much weight is placed on score involvements it seems quite high? Did those involvements lead to goals or doesnt that matter?

Outside of this there are no stats I can see that would bump him any higher than a 6.

1 goal, 3 tackles and 10 touches at 80% is a par night at best for a small forward.

Thanks for putting this together each week I look forward to it.

[Rusty12]

The system ranking his game a 9 is laughable

At 3/4 time he had 4 disposals and 1 tackle, all whilst their HB’s gave them heaps of drive.

I can’t have it.

Maybe.
This aims to have an unbiased ranking, and the data behind it drives the AFL.
Maybe it is laughable, maybe advanced analytics is picking up something we did not see or appreciate.
No system is perfect; in the same way, the human eye is not perfect.
I would probably have given him a 6-7 from what I watched, too, but that's not what this is.
This system was also identifying early on, the very good seasons multiple players were having, who were getting no attention or votes.
Right now, McNeil is the 16th MVP. That is probably about right, having played all but 1 game.

[Rusty12]

Is 6 score involvements from 26 scoring shots for a small forward who played +90% game time a 9 though? How much weight is placed on score involvements it seems quite high? Did those involvements lead to goals or doesnt that matter?

Outside of this there are no stats I can see that would bump him any higher than a 6.

1 goal, 3 tackles and 10 touches at 80% is a par night at best for a small forward.

Thanks for putting this together each week I look forward to it.

Hey,
His score assists were not direct goal assists, so I can't claim that one.
3 effective tackles can be better than 8 tackles where the player gets an effective disposal off (Which was the day Sanders had, lot's of pressure, however mostly ineffective)
I don't disagree a 6 looks better on paper, however, we got what we got.

[Rusty12]

I really love your perspective on weekly analysis Rusty. It fuels really positive discussion about what traits are considered valuable and also seeks to bring the context of player value value or cost into performance.
As an analysis kind of person, I'd like to see a breakdown of the elements each week, to see which aspects of their performance are contributing more to their overall score that week.
Again love this. There are a few new threads from relatively new WOOFers here like this one, and Palmy Bulldog's Take a Breath & Debrief weekly thread.
Really cool to see some new perspectives.

Thanks Mate.
Time wise, it takes long enough to put the ratings for the game together, I just don't have the time to do that every week for every player.
I think the ratings people feel are too high, or too low, driving discussion, and answering those, is about as much time I have.
Cheers

[hujsh]

I think Rusty12 sometimes people get caught up in the numbers and forget your methodology. 10 disposals, a goal, multiple score involvements, multiple effective tackles (a great distinction you made) from a small forward who is one of the lowest paid players on the list, I can see why your system would consider that a 'complete' game. People see the 9 and associate that with nearly BOG, or add in personal evaluations (4 disposals to 3 quarter time, how would a statistical evaluation account for something like that?) I think your explanations around WHY the rating are what they are actually give a lot of insight into why someone like McNeil is being picked every week. Things we miss.

Maybe it's not a revolutionary as Bevo's impact grading AI or whatever mad scientist contraption he's invented but I rate it pretty highly for giving a new perspective. I wish it was around during the 'Lewis Young should play, he averages more disposals' days because that would have been interesting to see how it rated him vs a Cordy.

[SquirrelGrip]

Thanks Rusty for all your work. I'm wondering if once a week you can break down oneplayer (like you have here with McNeil) to provide the detail of how they are scored that way? Maybe a player whose score doesn't reflect how others might consider how he played?

That would really help us understand your analysis, as I appreciate that doing for everyone is just too time-consuming.

[1eyedog]

I think Rusty12 sometimes people get caught up in the numbers and forget your methodology. 10 disposals, a goal, multiple score involvements, multiple effective tackles (a great distinction you made) from a small forward who is one of the lowest paid players on the list, I can see why your system would consider that a 'complete' game. People see the 9 and associate that with nearly BOG, or add in personal evaluations (4 disposals to 3 quarter time, how would a statistical evaluation account for something like that?) I think your explanations around WHY the rating are what they are actually give a lot of insight into why someone like McNeil is being picked every week. Things we miss.

Maybe it's not a revolutionary as Bevo's impact grading AI or whatever mad scientist contraption he's invented but I rate it pretty highly for giving a new perspective. I wish it was around during the 'Lewis Young should play, he averages more disposals' days because that would have been interesting to see how it rated him vs a Cordy.

If McNeil's game is being rated against the league average (or any other baseline) numbers for a small forward and not his impact on the result of the match that would be fair enough, but I'm not certain this is the case.

Without inside knowledge of what McNeil's KPIs actually are how can we develop a testing mechanism to rate his performances with anything other than the 'numbers'?

Why would McNeil's pay grade come into the rating system? Does it?

[Mantis]

Maybe.
This aims to have an unbiased ranking, and the data behind it drives the AFL.
Maybe it is laughable, maybe advanced analytics is picking up something we did not see or appreciate.
No system is perfect; in the same way, the human eye is not perfect.
I would probably have given him a 6-7 from what I watched, too, but that's not what this is.
This system was also identifying early on, the very good seasons multiple players were having, who were getting no attention or votes.
Right now, McNeil is the 16th MVP. That is probably about right, having played all but 1 game.

Appreciate you responding and taking the time each week to work through & posting the rankings, it certainly creates interest, riles opinions & creates good discussion which is what we're all here for.

I would've given him a 4-5 based on what we consume on the TV so not miles off from you, but nowhere near a 9.

He had no positive influence on the game until it was pretty much over and if we had players pressing for selection and no injury concerns his place in the team would be hanging on by a thread.

[hujsh]

If McNeil's game is being rated against the league average (or any other baseline) numbers for a small forward and not his impact on the result of the match that would be fair enough, but I'm not certain this is the case.

Without inside knowledge of what McNeil's KPIs actually are how can we develop a testing mechanism to rate his performances with anything other than the 'numbers'?

Why would McNeil's pay grade come into the rating system? Does it?

That's what Rusty has said to my recollection. He'd have to expand on the hows. I think maybe players are put into rough pay brackets.

I could be wrong though. I might be misremembering myself

[Rusty12]

If McNeil's game is being rated against the league average (or any other baseline) numbers for a small forward and not his impact on the result of the match that would be fair enough, but I'm not certain this is the case.

Without inside knowledge of what McNeil's KPIs actually are how can we develop a testing mechanism to rate his performances with anything other than the 'numbers'?

Why would McNeil's pay grade come into the rating system? Does it?

You can check the very first post, I think I went into detail there.
It is a Pound for Pound award, ratings are based on the position and adjusted (slight) for the pay scale.
There are already a bunch of rewards that the same handful of players who win every year at every club.
The AFL has a hard salary cap, performance Vs salary absolutely matters, your highest-paid midfielders should be your highest rated players, if just taking raw ratings and not considering salary.
Naughton is a perfect example of this so far. He needs to out perform Khamis to obtain the same rating, and I will argue that should be the case.

[Mantis]

I think Rusty12 sometimes people get caught up in the numbers and forget your methodology. 10 disposals, a goal, multiple score involvements, multiple effective tackles (a great distinction you made) from a small forward who is one of the lowest paid players on the list, I can see why your system would consider that a 'complete' game. People see the 9 and associate that with nearly BOG, or add in personal evaluations (4 disposals to 3 quarter time, how would a statistical evaluation account for something like that?) I think your explanations around WHY the rating are what they are actually give a lot of insight into why someone like McNeil is being picked every week. Things we miss.

Maybe it's not a revolutionary as Bevo's impact grading AI or whatever mad scientist contraption he's invented but I rate it pretty highly for giving a new perspective. I wish it was around during the 'Lewis Young should play, he averages more disposals' days because that would have been interesting to see how it rated him vs a Cordy.

1/ I'm challenged by this bit. Lachie has consistently been in our best 20-25 over the past 2-3 years... if he's one of our lowest paid players his manager needs a kick up the ass.

2/ I'm also challenged by the suggestion that how & when a player gathers his disposals doesn't affect his ranking. Surely being a consistent contributor throughout would mean a higher ranking, rather than fattening up his stat sheet when the game is pretty much over.

[Scott2016]

Appreciate you responding and taking the time each week to work through & posting the rankings, it certainly creates interest, riles opinions & creates good discussion which is what we're all here for.

I would've given him a 4-5 based on what we consume on the TV so not miles off from you, but nowhere near a 9.

He had no positive influence on the game until it was pretty much over and if we had players pressing for selection and no injury concerns his place in the team would be hanging on by a thread.

100% agree. Has to do A LOT more to convince me that he is better than Dolan L Kennedy and Hynes. He had his time to come on to be an AFL player but hasnt cut it. So we should give more time to the new recruits instead. VDM is in the same boat as McNeil, had his chances but not doing enough. The other thing about VDM is that is has failed to finish about 10 games in the last 12 months. He is not doing enough to be an automatic selection against others who are missing out.

[hujsh]

1/ I'm challenged by this bit. Lachie has consistently been in our best 20-25 over the past 2-3 years... if he's one of our lowest paid players his manager needs a kick up the ass.

2/ I'm also challenged by the suggestion that how & when a player gathers his disposals doesn't affect his ranking. Surely being a consistent contributor throughout would mean a higher ranking, rather than fattening up his stat sheet when the game is pretty much over.

1. McNeil has been periphery at best until late last year. He wouldn't be on a lot. More than the guys on their draft contracts, but I doubt he'd be on more than even someone like Garcia despite probably playing more games. In fact Axe Man has him listed as a rookie list player still. So he might even be on less than say Sanders or even Cleary. Maybe someone more familiar can clarify if the rookie wage is definitely set lower than regular list players.

2. That's literally your personal evaluation and not objective. How do you determine when a game is over (especially when we almost came back to win?) Do you just rate first quarter statistics higher and then progressively less as the game goes on? Is there not merit to running out a match strongly and contributing late in the game with the result on the line? Good luck to Rusty if he wants to try and implement that. I think its out of the realm of statistics at that point and back in the realm of personal evaluation.