How do you rate players
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 17024
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3645 times
- Been thanked: 2916 times
How do you rate players
Wanted to do this thread for a while.
I imagine that everyone has some type of system or things that they look when they form their impressions of whether a player is good, worth keeping on the list or should be cut etc It's always a very challenging thing as this is not an exact science and beauty is in the eye of the beholder so to speak. Certainly looking over our list currently, there are a number of players e.g. Jones, Maister, Stanley, Siposs, Ray, Hickey... and in recent seasons guys like McEvoy or Clarke that tended to divide opinions.
So my question is, what's your system, or what do you look for?
Please keep this thread free'ish of your actual player ratings (feel free to use examples by all means)... I will start a thread on that soon enough
My system.
It works in two parts.
I have a letter gradingf system
A+ = Absolute elite players of the comp whose brilliance is beyond dispute: Ablett, Pendlebury, Riewoldt etc
A = Amongst the better the better players of the comp but lack the consistency of the truly elite: Dal Santo, Murphy, Swallow
B = Players that are firmly cemented in the teams best 22. Usually play well and often look like becoming A-Grade players and often have patches where they are not as good or get beaten. Maybe guys like Hurley, Firrito, I think Jason Blake over the 2nd half of his career would be a good example
C = players whose performance is good enough to keep them in the team for now but they are a couple of good or bad games away from cementing their positions or getting dropped. A lot of the youngsters come to mind here, guys like Gartlett or Cam Pedersan
D = Players that are barely good enough for now but are generally in and out of the team w/o ever cementing their spots and are likely to be cut if they don't improve. Siposs or Dunnel perhaps
E= Guys that simply don't look up to it (you get the idea)
So you give the player a rating of what you think they should be and you compare that to where you think they actually are.
The players that are equal or higher are the ones that you want to keep whilst it's the under performers that you look to trade away or cut.
Using this system explains why I for one was not unhappy when we traded McEvoy away.
I felt that McEvoy should have been an A-Grade player. Consistently good and having occasional great games and even on down days was pretty solid. I personally felt though that his performances were closer to that of a C-Grade player. Generally tended to do just enough to have a serviceable game with occasional good games and regular bad ones. Given that I believe he would have been payed handsomly with us for potential and viewed scope of development, I thought he was pbly getting more then he is worth and hence trading him was pretty the right move.
The obvious flaw with this system is that there is no obvious spot place on it to place ratings into context.
For example Luke Dunstan is a player that I believe will be either an A+ or A-Grade player but is currently playing closer to a C+ or B-Grade sample. That comes across as somewhat unnecessarily harsh on a kid playing his 6th game. Alternatively... Lenny Hayes is an A+ elite player but on performance now is again closer to B-Grade as he is in the twilight of his career.
Thoughts?
I imagine that everyone has some type of system or things that they look when they form their impressions of whether a player is good, worth keeping on the list or should be cut etc It's always a very challenging thing as this is not an exact science and beauty is in the eye of the beholder so to speak. Certainly looking over our list currently, there are a number of players e.g. Jones, Maister, Stanley, Siposs, Ray, Hickey... and in recent seasons guys like McEvoy or Clarke that tended to divide opinions.
So my question is, what's your system, or what do you look for?
Please keep this thread free'ish of your actual player ratings (feel free to use examples by all means)... I will start a thread on that soon enough
My system.
It works in two parts.
I have a letter gradingf system
A+ = Absolute elite players of the comp whose brilliance is beyond dispute: Ablett, Pendlebury, Riewoldt etc
A = Amongst the better the better players of the comp but lack the consistency of the truly elite: Dal Santo, Murphy, Swallow
B = Players that are firmly cemented in the teams best 22. Usually play well and often look like becoming A-Grade players and often have patches where they are not as good or get beaten. Maybe guys like Hurley, Firrito, I think Jason Blake over the 2nd half of his career would be a good example
C = players whose performance is good enough to keep them in the team for now but they are a couple of good or bad games away from cementing their positions or getting dropped. A lot of the youngsters come to mind here, guys like Gartlett or Cam Pedersan
D = Players that are barely good enough for now but are generally in and out of the team w/o ever cementing their spots and are likely to be cut if they don't improve. Siposs or Dunnel perhaps
E= Guys that simply don't look up to it (you get the idea)
So you give the player a rating of what you think they should be and you compare that to where you think they actually are.
The players that are equal or higher are the ones that you want to keep whilst it's the under performers that you look to trade away or cut.
Using this system explains why I for one was not unhappy when we traded McEvoy away.
I felt that McEvoy should have been an A-Grade player. Consistently good and having occasional great games and even on down days was pretty solid. I personally felt though that his performances were closer to that of a C-Grade player. Generally tended to do just enough to have a serviceable game with occasional good games and regular bad ones. Given that I believe he would have been payed handsomly with us for potential and viewed scope of development, I thought he was pbly getting more then he is worth and hence trading him was pretty the right move.
The obvious flaw with this system is that there is no obvious spot place on it to place ratings into context.
For example Luke Dunstan is a player that I believe will be either an A+ or A-Grade player but is currently playing closer to a C+ or B-Grade sample. That comes across as somewhat unnecessarily harsh on a kid playing his 6th game. Alternatively... Lenny Hayes is an A+ elite player but on performance now is again closer to B-Grade as he is in the twilight of his career.
Thoughts?
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2203
- Joined: Wed 19 Aug 2009 10:32pm
- Location: Del Mar, California
- Has thanked: 34 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Re: How do you rate players
Thoughts?
Reasonably logical, lets try a few examples, and you can lets us know if we're on the right track:
B grade: Armitage, Dempster, Schnieder, Fisher, Gilbert, Geary
A+ grade: Montagna, Jack Steven
C grade: Farren, Clint,
A bit too early to call: Hickey, Rhys, Billings, Dunstan, Newnes, Longer, Curren, Delaney, Bruce
Reasonably logical, lets try a few examples, and you can lets us know if we're on the right track:
B grade: Armitage, Dempster, Schnieder, Fisher, Gilbert, Geary
A+ grade: Montagna, Jack Steven
C grade: Farren, Clint,
A bit too early to call: Hickey, Rhys, Billings, Dunstan, Newnes, Longer, Curren, Delaney, Bruce
- Statsman
- Club Player
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:46pm
- Location: Aisle 37, Level 1, Telstra Dome
Re: How do you rate players
The thing I would add to that method is the likelihood of getting from where they are now to what you think they should/could be. For example, you had McEvoy as a C+ with the potential to be an A, but how likely is he to realise that potential? I'd say it's unlikely so I'm also happy with that trade. You also had Dunstan as a C+/B- and I'd say he's highly likely to raise to at least an A.
A player is worth keeping on our list if he's either a) a valuable contributor in your A, B or C category or D) a player with real potential to reach that level. Everybody else is a list clogger that needs to be moved on so we can try more players to assess their potential.
A player is worth keeping on our list if he's either a) a valuable contributor in your A, B or C category or D) a player with real potential to reach that level. Everybody else is a list clogger that needs to be moved on so we can try more players to assess their potential.
"Ask not what your teammates can do for you. Ask what you can do for your teammates." - Earvin 'Magic' Johnson
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 17024
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3645 times
- Been thanked: 2916 times
Re: How do you rate players
Oooh funToy Saint wrote:Thoughts?
Reasonably logical, lets try a few examples, and you can lets us know if we're on the right track:
B grade: Armitage, Dempster, Schnieder, Fisher, Gilbert, Geary
A+ grade: Montagna, Jack Steven
C grade: Farren, Clint,
A bit too early to call: Hickey, Rhys, Billings, Dunstan, Newnes, Longer, Curren, Delaney, Bruce
Armitage = Should be A-Grade but is B. Given the state of our list, I think rather than move him on I should adjust my expectations
Dempster = Besides a few patches of poor form, I do regard him as a B-Grade player however on form this season, and patches over his career he has actually played to an A-Grade Standard
Schneider should be an A-Grade player but doesn't deliver enough
Gilbert should be an B+ to A-Grade player but prior to tgis season was closer to a C-Grade player IMO. Was playing really well before injury though
Geary I'm unsure of... most of his performances are ok but his clearly good games are getting fewer and far between. Currently I would say a C
Monty to me is very clearly an A-Grade player that pushes into the elite category at times w/o maintaining the consistency to always be there
Steven I think is working towards being an elite and may get there by seasons end... just want to see him do it for a season
My skepticism of CJ comes from the fact that I believe he is capable of being an A-Grade player and demonstrated as such in 09-10 but 2011 onwards has been a C-Grade player
Ray I had pegged as a C-Grade player but he has gone up a rating this season. Very solid and consistent
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 17024
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3645 times
- Been thanked: 2916 times
Re: How do you rate players
I like that but I'm not sure how to do that.Statsman wrote:The thing I would add to that method is the likelihood of getting from where they are now to what you think they should/could be. For example, you had McEvoy as a C+ with the potential to be an A, but how likely is he to realise that potential? I'd say it's unlikely so I'm also happy with that trade. You also had Dunstan as a C+/B- and I'd say he's highly likely to raise to at least an A.
A player is worth keeping on our list if he's either a) a valuable contributor in your A, B or C category or D) a player with real potential to reach that level. Everybody else is a list clogger that needs to be moved on so we can try more players to assess their potential.
Would you say for McEvoy... that to become an A-Grade player he needed to average about 10ho more a match and avg say 20 disposals to be A-Grade. AND thatthe likely hood of him doing that is not strong?
That the kind of thing you're talking about?
- Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: How do you rate players
Ch7 have two ratings 'elite' and 'superstar'.
My first step is they are all good players. Most of them would dominate lower leagues (although there are exceptions to this).
The other thing with rating is players themselves change a fair bit over the sistance. Form, injuries, age and the changing game itself means players become better worse of or more valuable each year.
Not VFL Std - might go well in Ammos (e.g Crocker)
Good VFL (e.g TDL)
Not AFL Std (Plenty of these)
Plays a role at AFL level (C Jones, Delaney)
Decent AFL (Ray)
Good AFL (a few in here)
Very Good AFL (not many in here)
Gun (hardly any in here)
My first step is they are all good players. Most of them would dominate lower leagues (although there are exceptions to this).
The other thing with rating is players themselves change a fair bit over the sistance. Form, injuries, age and the changing game itself means players become better worse of or more valuable each year.
Not VFL Std - might go well in Ammos (e.g Crocker)
Good VFL (e.g TDL)
Not AFL Std (Plenty of these)
Plays a role at AFL level (C Jones, Delaney)
Decent AFL (Ray)
Good AFL (a few in here)
Very Good AFL (not many in here)
Gun (hardly any in here)
Re: How do you rate players
On how they influence a game with their output on a regular basis
Elite... Matchwnners... Riewoldt
A Grade.... Very good players weekly... Steven. Montagna
B Grade .... Solid players with reliable output.... Ray, Armitage
C Grade ... Role and fringe GOPs
Development.... Up and coming... Webster
Players slide into different areas on form or stage of career they're at
Ie/ Hayes has been elite... Now A/B Grade
Elite... Matchwnners... Riewoldt
A Grade.... Very good players weekly... Steven. Montagna
B Grade .... Solid players with reliable output.... Ray, Armitage
C Grade ... Role and fringe GOPs
Development.... Up and coming... Webster
Players slide into different areas on form or stage of career they're at
Ie/ Hayes has been elite... Now A/B Grade
- Statsman
- Club Player
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:46pm
- Location: Aisle 37, Level 1, Telstra Dome
Re: How do you rate players
Spot on. I don't see McEvoy taking that next step to become an A-Grade ruckman. Therefore it was a sensible move, given the state of our list, to trade him for effectively Savage, Duncan and Acres - three players with more upside.skeptic wrote:I like that but I'm not sure how to do that.Statsman wrote:The thing I would add to that method is the likelihood of getting from where they are now to what you think they should/could be. For example, you had McEvoy as a C+ with the potential to be an A, but how likely is he to realise that potential? I'd say it's unlikely so I'm also happy with that trade. You also had Dunstan as a C+/B- and I'd say he's highly likely to raise to at least an A.
A player is worth keeping on our list if he's either a) a valuable contributor in your A, B or C category or D) a player with real potential to reach that level. Everybody else is a list clogger that needs to be moved on so we can try more players to assess their potential.
Would you say for McEvoy... that to become an A-Grade player he needed to average about 10ho more a match and avg say 20 disposals to be A-Grade. AND thatthe likely hood of him doing that is not strong?
That the kind of thing you're talking about?
"Ask not what your teammates can do for you. Ask what you can do for your teammates." - Earvin 'Magic' Johnson