A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- DownAtTheJunction
- Club Player
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Sat 16 Feb 2008 10:24pm
- Location: Dark Side Of The Moon
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 87 times
A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
I decided it worthwhile to do an in-depth review of our players after our great win over Port. This meant not only re-watching the match but looking at every piece of action, often several times.
I wanted to find players that impact, rather than raw statistics. To this end I allocated points (and half points) to actions that impacted our performance. What constitutes impact? This is quite subjective - it might be a tap on, a spoil, a handpass, a kick, a block etc. Some actions are worthy of higher points. These include more difficult goals, multiple efforts and higher level skills. Conversely deductions were made for ‘negative impacts’ - usually clangers.
It is worthy of note than not every kick (and mark) receives a score. A player has to show something or do something to score.
This form of rating is fallible as it’s reliant on what a camera shows (which in the main is significant).
I have broken player ratings down into quarters to show how players perform throughout a game. There is no account for the time the ball is in the player’s zone, nor is there any consideration for the time the player was off the field.
I hope it provides some insight into who truly played well. Often we are influenced by media votes, commentary, memory or fantasy stats to give our 3,2 and 1. This gives another perspective.
Sincere apologies for my inability to construct a table. (I did try to import, but failed!) And therefore I realise the following data is difficult to read.
Let's look at the first entry
It reads
Marshall: Q1 5 impact points; Q2 Marshall scored a further 5 impact points; he scored 6.5 in Q3 and a whopping 9 impact points in Q4. This gave him a total of 25.5
Marshall 5 / 5 / 6.5 / 9 = 25.5
Steele 8.5 / 4 / 2.5 / 6 = 21
Jones 4.5 / 8 / 4 / 2.5 = 19
Ryder 5 / 4 / 5 / 5 = 19
Gresham 1 / 3 / 7.5 / 6.5 = 18
Clark 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 4 = 17
Hind 4.5 / 6 / 1 / 5 = 16.5
Billings 5 / 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 = 15
Butler 5.5 / 3.5 / 0.5 / 5 = 14.5
Hill 4 / 3 / 1.5 / 4 = 12.5
Carlisle 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 / 1 = 11
Howard 4 / 5 / -0.5 / 2.5 = 11
Paton 4 / 4 / 1.5 / 1.5 = 11
Sinclair 4.5 / 2.5 / 1 / 2 = 10
Kent 3.5 / 0 / 2.5 / 2.5 = 8.5
Ross 1.5 / 2.5 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 8
King 2.5 / 1.5 / 0.5 / 3.5 = 8
Geary 3 / 0.5 / 3 / 1 = 7.5
Membrey 1 / 3 / 1 / 2.5 = 7.5
Coffield 1 / 0.5 / 2.5 / 3 = 7
Wilkie 3 / 0 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 7
Parker 0.5 / 2 / 0 / 1 = 3.5
I wanted to find players that impact, rather than raw statistics. To this end I allocated points (and half points) to actions that impacted our performance. What constitutes impact? This is quite subjective - it might be a tap on, a spoil, a handpass, a kick, a block etc. Some actions are worthy of higher points. These include more difficult goals, multiple efforts and higher level skills. Conversely deductions were made for ‘negative impacts’ - usually clangers.
It is worthy of note than not every kick (and mark) receives a score. A player has to show something or do something to score.
This form of rating is fallible as it’s reliant on what a camera shows (which in the main is significant).
I have broken player ratings down into quarters to show how players perform throughout a game. There is no account for the time the ball is in the player’s zone, nor is there any consideration for the time the player was off the field.
I hope it provides some insight into who truly played well. Often we are influenced by media votes, commentary, memory or fantasy stats to give our 3,2 and 1. This gives another perspective.
Sincere apologies for my inability to construct a table. (I did try to import, but failed!) And therefore I realise the following data is difficult to read.
Let's look at the first entry
It reads
Marshall: Q1 5 impact points; Q2 Marshall scored a further 5 impact points; he scored 6.5 in Q3 and a whopping 9 impact points in Q4. This gave him a total of 25.5
Marshall 5 / 5 / 6.5 / 9 = 25.5
Steele 8.5 / 4 / 2.5 / 6 = 21
Jones 4.5 / 8 / 4 / 2.5 = 19
Ryder 5 / 4 / 5 / 5 = 19
Gresham 1 / 3 / 7.5 / 6.5 = 18
Clark 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 4 = 17
Hind 4.5 / 6 / 1 / 5 = 16.5
Billings 5 / 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 = 15
Butler 5.5 / 3.5 / 0.5 / 5 = 14.5
Hill 4 / 3 / 1.5 / 4 = 12.5
Carlisle 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 / 1 = 11
Howard 4 / 5 / -0.5 / 2.5 = 11
Paton 4 / 4 / 1.5 / 1.5 = 11
Sinclair 4.5 / 2.5 / 1 / 2 = 10
Kent 3.5 / 0 / 2.5 / 2.5 = 8.5
Ross 1.5 / 2.5 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 8
King 2.5 / 1.5 / 0.5 / 3.5 = 8
Geary 3 / 0.5 / 3 / 1 = 7.5
Membrey 1 / 3 / 1 / 2.5 = 7.5
Coffield 1 / 0.5 / 2.5 / 3 = 7
Wilkie 3 / 0 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 7
Parker 0.5 / 2 / 0 / 1 = 3.5
- Sanctorum
- Club Player
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2014 10:08pm
- Has thanked: 1523 times
- Been thanked: 1055 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Interesting analysis "DownAt", that must have taken you a lot of time! If stats are your skills set maybe you should offer the club your services - honorarily of course as they won't have the funds to pay for this...
I wonder how your process compares to that provided by Champion Data, which I imagine charges clubs for this data.
I wonder how your process compares to that provided by Champion Data, which I imagine charges clubs for this data.
When one door closes and another door opens, you are probably in prison..
Sometimes, someone unexpected comes into your life out of nowhere, makes your heart race, and changes you forever. We call those people cops.
My luck is like a bald guy who just won a comb.
Anon
Sometimes, someone unexpected comes into your life out of nowhere, makes your heart race, and changes you forever. We call those people cops.
My luck is like a bald guy who just won a comb.
Anon
-
- 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: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Love the way you're thinking down at the Junction.
Typically I don't pay much attention to traditional statistics, rather I watch the games and make my own judgement who has the relevant impacts on the contest.
For what it's worth I agree with your top 6 players, however I was inclined to have Hunter Clark on top. Perhaps this was because I was so impressed the numerous times he found his way through congestion.
I've also watched the replays, as I tend to be more objective and less emotional than live. Nick Hind is the interesting one on your list, I also noticed more of his contribution the second time around.
Typically I don't pay much attention to traditional statistics, rather I watch the games and make my own judgement who has the relevant impacts on the contest.
For what it's worth I agree with your top 6 players, however I was inclined to have Hunter Clark on top. Perhaps this was because I was so impressed the numerous times he found his way through congestion.
I've also watched the replays, as I tend to be more objective and less emotional than live. Nick Hind is the interesting one on your list, I also noticed more of his contribution the second time around.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Thu 10 Oct 2019 12:19pm
- Has thanked: 258 times
- Been thanked: 211 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Are you familiar with Darren O'Shaughnessy?Sanctorum wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 6:42pm Interesting analysis "DownAt", that must have taken you a lot of time! If stats are your skills set maybe you should offer the club your services - honorarily of course as they won't have the funds to pay for this...
I wonder how your process compares to that provided by Champion Data, which I imagine charges clubs for this data.
-
- 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: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Worth comparing to the coaches votes:
5 Zak Jones (STK)
5 Hunter Clark (STK)
5 Jade Gresham (STK)
4 Dougal Howard (STK)
4 Darcy Byrne-Jones (PORT)
3 Paddy Ryder (STK)
3 Rowan Marshall (STK)
1 Jack Steele (STK)
5 Zak Jones (STK)
5 Hunter Clark (STK)
5 Jade Gresham (STK)
4 Dougal Howard (STK)
4 Darcy Byrne-Jones (PORT)
3 Paddy Ryder (STK)
3 Rowan Marshall (STK)
1 Jack Steele (STK)
- DownAtTheJunction
- Club Player
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Sat 16 Feb 2008 10:24pm
- Location: Dark Side Of The Moon
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 87 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Thanks for your comments Secret Kiel and Sanctorum. True, this is very time consuming, but not so much if you love the club ( and a great win). I can't say I know Darren, or the context : (Secret Kiel wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 6:57pmAre you familiar with Darren O'Shaughnessy?Sanctorum wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 6:42pm Interesting analysis "DownAt", that must have taken you a lot of time! If stats are your skills set maybe you should offer the club your services - honorarily of course as they won't have the funds to pay for this...
I wonder how your process compares to that provided by Champion Data, which I imagine charges clubs for this data.
I think Champion Data has a lot of merit, but I suspect it's done quickly. I think there would be errors, but no doubt respected.
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2008 9:05am
- Has thanked: 769 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
They are very weird coaches votes.
I noticed Hind and Patton more when I watched the replay without the raw emotion.
Also with Membrey’s bicycle kick if you watch the replay the goal umpire thought it was touched, the field umpire actually gave the all clear with the one hand suggesting he thought it was a behind too. Is it possible the arc chimes in saying they want a quick look at it or the boundary umpires? But the field umpire and goal umpire definitely thought it was a behind
I noticed Hind and Patton more when I watched the replay without the raw emotion.
Also with Membrey’s bicycle kick if you watch the replay the goal umpire thought it was touched, the field umpire actually gave the all clear with the one hand suggesting he thought it was a behind too. Is it possible the arc chimes in saying they want a quick look at it or the boundary umpires? But the field umpire and goal umpire definitely thought it was a behind
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Very interesting DATJ, I applaud your efforts. I'd like to know from those who have given input, whether the gradings rate with their views of the game.DownAtTheJunction wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 6:30pm I decided it worthwhile to do an in-depth review of our players after our great win over Port. This meant not only re-watching the match but looking at every piece of action, often several times.
I wanted to find players that impact, rather than raw statistics. To this end I allocated points (and half points) to actions that impacted our performance. What constitutes impact? This is quite subjective - it might be a tap on, a spoil, a handpass, a kick, a block etc. Some actions are worthy of higher points. These include more difficult goals, multiple efforts and higher level skills. Conversely deductions were made for ‘negative impacts’ - usually clangers.
It is worthy of note than not every kick (and mark) receives a score. A player has to show something or do something to score.
This form of rating is fallible as it’s reliant on what a camera shows (which in the main is significant).
I have broken player ratings down into quarters to show how players perform throughout a game. There is no account for the time the ball is in the player’s zone, nor is there any consideration for the time the player was off the field.
I hope it provides some insight into who truly played well. Often we are influenced by media votes, commentary, memory or fantasy stats to give our 3,2 and 1. This gives another perspective.
Sincere apologies for my inability to construct a table. (I did try to import, but failed!) And therefore I realise the following data is difficult to read.
Let's look at the first entry
It reads
Marshall: Q1 5 impact points; Q2 Marshall scored a further 5 impact points; he scored 6.5 in Q3 and a whopping 9 impact points in Q4. This gave him a total of 25.5
Marshall 5 / 5 / 6.5 / 9 = 25.5
Steele 8.5 / 4 / 2.5 / 6 = 21
Jones 4.5 / 8 / 4 / 2.5 = 19
Ryder 5 / 4 / 5 / 5 = 19
Gresham 1 / 3 / 7.5 / 6.5 = 18
Clark 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 4 = 17
Hind 4.5 / 6 / 1 / 5 = 16.5
Billings 5 / 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 = 15
Butler 5.5 / 3.5 / 0.5 / 5 = 14.5
Hill 4 / 3 / 1.5 / 4 = 12.5
Carlisle 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 / 1 = 11
Howard 4 / 5 / -0.5 / 2.5 = 11
Paton 4 / 4 / 1.5 / 1.5 = 11
Sinclair 4.5 / 2.5 / 1 / 2 = 10
Kent 3.5 / 0 / 2.5 / 2.5 = 8.5
Ross 1.5 / 2.5 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 8
King 2.5 / 1.5 / 0.5 / 3.5 = 8
Geary 3 / 0.5 / 3 / 1 = 7.5
Membrey 1 / 3 / 1 / 2.5 = 7.5
Coffield 1 / 0.5 / 2.5 / 3 = 7
Wilkie 3 / 0 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 7
Parker 0.5 / 2 / 0 / 1 = 3.5
My question, is there a break even figure or is that simply subjective?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4939
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 343 times
- Been thanked: 488 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Below is a summary from a mate who barracks for an opposition club. A little bit facetious in places but I find it interesting how opposition supporters view our team from an outsiders point of view.
Great win eagle.
Here are my thoughts which I know you’ve been awaiting.
Ryder - energetic, shame he can’t find it when not playing his old mob. V good tap ruckman still.
Jones - no star but always has a crack and gets footy. Can do the stupid tho every now and then.
Gresham - at least getting the footy more but not dangerous and if salary true, well overs.
Butler - v handy pickup.
Hind - didn’t thing ever good enough when in our twos but does some good things. Not too bad for fringe guy. Will be in and out.
Ross - ineffective and doesn’t hurt. Letting his cousin and uncle down.
Hill - Terrible. V fumbly. Looks overweight.
King - wow, will be a star. Great hands.
Howard - had the worst 15 mins of anyone this year. Jury out, glad we didn’t get him.
Parker - miles off the standard. Wish I could put money on him being dropped.
Marshall/Steele/Clarke - very good and all better than your big money earners.
Coffield - Ok, could be handy.
Sinclair - misses Steven.
Aa
Great win eagle.
Here are my thoughts which I know you’ve been awaiting.
Ryder - energetic, shame he can’t find it when not playing his old mob. V good tap ruckman still.
Jones - no star but always has a crack and gets footy. Can do the stupid tho every now and then.
Gresham - at least getting the footy more but not dangerous and if salary true, well overs.
Butler - v handy pickup.
Hind - didn’t thing ever good enough when in our twos but does some good things. Not too bad for fringe guy. Will be in and out.
Ross - ineffective and doesn’t hurt. Letting his cousin and uncle down.
Hill - Terrible. V fumbly. Looks overweight.
King - wow, will be a star. Great hands.
Howard - had the worst 15 mins of anyone this year. Jury out, glad we didn’t get him.
Parker - miles off the standard. Wish I could put money on him being dropped.
Marshall/Steele/Clarke - very good and all better than your big money earners.
Coffield - Ok, could be handy.
Sinclair - misses Steven.
Aa
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Thu 10 Oct 2019 12:19pm
- Has thanked: 258 times
- Been thanked: 211 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Darren, or DOS as he is known as is the clubs Senior Analyst and Brett Rattens right hand man. He bought him across from the Hawks and was Clarkos right hand man throughout their threepeat.DownAtTheJunction wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 7:05pmThanks for your comments Secret Kiel and Sanctorum. True, this is very time consuming, but not so much if you love the club ( and a great win). I can't say I know Darren, or the context : (Secret Kiel wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 6:57pmAre you familiar with Darren O'Shaughnessy?Sanctorum wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 6:42pm Interesting analysis "DownAt", that must have taken you a lot of time! If stats are your skills set maybe you should offer the club your services - honorarily of course as they won't have the funds to pay for this...
I wonder how your process compares to that provided by Champion Data, which I imagine charges clubs for this data.
I think Champion Data has a lot of merit, but I suspect it's done quickly. I think there would be errors, but no doubt respected.
He has a background in physics and artificial intelligence and helped establish Champion Data.
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2008 9:05am
- Has thanked: 769 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
- DownAtTheJunction
- Club Player
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Sat 16 Feb 2008 10:24pm
- Location: Dark Side Of The Moon
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 87 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Thank you, Toy Saint! At the end of the day this is an opinion piece. It relies on the viewer being unbiased (which can be difficult). And putting weight on a specific act can be tricky. Certainly Hunter Clark played a classy game and was consistent throughout. He was not always where the ball was (unlike Marshall) and that likely impacted his score. As for Hind I would probably have sold him off, but this shows my recollections are likely wrong. Most of his work has to be keenly observed. He was great in close with tackles, bumps and intercepts. On the day I'd think he may well have been our #1 pressure player.Toy Saint wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 6:54pm Love the way you're thinking down at the Junction.
Typically I don't pay much attention to traditional statistics, rather I watch the games and make my own judgement who has the relevant impacts on the contest.
For what it's worth I agree with your top 6 players, however I was inclined to have Hunter Clark on top. Perhaps this was because I was so impressed the numerous times he found his way through congestion.
I've also watched the replays, as I tend to be more objective and less emotional than live. Nick Hind is the interesting one on your list, I also noticed more of his contribution the second time around.
One other player of note was Butler. Much of his impact scoring did not come from the highlight reel. He is a bull at tackling - something I had not appreciated.
- DownAtTheJunction
- Club Player
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Sat 16 Feb 2008 10:24pm
- Location: Dark Side Of The Moon
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 87 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Yes most definitely! I think the coaches are mostly like the rest of us. The game can be an inexact recollection by game's end.
And secondly they know the specific roles players are performing.
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
There's a lot I can agree with but I certainly hope you rate Essendon players for him. If not, I'm happy to.Moods wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 7:06pm Below is a summary from a mate who barracks for an opposition club. A little bit facetious in places but I find it interesting how opposition supporters view our team from an outsiders point of view.
Great win eagle.
Here are my thoughts which I know you’ve been awaiting.
Ryder - energetic, shame he can’t find it when not playing his old mob. V good tap ruckman still.
Jones - no star but always has a crack and gets footy. Can do the stupid tho every now and then.
Gresham - at least getting the footy more but not dangerous and if salary true, well overs.
Butler - v handy pickup.
Hind - didn’t thing ever good enough when in our twos but does some good things. Not too bad for fringe guy. Will be in and out.
Ross - ineffective and doesn’t hurt. Letting his cousin and uncle down.
Hill - Terrible. V fumbly. Looks overweight.
King - wow, will be a star. Great hands.
Howard - had the worst 15 mins of anyone this year. Jury out, glad we didn’t get him.
Parker - miles off the standard. Wish I could put money on him being dropped.
Marshall/Steele/Clarke - very good and all better than your big money earners.
Coffield - Ok, could be handy.
Sinclair - misses Steven.
Aa
- DownAtTheJunction
- Club Player
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Sat 16 Feb 2008 10:24pm
- Location: Dark Side Of The Moon
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 87 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Very interesting DATJ, I applaud your efforts. I'd like to know from those who have given input, whether the gradings rate with their views of the game.
My question, is there a break even figure or is that simply subjective?
[/quote]
Thank you! I did do a median score for each quarter which I guess is a sort of 'break even'
Q1 median average was 4 (Steele shot out of the blocks with a score of 8.5, and set the game up. Next best Butler with 5.5)
Q2 median average was 3 (Jones was the man here with '8'; next best Hind with 6)
Q3 median average was 1.5 (Gresham had a wonderful second half. He and Marshall were our only players over 5!)
Q4 median average was 3 (Marshall was like a beacon in Q4 with the highest 'impact score' of the day with a 9).
Fortunately for us Port were unable to take advantage of a lower performance in Q3
My question, is there a break even figure or is that simply subjective?
[/quote]
Thank you! I did do a median score for each quarter which I guess is a sort of 'break even'
Q1 median average was 4 (Steele shot out of the blocks with a score of 8.5, and set the game up. Next best Butler with 5.5)
Q2 median average was 3 (Jones was the man here with '8'; next best Hind with 6)
Q3 median average was 1.5 (Gresham had a wonderful second half. He and Marshall were our only players over 5!)
Q4 median average was 3 (Marshall was like a beacon in Q4 with the highest 'impact score' of the day with a 9).
Fortunately for us Port were unable to take advantage of a lower performance in Q3
- DownAtTheJunction
- Club Player
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Sat 16 Feb 2008 10:24pm
- Location: Dark Side Of The Moon
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 87 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
For a first up game Sinclair did very well. He certainly kicks the ball well but not always to the best effect. He showed some outstanding vision on several occasions by exiting a disputed ball to a player in the clear. Few others did this. I suspect his TOG was managed.Moods wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 7:06pm Below is a summary from a mate who barracks for an opposition club. A little bit facetious in places but I find it interesting how opposition supporters view our team from an outsiders point of view.
Great win eagle.
Here are my thoughts which I know you’ve been awaiting.
Ryder - energetic, shame he can’t find it when not playing his old mob. V good tap ruckman still.
Jones - no star but always has a crack and gets footy. Can do the stupid tho every now and then.
Gresham - at least getting the footy more but not dangerous and if salary true, well overs.
Butler - v handy pickup.
Hind - didn’t thing ever good enough when in our twos but does some good things. Not too bad for fringe guy. Will be in and out.
Ross - ineffective and doesn’t hurt. Letting his cousin and uncle down.
Hill - Terrible. V fumbly. Looks overweight.
King - wow, will be a star. Great hands.
Howard - had the worst 15 mins of anyone this year. Jury out, glad we didn’t get him.
Parker - miles off the standard. Wish I could put money on him being dropped.
Marshall/Steele/Clarke - very good and all better than your big money earners.
Coffield - Ok, could be handy.
Sinclair - misses Steven.
Aa
- Sainter_Dad
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6337
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 263 times
- Been thanked: 1123 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Player | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Marshall | 5 | 5 | 6.5 | 9 | 25.5 |
Steele | 8.5 | 4 | 2.5 | 6 | 21 |
Jones | 4.5 | 8 | 4 | 2.5 | 19 |
Ryder | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 19 |
Gresham | 1 | 3 | 7.5 | 6.5 | 18 |
Clark | 4.5 | 4 | 4.5 | 4 | 17 |
Hind | 4.5 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 16.5 |
Billings | 5 | 4.5 | 2 | 3.5 | 15 |
Butler | 5.5 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 5 | 14.5 |
Hill | 4 | 3 | 1.5 | 4 | 12.5 |
Carlisle | 4.5 | 2 | 3.5 | 1 | 11 |
Howard | 4 | 5 | -0.5 | 2.5 | 11 |
Paton | 4 | 4 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 11 |
Sinclair | 4.5 | 2.5 | 1 | 2 | 10 |
Kent | 3.5 | 0 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 8.5 |
Ross | 1.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 8 |
King | 2.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 3.5 | 8 |
Geary | 3 | 0.5 | 3 | 1 | 7.5 |
Membrey | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2.5 | 7.5 |
Coffield | 1 | 0.5 | 2.5 | 3 | 7 |
Wilkie | 3 | 0 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 7 |
Parker | 0.5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3.5 |
“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
- DownAtTheJunction
- Club Player
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Sat 16 Feb 2008 10:24pm
- Location: Dark Side Of The Moon
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 87 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Now that looks grand! I'll just send the tables to you, Sainter_Dad and you can work the magic.Sainter_Dad wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 7:39pm
Player Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Marshall 5 5 6.5 9 25.5 Steele 8.5 4 2.5 6 21 Jones 4.5 8 4 2.5 19 Ryder 5 4 5 5 19 Gresham 1 3 7.5 6.5 18 Clark 4.5 4 4.5 4 17 Hind 4.5 6 1 5 16.5 Billings 5 4.5 2 3.5 15 Butler 5.5 3.5 0.5 5 14.5 Hill 4 3 1.5 4 12.5 Carlisle 4.5 2 3.5 1 11 Howard 4 5 -0.5 2.5 11 Paton 4 4 1.5 1.5 11 Sinclair 4.5 2.5 1 2 10 Kent 3.5 0 2.5 2.5 8.5 Ross 1.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 8 King 2.5 1.5 0.5 3.5 8 Geary 3 0.5 3 1 7.5 Membrey 1 3 1 2.5 7.5 Coffield 1 0.5 2.5 3 7 Wilkie 3 0 2.5 1.5 7 Parker 0.5 2 0 1 3.5
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: Tue 22 Dec 2015 7:59pm
- Has thanked: 891 times
- Been thanked: 461 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
A great job by Junction ! Subjective of course, but my only adverse comment is that I think you were a bit harsh on Dougs down back. His 3rd quarter wasn’t his finest , but I thought Q1, 2 and 4 were very good. I gave him a vote... but it is fine for great minds to disagree !
If you are happy to back up again next week and beyond, and with Sainter Dad’s acumen in presenting the table, this will be a welcome addition to this forum.
If you are happy to back up again next week and beyond, and with Sainter Dad’s acumen in presenting the table, this will be a welcome addition to this forum.
- DownAtTheJunction
- Club Player
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Sat 16 Feb 2008 10:24pm
- Location: Dark Side Of The Moon
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 87 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Thanks George27 - what a great moniker for one of our favourite ever players. Alas Dougal had only two minor 'impacts' against one shocker and another minor clanger. But appreciate your perspective. He was certainly strong in the other quarters.George27 wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 7:55pm A great job by Junction ! Subjective of course, but my only adverse comment is that I think you were a bit harsh on Dougs down back. His 3rd quarter wasn’t his finest , but I thought Q1, 2 and 4 were very good. I gave him a vote... but it is fine for great minds to disagree !
If you are happy to back up again next week and beyond, and with Sainter Dad’s acumen in presenting the table, this will be a welcome addition to this forum.
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 17024
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3644 times
- Been thanked: 2916 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Incredible job DATJ
Hind is a surprise packet, I liked his game but is what higher than I would have thought.
Kent is another that was higher than I thought. Impression was that he didn’t do a lot minus the goal after getting crunched
Shocked to see Wilkie at the bottom of the list... makes me wonder if your approach penalises the defenders a little but then the rest are a lot higher so maybe not.
SInclair too is lower than I thought.
Hind is a surprise packet, I liked his game but is what higher than I would have thought.
Kent is another that was higher than I thought. Impression was that he didn’t do a lot minus the goal after getting crunched
Shocked to see Wilkie at the bottom of the list... makes me wonder if your approach penalises the defenders a little but then the rest are a lot higher so maybe not.
SInclair too is lower than I thought.
- DownAtTheJunction
- Club Player
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Sat 16 Feb 2008 10:24pm
- Location: Dark Side Of The Moon
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 87 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
That's very kind, Skeptic. I'll address the Hind situation first and come back about Wilkie tomorrow.skeptic wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 10:38pm Incredible job DATJ
Hind is a surprise packet, I liked his game but is what higher than I would have thought.
Kent is another that was higher than I thought. Impression was that he didn’t do a lot minus the goal after getting crunched
Shocked to see Wilkie at the bottom of the list... makes me wonder if your approach penalises the defenders a little but then the rest are a lot higher so maybe not.
SInclair too is lower than I thought.
Interestingly Hind played near the least TOG with 68%. By comparison 12 players were on the ground for 85% or more. In this light his effort was outstanding. Much of his work is difficult to appreciate when watching live, as it is often the 1%s. I have never rated Hind but I have had to have a major rethink. Consistency may be his problem.
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 17024
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3644 times
- Been thanked: 2916 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
This is more thought provoking and interesting than any Herald Sun article I’ve read it 5 years at least, if not 10.DownAtTheJunction wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 11:02pmThat's very kind, Skeptic. I'll address the Hind situation first and come back about Wilkie tomorrow.skeptic wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 10:38pm Incredible job DATJ
Hind is a surprise packet, I liked his game but is what higher than I would have thought.
Kent is another that was higher than I thought. Impression was that he didn’t do a lot minus the goal after getting crunched
Shocked to see Wilkie at the bottom of the list... makes me wonder if your approach penalises the defenders a little but then the rest are a lot higher so maybe not.
SInclair too is lower than I thought.
Interestingly Hind played near the least TOG with 68%. By comparison 12 players were on the ground for 85% or more. In this light his effort was outstanding. Much of his work is difficult to appreciate when watching live, as it is often the 1%s. I have never rated Hind but I have had to have a major rethink. Consistency may be his problem.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6080
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 1568 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Very interesting DATJ. Out of interest, would Coffield score for placing himself between the line of the ball and Charlie Dixon, or would Howard get the point for a spoil from behind. Just wanted to gauge your opinion on that type of impact.DownAtTheJunction wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 6:30pm I decided it worthwhile to do an in-depth review of our players after our great win over Port. This meant not only re-watching the match but looking at every piece of action, often several times.
I wanted to find players that impact, rather than raw statistics. To this end I allocated points (and half points) to actions that impacted our performance. What constitutes impact? This is quite subjective - it might be a tap on, a spoil, a handpass, a kick, a block etc. Some actions are worthy of higher points. These include more difficult goals, multiple efforts and higher level skills. Conversely deductions were made for ‘negative impacts’ - usually clangers.
It is worthy of note than not every kick (and mark) receives a score. A player has to show something or do something to score.
This form of rating is fallible as it’s reliant on what a camera shows (which in the main is significant).
I have broken player ratings down into quarters to show how players perform throughout a game. There is no account for the time the ball is in the player’s zone, nor is there any consideration for the time the player was off the field.
I hope it provides some insight into who truly played well. Often we are influenced by media votes, commentary, memory or fantasy stats to give our 3,2 and 1. This gives another perspective.
Sincere apologies for my inability to construct a table. (I did try to import, but failed!) And therefore I realise the following data is difficult to read.
Let's look at the first entry
It reads
Marshall: Q1 5 impact points; Q2 Marshall scored a further 5 impact points; he scored 6.5 in Q3 and a whopping 9 impact points in Q4. This gave him a total of 25.5
Marshall 5 / 5 / 6.5 / 9 = 25.5
Steele 8.5 / 4 / 2.5 / 6 = 21
Jones 4.5 / 8 / 4 / 2.5 = 19
Ryder 5 / 4 / 5 / 5 = 19
Gresham 1 / 3 / 7.5 / 6.5 = 18
Clark 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 4 = 17
Hind 4.5 / 6 / 1 / 5 = 16.5
Billings 5 / 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 = 15
Butler 5.5 / 3.5 / 0.5 / 5 = 14.5
Hill 4 / 3 / 1.5 / 4 = 12.5
Carlisle 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 / 1 = 11
Howard 4 / 5 / -0.5 / 2.5 = 11
Paton 4 / 4 / 1.5 / 1.5 = 11
Sinclair 4.5 / 2.5 / 1 / 2 = 10
Kent 3.5 / 0 / 2.5 / 2.5 = 8.5
Ross 1.5 / 2.5 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 8
King 2.5 / 1.5 / 0.5 / 3.5 = 8
Geary 3 / 0.5 / 3 / 1 = 7.5
Membrey 1 / 3 / 1 / 2.5 = 7.5
Coffield 1 / 0.5 / 2.5 / 3 = 7
Wilkie 3 / 0 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 7
Parker 0.5 / 2 / 0 / 1 = 3.5
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12038
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3682 times
- Been thanked: 2567 times
Re: A Detailed Look At Who Played Well
Yes...I'd be interested in that too.CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 11:30pmVery interesting DATJ. Out of interest, would Coffield score for placing himself between the line of the ball and Charlie Dixon, or would Howard get the point for a spoil from behind. Just wanted to gauge your opinion on that type of impact.DownAtTheJunction wrote: ↑Mon 27 Jul 2020 6:30pm I decided it worthwhile to do an in-depth review of our players after our great win over Port. This meant not only re-watching the match but looking at every piece of action, often several times.
I wanted to find players that impact, rather than raw statistics. To this end I allocated points (and half points) to actions that impacted our performance. What constitutes impact? This is quite subjective - it might be a tap on, a spoil, a handpass, a kick, a block etc. Some actions are worthy of higher points. These include more difficult goals, multiple efforts and higher level skills. Conversely deductions were made for ‘negative impacts’ - usually clangers.
It is worthy of note than not every kick (and mark) receives a score. A player has to show something or do something to score.
This form of rating is fallible as it’s reliant on what a camera shows (which in the main is significant).
I have broken player ratings down into quarters to show how players perform throughout a game. There is no account for the time the ball is in the player’s zone, nor is there any consideration for the time the player was off the field.
I hope it provides some insight into who truly played well. Often we are influenced by media votes, commentary, memory or fantasy stats to give our 3,2 and 1. This gives another perspective.
Sincere apologies for my inability to construct a table. (I did try to import, but failed!) And therefore I realise the following data is difficult to read.
Let's look at the first entry
It reads
Marshall: Q1 5 impact points; Q2 Marshall scored a further 5 impact points; he scored 6.5 in Q3 and a whopping 9 impact points in Q4. This gave him a total of 25.5
Marshall 5 / 5 / 6.5 / 9 = 25.5
Steele 8.5 / 4 / 2.5 / 6 = 21
Jones 4.5 / 8 / 4 / 2.5 = 19
Ryder 5 / 4 / 5 / 5 = 19
Gresham 1 / 3 / 7.5 / 6.5 = 18
Clark 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 4 = 17
Hind 4.5 / 6 / 1 / 5 = 16.5
Billings 5 / 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 = 15
Butler 5.5 / 3.5 / 0.5 / 5 = 14.5
Hill 4 / 3 / 1.5 / 4 = 12.5
Carlisle 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 / 1 = 11
Howard 4 / 5 / -0.5 / 2.5 = 11
Paton 4 / 4 / 1.5 / 1.5 = 11
Sinclair 4.5 / 2.5 / 1 / 2 = 10
Kent 3.5 / 0 / 2.5 / 2.5 = 8.5
Ross 1.5 / 2.5 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 8
King 2.5 / 1.5 / 0.5 / 3.5 = 8
Geary 3 / 0.5 / 3 / 1 = 7.5
Membrey 1 / 3 / 1 / 2.5 = 7.5
Coffield 1 / 0.5 / 2.5 / 3 = 7
Wilkie 3 / 0 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 7
Parker 0.5 / 2 / 0 / 1 = 3.5
One other thing....I've highlighted a couple of sentences in the op....That's not fair on the defenders I thought Paton was brilliant when the heat was on in the second and third quarters