Port Adelaide 2017

[morell]

Are you saying you want a 69 with me?

[amber_fluid]

Are you saying you want a 69 with me?

Nah man times aren't that tuff yet!

But based on my own meme, I guess you're not wrong

[morell]

All good. They're overrated anyway. Bit like patting your head and rubbing your tummy - doing both at the same time just means it's done poorly IMO.

[bennymacca]

I just explained how I did!

Why is coaches votes 50% and other things less? Other than it will bias the results?

Coaches votes are

Seasonal
Non Biased
Aggregated from individual games
Anecdotal

I took the Coaches down to 20%. Ryder is still easily #1.

What a crock of shit. You are deliberately biasing your results by including some statistics and not others.

You have argued that some stats are meaningless by corrupting a set of stats with your own meaningless biases.

There is no basis for your assumptions other than to support your theory

[morell]

You obviously missed the part where I said even without the weightings Ryder is clearly on top but whatevs:

Interesting results. Even without the weightings Ryder wins pretty easily.

You accused me of being biased. Perhaps, just maybe, it's your anti-Port judgment that is getting in the way of admitting that a Port player is the best in his position?

I mean, it's almost inarguable when not only do the stats agree, but the anecdotal data does as well. What more evidence would you like? Other than 10 "bennymacca on safooty said so's" out of 10

[morell]

In addition, I said repeatedly that I wouldn't use hitouts to measure a ruckman for 2017 AA selection. Ditto for Disposals or goals, but did so because other posters mentioned them.

So to accuse me of plucking stats, when I deliberately included ones that others mentioned even though it "disadvantaged" Ryder, shows you either lack the understanding of what I did or are purposefully being obstinate. Or both.

[Wedgie]

Geezus, I thought I was bad!

[morell]

Dude you posted a stat which included games not in 2017 in a 2017 All Australian discussion.

I'm not sure what I can say, other than please research the data you're using.

[Wedgie]

I bow down to you!

[bennymacca]

It still doesn't make any sense why a z score is a meaningful metric based on the stats you have selected.

Why is disposal efficiency and not hitouts to advantage used?

Why are goals used as a measure of a ruckman and not afl player ratings points? (Which can be done just for this year too)

You have picked 6 stats and called them the definitive guide for measuring the impact of a ruckman whilst simultaneously explaining away other stats.

If that's what you do for a job then you must be a dodgy accountant or something

[amber_fluid]

I bow down to you!

Morrell asked me nicely to post this on his behalf.

IMG_1530.JPG (36.76 KiB) Viewed 285 times

[morell]

It still doesn't make any sense why a z score is a meaningful metric based on the stats you have selected.

z scores are a way of measuring the variance of an individual value within a dataset. Think of it like putting an actual number on "how much" better a player is for a given statistic, instead of just saying better or worse, yes or no, 1 or 0.

Its a very common statistical measurement technique used in a variety of methodologies. I havent just made this up.

Its calculated using

z = (x - average) / standard deviation

Why is disposal efficiency and not hitouts to advantage used?

Again, because disposal efficiency was raised by a poster (not me) to point out a differentiator between the players.

If you have hitouts to advantage data, would love to include it.

Why are goals used as a measure of a ruckman and not afl player ratings points? (Which can be done just for this year too)

Again, because a poster raised them. Again, happy to include 2017 player ratings if you can point me to a source. I think that would kinda doubling up as those ratings are similar to what we're doing here anyway - aggregating other stats into one score.

And hot tip - Paddy Ryder is the number 1 Ruckman for rounds 1 through 16.

You have picked 6 stats and called them the definitive guide for measuring the impact of a ruckman whilst simultaneously explaining away other stats.

No. I would have just used the Coaches awards. Other posters came up with these metrics.

If that's what you do for a job then you must be a dodgy accountant or something

Sure thing. As I said, you either didn't understand what I was doing (tick) or were being deliberately obstinate (havent decided yet)

maybe re-read this:

http://safooty.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=41640&start=1920#p2179740

[carey]

you need sick leave more often.

Well played Sir.

[Trader]

Why are goals used as a measure of a ruckman and not afl player ratings points? (Which can be done just for this year too)

Again, because a poster raised them. Again, happy to include 2017 player ratings if you can point me to a source. I think that would kinda doubling up as those ratings are similar to what we're doing here anyway - aggregating other stats into one score.

But doesn't that exact same logic apply to using the raw stats (disposals, goals, hitouts, etc), and then doubling up and also including the coaches votes, which are essentially an aggregate of the other stats into a score?

[bennymacca]

z scores are a way of measuring the variance of an individual value within a dataset. Think of it like putting an actual number on "how much" better a player is for a given statistic, instead of just saying better or worse, yes or no, 1 or 0.

Its a very common statistical measurement technique used in a variety of methodologies. I havent just made this up.

Its calculated using

z = (x - average) / standard deviation

i know what a z score is, i am not arguing about its value as a metric, i am arguing about the way you have used it.

The standard deviations should include every ruck in the league, not just the players mentioned - you have an incomplete sample which would skew the standard deviations massively

I also think your attempt to weight each statistic is a correct one, but there needs to a methodology about how they are weighted, not just plucked out of thin air - your original weightings and also equal weightings are both not correct, but i dont know what the right answer would be

thirdly, trader is right - coaches votes is a biased statistic as it is correlated to the others in some way

[morell]

Why are goals used as a measure of a ruckman and not afl player ratings points? (Which can be done just for this year too)

Again, because a poster raised them. Again, happy to include 2017 player ratings if you can point me to a source. I think that would kinda doubling up as those ratings are similar to what we're doing here anyway - aggregating other stats into one score.

But doesn't that exact same logic apply to using the raw stats (disposals, goals, hitouts, etc), and then doubling up and also including the coaches votes, which are essentially an aggregate of the other stats into a score?

No, not really. Coaches votes are anecdotal. It's their opinion. They might factor in kicks, marks and handballs in their votes but they would also factor in their own more role specific thoughts too. That's what I like about it. Its a series of experts opinion on individual games which is then summised. Not a difficult to interpret or not relevant statistic.

[Dogwatcher]

Morrell v Benny. Stats nerds are go.

[morell]

z scores are a way of measuring the variance of an individual value within a dataset. Think of it like putting an actual number on "how much" better a player is for a given statistic, instead of just saying better or worse, yes or no, 1 or 0.

Its a very common statistical measurement technique used in a variety of methodologies. I havent just made this up.

Its calculated using

z = (x - average) / standard deviation

i know what a z score is, i am not arguing about its value as a metric, i am arguing about the way you have used it.

The standard deviations should include every ruck in the league, not just the players mentioned - you have an incomplete sample which would skew the standard deviations massively

Rightio, fair enough. I am not trying to say Ryder is 4x better than x or y, just putting across the point that the statistics people have raised ITT have him in front of others. As do the anecdotal measure, like coaches votes. Happy to run it with a smaller deviation using more rucks, but all that will do is condense the scores a bit closer. Not change the order.

So we have empirical stats and anecdotal expert opinions. Both say Ryder is the best ruck in the comp. I am not sure what else you would need to perhaps reevaluate your opinion.

I suspect this is a bit of a case of the well documented psychological backfire effect:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

I also think your attempt to weight each statistic is a correct one, but there needs to a methodology about how they are weighted, not just plucked out of thin air - your original weightings and also equal weightings are both not correct, but i dont know what the right answer would be

I provided a methodology.

I prioritised - seasonal, anecdotal, ruck specific data. Which is why hitouts for 2017 had a 20% weight added to it.

thirdly, trader is right - coaches votes is a biased statistic as it is correlated to the others in some way

Well of course, goals are correlated to kicks. Kicks are correlated to disposals. The point of spreading it out over multiple measures and weighting them is to extract the differential out of those measures.

Coaches votes are biased? How so? Why would Adam Simpson give Ryder ~4.5 votes? What possible benefit does he receive?

Just so we're all clear. both coaches give their top 5 players for the game. If both coaches give the same player 5 they get 10. etc. How on earth is that biased? Its almost the complete opposite of that. I really don't think Ken Hinkley is reading this thread going "haha! I am going to stitch up bennymacca and give Ryder an extra vote or two this week!"

[MW]

Jesus...it's football guys.

[morell]

Hey, I was happy just using coaches votes, its other pelicans that wanted more detail. So I provided it.

Not my fault the results are the way they are. Blame Paddy for being so good.