A Detailed Look At Who Played Well

[minneapolis]

Downa,

fantastic job. I reckon all of us has thought about doing something like that but couldn't be buggered.

I agree that some stats are just not very important.

I have a couple of questions.

If a guy takes a difficult forward mark and then kicks a difficult goal is that one or two impact points. For me that is 2. I think in my system I would have more points awarded. But of course that is very subjective.

Did Howard get a point for each successful defensive punched ball? (Howard beat their most important player).

I agree with everybody else that the replay is much more informative than the live. On the reply I really liked Hind and Kent's game much more.

I also noticed that we were much more physical than them. Funny I didn't expect that.

Again well done.

[DownAtTheJunction]

[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

It's a great point, CQ SAINT. And regrettably I don't have a suitable answer. Coffield should get some recognition for that situation - definitely, but it's just too difficult to assess on the screen. Some observers might think, 'Where's his opponent!' or something else. I wouldn't give a 'point' unless I was confident. On the other hand Howard would gain a point, or a half point depending on the significance (impact) of his action.

[DownAtTheJunction]

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.

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

Hey Scollop, Giving 'weight' to a player's action is not an easy task.Therefore my assessment may well differ from yours re the impact that Paton had. My ratings are completely subjective although I try very hard to be fair. I re-run (quite often several times) all actions that occur and endeavour to build a level of consistency.
I might say that Paton did perform well - equal second of our backs behind Clark.
As for the detail, he had 6 specific impacts in Q1 for 4 points; 7 impacts (and one minor clanger) in Q2 for 4 points; 3 impacts for 1.5 points in Q3 and 3 impacts for 1.5 points in Q4.

[DownAtTheJunction]

Downa,

fantastic job. I reckon all of us has thought about doing something like that but couldn't be buggered.

I agree that some stats are just not very important.

I have a couple of questions.

If a guy takes a difficult forward mark and then kicks a difficult goal is that one or two impact points. For me that is 2. I think in my system I would have more points awarded. But of course that is very subjective.

Did Howard get a point for each successful defensive punched ball? (Howard beat their most important player).

I agree with everybody else that the replay is much more informative than the live. On the reply I really liked Hind and Kent's game much more.

I also noticed that we were much more physical than them. Funny I didn't expect that.

Again well done.

Thank you for your kind words, minneapolis. Your question about scoring is important.
The essence of it is that I score 3 types of impact - lower, stronger and high. Usually these fan out as 0.5, 1 and 1.5 (Clangers are similarly graded).
I do award higher points for double impacts. An example of this would be Max King's pack mark in Q4. I gave him 1.5 points for it. He gained a further 1 point for kicking the goal. I do put a premium on goals so most would score 1 point. (A shot from 15 metres out may score 0.5) I hope that gives some clarity.

As for Howard - he had a total of 8 disposals yet accumulated 11 points - an excellent effort. Most of his spoils gave him points, whereas his kicks may not have. Rightly you point out that he had a very dangerous opponent. However factoring that into this assessment would prove too subjective for me.

[Saintmatt]

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.

Nope. Champion Data is 49% owned by the AFL itself - last time I heard ... the contra is that the data is provided to the AFL and its clubs as part of the AFL's capital injection.

[DownAtTheJunction]

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.

No doubt Wilkie did his job. He was on the dangerous Robbie Gray, who had 4 kicks, whilst Wilkie had 8. His job was to keep him quiet which he did.
Wilkie was unspectacular but effective. I have no doubt Brett Ratten was delighted. Alas my scoring system does not account for the unobtrusive.

[CQ SAINT]

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.
[/quote]

It's a great point, CQ SAINT. And regrettably I don't have a suitable answer. Coffield should get some recognition for that situation - definitely, but it's just too difficult to assess on the screen. Some observers might think, 'Where's his opponent!' or something else. I wouldn't give a 'point' unless I was confident. On the other hand Howard would gain a point, or a half point depending on the significance (impact) of his action.
[/quote]

Thanks for the answer. Fallible or not, I won't decide, but it certainly is a great breakdown and must have been a labour of love to collate.