Player Ranking 2010
OK it’s time to put something out there for discussion and it’s a further refinement of a ranking system I devised earlier. It’s still got some tweaks needed, but effectively it rates players on their 2009 efforts, takes into account price and score fluctuations (generally the more consistent the better), uses some durability data from 2008-2009, and tests this against the 2010 price.
I’ve tried to keep this system out of my hands as much as possible and let stats do the talking, but in any system there must be bias. Mine is probably the player’s overall performance and 2009 (as distinct from 2008) performance. If you didn’t play 2009, too bad. (It means you’re in line for the 2nd year blues! Haha!). Note also that I have not taken into account such things as preseason injuries or suspensions leading into the 2010 season. Effectively these stats could have come out the day the price points were reached for the 2010 SC year.
To regular watchers of price valuations and the consistent players, the results probably won’t shock you much. I will list the top 20 in overall (out of 1000 points), then the top 5 in each category I rated them on (Scoring Consistency, Price Consistency, Value, Durability and Captaincy Suitability).
OVERALL
1) JIMMY BARTEL 871
2) Brett Kirk 866
3) Nick Riewoldt 852
4) Chris Judd 851
5) Ryan O’Keefe 845
6) Marc Murphy 843
7) Jude Bolton 842
Joel Corey 841
9) Brendon Goddard 839
=10) Daniel Cross 837
=10) Joel Selwood 837
12) Luke Power 831
=13) Simon Black 829
=13) Leigh Montagna 829
=13) Corey Enright 829
16) Brett Deledio 827
17) Shane Tuck 826
=18) Dane Swan 824
=18) Cameron Bruce 824
20) Nick Dal Santo 823
Scoring Consistency (/100)
1) Gary Ablett (OA23) 100
2) Leigh Montagna 99
=2) Dane Swan 99
4) Chris Judd 98
=4) Marc Murphy 98
Price Consistency (/100) – (Showing only top 10o players only in this category though other players were part of the top 5 they were largely outlier values such as Mark Jamar from Melbourne. Top 100 are more useful to look at.)
1) Marc Murphy 84
2) Jordan Lewis 79 (OA 81)
3) Brendon Goddard 78
4) Nathan Bock 76 (OA 54)
=4) Bret Thornton 76 (OA 61)
Value (/100)
1) Jarrad Waite 88 (OA 69)
2) Luke Hodge 87 (OA 47)
3) Wayde Skipper 86 (OA 450)
=4) Shaun Burgoyne 85 (OA 103)
=4) Brett Kirk 85
=4) Matt Maguire 85 (OA 444)
=4) Sean Rusling 85 (OA 451)
Durability (/100)
1) Dane Swan 100
=2) Brett Kirk 99
=2) Luke Power 99
=2) Corey Enright 99
=2) Brett Deledio 99
=2) Marc Murphy 99
Captaincy (/100)
1) Gary Ablett 100
2) Jimmy Bartel 98
=3) Leigh Montagna 97
=3) Ryan O’Keefe 97
=3) Adam Goodes 97
=3) Brendon Goddard 97
Other players values on request.
If you are rating them on 5 categories out of 100…how did they score 800+?
Ah, certain ones got a weighting higher than the others!
Score 30%, Price 10%, Value 25%, Durability 20%, Captaincy 15%
How on earth did Shane Tuck make it to the top 20 OA?
Any chance on doing top 10 by position? At the moment they all seem to be options for midfield apart from Enright and Riewoldt (and it is a crime that Enright wasn’t given midfielder status as well).
Will work on that and pump it out.
You’re right about the defensive options.
On Tuck, I was surprised about it too. He had a fair to good average, not bad from a price point (though still over 500k) was better in points than a player like Hodge for the year, had a nice consistency to the scores (aside from the last few games) and didn’t have a “bottom out” score like so many others. A low score of 65 is actually quite good. Add this to another 100ppg year in 2008, and he sneaks into the top 20.
One of the real keys in getting in the top 20 was being strong in all 5 areas. Ablett’s real issue was his fluctuating value and durability over the past 2 seasons (particularly in light of Geelong’s latter season list management). Finally I don’t think anyone can argue that Ablett is great value when you take the captaincy part out of it.
Does this mean I won’t pick Ablett? Hell no, even on these measures which don’t suit him, he still comes in top 25. In the measures that count for his position the M1 – points scoring and captaincy, he pulls out the double 100.
For the backup captain, Montagna looks a better option than Swan which sort of runs in the face of what I’ve argued recently.
Finally, Kirk I think is significantly underpriced. If he weren’t a fossil, he’d be worth a look.
A Kirk-Bartel-Murphy-Montagna top 4 mids would be probably cheaper than most and pack a good consistent punch. Montagna for the captaincy apart from Jimmy at the Skilled.
Oh, and on the midfielders, I am fairly devastated that Swan didn’t get included as a forward. After that All-Australian position and everything…
funny that tuck scored well. I had a plan last year to target him with about 5-6 rounds to go but it never panned out.
This tells me having Goddard and enright in at d1 and d2 is a pretty good idea. On tuck I’m pretty sure his last couple of months in 08 were superior to anyone else for sc scoring. I wanted to trade him in but issues in other lines stopped that
How about a list of the 20 least consistent among the top 100 scorers? Is that too hard to do?
reason is I’m messing around putting together a “car team”. Looking to get a massive variance in a fairly unique team. The team’s probably going to suck a lot of the time, but if all the variance happens to hit in the same direction on any one week then it could go bang. Here’s what I’ve got at the moment:
B: Duffield, Hargrave, Shaw, Hurn, Fisher, Mattner, Krakouer (Maguire/Davis)
M: Swan, Bartel, O’Keefe, Connors, Trengove, Jetta (Barlow/Banner)
R: Clark, Naitanui (Roughead/Trengove)
F: Goodes, Fevola, S Johnson, Hall, Medhurst, Williams, Westhoff (Rockliff/Podsiadly)
~$50k left over
The backline is mostly rebounding defenders who have a chance of being completely tagged out of the game, but if they don’t, they go big (although I think the crazy swings with duffield are more a home/away freo thing than tagging). The midfield does two big risk/reward things – it’s got both no GAJ and 3 rookies. I’ve also gone with connors over martin to add to uniqueness a bit. Considering someone like morabito or scully over trengove too. Rucks pick themselves, nic nat in particular seems like the obvious choice for huge potential swings. the only other option would be Cox but I’m a little short of cash for that. With the exception of Goodes, who is there as a backup captain for Swan, forwards are all highly swingy KPP or enigmatic players like Johnson and Medhurst who are just as likely to score 40 as 140. Others I’d consider are Mayne, Ballantyne and Gia, but obv can’t fit everyone in.
dunno if i’ll actually build this, but it’s tempting to go all out for the big weekly score!
OK I may have misses some MPPs and just was going on memory for some updates, but I think it’s about right.
Best 10 defenders scores (if already in the top 20 I didn’t list them):
Goddard, Enright, Newman (21), Goodwin (26), S Fisher (31), Mattner (44), Hodge (47), Lake (51), Bock (54), Gilbee (57)
Best 10 mids are already listed – only Riewoldt was not a midfielder in the top 10 (which should be evidence enough on how you should pick your side!!)
Best 10 forwards:
Riewoldt, O’Keefe, J Brown (21), Goodes (29), Petrie (36), B Johnson (40), Davis (43), Pavlich (45), Chapman (58), Akermanis (62)
Best 10 rucks:
In the top 100 there are only 4: Petrie (36), Cox (38), Sandilands (50), Jolly (60).
Scanning through: Ryder (111), Fraser (116), McIntosh (118), Kreuzer (137), Clark (153), Minson (193)
Unsure if Kosi is a ruck (158).
No depth at all to rucks, tell us something we don’t know!
mmmm, maybe I should go chapman instead of goodes in the car team. so, so risky but so, so delicious.
and yep, kosi is a ruck. interesting that petrie rates higher than cox. v. interesting.
Players best in the Falcon team I think are those that average heaps, but can still go mental.
I don’t think the crazy risk-reward works. You need to have a solid base, then go bang. And to be honest, though I did OK in the overall 2 years back, my best ability tends to be with these types of players, and for this type of contest.
Don’t get me wrong I’m wanting to win the overall, but I get attracted to players with decent averages who can go bananas all of a sudden.
So the statistical measure you should look for are players in the Captaincy area:
Ablett, Bartel, O’Keefe, Goddard, Montagna, Goodes, Judd, Selwood, Pendlebury, Davis
These are the players that bring home the bacon, and most of them are in very good teams anyway.
Value players who are good in the Captaincy measure:
Hodge, Kirk, Carazzo, Black, Cassisi, Mattner, Bruce, Power
Again, all very good players who go good on their day.
H Shaw is decent, but not quite in the same league as these ones. Goodwin, Newman and Enright are better at the price range, when using both Value/Captaincy measures.
The issue with Swan is he doesn’t go as big as the top players mentioned in Captaincy (95 is still a very good score, but not in the top echelon), and his value doesn’t trump the others (52 is midrange).
Ablett: 100 Captaincy, 58 Value.
Montagna: 97 Captaincy, 48 Value – to be honest probably the most comparable player to Swan in the entire competition in terms of scoring
What I think the key to winning a Falcon would be is getting a very strong team prepared, choosing good rookies, but keeping at the forefront the player’s ability to score heavily on a week, rather than other things such as durability.
Chappy: 89 Captaincy, 55 Value – the issue for him in terms of Captaincy is the big standard deviation. OK when he goes massive, but to win the Falcon it’s not so much everyone going massive, as most going 20% above average, your captain (generally Ablett) gunning it over 180 and a few standout 150s.
I would question every selection in the team if the player does not have the ability at least on an occasion to pump out a 150.
Cooney is another interesting one, one of my favourites: 77 Captaincy, 81 Value.
You will probably need to put in some good value prospects to get the team running well.
good thoughs. My thinkin on not going the “high average, potential to explode” players like the ones you mentioned is that they’re the players that everyone goes for anyway! I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t be trying to get a team that looks like “Ablett, Bartel, O’Keefe, Goddard, Montagna, Goodes, Judd, Selwood, Pendlebury, Davis”, or they would if they could fit them all in anyway. To be able to separate yourself out from the pack I feel like you need to have even swing-ier big picks and just a bunch of luck.
I think the strategy you outline is basically a pretty good one for just winning the whole thing. I don’t really think I have much of a chance of winning the whole thing or even being in serious contention – in particular, I doubt that I will have a good enough trade strategy during the year to get a team full of all high averaging, high bursting players – so I’m thinking it might be a good idea to just up the variance and roll the dice 22 times
.
Lucas, are you planning on writing a post on the “car team”? I could see it being a good read, I know my girlfriend is putting together a team just going for the car – oh and not to mention the grand that they give away each week
.
You could delve extremely deeply into it based on the draw and target certain rounds where players average higher against certain teams.
More than that you can do a sneaky and go for wins in say Round 4-8 when most teams are still getting their interchanges all right, you start a team there and win.
Probably though last year it would have been either these weeks or possibly R19 (when all the best players from St Cats were rested) when you could have purchased a team from scratch and won the money (without the need for upgrades, etc)
Remember you only need a top 22 and 8 x 83400 if you do it this way. The only catch is the one entrant per registration, and no one is game to waste it.
Another thing, the sort of tactic advocated here is only good to get you the $1000. To get the Falcon I guarantee, you will need to have a very strong based team, have players who can and do go bananas, and have everything go right for you in a week.
I would have gone close to the Falcon because the 2745 I got is the 2nd highest since start of 2008. Better than anything else in 2009.
Irrelevant side note: Ling’s Bandits won last year one of the rounds and so his trophy cabinet looks the best of all of us – an overall and a weekly win.
I find the side not every relevant Lucas!
I just posted some of these in the NAB cup blog, but with 362 comments, thought maybe it’s better to post here!
Was just looking over my side, and wanting some feedback and peoples thoughts on a few players…
Rich @ 455k? Good value and improve or will struggle to improve on least years form?
Gram looks incredible value at 419k, and could play MID or BACK, and am looking to put him in at around the Defender 4 position…
Armitage (who I am under the impression, will be getting more time rotating through the mid this year) @ 415… or better off going Kerr (same value) or Beams (slightly cheaper)… or is it better going Rich for 40k more?
Any feedback/ criticisms welcomed! haha
ATM I have Montagna in my MID2 pos… but am toying with the idea of swapping him for Murphy and pocketing the 70k? Good call/bad call?!
While on the topic of money… what are peoples thoughts on having money in the bank after the team is selected and Round 1 has kicked off?
Murphy bad call. No Judd and underdone means I’d expect him to take the first month to hit form. How about selwood, sewell, Mitchell or pendles instead. Money in the bank is a no no for me as it’s doing nothing for you. Every $5300 is worth at least a point based on this years ratio.
Thats my problem… I have had Mitchell in past years, and he is reliable most weeks, but I have just had a few bad games when I have needed him (I’m sure everyone has one of these in their team!)
And Sewell, I have read some indifferent posts…
So it only leaves Pendles… and I’m not sure about him…
Haha… so all in all, I have some thinking to do!
I get it hutchy. I’ve got some players I won’t touch eg dikdak. Bartel maybe
Alright, this is my team, thus far!
BACKS: Goddard, Gilbert, Gram, Waite, Hooker, Ladson, Schoenmakers (Maguire, Davis)
MIDS: GAJ, Selwood, Gibbs, Armitage, Scully, Trengrove (Shuey, Moles)
RUCKS: Jolly, Nic Nat (Spencer, Warnock)
FWDS: Roo, Pav, Harvey, Hall, Ziebell, Medhurst, Walker (Gourdis, Gumbleton)
I’m sure there will be some changes between now and Round 1… but what are peoples thoughts… strengths/weaknesses, concerns etc…
Ur assistance/ opinions are much appreciated…
As Walesy said, wait until end of NAB before posting teams as everything will change.
My quick analysis:
- Not a fan of Gilbert in sides this year – hit his peak last year
- Hooker at D5 are you kidding? Good NAB form but really? Bombers top 22? Played 16 games last year and didn’t set the world on fire. I’d imagine if he plays he will play KP in defence. Though with Hille back, and Ryder/Fletcher/Pears for defensive key posts, can’t see Hooker being much more than bench cover.
- Moles is a risk. Armitage a risky but possibly inspired M4. Interesting no Martin.
- Jolly? Will he get the TOG at Collingwood with Fraser there. Good news for the team with Wood now out for 6 with a shoulder.
- Harvey F3 I think is a little under-strength. Not sold on Walker or Gourdis.
There’s always weaknesses to every side. The key is maximise your strengths, and make your weaknesses turn into future strengths.
Hey Lucas, what do you think about using the new Ticker to try and put together a team with the idea of putting together a hot round?
ie, Build a squad so that by round 11, it consists of the following teams.
DEF
Car, Haw, Kan, Stk
MID
Ade, Gee, Car, Haw, Stk
RUC
Kan
FWD
Brl, Stk, Syd, Ade, Car
R7 looks a better one from a draw perspective.
Thanks for your feedback Lucas…
Valid points with Gilbert and Hooker… I guess I just have a soft spot for Gilbert, as i got on him at the start of last year, and we all know how well that turned out, but no room for softness in SC is there!
Moles is a risk… but so is any of the other rookies that would slot in at MID8…
I am happy with my Armitage choice… I really think this is his breakout year!
I think Jolly will dominate at Collingwood and will def be number 1 ruck… He was recruited for that very reason.
Harvey could go either way… He prob isn’t gonna improve too much… but i think he will avg around the 100 mark still.
If I am to push Harvey to F4 or replace him and they slot in at F4, where do u think I should downgrade to get the cash to upgrade in my F3 position?
Yeah, but R11 would have most of your upgrades complete.
I’m not sure I follow Walesy?!
Where is Didak in your list Lucas?
Low durability but high swings I presume?
Didak: 89th OA – 708 points
Score 85/100
Price 43/100
Value 53/100
Durability 78/100
Captaincy 81/100
So – low durability, average value (better than some but still not great), low price consistency.
Very much on the money Nick, and I’d probably steer clear for this reason (until his price comes down to a level where you can’t resist – e.g. 3 bad games in a row)
Just thought id throw this out there:
Early on everbody was on the Scully/Trengove bandwagon, but after the first two weeks of the Who Cares Wins Cup have seemed to go a little cold. However, still people are sticking with them. I am interested to hear some thoughts on this comparison:
Scully/Trengove ($353400 combined) VS Connors/Martin ($347100 combined)
I personally believe the Tiger duo to be a more reliable pairing based off both, the potential to play the majority of the season and their scoring form in the WCW Cup.
I’ve gone off Scully, but always had Trengove in my mind as a lock, as it was perceived that he was the more advanced of the two. Am now leading towards Connors/Martin (especially when shown to me as combined price as you did) but am reluctant to have two starting mids as Richmond players! However if Barlow turns into a Broughton early this will allay my fears.
Too many ifs…
I’ve gone back to two rookie mids. It’s just more reliable and an important area for points.
Currently have Martin but I’ve been swapping between he and Connors for the past 2 weeks.
I feel Martin is set to play the majority of the season, possibly 22 but likely to get a little rest so I’m assuming 18. Connors will play 22 if he can keep up his form/fitness and has scored better than Martin so far.
I feel a little more secure with Martin in there, he has a body that’s ready to go and he’ll be an asset to Richmond and likely to play the majority of games this year.
If you’ve read today’s Herald Sun there’s a few supercoach scores listed in there. Shows a few good rookies while showing a few other good performers so far in the NAB Cup.
If Connors and Martin are both likely to play 18+ games, they should both be locks. I am generally of the opinion you need to spread the rookies around, but I will have to watch out for the form of Connors in the remaining matches to see if he is worth some loving.
Connors-Martin-Trengove as a triple fills me with some strong-body confidence. Then you can use the last one on a Bastinac or a Shuey.
If it helps, you can argue that starting Connors isn’t starting a rookie. Just someone real cheap.
thats what im doing walesy,
using Connors as a cheap m4 that is 95% guaranteed to play the majority of the season IMO. then using martin and barlow as my 2 starting mid rookies, and then choosing my mid bench rookies from a rather large group of potentials