Outstanding work by Lezyeoh and Swert. @Swert - While I note that you mentioned your normalisation was an approximation, (without looking at last years actual stats) I would also think that the normalised results would be magnified for players from teams with higher disposal efficiency/lower clanger count such as Buddy and Mitch, while lessened for players from the bottom teams such as Port and Brisbane. That being said, great effort by you blokes! Very insightful stuff.
Swan gets better, Selwood gets worse hahaha Take that Ducky! (Also might be good not having guys like Davis and Ottens in the calcs)
BTW this forum really does belong in the Donors section, where all of us hoard our knowledge from the plebs. hahaha I still think that just as important as these changes is the fixture, both the byes and how to manage them while keeping the most premium points on the park, as well as which teams have the best running early and late. Only focusing on one factor leaves you open for attack on another flank. You need to look at the risks and benefits in each approach and work out the profile that suits your trading style.
Makes me question whether or not to take Buddy. If he is playing more up the field he might get more possessions, but they'll be less damaging. Being nearer the ball might also lead to him giving away more free kicks as well. I'm thinking Pendles might sneak back into my side now, wasn't convinced but more than a few of the high scoring inside mids are probably going to suffer a drop if clangers from this.
Pendles is in my side, look at his scores from last season, only one sub-100 game (a 94) out of 25 games, he isn't going to drop enough value at any stage of the season to make him an easy upgrade unless injury strikes. Franklin's tough, early season run and clanger rate in light of the new clanger scoring change could see him being better utilised as an eary upgrade target rather than an initial selection, it'll certainly be a PoD and could prove to be a winning one.
Would take guts not to go Franklin given he's far and away the most productive forward (and he does well against teams the Hawks play early; tough or not) but certainly some wisdom in it. I'm still thinking I will have Buddy in my lineup when push comes to shove.
I probably don't have the cojones to not pick Franklin at the start. If you look at his scores from last season, his bad games weren't the terrible 20 and 30 point games of years past. His increased run in the mids and downfield made him alot more consistent scoring wise.
I think one thing that has been slightly overlooked is the weighting depending on if the game is in the balance or done and dusted. If, for example, Buddy takes the whole first quarter to get is kicks going straight, then the clanger losses will be softened, however if he's spraying them all over the park at the end of a 1-goal game, that -8 points could easily become -12 or more! Anyway, nice work with all the stats guys, it sure helps!
is it possible for rookies to gain/average less due to clanger kick rule change? if so which position has historically had less clanger kicks defence mids forwards and should this effect where we pick our rookies from? maybe this is not the year for mid rookies?
@hellsangel (as posted in the comments section) The clanger kick rule won’t have a predictable impact. Like all players, if a rookie is efficient the clanger rule will help him score more than similar rookies in the past. If inefficient he’ll score less. You can’t really predict that so best not to worry IMO.
thanks whips but if we could predict hit outs to adv based in ruck styles and all the great work done in this forum is helping to shape teams cant we see based on what a clanger kick is whether it is more likely from a position ie if going for goal and you kick a point is it a clanger etc etc or pressure on immature defender
Fair call hellsangel but IMO (and it is an opinion) that we're better off spending more time dissecting players roles in new game plans under new coaches to see how much they might improve. Although I stated above that the new clanger rule could be significant, my argument related to those at the extremes - i.e. Buddy and Pendles. For the most part, those players in the middle won't be effected enormously and other factors should take precedence when assessing them. As for rookies and their positions, I think I'd do my head in before I got anything significant out of it. I don't write this as an expert SC, but I do have a uni education in statistics. I think that many are over-estimating the impact of the clanger rule.
Exactly whips. The most you can take out of it is that people who are good clean users will be rated better than those who dispose of the ball badly. That's basically the difference between DT and SC, so it's bringing it back to more what it used to be like, where a guy like Swan was the lockiest lock in DT, but no one would touch him with a 10 foot pole in SC.
Great stuff, those calculations etc must have taken some time! It's important to remember also there is a difference between ineffective kicks and clanger kicks. To register a clanger kick you pretty much have to hit the chest of an opposition player with a short kick or kick it out of bounds on the full. The main points will be lost via handball clangers, which occur more frequently for the in and under/clearance type players eg Mitchell/Boyd This new scoring has me leaning towards selecting an outside midfielder in the Marc Murphy mould. (also 2nd last year in free kicks for after Cox)