(08-01-2021, 06:21 AM)kruddler date Wrote:You can argue that he is not #1, despite stats saying he is, but you cannot argue that the stats are so far out of whack that he is actually no good in that area.The users of CD are free to apply their own weight to the data.
Fact is, he is very good in this area, quite possibly the best. The point you are attempting to make is hardly worth it in the scheme of things.
FWIW, AFL stats use champion data stats, so its all the same thing and no differences between the 2.
I never claimed Jones was bad or poor at his role, so why mention it? I was questioning the concept that he was the best based on all the various options available and how they are assessed? I was also highlighting the difference between the common fan understanding of a contested mark, and what CD uses.
Secondly, the AFL takes CD data and uses Player Ratings which I believe originally came form Vic Uni, however the the way Player Ratings characterised things like a contest are not necessarily the same as the CD version of a contest. this introduces a distortion, because they are applying an algorithm to similar data not identical data.
I note now, several AFL clubs are unhappy with the way CD does it's analysis and perform their own analysis. btw., You may ask why go to that cost, it turns out that CD is contracted to the AFL, and clubs have to pay for access to that data, so CD is not free if you are an AFL club. So I suppose they argue if they must pay they may as well get what they want.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"