Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jim Park Analysis 2022
#2
Rd 1: Carlton vs Richmond
For the first time in a long time, we managed to defeat Richmond in the opening round. It was very enjoyable to be there, even if it was a steam bath.

Trends:
[1] I must admit I thought there would be more people voting for this game. There were 16 voters for one of our best wins in years, where we average 19 voters in a win over the last couple of years. Maybe we’ll get more if we start winning more.

[2] The rating was 9.58, which is halfway between a B+ and an A-. Again, I thought it might have been a little higher considering the opposition. However, it is very nice to have a win where we weren’t lucky to win. Then again, maybe we have already internalized our improved performances and voted accordingly.

[3] We had 14 players get a mention this week, which is close to our norm when we’ve win over recent years. However, there were five players who managed over 100 votes and a 99. This suggests that we a good spread of very good players on the night, rather than just a team performance.

[4] We had an average of 31 votes among our players this week, with a spread of 339 between our top score (342) and our bottom vote getter (3). I’m not sure of these measures are going to be useful as I hope, but I will see if it can give us some insight as the season goes on.

[5] Patrick Cripps scores 342 votes to be BOG, followed by Matt Kennedy with 297. In recent years we rarely have two players score so highly. Our 4 main mids all got more than 100 votes.

[6] 3 players, Cripps, Kennedy and Cerra, received voted from every voter, no matter what system they devised to share their votes. That is an excellent sign of how we played. A couple of others managed a mention from the majority. Marc Pittonet, who didn’t get huge numbers of votes, still attracted the attention of 8 different voters. I think that is really important for our structure as they year progresses.

[7] Adam Cerra and George Hewett had first games to remember. They were in the top 5 on their first outings, something that has been rare for us in recent years. In fact, we have generally performed better when we have had guys debuting for us. The time where we haven’t had many debutants, we have generally lost Round 1. It has also been true that most of our recruits from other clubs have started very slowly for us. This was not the case this time.

Votes:
Patrick Cripps 342
Matthew Kennedy 297
Adam Cerra 214
George Hewett 150
Sam Docherty 102
Adam Saad 99
Mitch McGovern 89
Marc Pittonet 54
Corey Durdin 51
Jack Silvagni 16
Matthew Owies 7
Zac Fisher 7
Tom de Koning 7
Jack Martin 4

(One of things our spreadsheet does is to round any scores up. Martin, for example, got 3.19 votes, which is what I was looking at earlier in this post. However, his score was rounded up to 4. Just one of the little quirks this spreadsheet has. Just if you were wondering how he could 3 earlier and 4 now.)

Progressive Scores:
Patrick Cripps 342
Matthew Kennedy 297
Adam Cerra 214
George Hewett 150
Sam Docherty 102
Adam Saad 99
Mitch McGovern 89
Marc Pittonet 54
Corey Durdin 51
Jack Silvagni 16
Matthew Owies 7
Zac Fisher 7
Tom de Koning 7
Jack Martin 4
Live Long and Prosper!
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 03-15-2022, 06:36 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 03-26-2022, 05:33 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 04-04-2022, 10:24 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 04-11-2022, 12:34 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 04-18-2022, 01:32 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 04-24-2022, 03:49 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 05-05-2022, 10:03 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 05-12-2022, 10:18 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 05-30-2022, 03:11 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 05-30-2022, 03:55 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 06-15-2022, 09:45 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 07-08-2022, 02:01 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 07-08-2022, 02:48 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 07-14-2022, 11:28 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 07-20-2022, 11:04 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 07-24-2022, 10:48 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 08-04-2022, 07:10 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 08-12-2022, 10:15 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 08-18-2022, 11:17 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 08-19-2022, 11:04 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 09-05-2022, 06:42 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by dodge - 09-05-2022, 07:25 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by pinot - 09-05-2022, 08:55 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by percy - 09-05-2022, 09:13 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 09-05-2022, 10:36 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)