If we get Roberts with a 3rd rounder……… insert more jackets on that man.
Baldwin?
Waterman?
I don’t really care who we get as long as they are a front half player, this has me shying away from Sinn and NWM who I see more as HBF/Mids.
Ned Long and Roberts would be great value at our 51 or whatever it ends up being after bids
1 Like
Who cares about agility!? At 63" tall, I’d be hoping he could ruck.
1 Like
Misguided hopes if only a 160cm player
4 Likes
Agility matters because when the umpire bounces the ball, it will get up to around his knees. We also don’t want him accidentally stepping on any of our players.
1 Like
Dare i say it, shades of Luke Parker?
3 Likes
He’s havin a laff right???
Perkins not even in the Top 20
Cox in the late teens
Reid rated higher than Cox and Perkins
What a steaming pile of doggy excrement
6 Likes
Just emphasising that 63” = 5’3” which is 160cm
63 inches is not 63 feet.
7 Likes
Its ranked by afl player rating points per game, not someones opinion.
No, but it was someone’s opinion that it would be a worthwhile article to publish…
3 Likes
And that tells you all you need to know about the usefulness and worth of the AFL ratings point system.
5 Likes
I don’t agree with that. While Perkins and Cox showed a lot of promise this season the actual impact they had on games was very limited. Players like Gulden and Bowey had more of an impact in the games they played but in my opinion showed less potential. AFL player ratings are not supposed to predict how good a draftee will become.
1 Like
Hmm, is it ’ that is foot, and " that is inches? That would explain the mix-up. I was reading it as 63 foot!
You’re not going to win this argument, @Tyler. You use statistics when they mean something. These mean three-fifths of five-eighths of ■■■■ all.
There are too many other factors, as mentioned above.
If it’s vaguely possible for you, and I seriously doubt that it is, drop it.
1 Like
But they’re using them to justify a draft ‘re-ranking’, and a draft does consider potential.
I mean hell, they admit in the text for Cox that his average is depressed because he had games as a sub and wasn’t used, and didn’t correct for it. Which is the most lazy analysis I’ve ever seen.
6 Likes
The rating points would be a better guide if they weren’t ranking based on “average per game” but on the cumulative point over the season.
But it’s the off season and they want to generate “reader engagement” so they intentionally publish the most provocative piece possible.
1 Like
I agree using them to re draft the most recent draft pool is stupid, that doesnt mean the player ratings have no use or worth.
@Ants this is also a reply to your post.
And the methodology was clearly invalid given he included games where players didn’t play in the “average” calculation.
And if that didn’t tell you that the methodology was screwed, the fact that players who had 5 possessions for the year (Winder and Reid) were ranked above Cox should have alerted you to it.
So the only take aways are that (1) “AFL rankings points” are a completely pointless measurement that doesn’t measure anything of consequence, and (2) anyone that decided this was a good idea for an article, got the numbers and then decided to push the “publish” button is a complete id!ot.
6 Likes
And Reid had pretty much zero impact in the game he played, but still outrated Cox and Perkins. The stat clearly doesn’t actually measure impact, it just measures “some stuff” and gives a number at the end. The number is not valid.
Cox was highly impactful in the first half of the year, so I also disagree on the “very limited” impact for Cox
1 Like