CPL AR: Player ratings project

If Byrnes were 21 he'd have got those games and you know it mate.

Funnily enough, you rated these guys 65-70 and Geelong's depth rating is....67.6. You pretty much agree with the rating it's the rank you don't so instead of complaining why geelong's depth rating is shit you should be complaining about the others being so high.

 

West, Walker, Simpson, Blicavs, Horlin Smith, Thurlow, Stringer, Sheringham, Cowan, Schroder ftr. Don't toot the Thurlow horn either as I can't rate him highly until he's dominated either VFL for a good period or AFL as much as I'd like to.

Objectivity is the key here - I've tried to do that. I don't think I'm far off with Geelong's lesser lights.

 

Holy fuck you are genuinely that butthurt by the ratings of one team's 26-35th players.

A feeling which could possibly be explained by bias.

I'm not rating these dudes on VFL form; in most cases, I can't. It's AFL where possible, if the sample isn't good enough I've largely trusted neutral observes, statistics and reputation.

 

The WB contingent

Code:

Koby Stevens
Easton Wood
Tory Dickson
Lukas Markovic
Jarrad Grant
Clay Smith
Ayce Cordy
Jason Tutt
Jake Stringer
Patrick Veszpremi
Jackson MacRae
Dylan Addison
Lin Jong

Melbourne

Code:

Jesse Hogan
Matt Jones
Mitch Clisby
Cameron Pedersen
James Sellar
Joel Macdonald
Thomas Couch
Luke Tapscott
Thomas Gillies
Neville Jetta
Jimmy Toumpas

Carlton

Code:

Zach Tuohy
Jeremy Laidler
Sam Rowe
Dennis Armfield
Levi Casboult
Marcus Davies
Troy Menzel
Simon White
Matthew Watson
Andrew McInnes
Andrew Collins
Robert Warnock

Adelaide

Code:

Sam Shaw
Richard Tambling
Luke Brown
Tom Lynch
Brad Crouch
Lewis Johnston
Brodie Martin
Shaun McKernan
Luke Thompson
Angus Graham
Sam Kerridge

It's not like they're competing against spuds - in most cases the opposition in this category are actually quite good.

 

All are 69.

 

It's almost as if Mousey expected me to know all 823 players and their true skills despite having seen some play only once and make no mistakes throughout this whole process most of which has been done running on no sleep in 3 days etc.

I mean, I'm fucking close to perfect but not that perfect.

And I'm actually quite upset. I've busted my gut; spent probably over 120 hours on this thing - mainly with the aim of running a CPL league for the people on this site to enjoy. The work isn't worth it. I don't enjoy it. I like to contribute. I'm incapable of working on something bits at a time, it has to all be done - hence why it's been 12-13 hour days working on this, so I've been up for 19-20 hours a day to facilitate it. I have to finish these things really quickly, I can't space it. I'm not fucking perfect ffs. I've worked my ass off to get this done and you're fucking insulting and abusing me & my afl experience based on a few ratings which you may actually have be effected by bias.

I mean seriously man.

I've provided a full balance chart and there's only been one exception so far from anyone. I fucking challenge everyone to do what I've done and keep everyone happy. I'm pretty fucking stoked that you're the only one to take real issue with it, honestly. But it's fucking frustrating and upsetting given the motives I've got and the work I've put in.

 

The problem is, it's a slippery slope when rating guys based on what they've done in the twos. Ratings were based on a number of things

- other peoples' ratings. often these were scaled to achieve certain benchmarks
- my own ratings. these have counted from anywhere between 25 to 40%, 100% in case of the bulldogs.

My own ratings were based off the following

- AFL performances. I've seen every game for the last god knows when so if they've played afl i've formed a judgement on them
- if they've not played enough/at all, I've tried to judge them based on their vfl form and skillset. I've raided statistics, consulted neutral vfl experts (as I can't fucking watch the vfl) and observed their reputation. Some fellas do get 25 touches in the vfl but struggle in afl. Others play as if the standard is no different. the notion that a good vfler will be good in the afl is flawed. I've tried to ignore this though.

If cunts gave me clearly uneducated ratings I discard them.If someone rated stringer 50 I'd discard it. I've collated all the legitimate ratings and they've had equal say. Most of these ratings are only minorly based on my opinion - I've consulted TAE, Bigfooty (although the one guy who gave me a lot of lists from there I had to discard a lot unfortunately), a supercoach site i frequent and fanfooty, as well as here. I've tried to get heaps of lists so my personal opinion and individual biases are minimised

i've done my fucking best mate. if it's not good enough, so be it.

 

You've convinced me to go and have a second look at the ratings, for the record.

If you're that sure I've fucked up, potentially the same thing has happened as happened with the Carlton depth (I messed it up as they were the first team I did) - Geelong were 3rd so it's possible. The least I can do is check to see I haven't made a keystroke error or just a shit rating.

No promises though. Won't be bullied into changing anything to resolve this tension as that's worse than fucking up in the first place. If there's an error I'll correct it.

 

I judge football with my eyes. If I can't watch the VFL, I'm no good. Hence my ratings if based on statsheets and reputation won't be near as good as those I've seen live on numerous occasions. Oh and for the record players who I haven't seen in vfl/afl but have seen in colts u/18 I used that a little bit too.

I made one butthurt comment. I'm not calling you biased for the record - I just think that given it's geelong it's one thing that could be an option.

Everything else is perfect yet you can't respect my footy opinion as a result? makes no sense.

was actually surprised melbourne weren't higher. their problem is a serious lack of a graders. Like Nathan jones is their best and he'd be like 8th at most clubs. Pretty much their 10th-35th players don't differ much in skill hence the selection axe wielding so often.

 

Will let you know results in an hour ftr.

 

And I'll state it here - this is only a beta effort. I'll get some testers, if they let me know that there's some unfair ratings I'll fix it

Overall means sfa in this anyway. I centre the individual ratings around overall but that doesn't mean much.