CPL AR: Player ratings project

I am the best at balance by so much it's not funny. I just pick what I expect each player to be out of 100 and type it into excel and I've done it for every player and I expected to have to adjust and standardise it as it was uneven but the team scores I kid you not bar WCE were fucking perfect like the exact order I wanted them... even the depth orders were so I won't have to do any edits so this will be done quicker than expected good news xo

 

Ugh found a bug which has ruined the above dream re: perfect ratings.

 

Below is where I'm at - feel free to ask questions, comment on things that just don't look right or suggest feedback.


This is currently where I'm at

Overall: Average rating of the best 22 players
Top End: Average rating of the best 7 players
Mid Range: Average rating of the 8-15th players (8 players)
Low Range: Average rating of the 16-24th players (9 players)
Depth: Average rating of the 25-34th players (10 players)

Things that don't look right
- Port & North Melbourne being so low (OVR)
- Western Bulldogs being so high (OVR)
- To a lesser extent, Fremantle and Sydney being low (OVR)
- To a lesser extent, West Coast, Geelong and Richmond being so high (OVR)
- Collingwood and Carlton being so high on mid range. Lots of stars but the next batch aren't gun (MR)
- Western Bulldogs being high for mid range. They're carried by a good top echelon and alright reserves but the middle grade is distinctly average (MR)
- North being so low for mid range. I think they're 8-15th best are actually relatively good (MR)
- Sydney's low range. Their 22 has such depth, I'd probably have them top 3-4 for this, minimum (LR)
- Carlton's depth. This is a big one. Probably a result of Carlton being the first team I rated (DEPTH)
- Sydney's depth. It's better than that (DEPTH)
- The general overalls. They're 0.42 out from where I want them to be (mean of 80). Will be difficult trying to increase some teams to fix all the above yet decreasing others enough to make the global score go down (GEN)

Code:

	OVERALL					
1	Collingwood	82.91	90.86	81.75	75.67	70.8
2	West Coast	82.4	88.71	82.88	75	70.3
3	Hawthorn	82.13	89.71	81.88	74.67	68.3
4	Geelong		81.63	89.43	80.25	74.78	67.6
5	Carlton		81.18	88.57	81.13	72.89	63.3
6	Richmond	81.09	89	80.5	73.22	68.2
7	Sydney		80.95	88.14	80.38	73.89	68.1
8	Essendon	80.81	87.29	79.5	75.33	67.9
9	Western Bulldog	80.81	87.57	80	74.67	70.7
10	Adelaide	80.72	89.86	79.25	73	69.2
11	Fremantle	80.59	87.58	79.13	74.78	69.2
12	Brisbane	80	87.43	79.75	72.33	68.5
13	Gold Coast	79.32	85.14	78.5	74.11	71.7
14	St. Kilda	79.18	85.86	78	73.33	69.3
15	North Melbourne	78.86	86.71	76	74	69.3
16	Port Adelaide	78.77	85.29	78.13	72.56	69.6
17	Melbourne	78.27	84.29	77	73.33	70.8
18	GWS		78.04	83.43	76.75	73.78	70.4

	TOP END					
1	Collingwood	82.91	90.86	81.75	75.67	70.8
2	Adelaide	80.72	89.86	79.25	73	69.2
3	Hawthorn	82.13	89.71	81.88	74.67	68.3
4	Geelong		81.63	89.43	80.25	74.78	67.6
5	Richmond	81.09	89	80.5	73.22	68.2
6	West Coast	82.4	88.71	82.88	75	70.3
7	Carlton		81.18	88.57	81.13	72.89	63.3
8	Sydney		80.95	88.14	80.38	73.89	68.1
9	Fremantle	80.59	87.58	79.13	74.78	69.2
10	Western Bulldog	80.81	87.57	80	74.67	70.7
11	Brisbane	80	87.43	79.75	72.33	68.5
12	Essendon	80.81	87.29	79.5	75.33	67.9
13	North Melbourne	78.86	86.71	76	74	69.3
14	St. Kilda	79.18	85.86	78	73.33	69.3
15	Port Adelaide	78.77	85.29	78.13	72.56	69.6
16	Gold Coast	79.32	85.14	78.5	74.11	71.7
17	Melbourne	78.27	84.29	77	73.33	70.8
18	GWS		78.04	83.43	76.75	73.78	70.4

	MID RANGE					
1	West Coast	82.4	88.71	82.88	75	70.3
2	Hawthorn	82.13	89.71	81.88	74.67	68.3
3	Collingwood	82.91	90.86	81.75	75.67	70.8
4	Carlton		81.18	88.57	81.13	72.89	63.3
5	Richmond	81.09	89	80.5	73.22	68.2
6	Sydney		80.95	88.14	80.38	73.89	68.1
7	Geelong		81.63	89.43	80.25	74.78	67.6
8	Western Bulldog	80.81	87.57	80	74.67	70.7
9	Brisbane	80	87.43	79.75	72.33	68.5
10	Essendon	80.81	87.29	79.5	75.33	67.9
11	Adelaide	80.72	89.86	79.25	73	69.2
12	Fremantle	80.59	87.58	79.13	74.78	69.2
13	Gold Coast	79.32	85.14	78.5	74.11	71.7
14	Port Adelaide	78.77	85.29	78.13	72.56	69.6
15	St. Kilda	79.18	85.86	78	73.33	69.3
16	Melbourne	78.27	84.29	77	73.33	70.8
17	GWS		78.04	83.43	76.75	73.78	70.4
18	North Melbourne	78.86	86.71	76	74	69.3

	LOW RANGE					
1	Collingwood	82.91	90.86	81.75	75.67	70.8
2	Essendon	80.81	87.29	79.5	75.33	67.9
3	West Coast	82.4	88.71	82.88	75	70.3
4	Geelong		81.63	89.43	80.25	74.78	67.6
5	Fremantle	80.59	87.58	79.13	74.78	69.2
6	Western Bulldog	80.81	87.57	80	74.67	70.7
7	Hawthorn	82.13	89.71	81.88	74.67	68.3
8	Gold Coast	79.32	85.14	78.5	74.11	71.7
9	North Melbourne	78.86	86.71	76	74	69.3
10	Sydney		80.95	88.14	80.38	73.89	68.1
11	GWS		78.04	83.43	76.75	73.78	70.4
12	Melbourne	78.27	84.29	77	73.33	70.8
13	St. Kilda	79.18	85.86	78	73.33	69.3
14	Richmond	81.09	89	80.5	73.22	68.2
15	Adelaide	80.72	89.86	79.25	73	69.2
16	Carlton		81.18	88.57	81.13	72.89	63.3
17	Port Adelaide	78.77	85.29	78.13	72.56	69.6
18	Brisbane	80	87.43	79.75	72.33	68.5

	DEPTH					
1	Gold Coast	79.32	85.14	78.5	74.11	71.7
2	Melbourne	78.27	84.29	77	73.33	70.8
3	Collingwood	82.91	90.86	81.75	75.67	70.8
4	Western Bulldog	80.81	87.57	80	74.67	70.7
5	GWS		78.04	83.43	76.75	73.78	70.4
6	West Coast	82.4	88.71	82.88	75	70.3
7	Port Adelaide	78.77	85.29	78.13	72.56	69.6
8	North Melbourne	78.86	86.71	76	74	69.3
9	St. Kilda	79.18	85.86	78	73.33	69.3
10	Adelaide	80.72	89.86	79.25	73	69.2
11	Fremantle	80.59	87.58	79.13	74.78	69.2
12	Brisbane	80	87.43	79.75	72.33	68.5
13	Hawthorn	82.13	89.71	81.88	74.67	68.3
14	Richmond	81.09	89	80.5	73.22	68.2
15	Sydney		80.95	88.14	80.38	73.89	68.1
16	Essendon	80.81	87.29	79.5	75.33	67.9
17	Geelong		81.63	89.43	80.25	74.78	67.6
18	Carlton		81.18	88.57	81.13	72.89	63.3

 

Geelong's depth? QTSTL.

 

It wasn't intentional; I didn't plan for certain benchmarks or anything while rating players but I'm not surprised. You've got awesome top end talent in Kelly, SJ, Chappy, Hawkins, Bartel, Enright & Taylor then it falls away a little but the decline isn't steep into the final third of the 22, like your fully fit bench etc. is gun.

Do remember that what I've done with the lower range accounts for two injuries, too. So I'm talking about the real depth here.

And it's true, really. Two or three injuries and we see Schroeder, Stringer, Sheringham, Walker, McCarthy, Brown, Cowan, Simpson etc. even guys like Guthrie & H-S (as far as depth go if he's 3rd backup it isn't great) come into the side.

Now I'm not sure if I've got some anti geelong vendetta (I don't think so :s) but to me I'd prefer most clubs core depth over that. There's a bit of potential in there yeah but it seems as if only Geelong fans rate them

It's one of the drawbacks of being on top for so long with the current draft system - you can draft well with your first and 2nd rounders yeah as you've done but as guys move on/become shit every club has 7-8 spots on their list filled with 3rd/4th/5th rounders of the last 3-4 drafts and with your late picks they've tended to be 52/70/88 or even worse with expansion and when you've got to fill 8-10 list slots with players of that ilk it's pretty difficult to nail good ones; it really is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

In Wells we trust

 

TBF your ratings ='d mine so we were both harsh

 

Yeah. Well well well too high. Scaled them though so they were still relevant.

 

Theo and Harps were really, really bang on. Like their means and medians were nearly exactly where I wanted them and twice between them our sum of the best 22s were exactly the same without comparing. Theo and I had 37/40 within three/four points as well on the Lions. They nailed it, in short.

Yours were on average about right for the top end, 2 pts off for the mid range, 4 pts off for the lower range and 5-6 for the depth so averaged out to about 3.7 - was easy to scale.

MightyPies' on the other hand was 8-10 pts off. Had 5 collingwood sheets submitted and his was the clear outlier on almost every non obvious (i.e. pendles) player. Still, I didn't discard it as who's to say he's wrong.

 

Yeah that's pretty much how I did it

Except its fragile so the mean difference between top and bottom only needed to be 4 pts