Welcome to Richmond - Jayden Short

[lamb22]

BTW Spook some of your measurements and analysis in the Short involvement stretch from the objective to subjective.

First Short's kick to Dusty is more than 45m. Short falling over under no pressure in a marking contest is when he is in front and Membrey comes over the back with two saints in Support. Yeah Rance would have whipped their bums but maybe we can cut Shorty some slack in a one on three contest when Membrey a key forward has the sit on him in a marking contest and Shorty halves the marking contest.

 

[Rabbia]

Jayden must be wondering if he'll ever get his kitchen sink back.

Even that has been thrown into this thread by now.

 

[Tenacious]

BTW - He’s also pretty good at marking the ball no hands and over his head into a backpack

 

[Smoking Aces]

Yep, I was at the game too. Saw Dusty turn it over unforced 2 or 3 times......

Please do not compare Dusty to Short. It’s embarrassing.,

 

[spook]

Does anyone remember Lindsey Gilbee. Much worse than Houli or Short defensively but an absolute elite ball user. You'd tear your hair out with some of his one on ones but you wouldn't want anyone else having a shot at goal or spotting up someone inside 50.

The reason I like Shorty is because he is a real elite kick unlike the pretender Houli and objective facts like AFL player ratings agree.

Shorty started 2018 at around 380 in the AFL and finished 167. Because he got injured he has dropped to 236. Had he not been injured I'd say he would be comfortably inside 150 if not 100.

Bachar's highest rating is 170 and his highest in the last 3 years is 209. Contrary to common perception that Bachar has had a good year he has dropped in AFL ratings from 209 to 268 this year primarily because they assess the effect of his kicks/involvements rather than merely counting them like so many sheep do.

Detailed analysis Spook but I already mentioned AFL ratings had Shorty as our worst. Fact is that is an outlier though as detailed above and even when he has a shocker he has 4 or 5 moments that create opportunities and scores.

'Objective reality' seems to conflict with the Houli loveatorium on here though.

"objective facts like AFL player ratings"? You've got to be kidding. Champion Data injects their own subjective value judgement at almost every point. Nothing objective or factual about it. And they clearly state that a player is only rated on the games he plays, so injury has no affect.

What is the Official AFL Player Ratings system?

Determining the AFL's best player has always been tricky. Whether it be umpires, coaches, media or fans, judgements about top players have always contained a large slice of opinion.

Now, using the most sophisticated algorithm ever applied to our game, we are assessing every single action of every player, determining the impact of that action, and providing points – either positive or negative – toward that player's rating compared to his peers.

Along with the obvious acts such as goals, marks and disposals, we've included intercepts, spoils, kicking to a contest, smothers, chasing, corralling and many other 'one-percenters' - along with where and when they occurred - to paint a complete picture of ever player's impact on a game.

And the Official AFL Player Ratings are based on a player's past 40 games, which delivers a long-term view of a player's standing within the AFL.

We have also created positional ratings, so that fans can easily determine the best ruckman, small-medium defender, key defender, midfielder, midfielder-forward, small-medium forward and key forward in the game.

In addition, we continue to monitor results, take fan feedback and consult the top experts to ensure Official AFL Player Ratings remain the most accurate statistical view of our game.

How is each player's rating worked out?
Players accrue or lose points every time they are involved in a passage of play. The score awarded to them each time they are in the play is determined by a complex algorithm formulated and refined over a number of years by Champion Data. Players accrue or lose points depending on whether they have a positive or negative impact on a passage of play.

A player's rating is determined by aggregating his points tally based on a rolling window of the previous two seasons. For example, after round six of the 2014 season, a player's rating will be based on matches from round seven of the 2012 season onwards. However, only a player's most recent 40 matches are used in the calculation of his rating. This creates a buffer for players missing matches through injury, suspension, omission or by not being involved in finals. A player's most recent 30 matches are given greater weight in determining his rating. Matches 31 through 40 are progressively reduced in weighting, from 100 per cent down to five per cent for the earliest game in the window.

"Now, using the most sophisticated algorithm ever applied to our game, we are assessing every single action of every player, determining the impact of that action, and providing points – either positive or negative – toward that player's rating compared to his peers."

Who decides how many points each action is worth? Subjective. Who decides if it's positive or negative? Subjective. How many points deducted for spectating (non-action)? How do you quantify Dustin Martin's brutal ballet, or Sydney Stack's genius, or Rance judging to leave his man, sprint 30 metres and launch himself in harm's way to prevent a mark? ("Spoil: 1 point Rance.") How do you account for Trent Cotchin imposing himself in big finals and saving his battered body at other times?

Champion Data is so much nonsense. Is it objective fact that Max Gawn is the best player in the game? That there are only eight players better than Dayne Zorko? Champion Data said Melbourne had the best list coming into this season. A Champion Data employee told me they had trouble differentiating between a hard ball get and a loose ball get, which I assume attract different 'points'. It's like the textbook in 'Dead Poets Society' assigning points to poems. It's rubbish. It's Nerdball. Meaningless.

BTW Spook some of your measurements and analysis in the Short involvement stretch from the objective to subjective.

First Short's kick to Dusty is more than 45m. Short falling over under no pressure in a marking contest is when he is in front and Membrey comes over the back with two saints in Support. Yeah Rance would have whipped their bums but maybe we can cut Shorty some slack in a one on three contest when Membrey a key forward has the sit on him in a marking contest and Shorty halves the marking contest.

My analysis by definition is subjective. I never proclaimed it otherwise. Coming from the master of leading the witness, I'll object on the grounds of the pot calling the kettle yellow and back, your honor. My measurements were best guesses. Short's kick to Dusty - did it go 50 then? Whatever, it was not the pinpoint pass you painted it as. It was a good kick.

Can't agree with the Membrey marking contest.I just checked it again. It's a pure one-on-one. Membrey is behind, goes straight up trying to mark it. When the ball hits the ground he gives Short a slight push in the side and Short goes tumbling. My point was to show Short's deficiencies, not excuse him for being small and weak - they're major reasons I don't like him!

I give him credit for the two or three times he took front position for an air ball. That's an improvement for him. Maybe one day he'll mark one.

BTW, remember when Bachar took front position against Walker in a grand final and out-marked him? Or when he bodied Sloane off the ball and won a crucial contest? Remember all the times Houli brings the ball through the corridor? Did I just not show that every Short possession started wide and stayed wide? Those, my learned colleague, are objective facts.

 

[happytige]

Thanks Spook for your thorough analysis of Shorty’s game on Sunday. It is always impressive when someone supports their arguments with objective data.
I am one of the Tiger supporters who goes to the game, with blinkered vision when it comes to my favourites....... and Shorty has always been one of these.
I suspect that he is following team instructions when he leaves his man, relying on Grimes and co to cover half the back line. It is not a good look and I think Shorty is not really suited to defence.. I would prefer to see him linking up as he plays on the Wing, delivering the ball on a plate to Lynch, Jack, George or just to a pack of mossies.... preferably playing in attack instead of Bobble, whose first instincts seem to be always to go backwards or across the ground.
Don’t be disheartened Spook with some supporters not showing respect for your analysis. Your posts are always thoughtful and based on fair observation.
I really hope Dimma and the selectors are reading them carefully!

 

[spook]

Short may not always hit his 70m plays, but if the ball is turned over, it’s on the wing.

Yes, as Dyer'ere says, his mistakes are a long way ahead of him - his disposal stats, anyway. The trouble is that's many of them for a bloke who's only asset is his supposed elite disposal.

I am hard on Short because I want Richmond to be the best team possible, and I believe he hinders that goal. I don't think individuals should be excused from playing football just because they can kick and are surrounded by footballers. I don't believe "it's not his fault he's physically insignificant" is justification for having him in the side. Teams will exploit him. You don't think St Kilda played through his novice opponent Long, who had his best game of the year? I say again, which one of Cripps, Rioli or Ryan do we send him to? Which one of Elliott, Hoskin-Elliott or Stephenson? Greene, Deledio or Daniels?

 

[lamb22]

How do you quantify Dustin Martin's brutal ballet, or Sydney Stack's genius, or Rance judging to leave his man, sprint 30 metres and launch himself in harm's way to prevent a mark? ("Spoil: 1 point Rance.") How do you account for Trent Cotchin imposing himself in big finals and saving his battered body at other times?

You cant and Player ratings don't do that. There are intangibles that remain intangibles.

Interestingly though player ratings picked up on the Martin rise even before some if us did.

It has consistently ranked Rance as the best backman and at present has Stacky rated way above any rising star or rookie.

So maybe it picks up on intangibles and balletic brutality better than some esteemed commentators do.

 

[spook]

You cant and Player ratings don't do that. There are intangibles that remain intangibles.

Interestingly though player ratings picked up on the Martin rise even before some if us did.

It has consistently ranked Rance as the best backman and at present has Stacky rated way above any rising star or rookie.

So maybe it picks up on intangibles and balletic brutality better than some esteemed commentators do.

It might be quite a decent system. As you say, it has made some good calls (including rating Short as our worst on Sunday - thanks for that!). But that doesn't make its conclusions fact. The value of plays and players is subjective, that's part of what we love about talking about it. I'm happy to admit my views on Short aren't the Gospel, and if he plays a role in a premiership I will do backflips I'll be so happy to have been wrong.

 

[lamb22]

Can't agree with the Membrey marking contest.I just checked it again. It's a pure one-on-one. Membrey is behind, goes straight up trying to mark it. When the ball hits the ground he gives Short a slight push in the side and Short goes tumbling. My point was to show Short's deficiencies, not excuse him for being small and weak - they're major reasons I don't like him!

I just watched it again and really you are scraping the bottom of the barrel, I am glad I did though. Shorty is ostensibly on his man Long. The kick goes to Membrey who does not have an opponent so Shorty is 1 on 2. Shorty backs into the marking contest and amazingly halves it. His second opponent Long front and centre picks up the ball. Houli drags Parker to the contest makes an ineffective tackle on Long and falls over and Long handballs to Membrey who handballs to Parker who without the fallen Houli merrliy bounces his way downfield unfettered.

Bit of a faux pas there ol' Spooky!

 

[lamb22]

It might be quite a decent system. As you say, it has made some good calls (including rating Short as our worst on Sunday - thanks for that!). But that doesn't make its conclusions fact. The value of plays and players is subjective, that's part of what we love about talking about it. I'm happy to admit my views on Short aren't the Gospel, and if he plays a role in a premiership I will do backflips I'll be so happy to have been wrong.

What t it does is document when good things happen and when bad things happen or where nothing much of note happens when a player gets involved. Sometimes its co-incidence. However when a side turns it over consistently when you get involved or consistently scores when you get involved (over two seasons) then maybe its something more than luck

 

[spook]

I just watched it again and really you are scraping the bottom of the barrel, I am glad I did though. Shorty is ostensibly on his man Long. The kick goes to Membrey who does not have an opponent so Shorty is 1 on 2. Shorty backs into the marking contest and amazingly halves it. His second opponent Long front and centre picks up the ball. Houli drags Parker to the contest makes an ineffective tackle on Long and falls over and Long handballs to Membrey who handballs to Parker who without the fallen Houli merrliy bounces his way downfield unfettered.

Bit of a faux pas there ol' Spooky!

It's not worth arguing over. We clearly see the same incident completely differently. Are you willing to admit Short fell over?

 

[tigersnake]

finished watching the replay. Generally just receives and bombs it long ATM. At his best he kicks it long to our advantage or hits a team mate. I can see his value when he's at his best. Still reckon his contribution is overrated by most, but I do rate it. As I've said, when you aren't good defensively or one-on-one, you must be absolutely top notch in another area. When he isn't at his best, like now, he should be in the seconds.

 

[Scoop]

Playing the man, Scoop. Don't make it personal, don't take it personal, that's my motto

No mate, apologies if it came across that way.

You have a strong dislike for Short and you picked apart his first game back after 13 weeks out that the club put him straight back in for showing his internal value in the four walls. 22 touches, 700 metered gained, 5 score involvements and I agree he wasn’t up to his usual standards. I can’t argue with you on this.

 

[Brodders17]

The AFL player rating are probably the best rating system at present but they are far from perfect. great to use when they suit an argument, but easy to ignore when they dont!

i dont think they capture the value of Houli or Short tho to the tigers. I think both are valued because they run, both with and without the ball, then they kick long. often to a contest, but that is what we want, if there is no better option. sometimes we lose that contest, and that is recorded as a turnover, but generally the coaches would see that as the 'fault' of the forwards for not competing, rather than the kicker.
other times the opposition might rove the pack but we win it straight back, and score through our pressure forwards. this might be recorded as a turnover for the kicker, but again it was the coaches want. a loose ball in our forward line.
if we rove the pack and score i doubt that is considered a score involvement to the kicker, but again it is what the coaches want.

and the rating do not measure probably Houli's greatest strength, his running without the ball. many of his kicks are uncontested because he runs hard to make them uncontested, not just sweeping behind the person with the ball. he, and Short, allow us to move the ball quickly, even if not always with precision.

it will be interesting how Short and Houli combine over the next few weeks, in the lead up to the finals.

 

[zippadeee]

Where was he today?
Against the weakest opposition he was mr invisible.
Can’t understand why he walks straight back into the best 22.

 

[Tigermad2005]

Played will.

 

[Mr Brightside]

Thought there was one poor effort in the last quarter, other then that thought he was solid and another game under the belt can only help.

 

[Bennnny]

Anything in the fact that Short returns and we kick big scores?

 

[rensman]

Anything in the fact that Short returns and we kick big scores?

Not yet