Thought it would be interesting to compare which players are doing better or worse between last year and this year.

The criteria is 3+ games played each year and the performance is a combined average of disposals, marks, tackles, goals, behinds and hitouts.

The second column is average 'performance' in 2004, the third column is average performance in 2005, and the finals column is the percentage difference between 2004 and 2005 (positive means better performance, negative means worse performance).



Good to see so many young player improving this year.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|

hey how good is simmo going to be if he keeps imrpoving at that rate

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

Good stuff Jarusa.

Is it a weighted combined figure or just a comparison of total "touches"?

BTW - an overall 1% improvement resulted in 5.5 less wins...

Gives us a good indication of who we need to get rid of.

_________________
GO BLUE BOYS!!

small bit of weighting, goals are given 3 points, everything else 1 point, pretty basic stats.



Was hoping someone would notice that.

Seems strange, but maybe because quite a few of the players that went backwards this year are some of the more senior players and the young ones have improved may account for the lower number of wins but equivalent overall team output.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|

Should do the same thing with the 2002 side and see which team has the greater aggregate.

Obviously hitouts are too heavily weighted Ja?

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

You couldn't compare the two. Different game styles of the coaches.

Likewise I reckon Hawthorn would have improved about 100% on last season. (stat wise)

_________________
Working alone. At the coalface. Scott's gone for lunch! Said he would be back in 30 mins.

Thanks for going through this exercise Jarusa, but methinks it will only serve to strengthen bias either way.
Was this a poor team because individuals performed poorly, or were individuals hampered by playing in a poor team?
Raw stats can be helpful, but the real skill is in the interpretation.

_________________
Princes Park - always was, always will be.

No doubt about that.

I like seeing how stuff like this is interpreted though.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|

shouldn't houla be going down instead of going up??

That is probably what most would think, but he has done slightly better on a per game basis.

http://www.footywire.com/fw/web/ft_play ... er?pid=307

But the fact that he has played only 17 games this year due to being dropped (after the Hawthorn game ) as opposed to 21 last year indicates that the coaching staff have been influenced by factors other than disposals.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|

really shows that lance has had a really good year. maybe if he puts in another big preseason like the last he might be better again.

On the other hand he might just sit on his arse and eat burgers all summer...

Jarusa, any chance of collating all the rumoured drafts.
ie; whom to where, for what.
Post draft evaluating what percentage of rumours come true.
I appreciate you have a life and this process would probably take for ever.
Just a thought.
Regards Pedro.

Not bad Jarusa but just a couple of thoughts:

- Chambers was not on our list in 2004?
- IMHO the stats for Thornton, Houla & Johnson are misleading.....they've had a worse year in 2005.

The 2004 chambers stats are for West Coast, same deal for Longmuir, his 2004 data is from his Freo games.

I agree about the three players you named, never claimed these stats were foolproof, but they are good for creating discussion.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|