You've spent several pages defending stats you made up, which I suspect might in the eyes of many consign your opinion to the dungeons of irrelevance given the seemingly plastic nature of the definitions.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I sued the numbers you delivered presuming them to be true, and I found them to be false, which you seem to have confirmed from your own keyboard!
How does anyone debate your "numerical facts", if we take what you post as legitimate and find a flaw in your conclusions you debunk those criticism effectively using a spirited defence of "That can't be true because I made the stats up, nah, nah nah nah!"
I suspect if we debunk your conclusions from your made up stats using real statistics, you'll probably defend your claims with a call of "That's not what I meant by the definition!"
Further rather than defend your claims with some hard evidence, you resort to petty verbal, which I'm sure you'll defend using reflection.
The irony for me is that I credited Pittonet with 3.5 hits to advantage a game, which you basically lauded as some sort of fraud or derision of Pittonet, then you offer a new/revised imaginary definition under what effectively is a defence of "I made it up, so that is not what I meant". In the wash up even the revised definition probably rates Pittonet for grand total of about +1/2 of a hit out to advantage more. Stats presented by yourself as a percentage to make it look like a bigger difference, but when +/- 1 hitout changes the percentage by +/- 4% or 5% do you expect readers to take you seriously?
The stats i 'made up' are something a primary school kid can get their head around. For the record another 'made up' stat could be Goal kicking accuracy that INCLUDES shots missed out on the full. The reason it is 'made up' is not because it is magical in nature, its simply because there is no defined stat that is readily available to the public.
So to spell it out to the supposed engineer who can't comprehend basic math....
Total ruck contests - This is a stat that you can find. Total hitouts - This is a stat you can find Total hitouts to advantage - This is a stat you can find HItouts to advantage from ruck contests attended - This is the stat i 'made up'.
Do i need to explain where it came from again? A = How many hitouts to advantage did you have for the game? - This stat is available. B = How many ruck contests did you attend? - This stat is available
A / B = What percentage of ruck contests did you attend where you managed a hitout to advantage.(%) Which i have 'made up' and called CA%
If you don't trust my numbers, bully for you, check the AFL website for yourself. The numbers are there. If you want me to hold your hand and walk you through it.....even further....then swallow your pride and ask.
Don't spout complete and utter BS about proving numbers wrong and making stuff up and credibility this when you have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone can find these numbers. I just managed to use a calculator and calculate a %, and am providing it to you as proof of what my eyes were telling me - Pittonet is ELITE in his ruckwork.
Before you write some longwinded retort which will embarrass you further, i advise you to re-read what i wrote and look for the numbers yourself. You might be shocked to find out that you are 100% wrong! I forgive you. Forgive yourself.
So, injury-prone Phillips had a better game against English than Pittonet did. Perhaps we should have kept Flip
Of course, I think that casting Flip adrift was a no-brainer and Pittonet is a much better long term option. However, Flip's performance tonight highlights how far Pittonet has to go before he can be considered a genuine AFL first ruck, despite alleged hitouts to advantage.
One mans opinion....and not shared by others it seems. I didn't see the game so i cannot comment.
I was curious to lookup the ruck stats. Phillips - 50 contests, 28 hitouts, 4 to advantage - CA% = 8% English - 53 contests, 16 hitouts, 7 to advantage - CA% = 13%
This highlights what i've been saying about hitouts meaning nothing. It crapouts to advantage, and specifically, contests to advantage. In the traditional sense, English got 'smashed' in hitouts. In reality, he was more effective in the ruck contests than Phillips was. Phillips may have got his hand to the ball more, but if its just dropped into a pile of players, what good does it do?
Yes, but unless we're kicking 30 goals per game, or unless we become a stoppage obsessed team, most of the time he's on the ground he's not actually practicing the part of his craft that allows him to tap. So the other aspects of his game must also be taken into consideration.
I wasn't expecting anywhere near what he has delivered, but I wouldn't be going the early crow just yet.
15 times a quarter (on average) is when he is able to stamp his influence on the game purely as a ruckman.
Thats probably more chances than most.....and whatever else he gets around the ground is on top of that.
I think its been so long since we have had a dominant ruck that we've forgotten what type of influence they can provide in the stoppages.
Before anyone starts foaming at the mouth, I'm not expecting MP to be like Grundy. just comparing him to the current gold standard.
Select "season avg" and "advanced stats" to get a better picture.
....and what do i see?
Hitouts to advantage Marc Pittonet - 36.6% - ELITE Brodie Gundy - 27.1% - Below average
....and thats all i'm talking about. Hitouts, ruck craft, the ability to influence the game at ruck contests!
.....and my stat would show an ever more flattering view when you take into account total ruck contests, not just the ones where you get your hand on the ball first!
Nowhere have i said anything about his around the ground stuff.
FWIW, he's still only played 12 games. Brody grundy has played 139 games. 1100+% more games!
He has competed in 296 ruck contests so far this season. He has won 134 hitouts (45%) He has a total of 49 hitouts to advantage so far this season. So 37% of the hitouts he wins go directly to our advantage. and 17% of all ruck contests he competes in, goes to our advantage.
That means a little over 1 in 6 ruck contests he competes in, the ball goes directly to our advantage. Can you imagine getting the ball handed to you via a free kick from 1 in 6 stoppages? That is essentially what he is doing with his ruck work.
Which is why i'm banging on about his efforts thus far because by the AFLs own stats, he is ELITE in that area.
if more than a 1/3rd of them(15%) are to advantage he isn't just the best Carlton ruckmen he is the greatest ruckmen of all time at any club that ever existed!
Well there you have it. He is the greatest ruck of all time then.
The stats don't lie.
He had 23 hitouts against Gawn and the Dees. 10 of them went to our advantage. (That is 45% of the hitouts he got his hand on went directly to our advantage - HA%).
He was in 65 contests. He 'only' won 23. Yet 10 hitouts went to advantage.
So 10/65 = .....*wait for it*.....15%! Just as i said it did.
Well what you do to make up stats is a matter for you, but if you are going to make up stats, you best clearly define to and stick with it, because by your own earlier post you've redefined the stat. I'll know next time to cross check whatever you post in case more of it is made up!
If you are going to cut up rough and attack someone and accuse them of making stuff up, you best clearly reread the earlier post where the stats are defined. You'll know for next time that you should cross check your own interpretation in case your initial interpretations are made up!
At the same age, Pittonet is averaging 1.6 more clearances a game. A little less around the ground, but people saying Kreuzer should be used as a ruck rover need to rethink those opinions.
Having Cripps at a rucks feet makes a huge difference, as did Judd.
No. It matters little.
Its the ability of a ruck to put the ball into a clear winning position. It is NOT tapping it straight down to a scrum in which Cripps bullocks his way past 3 players. That would be considered a hitout. Not a hitout to advantage.
That by the way is exposed by the stats, against Gawn, Pittonet's CA of 15% out of 35% wins is 5.25%, or just a bit better than 1 good result out of every 20 attempts! So for 65 RCs that is a grand total of about 3-1/2 contested hit outs to an advantage for a whole game.
WRONG. Completely made up. Incorrect interpretation.
The CA% is essentially (hitouts to advantage / number of centre bounces attended). So it takes into account every single hitout that the ruck contested. Included every single one that he lost. How do i know this? I created the stat!
I've always argued the rucking deficits of the likes of Phillips and Casboult are not related to the tap, but it's all about what happens next. Casboult has recently improved the rest of ruck play dramatically, so he has gone up in my opinion.
FYI, Casboult attended 119 centre bounces and has 11 to advantage. Thus a CA% of 9.2%. He had 0% last match. Both of those stats back up my assertion that it has nothing to do with Cripps/Judd.
But the bloke who exposes the folly of these stats more than any other is Warnock, completely dominant in the tap but utterly worthless overall. They could call Warnock "The Tap King", and he'd go the same way, extinction!
Well i cannot access Warnocks stats for a comparison, but i do remember his hitouts were high, but to advantage were not as high as you'd think. In short, Pittonet has him covered.
The whole stats above are a snapshot of Pittonets ruck work, but also an indication of his work ethic and attitude. He has beaten everyone he's come up against, including Max Gawn, despite a terrible first quarter there. He dug in, fought back and came out on top. FYI, Pittonet had 5 clearances to Gawns 3 as well. Casboult 0% CA again.
I didn't say anything about sacking him, at this stage, - but certainly mark this one down in the negative column of his ledger. Also, I think this stuff up is slightly more serious than losing a letter - prolongation of this lock down is likely to cost many millions of dollars and result in thousands of people possibly losing their livelihoods in the form of their business or job. Certainly something that will no doubt generate plenty of emotion, but an overreaction?? I don't think so - answers are required and as soon as possible.
Personally i think he has handled the whole situation (this incident aside) remarkably well.
You may not be calling for his sacking, but plenty are. There was a heated debate at work the other day in which someone threatened to quit over someones politcal stance......essentially escalated from a anti/pro Dan Andrews debate. There are a lot of feelings over him, before, during and after the security incident.
So i'd call that an overreaction....social media has some others backing that up too.
Personally, i tend to stay away from political debates but the anger i've seen directed at Dan Andrews over this incident has led me to try and speak some common sense on the matter.
As an example of some anti-Andrews commentary i've heard 1. Where is Dan Andrews in all of this? He is staying silent and needs to speak up/out! 2. Bloody Dan Andrews is spending all his time in front of the camera, no wonder he can't control some security guards.
Completely contradictory, and he's on a hiding to nothing.
For some perspective, see one D. Trump and the 'mighty' U.S. of A.
Part of Dan's job imo would be to protect the people of Victoria from threats to their well-being, posed in various forms including pandemics. All likely risks should be assessed and mitigated in provision of that protection, including the one of people ignoring or under-estimating the threat and not willingly following directions, a not unheard of phenomenon. The security at quarantine sites has been clearly shown to be inadequate i.e. was a failure - a failure of risk assessment, a failure of decision making and a failure of process. This all reefs back to the Victorian government of which Daniel Andrews is the leader.
I'm not a particular fan of his - he has overseen some good stuff and some bad stuff imo but this has to go down as a bad one imho.
Sure, and heads will roll for it. But there are a lot of people under him that had a say in that matter that should be made accountable before it ever gets to him in this instance.
if we sacked every politician anytime something went wrong at any level, we'd never have any politicians left. They oversee hundreds of projects, which employ thousands upon thousands of people. Some of those people are going to stuff up at some stage (nobody is pefect). So because there is 1 person at the top of that chain, he should go?
As i said before, its an overreaction to an emotional topic. If 1 letter from Australia Post goes missing, do we sack the CEO? He is ultimately in charge....
I've recently made comments about Pittonets ruckwork. Best i've seen from a bloke in navy blue since Matty Allen.
I've also gone on to say that his form could potentially spell the end for our beloved Matty Kreuzer.
People have their own opinions, but i prefer to back it up with stats where possible. So I've done just that with the help of some new stats i've come across in regards to rucking.
Stats used are RC - Ruck Contests - How many times you've competed in a 1-on-1 ruck contest HO - Hitout - Normal stat, how many hitouts you've one HA - Hitout to Advantage - how useful those hitouts were. Was it to the direct advantage of your team. HO% - Hitout % - What percentatge of hitouts that you competed in, did you win. HA% - Hitouts to Advantage % - What percentage of hitouts that you won, went to advantage CA% - Contests to Advantage % - What percentage of ruck contests that you competed in, resulted in a hitout to advantage
This last one is the key as it tells us what are the chances that we will get a direct advantage from any give ruck contest. HA% only tells us how effective the hitouts we get our hands on are and it doesn't include the contests we lost.
With that in mind. Lets look at our week by week of Pittonet vs Opponent
R# RC HO HA HO% HA% CA% Player R2 65 23 10 35% 43% 15% Pittonet R2 72 34 10 47% 29% 14% Gawn
Despite not winning the 'hitouts' (which is the only common stat used) his hitout to advantage rate is much higher than any opponent he faces. Further to that, despite not winning the overall hitouts, the chances of a 'hitout to advantage' when he lines up in a ruck contest is superior than anyone he comes up against. (This is the final bolded column)
After spending the better part of an hour going through a lot of the above, i a stat which sums up a lot of the above rather simply.
He is "ELITE" in hitouts to advantage competition wide.
Although as mentioned, that is only half the tale.....by extension he would also be ELITE in 'hitouts to advantage from contests rucked in.' The simple difference is the last stat takes into accounts his opponent wins as well.
Of course the security crew are at fault - that's beyond obvious.
That doesn't negate the government's culpability.
....yet still no mention about who the security guard did the deed with.
2 people (at least) to blame before you get to Dan Andrews. I'm tipping Dan Andrews didn't hire the security guard personally either. Did he personally hire the company who hired the security guard? How many people in the 'chain of command' do we need to go through before we get to Dan Andrews?
Ultimately the buck stops at the top, but all this hysteria is like trying to fire the CEO of a global bank because some work experience kid lost a $1 coin under the desk when counting out some cash at your local bank.
Worst game from the umps i can remember seeing in a long time.
The ump that paid the mark was the same one that called it touched! Not sure if umps can get sent back to the 2's at the moment, but he's at the front of the line if you can.
There were countless others that gave me the $hits, have a look through the in-game thread to see a few highlighted.
