Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet (Read 8364 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #30 –
Quote from: LP on
Pfffttt a debate based on the complex number.

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.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #31 –
Ruck stats from todays game.
Pittonet
44 ruck contests
20 hitouts
4 hitouts to advantage
9% CA - Hitouts to advantage from ruck contest. (4/44)

Ladhams
48 ruck contests
16 hitouts
2 hitouts to advantage
4% CA - Hitouts to advantage from ruck contest (2/48)

So Pittonet won the ruck work battle for the 6th straight week.....albeit less convincingly than most weeks.

Some other stats....
Pressure acts - Pittonet 13 - 7 Ladhams
Clangers - Pittonet 2 - 3 Ladhams
Turnovers - Pittonet 2 - 5 Ladhams
Contested Marks - Pittonet 1 - 0 Ladhams
Intercepts - Pittonet 1 - 1 Ladhams
Clearances - Pittonet 1 - 4 Ladhams
Disposals - Pittonet 3 - 21 Ladhams
Tackles - Pittonet 1 - 2 Ladhams

What that shows is Pittonet, despite not getting the ball a lot, was not just a passenger. Excellent effort shown as pressure acts
 
Question i have is, did we not look for him to give him the ball because we had so many other tall forward options to kick too? Harry played well, Casboult is always an option down the line and McGovern was leaping at everything.
As good as Pittonets marking is, i'd say he's 4th behind those 3 in that area.

Did Port look for Ladhams more because they didn't have the same embarrassment of riches up forward?

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #32 –
Dunno,  pundits still rated Ladhams' game highly.  I've never seen a stat that accounts for "hurt factor" but what Ladhams did today really hurt us.   He started,  and seemed to be involved in, a lot of scoring chains.
DrE is no more... you ok with that harmonica man?

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #33 –
Quote from: Professer E on
Dunno,  pundits still rated Ladhams' game highly.  I've never seen a stat that accounts for "hurt factor" but what Ladhams did today really hurt us.   He started,  and seemed to be involved in, a lot of scoring chains.


I rated Ladhams game more highly myself.

I guess my whole point in this is that Pittonet is an elite ruckman in the contest. That is the hardest thing to teach.

If we can improve his game around the ground, then he will be the most dominant ruckman in the game.

He has the ability to give us first use.
He has the desire to fight games out and pressure.
If we could develop his outside game a bit, we are set for the next 7 years.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #34 –
22 year old Ladhams smashed Pittonet today, and no matter how creatively you cherrypick and spin the stats you'll struggle to find real positive from Pittonet's game.

Even if you are blind, deaf or just wilfully ignorant and didn't see the game, check out the head to head for today's game here;

https://finalsiren.com/PlayerCompare.asp?SeasonID=2020&SelectedPlayers=2915,2612,&Compare=Go

I think we can safely ignore the one stat Pittonet won, 4 to 2, and take notice of just about every other stat he lost like 18 less possessions!
The Force Awakens!

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #35 –
Basically indicates that stats can be meaningless....because we all agree that in regards to influencing the result, Ladhams beat Pittonet.  It happens.
DrE is no more... you ok with that harmonica man?

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #36 –
Quote from: LP on
22 year old Ladhams smashed Pittonet today, and no matter how creatively you cherrypick and spin the stats you'll struggle to find real positive from Pittonet's game.

Even if you a blind, deaf or just wilfully ignorant and didn't see the game, check out the head to head for today's game here;

https://finalsiren.com/PlayerCompare.asp?SeasonID=2020&SelectedPlayers=2915,2612,&Compare=Go

I think we can safely ignore the one stat Pittonet won, 4 to 2, and take notice of just about every other stat he lost like 18 less possessions!

Talking of Cherry picking....
Maybe look at the fact that
a) I said Pittonet lost against Ladhams today
b) This thread was started PURELY about how good his rucking is
c) Your silence on my previous post shows me you've understood your previous mistake.

Its OK LP, keep fighting the good fight. 
I don't know who you are fighting against, because that post has taken aim at something that nobody has said.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #37 –
Pittonet did ok in the ruck duals but didnt dominate like he should have, Billy Idol got him around the ground though....I'm not blaming Pittonet, we probably didnt do much work on Ladhams in the coaches box and thought our man would be supreme.
Cripps had 21 possessions and so did Ladhams.......thats just way too many for a ruckman and was only two clearances shy of what Cripps had. Thats a coaching issue and not instructing Pittonet to pay more attention to his opponent, Ladhams was often on his own battling with our mids battling for the ball, we just let another no name player sneak under the radar...

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #38 –
Quote from: Professer E on
Basically indicates that stats can be meaningless....because we all agree that in regards to influencing the result, Ladhams beat Pittonet.  It happens.

Why is it all or nothing?

If a bloke is not the fastest, is it meaningless?
If a bloke is not the tallest, is it meaningless?
If a bloke got the game winner kicked against him, was the rest of his game meaningless? Plowman
If a bloke is an elite handballer, but is a below average kick, is he meaningless? Cripps

People use to rave about Levi's marking. But he couldn't kick a goal, so he was meaningless?

Just celebrate what we have, an elite tap ruckman.
It is not a meaningless stat.
It is not the sole determing factor of who wins/loses, sure, but nobody said it was.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #39 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 on
Pittonet did ok in the ruck duals but didnt dominate like he should have, Billy Idol got him around the ground though....I'm not blaming Pittonet, we probably didnt do much work on Ladhams in the coaches box and thought our man would be supreme.
Cripps had 21 possessions and so did Ladhams.......thats just way too many for a ruckman and was only two clearances shy of what Cripps had. Thats a coaching issue and not instructing Pittonet to pay more attention to his opponent, we just let another no name player sneak under the radar...

I reckon that was possibly Ladhams first game as a #1 ruck....ever. Not sure how much homework could've been done on him.

I'd love to see a rematch though and see what we've learned.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #40 –
Hmm, in your own words.

Part A
Quote from: kruddler
CA% - Contests to Advantage % - What percentage of ruck contests that you competed in, resulted in a hitout to advantage

Part B
Quote from: kruddler
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!
 
So we take every single hit out to advantage, from everywhere and anywhere on the ground, and divide it by the number of centre bounces contested, and that's a world beating stat we have to take note of, whatever it means i suppose it favours some players.
Quote from: kruddler on
Ruck stats from todays game.
Pittonet
44 ruck contests
20 hitouts
4 hitouts to advantage
9% CA - Hitouts to advantage from ruck contest. (4/44)

Ladhams
48 ruck contests
16 hitouts
2 hitouts to advantage
4% CA - Hitouts to advantage from ruck contest (2/48)
 
Quote from: kruddler
The CA% is essentially (hitouts to advantage / number of centre bounces attended).
 
4/44 or 4/48 ? :o

In a game with only 4 Qtrs and 18 goals we had at least 48 centre bounces it seems!

There are stats, then there are stats and then there are damn lies! ;D
The Force Awakens!

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #41 –
Quote from: kruddler on
I reckon that was possibly Ladhams first game as a #1 ruck....ever. Not sure how much homework could've been done on him.

I'd love to see a rematch though and see what we've learned.

Think the commentators mentioned that Ladhams for a ruckman gets a fair amount of ball....I know you like your stats..pre this game, averages 14.6 possies a game, 3 one percenters and 3-4 clearances...that would tell me that he needs to be given a bit more respect than he was today in terms of manning him up after the bounce/ball up.
Like I said he was often battling with our mids for the ball with his opponent ruckman not in the action. 21 possies@76%DE for a no name player is going to hurt when Pitto only had three disposals.
Its just the little things like this that make the difference IMO

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #42 –
Quote from: LP on
Hmm, in your own words.

Part A
Part B
So we take every single hit out to advantage, from everywhere and anywhere on the ground, and divide it by the number of centre bounces contested, and that's a world beating stat we have to take note of, whatever it means i suppose it favours some players. 
4/44 or 4/48 ? :o

In a game with only 4 Qtrs and 18 goals we had at least 48 centre bounces it seems!

There are stats, then there are stats and then there are damn lies! ;D
The part B is a typo. That should read ruck contests as well.

It is not limited to centre square hitouts or contests.

Again , the maths hold up.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #43 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 on
Think the commentators mentioned that Ladhams for a ruckman gets a fair amount of ball....I know you like your stats..pre this game, averages 14.6 possies a game, 3 one percenters and 3-4 clearances...that would tell me that he needs to be given a bit more respect than he was today in terms of manning him up after the bounce/ball up.
Like I said he was often battling with our mids for the ball with his opponent ruckman not in the action. 21 possies@76%DE for a no name player is going to hurt when Pitto only had three disposals.
Its just the little things like this that make the difference IMO
I agree with you EB.

I'm not the coach though. ;)

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #44 –
Quote from: kruddler on
I agree with you EB.

I'm not the coach though. ;)

I think Pitto's struggling a bit. He's a strong presence at the bounce as many have mentioned. He gets to plenty of contests around the game but the ball either falls out of his hands or he doesn't crash the pack. He crashes the pack late in today's game and the ball goes out of bounds. I love his attitude and reckon he'll grow to clean up on some of his short comings.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17