Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Recent Posts
1
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by Lods -
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: LP – on
The importance of "the average age" is vastly over-stated.

You could average 25, then retire a broken 30 for a prime 26, replace a dud 20 with a 75 game 24 and the average would still be 25. None of which considers quality at all.

Yep....and you could retire and trade a-grade talent, get in some 2nd rate c-grader and b-graders and call it upgrading your list under the guise of getting younger.

That's changing the focus again....you've moved away from the age debate to the talent debate

Average age is pretty meaningless when you're talking in averages only a year or two different.
2
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by Thryleon -
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Yep.  We have maintained our average age in a year which means we got younger.  Collingwood got younger too.  They've drafted in young players and let go of old players.  They're still at the pointy end and the spread between 6th and 10th is .6 years. 


Now consider something what point are you trying to achieve?

Forgive me for not being happy with 'not' getting younger but getting rid of a-grade talent, wrecking a prelim side in the process.

What would i want to achieve? Anything but that.
I've made it quite clear what i would do.

What i' trying to work out, is why the above strategy is fooling every man and his dog and we're giving kudos for it in the process.
This little black duck ain't falling for it.
but we did get younger.  Had to have else our average age should or would have lifted.

Assuming this is how its calculated.  You take the total of age of all players and divide it by the number of players on the list.  So using your numbers we have had 10 to 12 leave.  Out of 46 that means the other 34 to 36 players added a year.  Then we added back the number of players we delisted and ended up at an identical average.  So the net result is despite the majority aging, we as a list have had to have gotten younger to tread water here. 

Thing is WHEN you do this is important too, because not all of our players have had their birthday post October 31st yet so maybe we are older and the birthdays havent happened yet.

For the record by the way if you take our average of 24.9, then multiply this by 46 (number of listed players) you end up with a total of about 1145.  If you add 35 years to this total, and then repeat the division across 46, your total age ends up 25.66. 

Thing is we have a vacancy currently to end up with 24.9.  Ultimately, will white or hollands will add 21 or 23 years to the total and give you a lower average.  So we will be younger even if we add hollands back.
3
Ladies Lounge / Re: AFLW List Management 2026
Last post by kruddler -
Quote
This deal will see Claudia Whitford and Lauren Bella land at Carlton for Pick 19 and the F2 that's tied to North Melbourne. All agreed and lodged.

26yo Midfielder and 25yo ruck. Should both be in our best 21.

Will be interesting to see what we do with Good and Harrington here.
I know there has been some interest around Good who just lost her best mate Kez. Good is also 31, so could be beneficial to cash in now. Bree is still only 28 with a bit of footy ahead of her, could also be moved forward after Bohanna retires who is 30.
4
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by kruddler -
Quote from: LP – on
The importance of "the average age" is vastly over-stated.

You could average 25, then retire a broken 30 for a prime 26, replace a dud 20 with a 75 game 24 and the average would still be 25. None of which considers quality at all.

Yep....and you could retire and trade a-grade talent, get in some 2nd rate c-grader and b-graders and call it upgrading your list under the guise of getting younger.
6
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by kruddler -
For the record, every team got younger this off-season.
Only the following teams got 'less younger' than us in this off-season.
Melbourne, Fremantle and Kangaroos.
All 3 got 0.6-0.7 years younger.

Every other team got 'more younger' than us (or the same) (1.1 year up to 3.1 years like Collingwood).


7
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by kruddler -
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Yep.  We have maintained our average age in a year which means we got younger.  Collingwood got younger too.  They've drafted in young players and let go of old players.  They're still at the pointy end and the spread between 6th and 10th is .6 years. 


Now consider something what point are you trying to achieve?

Forgive me for not being happy with 'not' getting younger but getting rid of a-grade talent, wrecking a prelim side in the process.

What would i want to achieve? Anything but that.
I've made it quite clear what i would do.

What i' trying to work out, is why the above strategy is fooling every man and his dog and we're giving kudos for it in the process.
This little black duck ain't falling for it.
8
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by Thryleon -
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Thryleon – on


Nope didnt miss it, but that term "relative" is a bit of a misnomer when you dont account for the spread.

Theres lies, damn lies, then statistics without context.

So if our average didnt change after a year, what does that mean?

Also if we are older relative to the rest of the comp, what does that mean?

Finally, when we add our next player (via train on or other) if its elijah hollands, who WAS included last year, we will get younger again no?

Additionally, given we have concentrated on fleshing out the list with younger rather than mature ages, instead of topping up a prelim side, what does this argument do to yours?

You realise i didn't write the article right?

You were the one who said we were doing what we were doing to make the list younger. Do you still stand by that?
Have we actually achieved that in any meaningful way? Or are you going to be pedantic in the way that everyone gets younger year on year??
Like adding Elijah Hollands back will change our average list age from 24.9years of age to 24.87 years of age. Remarkable. Give the list management team a raise!!

For the record, incoming players....
4 players were younger than 24.9.
4 players were older than 24.9.

Lucky we are fleshing out our list with younger talent.....right?


Yep.  We have maintained our average age in a year which means we got younger.  Collingwood got younger too.  They've drafted in young players and let go of old players.  They're still at the pointy end and the spread between 6th and 10th is .6 years. 


Now consider something what point are you trying to achieve? 
9
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by DJC -
It's largely irrelevant whether a team's list is a month or two older or younger.  However, statistics and common sense tell us that teams with mature, experienced players are more likely to be premiership contenders, particularly if they have a dash of youthful brilliance to add to the mix.

For the record, incoming players from this year's trade/free agency/draft period;
3 players are younger than 20
1 player is younger than 24 but over 20.
4 players are older than 24.

If you include our SSP and MSD additions:
3 players are younger than 20.
4 players are younger than 24 but over 20.
5 players are older than 24.

That seems to be a good blend of youth and experience to me.