Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The rise.... and RISE of Marc Pittonet (Read 381109 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #585 –
Phillips isn't the same skinny guy who played for us and is in my opinion only just becoming worthy of drafting/trading in.
Let’s go BIG !

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #586 –
Quote from: northernblue – on
Phillips isn't the same skinny guy who played for us and is in my opinion only just becoming worthy of drafting/trading in.
Despite our loss to CheatsFC, it wasn't due to TDK not covering Phillips and Draper, and they also had Wright.

CheatsFC tried to leverage TDK as our only ruck, but apparently that is not something worth crediting him with! :o

"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #587 –
Quote from: LP – on
Nthmond and Nankervis is not a valid comparison, it that happened under very different game day rules, implementations and circumstances.

Actually, CheatsFC is quite a good example of where we should be heading, given they tend to ruck Phillips or another (Their version of Pitto) with Draper as the relief ruck. That's the CheatsFC version of Gawn / Jackson, not that Phillips is in the Gawn league, but Phillips is not far off being a Pitto.

Nankervis was a backup ruck who played mainly twos footy just like Pittonet.
He was surplus and took his opportunity just like Pittonet has, nothing fancy about either and both are there to compete and put their big frames in the contest and create space for their midfields. Game has not  changed that much to understand what they do fundamentally well is what is required now...Rhys Stanley another journeyman competitor premiership ruckman but I'm not paying him 800k a year...
Cameron  is another Swans discard doing the job on the cheap at Collingwood, nothing flash but just competes and knows his role.
Those mature been around the game for a  while types are exactly what wins premierships, you look at the old  Hawthorn with Ceglar and Hale...journeyman types who competed and did a role. Ruckman are not where you spend big dollars or waste early picks.
You let someone else develop them and then you steal them from teams who have a surplus....

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #588 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
Nankervis was a backup ruck who played mainly twos footy just like Pittonet.
He was surplus and took his opportunity just like Pittonet has, nothing fancy about either and both are there to compete and put their big frames in the contest and create space for their midfields. Game has not  changed that much to understand what they do fundamentally well is what is required now...Rhys Stanley another journeyman competitor premiership ruckman but I'm not paying him 800k a year...
Cameron at Collingwood is another Swans discard doing the job on the cheap at Collingwood, nothing flash but just competes and knows his role.
Those mature been around the game for a  while types are exactly what wins premierships, you look at the old  Hawthorn with Ceglar and Hale...journeyman types who competed and did a role. Ruckman are not where you spend big dollars or waste early picks.
You let someone else develop them and then you steal them from teams who have a surplus....


Premiership teams are made up of a handful of superstars/champions and lots of workers/role players. Coll or PA will win the flag for that very reason.
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time
2025-Carlton can win the 2025 AFL Premiership
 

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #589 –
Nankervis is a much better footballer than Pittonet.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #590 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
Nankervis is a much better footballer than Pittonet.
Agreed, but of course if we are wrong concluding that, I suppose Pitto is our next Captain given Nankervis (the spud VFL backup) now captains a Premiership loaded list!

Personally, I see it as just silly anti-TDK rhetoric that is being circulated because some flog spread rumour about TDK being offered millions. There is all sorts of rubbish being spun to justify various decisions, but none of the spin addresses the Silvagni Elephant in the room, "Don't mention the war!"

If and when TDK departs the same crap attitude from his critics will claim they were right and declare him the overpriced spud we did not want, before a few years later they are bitching yet again because he's turned into another Sam Jacobs and we watch him and his brother hoist the Cup high!

It's writ large in our club's history, "This is the Way!"
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #591 –
Quote from: LP – on
You keep making he same mistake, it's your narrow definition of performing in the ruck that is your folly, when you make those mistakes it exposes your perceptions which appear to contradict what you write. In philosophy they would assert you lack referentially integrity.

As for TDK's best games, they already match SoJ, but TDK is not yet consistent, given a similar number of games TDK is already on a trajectory that puts him way beyond the capabilities of SoJ, there is no comparison long term.
Performing in the ruck.....performing around the ground.
I have covered both several times.
You fail to acknowledge this once.
Now either you are skimming....which would explain why i have to continual repeat myself.
Or you are thick....which wouldn't be my first thought
Or you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Now i don't know which one it is, but your comments point to at least one of the above.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #592 –
Quote from: Lods – on
Not incorrectly, but I imagine the 'focus' of the mid-fielders would be different if Pittonet was rucking as opposed to Jack.
With Pittonet there would be the expectation of a win or break even on the actual tap.
With Jack the expectation would be of a loss or break even on the tap,  but more likely a loss.

So if Pittonet is rucking they would be looking to where the tap would be directed.
The eyes of the midfield would be on Pittonet.

With Jack rucking it would be to where the oppostition ruckman would direct it,
where the opposition mid-fielders were, and how to combat that first possession.

That's probably one area where rucking Jack is actually a plus because he can quickly transition into an extra-midfielder in a defensive or attacking role.

For Jack perhaps.
For TDK though?

Even looking at the stats LP posted re Bombers game.
Jack was more likely to get a hitout than TDK.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #593 –
Despite having Super SoJ against the Dawks, in the absence of Pitto and TDK, we rucked Young with SoJ giving a chopout.

Obviously the MC like myself are blind to the Super SoJ reality, or they must be getting even with SOS!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #594 –
There are a few threads with discussions about hitouts to advantage but I think this is where it started.

Lods has suggested that hitouts to advantage occur so rarely as to be largely inconsequential.  Two research projects, one from Swinburne and one from Victoria University, have shown that Lods is correct.  But, first of all, what exactly is a hitout to advantage?

Champion Data’s current official AFL glossary states:

Hitout-To-Advantage: A hitout that reaches an intended teammate.

However ...

Quote from: kruddler – on
I contacted Champion Data directly and got their definition which have posted previously.
Its only a hitout to advantage if a player has enough time to dispose of the ball correctly.
If he gets tackled immediately, he does not have prior opportunity, no free kick tackle for a tackle is given because there was no advantage in getting him the ball as he didn't have an opportunity to do so.

It seemed remarkable that Champion Data provides one definition of hitout to advantage but apparently uses another.  But, no, I managed to find an article in the Herald Sun of 16 Jun 2017 in which Champion Data provided another definition; “A hitout-to-advantage is a hitout that leads to a teammate gaining direct possession of the ball with the opportunity to dispose of it.”  This tallies with the clarification Champion Data gave Kruddler.
 
The article is behind the paywall so perhaps someone with a subscription may like to see what other revelations it contains.

The second definition is markedly different to the first one.  The player who gathers the ball no longer has to be the intended target and he/she has to have the opportunity to dispose of the ball.  In fact, if a ruckman tapped the ball into space and it was gathered by a teammate who tried a don’t argue before being free kicked for holding the ball, it would count as a hitout to advantage.   

According to a Champion Data spokesperson in the Roar of 08 Jul 2014, a “gather from hitout to advantage” is a contested possession. That’s a bit like classing a handball receive as a contested possession and suggests that there’s not a lot of advantage to a hitout.  Either way, it’s hard to reconcile the hitouts to advantages statistics with what’s apparent from watching replays and it seems to me that it’s a very subjective and fluid statistic.  That led me to explore the validity of Champion Data’s statistics.

First of all, their data collection is first rate and cannot be faulted. Their statistical categories, definitions, weightings and analyses are a different matter.

Victoria University’s Sam McIntosh, Stephanie Kovalchik and Samuel Robertson undertook a study to validate Champion Data’s AFL player ratings in 2018.  Their results generally validate the player ratings and found that there is a correlation between player ratings and match outcomes.  However, kick-ins, 50m penalties and hitouts have the least bearing on match outcomes.  In its player ratings process, Champion Data awards five points for a hitout to advantage, no points for a neutral hitout and minus one for a sharked hitout.  That compares to four points for effective long and short kicks.  Given that hitouts to advantage don’t always result in the ruckman’s team gaining an advantage, possession, the clearance or metres, it would seem that five points for a hitout to advantage is generous.

In 2016, Karl Jackson completed a PhD at Swinburne University in which he used spatial data to assess AFL player performance.  Jackson provides a detailed account of the processes and roles of Champion Data’s data “capture team”.  The capture team comprises the Main Caller, At-Ground Support, Back Caller, Keyboarder, Spotter, Interchange Capture, Match-up Operator, Graphical Capture, Pressure Caller and Pressure Capture and, in the 2015 season, more than 3000 events were logged for each game. Ruck contests made up 3% of those events and hitouts were 2.6%. It should be noted that the third man up was still permitted when Jackson completed his study [and most third man up hitouts went to the opposition!].

Interestingly, Jackson introduces another definition of hitout to advantage, presumably provided by Champion Data; “which occurs when the ruckman knocks the ball from the stoppage to an unopposed teammate”.

Jackson proposes an equity system to provide more accurate and relevant player ratings than those produced by Champion Data.  I’ll reproduce Jackson’s hitout equity proposal in full here as I think it’s an improvement over the current system:

“When players are awarded with a hitout at a stoppage it can fall in one of three categories – to advantage, sharked, or neutral. Hitouts to advantage direct the ball straight to a teammate, hitouts sharked direct the ball to an opposition player and neutral hitouts result in a ball that is still in dispute.

At each stoppage it is assumed that both teams have an equal chance of winning possession. For this reason, the ground-level contest phase is used to grade the equity for each team at the stoppage. Neutral hitouts are given no value since the possession phase has not changed.

In the case of other hitouts, the change in equity is shared between the ruckman and the midfield.

• For hitouts to advantage, two-thirds of the change inequity is given to the ruckman and one-third to the midfielder. See Equations [omitted]

• For hitouts sharked, this is reversed, with two-thirds of the change given to the midfielder (positive value) and one-third to the ruckman (negative value). See Equation [omitted]

This two-thirds allocation is arbitrary, but it was felt that the ruckman deserves more credit than the midfielder for hitouts to advantage. Likewise, the midfielder sharking a ruckman’s hitout is given more credit than the sharked ruckman receives as a penalty.”

This is a crucial factor, hitouts to advantage rely on both the ruckman and the midfielder, not just the ruckman.  On the other hand, a sharked hitout may well be affected by the opposing ruckman, but Jackson gives no credit for that.

On 18 June 2018, HPN reviewed an ABC piece “Gawn or Grundy” (topical given Grundy’s recent poor form).  At the time of the article, and based on HPN’s own player rating Player Approximate Value (PAV) and the official AFL Player Ratings, Gawn and Grundy were recognised as the two stand out rucks in the game.

The HPN review has this to say about hitouts to advantage:

“The [ABC] piece relied on hitouts to advantage, and described the difficulty in sending the ball to a teammate directly. After crunching hours of video over the last week, HPN is of the opinion that the measure is good, definitely better than just counting hitouts, but still not infallible.

For those interested, the official definition of “hitout to advantage” is “a hit-out that reaches an intended teammate.” [there it is again]

Like all judgement based statistics, a call has to be made on what “reaches” means, and whether the player needs to gather the ball or merely have some opportunity to grab it. In short, it’s a gut call, and while it seems right more often than not, there’s fuzziness at the margins and it doesn’t tell the full picture.

Some hitouts to advantage are logged as such despite bouncing several times in unpredictable ways beforehand, others go the other way.

Gawn had several HTAs that followed this course, but bounced the right way then the wrong way.

It’s not perfect, but it’s better than nothing. It could possibly be improved or added to by a more precise measure distinguishing a controlled tap from one that ends up being to advantage because of chaotic bounces.

With the movement of modern midfielders at stoppages, not to mention the crowding, it’s very hard to direct the ball to the incredibly small window of a teammate’s hands. It’s probably more important for a ruck to control the ball to a non-damaging situation than get a fluky win with a risky hit. At the very least, these are evidence of two different strategies.”

Another issue that struck me while I was looking into hitouts to advantage is that ruckmen don’t get credited with a hitout when they take clean possession during a ruck contest.  A clean possession from the ruck is, presumably, a contested possession and, if the ruckman disposes of the ball, a disposal and, potentially, a clearance.  Taking clean possession and getting a disposal, regardless of whether it’s an effective disposal, is generally more advantageous than a hitout to advantage.

So, if hitouts to advantage, whatever the definition, are hard to quantify, happen very rarely in relation to the other facets of the game, may or may not have much bearing on who wins the clearance, and contribute little to final result, what’s the point of ruckmen?

It is largely to work with the midfielders to get clearances and stop the opposition getting clearances.  That's done by neutralising the opposition ruck, attempting defensive or attacking hitouts, taking possession at stoppages wherever possible, setting blocks for teammates, and tackling opposition players.  Then there's advancing the ball so that the next stoppage is easier to defend and harder for the opposition to gain an advantage or defend.

When not contesting hitouts, ruckmen should fill holes in defence, drift forward to provide another forward option or temporarily play as a key forward, present as a marking target for long exit kicks, take marks around the ground, spoil opposition marking attempts and get involved in chains of possessions.

Pitto is very competitive at ruck contests but not so useful in the other aspects of a ruckman's role.


"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #595 –
1. The article you found, is something i posted previously. I literally signed up for a HS subscription to find it.
Despite not being content with this information, i contacted champion data, as mentioned, and they backup up this claim and provided a spreadsheet of YTD ruck contests including the never before seen hitouts sharked information which i posted a summary of.

Its a bit difficult to read through your post and work out what is you, and what is the studies you have listed.

One point i'd like to highlight though is that this study agrees that hitouts to advantage are what counts from a ruck contest and a mere hitout carries no weight whatsoever. This is what started the debate way back when. That is "Hitouts are useless", "Hitouts to advantage are what you need to look at" ......which led to the revelation of how good Pittonet is in that area.

My fascination with this stat is simple.
It is a pure stat that you can use to compare like for like with other ruckmen. Despite Pinot not grasping te concept of %'s, its relatively simple to see the likelyhood of your ruck attending a ruck contest and getting it to a teammate. Each and every contest starts from a 50-50 ball and the result of it is directly related to the ruck. Yes, people can argue the bounce of the ball and the midfielders ability to influence that result. However, in response to that, all i do is compare apples with apples again. Pittonet vs TDK. Same midfields. (despite LP suggesting otherwise, and being disproven with 1 ruck vs 2 ruck stats being consistent)

So, that is the ruck stat summary.
People have taken that and ran with it.....in all different directions and infered i've meant this, or that, or whatever. My message has been clear throughout, even if peoples interpretations of it have not.

Going back to a couple posts in the first page or 2 of this thread i found the first reference to non-hitout related ruckwork.
Quote
...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. ;)

This was just started to congratulate Pittonet on his ruck craft, which was picked up on after 12 games into his career (7 of them before he even joined us).
Since then, people have accused me of flat out lying, manipulating stats, and every other dirty underhanded trick that could be mentioned. How about we just celebrate a player being elite in his craft?


Since then the debate has gone on to all other areas of a rucks influence around the ground. This i have NEVER suggested Pittonet is elite at and always maintained its an area he needs to improve on.
However, in line with this, i have maintained that the need for 2 ruckmen in the same team is surplus and cited plenty of reasoned logic as to why. This has included numerous comparisons about output of 2nd rucks/backups rucks. Looking through all the data, it reinforces what i was stating all along....

That a backup ruck provides more benefit to the team than having 2 dedicated rucks.

Now that comment continues back to some of what Lods has said and what is written above. There are only so many chances for a ruckman to influence the game in a ruck contest.....why would you need 2 of them? You will have more influence on the game by what a ruck/backup ruck does around the ground.

So with that in mind, we move the debate back to who should be our #1 ruck.

Initially, the data suggests that pittonets dominance in the ruck contest has him as a clear advantage over TDK. TDK's influence around the ground has been much hyped. I've done plenty of analysis on it throughout the journey, but as late as about Round 13 or so this year, TDK offered 1 disposal more on average, with 8-12% (i forget which exactly) more game time on average (Pittonet got injured in Q1 of a game which skews numbers, so TOG needs to be included for accurate data). But TDK offered more marking power.....which worked out (at the time) to a mere 1 extra contested mark every 10 weeks.

Whatever 'reason' people had to try and bring down Pittonet and pump up TDK was largely subjective and not borne out by the stats. People accuse me of being biased to Pitto and against TDK because it doesn't fit their own ideas and opinions.

I'm just showing what the stats say, which is largely opposite to what others have said.

Its funny, when LP first heard the stats or Pittonets ruck work, of course he took a leaf out of Trumps book and basically spouted fake news. Then went on to suggest that.....and i quote....
Quote from: LP – on
Pittonet by your own stats only wins 35% of hitouts, 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.

Pity LP had to spoil it by again calling the stats made up.
I happened to explain, painstakingly how they are calculated, and rather than admit he was wrong, apologise, or change his opinion on the matter.....he goes off on a complete other tangent and starts making up other lies after lies to try and disprove it.

So yes, 3 years on we are still having this debate.
....and 3 years on people are still missing the point.

How about we just celebrate Pittonets efforts in the ruck contest and leave it at that. Thats why i started this thread after his 5th ever game in Navy blue, back in July 2020.



Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #596 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
1. The article you found, is something i posted previously. I literally signed up for a HS subscription to find it.
Despite not being content with this information, i contacted champion data, as mentioned, and they backup up this claim and provided a spreadsheet of YTD ruck contests including the never before seen hitouts sharked information which i posted a summary of.

Its a bit difficult to read through your post and work out what is you, and what is the studies you have listed.

One point i'd like to highlight though is that this study agrees that hitouts to advantage are what counts from a ruck contest and a mere hitout carries no weight whatsoever. This is what started the debate way back when. That is "Hitouts are useless", "Hitouts to advantage are what you need to look at" ......which led to the revelation of how good Pittonet is in that area.

My fascination with this stat is simple.
It is a pure stat that you can use to compare like for like with other ruckmen. Despite Pinot not grasping te concept of %'s, its relatively simple to see the likelyhood of your ruck attending a ruck contest and getting it to a teammate. Each and every contest starts from a 50-50 ball and the result of it is directly related to the ruck. Yes, people can argue the bounce of the ball and the midfielders ability to influence that result. However, in response to that, all i do is compare apples with apples again. Pittonet vs TDK. Same midfields. (despite LP suggesting otherwise, and being disproven with 1 ruck vs 2 ruck stats being consistent)

So, that is the ruck stat summary.
People have taken that and ran with it.....in all different directions and infered i've meant this, or that, or whatever. My message has been clear throughout, even if peoples interpretations of it have not.

Going back to a couple posts in the first page or 2 of this thread i found the first reference to non-hitout related ruckwork.
This was just started to congratulate Pittonet on his ruck craft, which was picked up on after 12 games into his career (7 of them before he even joined us).
Since then, people have accused me of flat out lying, manipulating stats, and every other dirty underhanded trick that could be mentioned. How about we just celebrate a player being elite in his craft?


Since then the debate has gone on to all other areas of a rucks influence around the ground. This i have NEVER suggested Pittonet is elite at and always maintained its an area he needs to improve on.
However, in line with this, i have maintained that the need for 2 ruckmen in the same team is surplus and cited plenty of reasoned logic as to why. This has included numerous comparisons about output of 2nd rucks/backups rucks. Looking through all the data, it reinforces what i was stating all along....

That a backup ruck provides more benefit to the team than having 2 dedicated rucks.

Now that comment continues back to some of what Lods has said and what is written above. There are only so many chances for a ruckman to influence the game in a ruck contest.....why would you need 2 of them? You will have more influence on the game by what a ruck/backup ruck does around the ground.

So with that in mind, we move the debate back to who should be our #1 ruck.

Initially, the data suggests that pittonets dominance in the ruck contest has him as a clear advantage over TDK. TDK's influence around the ground has been much hyped. I've done plenty of analysis on it throughout the journey, but as late as about Round 13 or so this year, TDK offered 1 disposal more on average, with 8-12% (i forget which exactly) more game time on average (Pittonet got injured in Q1 of a game which skews numbers, so TOG needs to be included for accurate data). But TDK offered more marking power.....which worked out (at the time) to a mere 1 extra contested mark every 10 weeks.

Whatever 'reason' people had to try and bring down Pittonet and pump up TDK was largely subjective and not borne out by the stats. People accuse me of being biased to Pitto and against TDK because it doesn't fit their own ideas and opinions.

I'm just showing what the stats say, which is largely opposite to what others have said.

Its funny, when LP first heard the stats or Pittonets ruck work, of course he took a leaf out of Trumps book and basically spouted fake news. Then went on to suggest that.....and i quote....
Well there you have it.

Pity LP had to spoil it by again calling the stats made up.
I happened to explain, painstakingly how they are calculated, and rather than admit he was wrong, apologise, or change his opinion on the matter.....he goes off on a complete other tangent and starts making up other lies after lies to try and disprove it.

So yes, 3 years on we are still having this debate.
....and 3 years on people are still missing the point.

How about we just celebrate Pittonets efforts in the ruck contest and leave it at that. Thats why i started this thread after his 5th ever game in Navy blue, back in July 2020.





The studies I quoted show that hitouts, let alone hitouts to advantage, are an incredibly small part of all of the actions that make up a game of footy.  They have next to no relationship to the outcome of games and are, effectively, a useless statistic as Lods has been saying.

The PhD study recognises that hitouts to advantage are a shared statistic and proposes that rating points go to the midfielder who gathers a hitout and negative points for a ruckman whose hitout is sharked.  While that would reflect the contribution the ruckman and midfielder make, it's still a largely inconsequential rating factor in terms of the results of the game.

A ruckman who dominates the hitouts, be they to advantage or to the opposition, and does nothing else, is a passenger.  I'm not saying that Pitto is a passenger, far from it, but it would be nice if he could provide a genuine marking target for our exit kicks and drift forward every now and again to clunk a mark inside 50.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #597 –
Quote from: DJC – on
The studies I quoted show that hitouts, let alone hitouts to advantage, are an incredibly small part of all of the actions that make up a game of footy.  They have next to no relationship to the outcome of games and are, effectively, a useless statistic as Lods has been saying.

The PhD study recognises that hitouts to advantage are a shared statistic and proposes that rating points go to the midfielder who gathers a hitout and negative points for a ruckman whose hitout is sharked.  While that would reflect the contribution the ruckman and midfielder make, it's still a largely inconsequential rating factor in terms of the results of the game.

A ruckman who dominates the hitouts, be they to advantage or to the opposition, and does nothing else, is a passenger.  I'm not saying that Pitto is a passenger, far from it, but it would be nice if he could provide a genuine marking target for our exit kicks and drift forward every now and again to clunk a mark inside 50.

Again, all of this backs up the '1 ruckman is all that is required' barrow i've been pushing for just as long as the Pitto stats.

I've never suggested that its winning you games.
I've never suggested that its an uber important stat.
I have suggested that when compared to every other ruckmen, especially our own, Pittonets ability in that area is elite.
The debate about it being a 'shared stat' is something i've talked about numerous times. The relative HTA stats of Pittonet vs TDK when rucking to the same midfield show that Pittonet is 1.5-2 times more effective on average with his ruck work. The difference between elite and average/below average which is where TDK is.

How much influence that has on the game, can be debated....but honestly, not a rabbit hole i want to go down because i've seen how difficult it is to get basic stats across, no chance i'm going to debate the more complex overall influence on the overall game.

As i've stated, Pittonet needs to improve his work around the ground. Said that from day 1 and have not waivered from that.
TDK also needs to improve in that area, but is ahead in that area. Again, never suggested otherwise.

Again, this is designed to give Pittonet some credit for what he has been quietly achieving. Its turned in to an extensive 3 year debate in which people have largely missed the point.

Pitto is maximising his ability IMO
TDK is going at about half rat power based on his potential and is about on a par in terms of overall influence on a game (less ruck, more around the ground) and that is why its a frustrating debate. TDK should be able to make the #1 ruck role his own if he was able to unlock some of this potential he has....but he is taking baby steps.
For the record, Pitto was the age TDK is now when this debate started.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #598 –
It all confirms my assertion that as it is applied and interpreted the HtA is unequivocally the most bogus stat in football, bordering on useless.

Perhaps it has some utility to measure the midfield as a group, but outside of that it's largely pointless as a measure of rucks.

The HtA stat itself is fine, how it is collected is fine, how it gets interpreted and the meaning applied to it is another matter altogether and that is where the fantasy lies.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #599 –
So i posed this question to LP...
Quote
Mate, its not a difficult concept.
Go look at afl tables. Pick any game with 2 rucks. See how much TOG they have.
Now go look at another game with 1 ruck, see how much TOG they have....and their backup has.
The difference between the 2 is the extra bench time given to another player/midfielder........as well as another actual midfielder playing.
In response he completely misunderstands (deliberately?) the question and responds with TOG and does nothing but comment on Jack Silvagnis TOG.

Let me spell it out for him - 2 rucks...
R2 Cats - Pitto + TDK - 53% and 72% - AVG 62.5%
R3 Giants - Pitto + TDK TOG - 54% and 64% - AVG 59%
R4 Kangas -Pitto + TDK TOG - 69% and 67% - AVG 68%
Overall 2 ruck average = 63.1% TOG
Time a ruck is on the bench - 36.9%

The game that Jack has played (forward only) in which we have had 2 rucks, and none of the 3 have been subbed out is.....R3+4 - 91 and 76 - Jack forward AVG 83.5%

These are some base line figures of when we have 2 rucks + Jack and how much of the game they play, and obviously, how much they don't and spend on the bench.

Now lets look at a games where its 1 ruck and Jack
R1 - Tigers - TDK+Jack - 79%+85% - Avg 82%
R6 - Saints - Pitto+Jack - 84+86 - Avg 85%
R7 - Eagles - Pitto+Jack - 85+77 - Avg 81%
R8 - Lions - Pitto+Jack - 87+78 - Avg 82.5%
R9 - Dogs - Pitto+Jack - 78+87 - Avg 82.5
R10 - Pies - Pitto+Jack - 81+76 - Avg 78.5%
R13 - Bombers - TDK+Jack - 83+68 - Avg 75.5%
R18 - Power - TDK+Jack - 78+82 - Avg 80%

Overall, thats a pretty consistent....
1 ruck + Jack TOG of 80.9% TOG.
Jack as ruck/forward average = 79.9%
Time a ruck is on the bench - 18.1%


So changes from 2 rucks + Jack, to 1 ruck + Jack
Time a spot is used up on bench by a ruckman is REDUCED by 18.5% Over a standard game of 120 minutes, that is 22.2 Minutes of bench time others can get.
Extra time Jack plays 3.6% 4 minutes less TOG when playing as a part time ruck compared to dedicated forward
The point that gets missed in all of this is this.
2 rucks + Jack = 3, which leaves 21 other players + sub.
1 ruck + Jack = 2, which leaves 22 other players + sub.

So not only are we getting an extra 22 minutes of bench time available to non-rucks, we are getting a whole other player available for rotations as well. All while 'overloading' Jack with an extra 4 minutes of bench time switching between roles.

Which backs up what i've said all along.

Those are from the numbers you posted, when you take out games that players were subbed out and games that didn't include all 3, or 1 and Jack.