Official Nicho Hynes

[Sir Chadley]

Nikora and McInnes are two I can think of that had a better year than Nicho.

 

[SF]

Well at least they released the final standings (Minus Drink[more]water)
I know rnd 27 had no bearing on the result, but they should have still read out the votes on the night!

Also lucky that NQLD had a poor game (as did Drinkwater) otherwise it could have been embarrassing to see him at 56 points alongside Ponga.

Yeah they have to address that ineligible situation next year

 

[Western Sharkie]

Yeah they have to address that ineligible situation next year

I definitely get it.

The alternative thou is that they could end up giving someone who didn’t deserve points, points! Especially at the end of the season when factoring in eligibility.
And it’s hard to not give someone votes if they have had a blinder even if ineligible.

I think they need to go back to 3-2-1 each round.

Maybe a panel of 3 decide them instead of 2 given their own set of 3-2-1’s

Just an idea

 

[SF]

I definitely get it.

The alternative thou is that they could end up giving someone who didn’t deserve points, points! Especially at the end of the season when factoring in eligibility.
And it’s hard to not give someone votes if they have had a blinder even if ineligible.

I would say they can keep getting points but just don't include them in the TV Points countdown once they are ineligible.

 

[bort]

Nikora and McInnes are two I can think of that had a better year than Nicho.

Had a better year but are they our ‘best’ players? Nicho is our best and most important player.
The voting judges appear to value the
contributions of our star halfback more than they worry about being lost or having adhd or whatever because he tries to make things happen in loses probably a bit too generously.

Nikora, McInnes played more ‘consistently’ and closer to their ceiling. But Nicho is our best player.

I definitely get it.

The alternative thou is that they could end up giving someone who didn’t deserve points, points! Especially at the end of the season when factoring in eligibility.
And it’s hard to not give someone votes if they have had a blinder even if ineligible.

Agree so I think maybe the solution is -3 per week suspended, perhaps -6 per week at discretion of judiciary (not a good look to have someone who had a biting charge up the top end for example). But nobody is ever ‘ineligible’.

 

[Western Sharkie]

I would say they can keep getting points but just don't include them in the TV Points countdown once they are ineligible.

So they still get read out, but don’t accumulate on the points table?

Yep. That works for me.

But you know some jurno will still keep a tally and report that Player X scored more than the winner and missed out due to ineligibility

 

[MrDravid]

Proof the system needs an overhaul

I'm not sure it needs an overhaul, you just need to recognise it's limitations. Look at the guy who won it, he pretty much only played half a season.

It's the nature of the system that generally rewards attacking players and will always reward the star player in an average team (Ponga, Drinkwater, Nicho) over the star player in a good team where other guys will steal votes (Cleary).

Look at the top 20:
Panthers - 3 players (Cleary 48, Edwards 42, Yeo 41)
Broncos - 3 players (Haas 48, Walsh 42, Reynolds 36)
Warriors - 2 players (SJ 55, AFB 44)
Storm - 2 players (Grant 47, Munster 31)
Eels - 2 players (Gutho 38, Moses 33)
Newcastle - 1 player (Ponga 56)
Sharks - 1 player (Nicho 54)
Cowboys - 1 player (Drinkwater 50)
Manly - 1 player (DCE 50)
Roosters - 1 player (Teddy 39)
Dragons - 1 player (Hunt 37)
Titans - 1 player (Tino 36)
Souths - 1 player (Walker 35)

 

[MrDravid]

Nikora and McInnes are two I can think of that had a better year than Nicho.

Maybe, but if one of Nikora, McInnes or Nicho played no games this year, I know which one would have hurt us the most.

 

[Mr Ryan]

So to change the system so it favours players that are in stacked teams - you would need to go to a system similar to what the old Rugby League Week did. That is - everyone gets a rating out of 10.

But you’d still get the flashy players winning it, because they get noticed more than blokes working hard off the ball

 

[SF]

So to change the system so it favours players that are in stacked teams - you would need to go to a system similar to what the old Rugby League Week did. That is - everyone gets a rating out of 10.

But you’d still get the flashy players winning it, because they get noticed more than blokes working hard off the ball

Yeah that's how the ratings system originally worked on here, and it was almost impossible to give fair ratings to everyone, unless you sat down and watched a full replay and looked at all the stats. There's also the question of "do they deserve a 9/10 because they played almost to the best of their ability, or 5/10 because they are still average".

 

[bort]

So to change the system so it favours players that are in stacked teams - you would need to go to a system similar to what the old Rugby League Week did. That is - everyone gets a rating out of 10.

But you’d still get the flashy players winning it, because they get noticed more than blokes working hard off the ball

A fair question also though is who does more to win you the game
One of three to seven middles 'working hard off the ball' or your best spine player?
Your good attacking edge player who runs a great line and defends solidly on one side, or your best spine player?
Your whole team contribute to wins, your hard workers help lay the platform to let others shine, but the top spine players are on big money and on the ball as much as possible because they are how most teams win games.

Looking at the leaderboard
Ponga - spine
SJ - spine
Drinky - spine
Hynes - spine
Grant - spine
DCE - spine
AFB - forward (and first repeat of a team)
Cleary/Edwards - spine (and repeat) - Haas (forward)

Not a winger, centre or edge forward in the top 10 and plenty of players across these positions had really good seasons.
The spine players, particularly the better ones, simply impact the game far more. The two middles who made it are well beyond just 'hard working'.

To highlight the importance, if you swapped Ponga and Perham the Knights and Bulldogs probably close to swap ladder positions.
How would the ladder look if Dolphins had SJ in that form and Warriors had IKatoa competing with Volkman, TMM and Metcalf

I do agree with your first sentence, this system hurts players in stacked teams. Question I guess is do they consider it an MVP award?
Can definitely mount a fair argument Ponga was the most valuable player to his team for the season, but was he the best player? I think there is more room for conversation there.
He was very good, no doubt, was he substantially better than, for example, Reece Walsh? I think your could fairly debate that and Walsh wasn't even in the top 10 for votes. Assuming it is an MVP award the results are probably pretty accurate, punishing more stacked teams (who probably don't mind because they make the grand final instead).

Yeah that's how the ratings system originally worked on here, and it was almost impossible to give fair ratings to everyone, unless you sat down and watched a full replay and looked at all the stats. There's also the question of "do they deserve a 9/10 because they played almost to the best of their ability, or 5/10 because they are still average".

Agree with that issue, you can kind of address it by laying out the parameters to at least provide some guidance. The other issue we would have, which NRL with set voters wouldn't, is dudes getting thrown 1s or 0s for an poor to okay game with one stand out bad moment.

 

[Wiz]

Maybe, but if one of Nikora, McInnes or Nicho played no games this year, I know which one would have hurt us the most.

If one of Nikora or McInnes we’re in the halves you wouldn’t be saying that

Halves are generally the most important players of your team but that doesn’t mean Nikora or McInnes performance over the year wasn’t more consistent/better then Hynes

 

[Sparkles]

The spine players, particularly the better ones, simply impact the game far more. The two middles who made it are well beyond just 'hard working'.

If only there were some sort of Index...

 

[apezza]

So to change the system so it favours players that are in stacked teams - you would need to go to a system similar to what the old Rugby League Week did. That is - everyone gets a rating out of 10.

But you’d still get the flashy players winning it, because they get noticed more than blokes working hard off the ball

That would make it too difficult for Ruan Simms to guestimate.

 

[Deleted member 2543]

The system is biased against locks. Come on. Only one lock in the top 20. Total bullshit. Harris, Carrigan, Red Dog and Yeo were the best players on their respective teams this year, but the show ponies hog all of the points.

NRL obviously devised this system to stop the locks winning everything and demanding more money. They should form their own union, or a splinter league.

 

[Super Impose]

The system is biased against locks. Come on. Only one lock in the top 20. Total bullshit. Harris, Carrigan, Red Dog and Yeo were the best players on their respective teams this year, but the show ponies hog all of the points.

NRL obviously devised this system to stop the locks winning everything and demanding more money. They should form their own union, or a splinter league.

Most locks just pass the ball as the link man now - it doesn’t have to be that way - but it is fact ..

Cam Murray is an awesome player - even he did too much of this - partly because his half back is so very limited ..

 

[CrazyMatt]

The system is biased against locks. Come on. Only one lock in the top 20. Total bullshit. Harris, Carrigan, Red Dog and Yeo were the best players on their respective teams this year, but the show ponies hog all of the points.

NRL obviously devised this system to stop the locks winning everything and demanding more money. They should form their own union, or a splinter league.

#LockLivesMatter

 

[bort]

Most locks just pass the ball as the link man now - it doesn’t have to be that way - but it is fact ..

Cam Murray is an awesome player - even he did too much of this - partly because his half back is so very limited ..

How accurate is this?

Lock runs possessions (I'll get to this)
Here they are in order of most to least average runs per game

Carrigan 13 16
Gilbert 13 16
Hopgood 12 20 (38)
Harris 12 27 (36)
Horse 12 20 (34)
Yeo 11 36 (34)
Cotter 11 17
Elliot 11 22
King 11 14 (35)
McInnes 10 23 (35)
Finucane 10 14
Tevaga 10 12
Jurbo 10 25 (37)
Murray 9 26 (37)
De Belin 9 22 (38)
Pole 9 11
Radley 8 30 (36)

Bolded are the ones who run the ball less than half as much as they have possessions.

Too time consuming to do more accurately and be more concrete about stats only playing lock but I think most of these guys would be considered locks primarily last season. About half pass more than they run.

Other than Yeo and Radley, Murray was one of the most prolific passers from lock. Quite a few locks run plenty still though.

The bracketed number beside 10 of them is the top 10 per game number of tackles for this group - decent correlation that the guys who make more tackles are more likely to pass than run at a higher rate. Perhaps some consideration that locks who tackle more are less likely to take hitups, or locks who play more as a link man have more energy to take a greater defensive workload?

 

[Deleted member 2543]

How accurate is this?

Lock runs possessions (I'll get to this)
Here they are in order of most to least average runs per game

Carrigan 13 16
Gilbert 13 16
Hopgood 12 20 (38)
Harris 12 27 (36)
Horse 12 20 (34)
Yeo 11 36 (34)
Cotter 11 17
Elliot 11 22
King 11 14 (35)
McInnes 10 23 (35)
Finucane 10 14
Tevaga 10 12
Jurbo 10 25 (37)
Murray 9 26 (37)
De Belin 9 22 (38)
Pole 9 11
Radley 8 30 (36)

Bolded are the ones who run the ball less than half as much as they have possessions.

Too time consuming to do more accurately and be more concrete about stats only playing lock but I think most of these guys would be considered locks primarily last season. About half pass more than they run.

Other than Yeo and Radley, Murray was one of the most prolific passers from lock. Quite a few locks run plenty still though.

The bracketed number beside 10 of them is the top 10 per game number of tackles for this group - decent correlation that the guys who make more tackles are more likely to pass than run at a higher rate. Perhaps some consideration that locks who tackle more are less likely to take hitups, or locks who play more as a link man have more energy to take a greater defensive workload?

Cheers for that.

Another interesting thing would be to see this beside the fullbacks they played with. E.g. I’d expect the Cowboys middles to pass less because their fullback plus like a half, but I’d expect anyone playing with Tracey or Brimson to pass a lot more.

I do think @Super Impose is downplaying the role of the locks here though. Some of these guys are playing like “halfback of the forwards” rather than just shovelling it to their half. They are just as likely to put a forward through a hole as they are to send it out the back.

 

[Super Impose]

Cheers for that.

Another interesting thing would be to see this beside the fullbacks they played with. E.g. I’d expect the Cowboys middles to pass less because their fullback plus like a half, but I’d expect anyone playing with Tracey or Brimson to pass a lot more.

I be think @Super Impose is downplaying the role of the locks here though. Some of these guys are playing like “halfback of the forwards” rather than just shovelling it to their half. They are likely to put a forward through a hole as they are to send it out the back.

Fair enough - I think some of my frustration is super coach related but as mentioned - I admire Cameron Murray as the best #13 in the game - but think he over does it at times .

Your point about fullbacks is a good one - and linked to my comment about Cam’s half back - who to be as kind as possible - is extremely limited …