Goldstein VS Bont

[Sideboob Bob]

Really? Explain how GWS were in the top 8 for average SC points scored per week last year then.

In general this is the case. To take an example already mentioned in this thread Bulldogs vs Hawthorn
Hawks total SC points was 1953 and Bulldogs was 1347. So a 606 point difference.

I do find it interesting that they finished top 8 for SC points last year though!

I also had a look at some last years stats: GWS were 1st in frees for, 8th in disposals, top 10 in tackles. They also played in a fair few closer games even those that were losses. Maybe that has something to do with it? Maybe CD loves them   ;D

[bowyanger]

Hawks belted the Dogs by 10+ goals, when that happens there is always a couple hundred difference in point allocation between the sides.

Generally CD roll it to have a very similar point pool for the game for each team

Because The Bont is in an ordinary team does not mean a thing - if he stands out amongst his team mates, he is going to score well regardless...a prime example being Ablett, Priddis & Ward recently

Yes Bont will get more attention but that doesn't mean he will stop tackling and going for the ball - he gets a lot of CP

Sure he may not go 120 ave for the year but if he is playing on the ball then he is going to be given ample opportunity to score well under the CD system.

A lot of the older blokes in the media are definitely talking him up - the fact he is playing as a ruck rover and we can select him in our forwards is a bonus

[meow meow]

Bontempelli is a player, not a team.

You shouldn't not pick him purely for the fact that Ayce is shower. More top 8 mids come from teams outside the 8 than teams that make finals. It's probably the same for defenders and forwards too. If a player plays well, they score well. The result of the match has no bearing on individual scores. I'm close to murdering the next person that says it.

[GoLions]

Bontempelli is a player, not a team.

You shouldn't not pick him purely for the fact that Ayce is shower. More top 8 mids come from teams outside the 8 than teams that make finals. It's probably the same for defenders and forwards too. If a player plays well, they score well. The result of the match has no bearing on individual scores. I'm close to murdering the next person that says it.

But he'll get scaled down when the Dogs lose. Don't you know how the scoring system works meow?

Jks

[Tylo]

Bontempelli is a player, not a team.

You shouldn't not pick him purely for the fact that Ayce is shower. More top 8 mids come from teams outside the 8 than teams that make finals. It's probably the same for defenders and forwards too. If a player plays well, they score well. The result of the match has no bearing on individual scores. I'm close to murdering the next person that says it.

I would suggest that if you looked at players individual scores over a season, in the vast majority of cases they score higher in wins than in losses. There will be exceptions but on the stats I've seen and gut feel from following scores over a number of years the trend is pretty clear and it's hard to believe it's coincidence. Please don't kill me, I have children  :P

[Big Mac]

Bontempelli is a player, not a team.

You shouldn't not pick him purely for the fact that Ayce is shower. More top 8 mids come from teams outside the 8 than teams that make finals. It's probably the same for defenders and forwards too. If a player plays well, they score well. The result of the match has no bearing on individual scores. I'm close to murdering the next person that says it.

I would suggest that if you looked at players individual scores over a season, in the vast majority of cases they score higher in wins than in losses. There will be exceptions but on the stats I've seen and gut feel from following scores over a number of years the trend is pretty clear and it's hard to believe it's coincidence. Please don't kill me, I have children  :P

They won the game because they played better. That's why they got a higher score - not because they won, but because their performance was better (which happened to result in a win).

[Sideboob Bob]

But he'll get scaled down when the Dogs lose. Don't you know how the scoring system works meow?

Jks

[hawkboy80]

the answer to the poll depends on your overall team

[Goosey]

I voted Bontempelli, but probably because I already have Goldstein.

[Tylo]

Bontempelli is a player, not a team.

You shouldn't not pick him purely for the fact that Ayce is shower. More top 8 mids come from teams outside the 8 than teams that make finals. It's probably the same for defenders and forwards too. If a player plays well, they score well. The result of the match has no bearing on individual scores. I'm close to murdering the next person that says it.

I would suggest that if you looked at players individual scores over a season, in the vast majority of cases they score higher in wins than in losses. There will be exceptions but on the stats I've seen and gut feel from following scores over a number of years the trend is pretty clear and it's hard to believe it's coincidence. Please don't kill me, I have children  :P

They won the game because they played better. That's why they got a higher score - not because they won, but because their performance was better (which happened to result in a win).

I get that. The point is when assessing a players likely output in the future, he is more chance to score better when his team is winning. If his teammates can't get their hands on the ball it makes it harder for him to get it.

[Bully]

As a reference point the best scoring 2nd year players have mainly come from teams out of the 8. Out of the list I have put together - Martin, Macrae, Wingard, Bennell, O'Meara, Wines & Fyfe, only the two Port players played in teams that made the finals. In Fyfe's second year Freo finished 11th, losing their last 7 matches. Fyfe dominated in these matches averaging well over 100. Macrae is another good example given the Dogs have been cellar dwellers for a while now. I think the point to take out of this is if the player is good enough then they will score well, irrespective of their side's ladder position.

[Swoozie]

Arguments about scoring in losing v winning sides aside, Goldstein is by far the better option.

How can you look past a guy that will average 100+ if not more and play every game?

Bont is a great talent but he'll slow down at some stage because he's young and can't carry a team for an entire year.

Goldstein has missed a grand total of 3 games in the last two years. Absolute gun. Just pick him and you'll never have to worry about R1 again for the rest of the year.

[GCSkiwi]

Arguments about scoring in losing v winning sides aside, Goldstein is by far the better option.

How can you look past a guy that will average 100+ if not more and play every game?

Bont is a great talent but he'll slow down at some stage because he's young and can't carry a team for an entire year.

Goldstein has missed a grand total of 3 games in the last two years. Absolute gun. Just pick him and you'll never have to worry about R1 again for the rest of the year.

Agree 100%. I've already got Goldy so Bont is good for me but there really isn't a question between these 2... Goldy for sure.

[Ricochet]

Arguments about scoring in losing v winning sides aside, Goldstein is by far the better option.

How can you look past a guy that will average 100+ if not more and play every game?

Bont is a great talent but he'll slow down at some stage because he's young and can't carry a team for an entire year.

Goldstein has missed a grand total of 3 games in the last two years. Absolute gun. Just pick him and you'll never have to worry about R1 again for the rest of the year.

Agree 100%. I've already got Goldy so Bont is good for me but there really isn't a question between these 2... Goldy for sure.

Agree also. I'd go Goldy over Bont. Bont has a pretty tough run coming up and should cop a hell of a lot of attention

[H1bb3i2d]

The 'winning team = more points' is the stupidest thing ever.

The players get points for playing well. The team with more player playing well ends up with more SC points. They also probably won the game with more players playing better footy. Players don't just magically get gifted points because their team won. You can play well and score well in a losing side. The losing side just lacks SC points because the team is full of less good players. That's why they lost. They didn't lose points for losing.