Rugby Pass stats nerd stuff
-
@antipodean said in Rugby Pass stats nerd stuff:
Influence
The 'Influence' score is a way RPI measures the effect a number 8 has on their team's likelihood of winning. If they are involved in a play 2 minutes prior to a winning moment, their player ranking climbs. Conversely, if it's a losing moment, RPI will punish them for it. This means that the special features of a player's game is not lost.What on earth is a winning/losing moment? Does this mean they'd get punished for being busy on defence before the opposition score?
If a forward pack turns the ball over from a scrum, the number 8's player rankings grow. Conversely, if a forward pack loses possession from a scrum, the hooker's player rankings suffers.
What?
-
@antipodean What on earth do they mean by a "winning" or "losing" moment? This looks like a concept they have exported from another sport.
Every single second in a Rugby match matters.
-
From the website:
How the RPI scoring works
We have built a revolutionary rugby rating system based upon individual skill executed in real time in partnership with leading academics and sports professionals from around the world. Our approach is all about winning, and the contribution to winning. We’re dealing with professional sports people – it’s not about participation and making up the numbers. Our research shows that a decent team rating system beats popular opinion. More importantly, a team rating combining individuals beats the best team rating systems. Winning a game is about winning moments – quantifying this impact provides an even richer perspective of behaviour. This approach points us in a unique position as we can say that V is the most valuable player now, with an individual rating of W, because they rate high on X and Y which improves their team’s chances of winning by Z%. We now know that to win games in an elite rugby environment, key moments in a game need to be won. Using a combination of demand forecasting, survival analysis and concepts from statistical process control, we have been able to quantify the impact of moments on an overall outcome. Importantly, our approach is focused on winning. That is, what does it take to win? The emphasis on winning and predictivity ensures we obtain parsimonious models that are aligned with perception and are more readily interpretable and as a consequence, defendable. For instance, when we compared a team rating system for teams combining individual ratings with a team rating based only on team performances we obtained a 13% improvement in predictivity. As we usher rugby audiences into a new era of appreciating the game through informed analytic insight, we need to build trust. Our framework, geared around moments, in real time lends itself to a transparent framework. Importantly, as we expand on team ratings using individuals we are in a strong position to understand and compare competitions, due to relative performance and depth of talent. We can also expand this to comparing generations, positions, partnerships, coaches to name a few issues that consumers would find interesting. We are constructing an expert system. That is using a combination of machine learning, shaped by winning outcomes and guided by human observers, we are creating a dynamic system that will output meaningful, rugby orientated output that will stimulate, engage and challenge thinking of those interested in rugby across all levels."informed analytic insight"
{insert Tui ad here }
-
-
-
@nzzp said in Rugby Pass stats nerd stuff:
@bones said in Rugby Pass stats nerd stuff:
It seems they have misunderstood the meaning of "transparent".
You don't think the meaning is clear?
-
@stargazer said in Rugby Pass stats nerd stuff:
Oh, and try finding Matt Todd among the openside flankers ...
He's also ranked 13th in the Rugby Championship despite not playing in the RC.
-
-
@stargazer said in Rugby Pass stats nerd stuff:
@nepia Haha, that site is shittttttt.
Yep, the more I read around it the less sense it makes. The ratings seem to make no sense as @antipodean's comparison of the two number 8s shows. The second one, whose name we're not allowed to mention anymore has higher ratings of the 4 ratings they show than nearly every one of the 12 rated ahead of him. (At least we now know the formula for how Hansen makes his No.8 selectorial decisions
).
