RugbyPass RPI - 12 & 13

OUTSIDE CENTRE

Lukhanyo Am

1. RPI: 79
   
2. Influence: 61
3. Attacking: 84
4. Break: 81
5. World Rank: 22

1. RPI: 77
2. Influence: 82
3. Attacking: 79
4. Break: 81
   
5. World Rank: 25

1. RPI: 82
2. Influence: 74
3. Attacking: 80
4. Break: 81
5. World Rank: 15

1. RPI: 72
2. Influence: 75
3. Attacking: 73
4. Break: 72
5. World Rank: 41

1. RPI: 69
2. Influence: 56
3. Attacking: 77
4. Break: 74
5. World Rank: 46

1. RPI: 81
2. Influence: 80
3. Attacking: 85
4. Break: 79
5. World Rank: 19 

1. RPI: 71
2. Influence: 70
3. Attacking: 71
4. Break: 79
5. World Rank: 44

Who did that ratings Silly Billy?   What does it take into account?   You have in the past came up with meaningless rankings dumbo  - so a good question to ask.  

Do you want to tell me that there are 25 13's better than Kriel in world rugby?  The same applies to Dim Etterhuizen and De Allende and every player listed by you.

I ask you with tears in my eyes not to believe BS when it hit you straight in your face.   

https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwiwu7zog4ThAhUuu-0KHdm7BogYABAAGgJkZw&ae=1&sig=

AOD64_0GCz4QQ

oX1OVvDvIdzDUt1EF04AQ&q&adurl

=https://index.rugbypass.com/?gclid%3DCjwKCAjwmq3kBRB_EiwAJkNDp

7A56ustavhuQn65Exbep-

PPW3l6Li3ciKjLuSCWSlZmVbmL5il3y

RoCJpIQAvD_BwE&ved=2ahUKEwjF77

bog4ThAhUIURUIHSTKD

SoQ0Qx6BAgNEAE

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.

Here we go again... 

"Who did that ratings Silly Billy?" 

Read the title!

"What does it take into account?" 

Read the post! 

I know you want to believe Damian is the greatest 12 of all time, but the reality is that he is not. As evidenced by his shocker against the Sharks, with three or so pitiful contributions in 60 minutes. 

Oh how the hurt of butt wimper. 

Sure  - this is the second time you come up with that one.   The ideal may be OK - but how is it applied in practice?    What games are covered?   It was clear that any such evaluation is not necessarily based on actual performances of an individual player - but more on whether a team wins or loses on matches,

Please tell me again - how does it manage to put a player like AM  and Kriel at number 22 and number 25 in the world?   Furthermore Kriel is a regular test player - Am was on the losing side when playing in tests, 

Sounds like a theoretical exercise where numbers are plucked out of the air and allocated willy-nilly wit total disregard of on what level rugby is played.  .      

Remember Cera, we are talking to a person who deliberately omitted 127 games worth defensive data when asserting that tackling had actually improved the past seven years. When he was found out by Moz, he responded like an angry chimp. His conclusion: We are just too stupid to understand why this absent data is irrelevant. 

Dunce and Silly Billy

I asked on what basis adjudication is done  - is it on Club Level  (ie on CC level), on Supersport level, on test level or what?

If it is done on club level there are again two different levels  - ordinary clubs and those playing in the European Champions Cup.   That represents to top 25 clubs in Europe -  bar a few of those clubs may approach Super Rugby level but the others and teams not in the series are on at best CC level.   The few I refer to would not beat the top 8 teams on Super Rugby level and is likely to lose against some of the other 7 teams as well.

So what period does the figures cover?    Is it iro the current series (ie NH rugby played in 20018 and 2019) or the 2019 SH rugby?

Anyway I do not see how player performance assessment on club level can be compared with performance assessments  on higher levels - like Super Rugby and  tests,     This is not the first time that the story came from Silly Billy and the fact is it got lost in process because of the above non-comparable norms.    

Hall Of Fame

34846 posts

"It was clear that any such evaluation is not necessarily based on actual performances of an individual player - but more on whether a team wins or loses on matches,"

I told you over and over again that you have a limited level of comprehension skills. This remark of yours, and in particular the underlined part, in bold print,demonstrates exactly that.

You have either not paid much attention, if any at all, when you read the explanation of how it works, or you did not quite understand what was being said. My money is on the latter.

Nowhere in that entire piece does it say that the system is based upon whether the game is won or lost by the team. Although the winning of the game is mentioned, and important, the system is not reliant or based on the win or the loss.

You probably saw this part, "Our approach is all about winning, and the contribution to winning" and that threw you completely because you lost the plot right there. 

My guess is also that you were completely thrown by "...Winning a game is about winning moments – quantifying this impact provides an even richer perspective of behaviour."

You only saw "...winning the game.." and was so excited to have spotted a "weakness" that you could attack that you completely lost sight of the rest of the phrase, i.e. "..is about winning moments.. "      

Winning MOMENTS within the game is what is analysed and not winning the GAME. The players involved in those WINNING MOMENTS, and their contributions within those MOMENTS are the factors that are taken in consideration and evaluated. That is in effect precisely the exact opposite of what you were saying when you said "any such evaluation is not necessarily based on actual performances of an individual player". It is actually exactly about evaluation based on actual performances of an individual player.  

That is the difference between statistics and raw data. I have told you time and time again and again and again that your little strings of "stats", that you are so crazy about, are nothing but raw meaningless data. Your problem has always been that, without your little strings of data, you have nothing but your opinion, which is also fine. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. You are just not entitled to constantly shoving your opinion down everybody's throats and you are definitely not entitled to rubbish everybody  who disagrees with your opinion or take it for granted.

That is, of course, apart from just downright lying about and making things up on the fly.

Mozart

It has noting to do with any player -it ahs to do with what is compared to what in doing the determination as given by Silly Billy.   

 Nobody in his right mind a\can compare club level performance with test match performance,   This story was raised by Silly Billy before and proved to be utter BS.   

Dunce is still too stupid to realize what the real situation is. . 

Saffy, you need new eyes. I think the bottom of milk bottles would be an upgrade given the lunacy of some of your calls.

This provides context for the stats, which I like. Is it perfect? What is? I think it provides a much better start for a discussion. I think these are consistent with what I have seen. A lot of what I have already backed up with hard evidence. 

Listen Silly Billy - why don't you answer about what level of rugby is used to determine the ratings you mentioned above.   That is where the empty heads came from nutcase.     

No Mozart

I do not know what is being used and that is not what Silly Billy produced<   I frankly do not think their is enough matches to compare for this years SH rugby and any NH rugby at this stage  will be on a lower level and not comparable since the matches must at least be on the same level as Super rugby and there is none.     And the SH tests  are much later this year and that makes comparing impossible,  

The rating for instance of Kriel is clearly indicated a lot of club players - so it is total BS, . You should know comparisons  like statistics must be on the same level of games and at this stage there is nothing to make comparisons.    

He'll argue this, but his omission of over 120 games worth of data is incontestable. He is very flimsy; whatever suits the agenda works best. 

It'll be of no interest to him, but here are the ratings for the tops three SA halfbacks for each position:

SCRUMHALF

Faf de Klerk

1. RPI: 75
2. Influence: 80
3. Pass Complete: 87
4. Territorial Kick Metres: 497
5. World Rank: 40

1. RPI: 72
2. Influence: 83
3. Pass Complete: 88
4. Territorial Kick Metres: 48
5. World Rank: 52

1. RPI: 63
2. Influence: 62
3. Pass Complete: 78
4. Territorial Kick Metres: 56
5. World Rank: 111

1. RPI: 66
2. Influence: 74 
3. Pass Complete: 77
4. Territorial Kick Metres: 57
5. World Rank: 82

1. RPI: 85
2. Influence: 85
3. Goal Success: 93
4. Attacking: 85
5. Territorial Kick Metres: 86
6. World Rank: 9

Elton Jantjies

1. RPI: 80
2. Influence: 69
3. Goal Success: 89
4. Attacking: 72
5. Territorial Kick Metres: 88
6. World Rank: 20

1. RPI: 75
2. Influence: 76
3. Goal Success: 92
4. Attacking: 61
5. Territorial Kick Metres: 85
6. World Rank: 31

I can accept with some reservations that Kriek may be on number 6 - not 26.   You still do not get the message  -  do you,   Any such rankings must be judged on games played on a  comparable level and that cuts out matches played on lower level  This really is a bad joke and maybe for fun -- but nobody would take such comparisons seriously.   .  

With some reservations 6? You have very lofty expectations.

As we can see here, Frans is still among the best South African players . One of the best players out there. 

If you actually checked out the system and played with the options, Mike, you wouldn't be here blabbering away in ignorance when 5 minutes on the actual site will answer most of your questions.

I thought blabbering away in ignorance is Oom Mike's standard M.O. when faced with opinions or facts that don't align with his.

Wasps 

I just do not take BS as a norm for player evaluation.  Giving the s ame points evaluation for  a center playing for Bristol against Leicester as to a test level is worth zero in respect of performance evaluation.   It is just laughable to even compare  NH club level players with players on Super Rugby level is equally silly and laughable.   Anybody thinking that the story Silly Billy - supported by Mozart is now preaching must have zero knowledge of competitiveness in sport and less so about the game of rugby.  Pathetic.  .   /

It's amazing how agitated the ghastly horde become when information is posted. As if on reflex they lash out, like a hissing demon doused with holy water. 

Kriel will be behind Slade, Tuilangi and Ringrose as they have been playing in the 6 nations. The ratings change weekly you fucking numbnuts. If ou Mike could grasp that it would be great.

Later in the year during the Championship, Kriel, Am, Allende and Esterhuizens should see an upward improvement.

Maybe not Duh Allendes though . 

Basteraud made mincemeat of a host of Boks, including Kriel. Slade was better than Kriel on attack. This notion that Kriel has been an elite player is absurd to say the least. 

When was that dimness?

November, Sweetpea. 

Storm in a Teacup sounds like a more vulgar version of Lügnerin. 

"All you do is fucking lie"

No darling. Tis just reality knocking at the door of your retinas, but no answer. Tries the cerebellum... still no answer. How queer. Perhaps another day, no truth for Saffy today. 

They aren't very good at this learning, thing. 

That is very true. Thus far, Damian has 4 tries in nearly 40 tests: against the USA, Ireland, Italy and New Zealand. The All Black try required him to run in a straight line after Kolisi did what he should have been doing for Kriel. He made on try assist against the USA. What can we say has been a standout moment? There are any. What key tackles? What big game changing moments? Likewise Kriel. Although, I'll admit, Kriel makes presents a much stronger case than Damian. We'll see how he takes this Super rugby form to test rugby this year. As far as Damian is concerned, I can point out far more bad play than good. Mediocrity follows him around like it did Lambie. 

Jean, Frans, Joubert and Fourie. One can reference dozens of great and heroic moments. Game changing moments. We don't have a stock of players quite like that. They were taken for granted and discarded too quickly. 

Saffy goes through his Christmas list of names like a crack addict playing cocaine formula one. Wasn't JJ the best 13 since readmission? He fizzles out, then it's Kriel. I wonder what his picks were before them. 

When has to say Silly Billy is amazingly stupid - how he can even discuss rugby issues one has to accept things from the dud.  

I asked him a simple question about Slade and Kriel and as per normal he fell straight into amazing stupidity.   He claimed that Slade made mincemeat of Kriel om the November test,   So how did that happen.   Slade on that day had amongst others the following stats:-

*    Tackles made      -   6

*    Tackles missed    -   7

That is amazing - now ESPN will be accused of lying ad the moron will start claiming  that these  missed tackles never happened.   I can remember many cases in the past where he fell into traps set up himself  and came up with BS.    Amazingly he has come up with excuses when that happened and always find strong support from Mozart and Pakie.   

Pathetic.    

 .  

Mozart

Sure they were nowhere near their peak in 2015 - after all they were involved in the Japan disaster after which Matfield was  destined for the bench     Habana and Pieterse both were total failures in the 2015 WC.  

Problem is that of the above-mentioned players NONE should have been in the 2015 squad -  their performances were not up to standard,   The same players were already in serious decline by 2011.   They were greats in 2007, much less so in 2011 and totally in default in 2015.

Unlike you - most people do not believe totally in reputation selections as against performance based selections.   It is an easy statement to quote great players of the past and then  say there is nobody comparable to them at present.   Their achievements was built over many years of playing - none of the present players have had that opportunity.

And you should be careful not to support Silly Billy - he is totally clueless about rugby and your support may put you in the same category.   Take the Slade issue for example - if any SA center failed in defense in the November test like he did - you would never stop writing about that for the next five years -  in the case of Slade it is ignored,    

You think because an arsehole like yourself states that a certain player is better than another that somehow that is a fact.

Sounds vaguely familiar

Lads, here's how you use the RPI. If you want to use it for SR, you choose SR from the drop down. You then get the rankings only for players who compete in that competition. You'll then see that Kriel is ranked third for that competition.

If you want to use only tests, you choose International. You'll then see that Kriel is ranked 12th, with only 4 points separating position 12 from position 6. Then you go compare him and see where other players score more than him to know which areas he should work on if he wants to go up in life.

The Attacking data point for example rewards clean breaks, defenders beaten and successful offloads. 

Kriel against France on the EOYT made 0 of each. Bastareaud in that game beat 4 defenders, made 1 clean break and 1 offload.