I know a winning record in a team sport is a poor indicator of an individual's quality, but Witt's record in the NRL is pretty decent - 47 wins from 90 games (52%). By contrast, Jarryd Hayne has won less than 45% of his NRL matches.
Of course Witt's finals record is less gooder, with two wins from six (Hayne is five from eight). Interestingly, Michael Witt's first two finals appearances (2005 and 2007) were both losses against Parramatta.
And his record in England is dismal - 22 wins from 85 games.
Try this --> compare a players win% with their team's win % over the period of their employment at the club.
So the Eels are 39% since Hayne debuted, or 45% with him in the lineup. If you were to do this with every player and every team and weight it all evenly, it would show us that Hayne is a 58% "win score" player.
By contrast, Witt's teams went bang on 50% wins during his tenure. So, while he's "above the mean" for players in those teams, at 52% you'd consider him well withing statistical norms, surely.
For a bit of fun, check out Reni Maitua.
His winning % is just 26% when playing as a forward.
But that's unfair, because his teams were much better than that.
Factor it equity, and you see that his "win score" as a forward is a pathetic 19%. That's a LONG way from the 50% average...
No wonder we were bashing the bloke all year. He's surely one of the worst players of the modern era?
#advancedstatsworkinleaguetoo