Winning 'Quarters'

[old dee 23,791]

Winning flags is all that really matters. Why not take it up another whole level? Bailey shouldn't talk about winning contests, winning quarters or winning games. Just talk about winning flags. "We're aiming to win 0 flags this year"

No danger of that being untrue!

perhaps in 4-5 years!

However I would like to think we could win 10 games this year.

Edited March 15, 2011 by old dee

[nutbean 8,838]

Winning flags is all that really matters. Why not take it up another whole level? Bailey shouldn't talk about winning contests, winning quarters or winning games. Just talk about winning flags. "We're aiming to win 0 flags this year"

"Alright boys, gather round. Now I think you are getting ahead of yourselves - if I've told you once I've told you a hundred times - lets just take it one premiership at a time"

Edited March 15, 2011 by nutbean

[Rollo2 64]

It's not 'kind of like that' at all. What a ridiculous equivalency.

And we get the point - we don't think it is a good one.

Well, it actually is 'kind of like that' in exactly the sense I referred to, i.e. both being 'obscure and potentially deceptive' statistics.

There are a couple of reasons I felt tis should be clarified.

First, there have been numerous illogical and simply incorrect claims made about winning more quarters, such as that winning X amount more will guarantee us an extra X number of wins, or that winning 2 quarters gives you a %50 chance of winning a game, and so on, so it's not obvious that everyone understands the deficiencies of the statistic.

Second, one poster (not you) remarked that Range Rover 'had no point', which again is just wrong.

[old dee 23,791]

"Alright boys, gather round. Now I think you are getting ahead of yourselves - if I've told you once I've told you a hundred times - lets just take it one premiership at a time"

I know what you mean I have told everyone a million times "don't exaggerate"

Edited March 15, 2011 by old dee

[1858 285]

Well said the both of you - this quarters crap is Bailey-speak for we lost the game but .. Let's hope there's more talk about good starts and games won !

This seems to be the main misconception of the thread IMO.

Bailey's emphasis of lost quarters isn't just restricted to games where we lose. His analysis of lost/bad quarters is across the board win/lose/draw.

The reality is you can have a bad quarter even if you get over the line and win the game - I realise this is hardly a profound statment but that needs to be added to the context of the debate. Addressing these aspects of our game are important so that we can minimise these sorts of bad quarters occuring in the future - just because we won the game in question doesn't change this. Bailey has a duty of due diligence in all games and I think he often hi-lights where we need to improve even when we win.

Obviously bad quarters have cost us games and have nearly cost us games so to not address this would be negligent in the context of a young team.

[rpfc 28,430]

No danger of that being untrue!

perhaps in 4-5 years!

However I would like to think we could win 10 games this year.

He's taking the [censored], OD...

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Why did you have to create this thread rpfc?

All it does is test my ability not to insult people for making terminally stupid comments.

I'm at a loss...

if only it tested your ability not to make condescending know-all commentary B)

[rpfc 28,430]

Well, it actually is 'kind of like that' in exactly the sense I referred to, i.e. both being 'obscure and potentially deceptive' statistics.

You're equivalency to Bailey wanting to 'win more quarters' was 'to kick more goals from outside 50 towards the punt rd end of the MCG.' One is a simple metric to focus the mind of the players and the other is a deliberately outlandish and obscure metric to confuse posters.

There are a couple of reasons I felt tis should be clarified.

First, there have been numerous illogical and simply incorrect claims made about winning more quarters, such as that winning X amount more will guarantee us an extra X number of wins, or that winning 2 quarters gives you a %50 chance of winning a game, and so on, so it's not obvious that everyone understands the deficiencies of the statistic.

Statistics in and of themselves are deficient, of course.

But this isn't by itself.

Bailey mentions quarters won to, as I said, simplify the game and focus the players. And he adds other measurements - like I50 discrepancy, consecutive goals against, and turnover-to-goal conversions are a few that Bailey harps on about.

These stats are needed to measure progress and I think some of this ire against 'quarters won' is about a push backl against statistics in the whole.

I think that having a go at Bailey for having a set of KPIs (even if you are criticising one in particular, because of a refusal to see the bigger 'statistic' picture) is misguided and unfair.

[old dee 23,791]

He's taking the [censored], OD...

Yes rpfc I was having a dig back but not one of my better ones.

Trying to hang loose till the end of April.

Edited March 15, 2011 by old dee

[Keyser Söze 0]

This isn't one of my threads.

My apologies.

I couldn't remember & couldn't be bothered checking.

Yours have produced some replies that our just as bad though!

[Keyser Söze 0]

if only it tested your ability not to make condescending know-all commentary B)

The rich man's curse.

I'm blessed with intelligence and frustrated by those around me who are not.

Especially when it's so bloody obvious, as in this case.

[Range Rover 1,935]

I'm blessed with intelligence

Wow. Did you really just say that? I don't know whether to laugh or shed tears for you.

At least you're entertaining.

[Keyser Söze 0]

Well, if you can't understand the merit in Bailey's simple approach, then it's pretty clear that I am and you unfortunately are not...

I'm pretty good, that much is certain.

[Rollo2 64]

You're equivalency to Bailey wanting to 'win more quarters' was 'to kick more goals from outside 50 towards the punt rd end of the MCG.' One is a simple metric to focus the mind of the players and the other is a deliberately outlandish and obscure metric to confuse posters.

Statistics in and of themselves are deficient, of course.

But this isn't by itself.

Bailey mentions quarters won to, as I said, simplify the game and focus the players. And he adds other measurements - like I50 discrepancy, consecutive goals against, and turnover-to-goal conversions are a few that Bailey harps on about.

These stats are needed to measure progress and I think some of this ire against 'quarters won' is about a push backl against statistics in the whole.

I think that having a go at Bailey for having a set of KPIs (even if you are criticising one in particular, because of a refusal to see the bigger 'statistic' picture) is misguided and unfair.

Obviously there is a difference between the things I drew an analogy between. As there is between all things one can draw an analogy between (without a difference, you would be drawing an analogy between a thing and itself). The similarity between them is what matters, and as I said, they are similar in being obscure and potentially misleading statistics, and not the kind of thing a coach should focus on for an upcoming season. I agree my example was outlandish, but this was not to confuse readers, but was conversely to make it clearer what aspect of 'winning quarters' I was attempting to criticize by analogy.

There is no problem with Bailey talking to the team before a quarter about winning the quarter, and no one has said there is. If that is the way he gets the best out of the team for that half an hour then so be it. That isn't the issue. The issue is that Bailey doesn't just talk about winning quarters in that context, he talks about them as a goal for the upcoming season, which as posters have pointed out, isn't something you here from the more successful coaches in the league.

Not a massive deal, I simply joined the thread because Range Rover was getting some pretty unfair and illogical feedback – though as I said, that was not your doing.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Rollo2

[Biffinator 2]

Other considerations aside, Bailey's current contract is quarter-based. The team has to win a certain number of quarters for him to receive a bonus or obtain an extension.

[rpfc 28,430]

Obviously there is a difference between the things I drew an analogy between. As there is between all things one can draw an analogy between (without a difference, you would be drawing an analogy between a thing and itself). The similarity between them is what matters, and as I said, they are similar in being obscure and potentially misleading statistics, and not the kind of thing a coach should focus on for an upcoming season. I agree my example was outlandish, but this was not to confuse readers, but was conversely to make it clearer what aspect of 'winning quarters' I was attempting to criticize by analogy.

There is no problem with Bailey talking to the team before a quarter about winning the quarter, and no one has said there is. If that is the way he gets the best out of the team for that half an hour then so be it. That isn't the issue. The issue is that Bailey doesn't just talk about winning quarters in that context, he talks about them as a goal for the upcoming season, which as posters have pointed out, isn't something you here from the more successful coaches in the league.

Not a massive deal, I simply joined the thread because Range Rover was getting some pretty unfair and illogical feedback – though as I said, that was not your doing.

He's getting criticism for having this KPI and it is completely unfair - it is a no-brainer measurement of improvement - in tandem - with other measurements.

I get the point of the thread. I don't think it is valid at all.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

If you fix your focus contstantly on the horizon you are likely to trip over a rock.

[rpfc 28,430]

If you fix your focus contstantly on the horizon you are likely to trip over a rock.

That's too subtle. They don't understand.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Well, if you can't understand the merit in Bailey's simple approach, then it's pretty clear that I am and you unfortunately are not...

I'm pretty good, that much is certain.

caaaaw,,, and you 2 are arguing with one another?

Edited March 15, 2011 by dee-luded

[Rollo2 64]

If you fix your focus contstantly on the horizon you are likely to trip over a rock.

And if you constantly count the rocks you've traversed, you are likely to end up going around in circles.