Someone add 4.3 goals to each round's scoreline last year and see how many more games we'd have won? Don't think it'd have us close to finals.

you also have to subtract the same amount from our opponents score

because there are a finite amount of points to go around

otherwise the total game score just goes up by 4.3 for no reason

which has been pointed out several times already

painfully

wow

You also must have missed "grade 3 stats 101" - for every goal we kick, our opponents lose a goal.

That's why it only takes 4.3 goals to balance a -8.4 goal differential.

that might the funniest post I have ever seen

in your sarcasm you have nailed the exact point i am making

just think about it for a bit

So if we have about 13/14 inside 50's each quarter and kick about 25 points then we should be competitive.....will remember that for next year, thanks C&B.

that is exactly right. It is not mysterious or speculative but a cold hard fact. Thank you intelligent person for absorbing the point

Over the course of a season, increasing a team's inside 50 count by 12.3 entries a game would constitute a simply massive turnaround.

and reducing an opponents by the same amount therefore reducing the differential by 24.6

while the average may have some relativity over the total season which was where you started it does not have any impact on the games won and lost.

are you serious, it obviously does as the tables in the OP illustrate. Show me the ladder of inside 50s and ill show the ladder of goals and then the actual ladder

i might have to start a thread arguing the sky is blue FFS

one of the grand finallists finished 15th in the number of inside 50s and scored less heavily than the 11th placed side

yeah but 7th and 3rd on differential

think about what you have written - youve proposed a scenario where the average total inside 50s goes up 250% for some reason. How would this happen, by the length of the football ground being reduced to about 80 metres? One thing that is certain is that the average game next year WILL record around 103 inside-50s for the match. If our PORTION of those increase by 12 then our opponents WILL ALSO DECREASE by 12, there are 103 to go around so every extra one you get is ALSO one less than your opponent gets, therefore differential is roughly DOUBLE the difference. Obviously there will be exceptions to this rule but over 198 games this is the equation, that is what the word 'AVERAGE' means. Am I taking crazy pills or is there is one person with a grasp on basic mathematics that will be back me up here?

Oh mannnnn..... Seriously? Can you possibly miss the point more?! It's called an example.

You can be good at getting the ball inside 50 while allowing your opponents to do the same.

You can also be good at preventing your opponent from getting inside 50 but not good at doing it yourself.

You could even be good at getting it inside 50 while stopping the opposition doing it. (This is the most important one)

It's not a perfect equation. It doesn't just split evenly. You can't take an average and just put it across all games.

What if the AFL average is 100 inside 50s per game, but in our games it's 130? Then what if in some games we lock down and only have 70? Then what if we get a run on and get 80 inside 50s ourselves sometimes? What if flooding comes back and there's only 60 inside 50s per game? What if.... You see how this works yet? It's not about applying a global average, it's about judging the differential in how many inside 50s we get and how many we allow.

Your crazy maths relies on there being the average number of inside 50s every game and that's not the case, that's why they're called "averages" not certainties.

Differential is where it's at. Tell Dean Bailey that getting it into our inside 50 more means they get it in there less...

and reducing an opponents by the same amount therefore reducing the differential by 24.6

You are wrong.

Getting more inside 50s DOES NOT mean the other team gets less.

You live in this "averages" fantasy land.

The team could be playing loose attacking footy and therefor the ball is flying in and out of the 50 at EACH END and *gasp* our games could then end up having higher than average inside 50s counts!

Differential is where it's at.

but we agree on this, that is why the table on differential is even closer to the actual ladder than the averages table. The point is that there is not a huge difference between all clubs in terms of the total per game, so it IS to a large extent true to say that for every inside 50 you get your opponet also gets one less. There are a certain a amount of stoppages and one-on-ones where a team gets the chance to create an inside 50!

The team could be playing loose attacking footy and therefor the ball is flying in and out of the 50 at EACH END and *gasp* our games could then end up having higher than average inside 50s counts!

you are right, that scenario COULD happen, but that would simply be an extreme case at the right-hand side of the bell curve, which statistically speaking, will have an equivalent on the other side of the bell which would be a match where it is extremely bottled up and the ball spends most of the day around the middle of the ground, such as what you might see in a torrential downpour

that is just part and parcel of making an average stat over the course of a 198 game season

to say that if every side gets x amount more i50s next year but their opponent remains the same' makes absolutely no sense because the total pool of i50s just increased inexplicably.. the only way something like that could happen is if they reduced the weight of the ball and everyone was kicking it 100m, or there were less players on the ground, or they shortened the ground or some other absurd hypothetical

but we agree on this, that is why the table on differential is even closer to the actual ladder than the averages table. The point is that there is not a huge difference between all clubs in terms of the total per game, so it IS to a large extent true to say that for every inside 50 you get your opponet also gets one less. There are a certain a amount of stoppages and one-on-ones where a team gets the chance to create an inside 50!

Ok, so get this then...

We averaged 40 inside 50s with a differential of -18. We finished 17th.

Fremantle average 47 inside 50s with a differential of +3.4. They finished 3rd.

How does that work with your averages then?!

Show me the ladder of inside 50s and ill show the ladder of goals and then the actual ladder

Ummm......

And if you're going to quote your favourite useless stats in your signature then maybe add this:

2013 MFC Ave

i50 diff: -18.0

total per game ave: 98

2013 8th place

i50 diff: +1.3

total per game ave: 104.3

And if you want to be technical and quote stats, it might be important to note that team you're saying finished 8th is Carlton who were actually 9th stats wise.

So the averages your looking at are the team average over the teams games

or the average of our team over all AFL team game.

One team average could be inflated by large scores against 3 teams it doesnt mean that you can deduct the same amount against those teams unless they lose all games by a large margin

Sorry to be a pain but I didnt do maths 101 and cant see the logic in the argument of increasing our score automatically means a lowering of our opponents even on average unless the total average is the seasons AFL and any increase in our average will move us up the ladder.

I think I would prefer we just beat as many teams as we can by as much as we can and let the average work itself out.

you've illustrated that 15 of the 18 clubs are extremely close in their positions which is of course a high correlation..

I've illustrated that it is only a correlation, and that different game styles, most obviously that of Fremantle under Ross Lyon, can produce high level results without anywhere near the inside 50 or goals-per-game rates of some other top teams.

oh dear me what? answer this, yes or no, are our football matches likely to remain at around 28 goals total per game or are they going to increase to 32 for some reason? and if our portion of those goals goes up from 10-14, how many will our opponent get? How is this a difficult mathematical problem to grasp?

'Likely' is far from the same as 'set'. 'Average' is far from 'actual'.

There has been a remarkable consistency of the overall aggregate scores for seasons (a little over 90 per game on average, and about 4000 points per team per season... on average). Despite that, in 2008 there was a 'spike' up to 97 goals a game.

But that means sweet diddly-squat on a team-by-team and game-by-game basis.

For instance, 30 seconds looking at this year's ladder and hopefully anyone would notice a few things, like -

Geelong and Hawthorn have higher scores both for AND against, compared to the next three teams on the ladder. For total volume of scoring, the difference between the grand finalists in 2013 was 800 points. 800. Eight hundred. Eight-zero-zero. That's equivalent to six goals a game.

Lower in the 8, Richmond, Collingwood and Essendon have almost identical 'for' scores but a differential of 250 in the 'against' column - that's an average of two goals a game.

Just out of the 8, Carlton and Adelaide have very similar percentage, but Carlton's games have seen 150 more points scored than Adelaide's. Meanwhile, North Melbourne, sandwiched between the two, see another 100 points a season on top of Carlton's.

The Bulldogs and Gold Coast have the same number of wins, and close to identical 'for' scores. Bulldogs have 170 extra points 'against'.

Down the bottom of the ladder, GWS scored 70 more points over the season than Melbourne did, and also had 300 more points scored against them. Close to 3 more goals per game were scored in GWS games than Demon games.

good one seinfeld shame you dont know wtf youre talking about

Just one final factor for consideration; change within one team, year on year. A pertinent example for Melbourne's consideration might be, say, following a change of coach to a more defensively oriented one?

Fremantle

2013

For: 2035 Against: 1518 Total: 3553 (161 per game, equivalent to 27 goals per game)

2012

For: 1956 Against: 1691 Total: 3647 (166 per game, 27 goals per game)

2011

For: 1791 Against: 2155 Total: 3946 (179 per game, 30 goals per game)

2010

For: 2168 Against: 2087 Total: 4255 (193 per game, 32 goals per game)

Conclusion:

Goals per game is not a static figure, scoring more goals does not reduce the number of goals your opponent will score, and the total scoring taking place each game can vary considerably from one season to the next for a given team.

Can we call this one wrapped up?

that's a decent point, and helps explain why we get less goals for our inside 50s than the average. What also contributes to this is the fact we didnt have a forward line most of the year obv.

I thought our conversion stats were quite good. We just didn't get it in there enough,. Am I missing something?

Sorry to be a pain but I didnt do maths 101 and cant see the logic in the argument of increasing our score automatically means a lowering of our opponents

It doesnt ....

it supposed everything is finite...it isnt

Bit like those that say after a coin turns up heads 50 times in a row it ought to be tails.. odds still exactly the same for that event...50/50

Scoring of yourself doesnt necessarily change 'their' outcomes. Denying them the ball does.

you also have to subtract the same amount from our opponents score

because there are a finite amount of points to go around

otherwise the total game score just goes up by 4.3 for no reason

which has been pointed out several times already

painfully

wow

This blows my mind.

Curry & Beer, you really need to get your head around the fact that what you are saying is just plain wrong. The opposite of right. Not correct. Fallacious. Erroneous. Mistaken.

Stupidity is one thing, but constantly telling people to learn 'grade 3 maths' and moaning about how 'painful' it is having to explain to people your completely incorrect base parameters, well, that starts to look a bit crazy.

I just hope nobody reads this thread and is sucked in by your apparent certainty. There could be some very confused 3rd-graders around. Not a good way to start the school year.

Ok, so get this then...

We averaged 40 inside 50s with a differential of -18. We finished 17th.

Fremantle average 47 inside 50s with a differential of +3.4. They finished 3rd.

How does that work with your averages then?!

why do people post things that have already been addressed? Freo are one of the few sides that are somewhat exceptional to the rule because their conversion rate is very high. It is so annoying that I know that you know the answer to your own question but posted it anyway in the name of being pedantic and contrary. Everything else youve said along similar lines. You have no arguments just pedantry and it is NOT interesting

Edited January 20, 201411 yr by Curry & Beer

This blows my mind.

Curry & Beer, you really need to get your head around the fact that what you are saying is just plain wrong. The opposite of right. Not correct. Fallacious. Erroneous. Mistaken.

Stupidity is one thing, but constantly telling people to learn 'grade 3 maths' and moaning about how 'painful' it is having to explain to people your completely incorrect base parameters, well, that starts to look a bit crazy.

I just hope nobody reads this thread and is sucked in by your apparent certainty. There could be some very confused 3rd-graders around. Not a good way to start the school year.

'you are wrong'

that is not an argument

Edited January 20, 201411 yr by Curry & Beer

why do people post things that have already been addressed? Freo are one of the few sides that are somewhat exceptional to the rule because their conversion rate is very high. It is so annoying that I know that you know the answer to your own question but posted it anyway in the name of being pedantic and contrary. Everything else youve said along similar lines. You have no arguments just pedantry and it is NOT interesting

But I thought every team neatly fitted into the confines of the league averages? Or is that just Melbourne?.....

'you are wrong'

that is not an argument

Clearly it is as you keep arguing your points while everyone else tries to point out how wrong you are...

'you are wrong'

that is not an argument

I refer you to my post (65), beelzebub's post (67), Stuie (63, 58, 12), and dpositive (33), Let me know if you are still struggling after this collective assistance.

Also, a nod to those like Jnrmac (4) and The Master (12) and daisycutter (9) and monoccular (22) who in various ways just rolled their eyes at a combination of 'stating the bleeding obvious' and 'ho hum, statistics discussed in isolation'.

Curry & Beer, your error has been pointed out by multiple people, multiple times, using various methods. You can't then pretend that all that is going on is people muttering 'you're wrong'.

Dammit. I've fed the troll.

...

Scoring of yourself doesnt necessarily change 'their' outcomes. Denying them the ball does.

This is the whole point. Us being more ... um ... competitive should mean that we even up the possession count - we get more and they get less.

That doesn't guarantee that we'll even up the i50s, but it makes it much more likely.

And that in turn doesn't guarantee that we'll even up the scores, but it makes it much more likely.

By evening up the possessions, we give ourselves extra opportunities to score, while depriving our opponents of a certain number of scoring opportunities. Again, it doesn't guarantee it, but it makes it much more likely.

It's not some mere simple formula, but there is a chain of causation.

Two interesting points from these stats. The huge difference between the top 15 teams i50 differential and the last 3 teams. We have a mountain to climb to get back into the other 15 teams. Interesting to see the teams that are much higher on the scorers ladder than the i50 ladder. Would be interesting to see stat's to see whether this differential is caused by those teams scoring more from the midfield or having stronger power forwards. Collingwood for instance has a much higher i50 rate than it's scoring rate. So having one of the premium power forwards in Cloke hasn't helped them. Perhaps because there is so little support around him. Would also be interesting to see a ladder of i50 targets and their teams. Would give an idea of how much some teams score on a spread and how some score going to power forwards. We are obviously going to be a team with 3 power forwards so you'd expect our stat's to be more concentrated than say even a Freo who really only has Pav as a power forward. Until they get Hogan, perhaps.