He gives us the sort of structure we want Dawes to give us except he can actually play football and ruck. 

Trying to be as objective as possible I went through each game this year and rated if we were "expected" to win that game. For example, I had us expecting to beat St Kilda the first time we played them, but not the second time.

The results were for games with Pedersen I had us expected to win 46% and without him 44%, hardly a big difference. Yes, it is subjective but I would be surprised if anyone else had grossly different results. Interestingly, I ended up with 10 expected wins for the season.

Edited August 28, 20169 yr by Clint Bizkit

1 minute ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Trying to be as objective as possible I went through each game this year and rated if we were "expected" to win that game. For example, I had us expecting to beat St Kilda the first time we played them, but not the second time.

The results were for games with Pedersen, I had us expected to win 46% and without him 44%, hardly a big difference. Yes, it is subjective but I would be surprised if anyone else had grossly different results.  Interestingly, I ended up with 10 expected wins for the season.

"Expected to win" is a stat now?

Now I've stood up for Dawes in the past but I'm already on record as saying Pedo is ahead of him for next year, but how many of these games that Dawes played in would you say we were "expected to win"?

Round 4 v Hawthorn - Nope

Round 12 v Collingwood - 50/50

Round 13 Sydney - Nope

Round 15 Adelaide - Nope

Round 18 West Coast - Nope

Round 19 Gold Coast - Yep

Again, I think you're putting too much of a slant on the stats you're picking out, and although Pedo has been ok, he's hardly been that integral to us that he has been the sole difference in us winning games.

 

I agree with you all we are a better team with Cam in than we are with him out of the side. He deserves another year and when you take a closer look he hasn't played that much footy, so his body should hold up . On another note , I was very happy for Jack Fitzpatrick today, we should have kept  him.!!!!

42 minutes ago, Dante said:

Teams we usually beat?

We don't usually beat anyone.

These are the wins Pedersen played in, just so we have some context on this.

Round 1 GWS - Big injury toll, out of form.

Round 4 Collingwood - Even in our worst days we pushed them, massively out of form when we played them. Finished below us on the ladder.

Round 5 Richmond - We've got their number a bit and again, massively out of form. Finished below us on the ladder.

Round 7 Gold Coast - See previous 2 games re: form. Finished below us on the ladder.

Round 20 Hawthorn - Great win. Pedo 1 goal, ranked 3rd lowest player for us.

Round 21 Port - Out for form team. Finished below us on the ladder.

 

8 minutes ago, stuie said:

These are the wins Pedersen played in, just so we have some context on this.

Round 1 GWS - Big injury toll, out of form.

Round 4 Collingwood - Even in our worst days we pushed them, massively out of form when we played them. Finished below us on the ladder.

Round 5 Richmond - We've got their number a bit and again, massively out of form. Finished below us on the ladder.

Round 7 Gold Coast - See previous 2 games re: form. Finished below us on the ladder.

Round 20 Hawthorn - Great win. Pedo 1 goal, ranked 3rd lowest player for us.

Round 21 Port - Out for form team. Finished below us on the ladder.

 

So essentially everyone was out of form when we played them Stu? Give our boys at least a little bit of credit, please.

He seemed to be one of those players who got dropped as soon as he went off the boil even a little. For me, he is clearly our best option for the tall forward / second ruck role.

If I was in charge, I would trade or delist Dawes, and give Pedersen another year, and make the youngsters overtake him to get a game.

 

Just now, Django said:

So essentially everyone was out of form when we played them Stu? Give our boys at least a little bit of credit, please.

I'm just trying to provide some context to the shallow stats put up mate.

Here's some more:

Pedo - 5 games against teams who finished below us

Dawes - 2 games against teams who finished below us

Would you rate a win against Brisbane equal with a win against Sydney? No. That is why the context of who we played and how they were performing is important.

(Now, before any of the usual suspects jump in, please note I've already clarified in here and repeated previous comments I've made saying I think Pedo will be around next year and Dawes probably won't)

 

2 hours ago, stuie said:

Pedo's games were generally against teams we usually beat 

 

"Teams we usually beat" is a stat now?

Just now, Clint Bizkit said:

"Teams we usually beat" is a stat now?

No, that's why I didn't work it out as a percentage like your "expected to win" stat...

 

2 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I don't consider myself PC at all, but there's no way I can call the guy Pedo. 

#Peddersisbetters

I like Pedders and his attack on the football, he crashes packs and keeps the opposition on their feet and more so than other players, gives 100%.

Pretty sure Norf fans called him Pedders.

When he switched across, he became the Pedobear.

One inescapable fact: he had a [censored] load better year than Chris Dawes.

#pedofacts

7 minutes ago, stuie said:

No, that's why I didn't work it out as a percentage like your "expected to win" stat...

 

That wasn't a stat, it was a way of gauging the quality of the opposition at the time of each game.

You go through each game and tell me what you reasonably would have expected the result at that time to be, see if it is much different to mine (10 wins).

I note that you are using final ladder position as an argument but that doesn't take into consideration form of either team at the time. For example, I expected us to beat Collingwood on Queen's Birthday, but right now they are in much better form (and us poor form) so I would expect them to beat us if we played next week.

 

Edited August 28, 20169 yr by Clint Bizkit

2 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

That wasn't a stat, it was a way of gauging the quality of the opposition at the time of each game.

You go through each game and tell me what you reasonably would have expected the result at that time to be, see if it is much different to mine (10 wins).

I note that you are using final ladder position as an argument but that doesn't take into consideration form of either team at the time. For example, I expected us to beat Collingwood on Queen's Birthday, but right now they are in much better form so I would expect them to beat us if we played next week.

 

 

37 minutes ago, stuie said:

"Expected to win" is a stat now?

Now I've stood up for Dawes in the past but I'm already on record as saying Pedo is ahead of him for next year, but how many of these games that Dawes played in would you say we were "expected to win"?

Round 4 v Hawthorn - Nope

Round 12 v Collingwood - 50/50

Round 13 Sydney - Nope

Round 15 Adelaide - Nope

Round 18 West Coast - Nope

Round 19 Gold Coast - Yep

Again, I think you're putting too much of a slant on the stats you're picking out, and although Pedo has been ok, he's hardly been that integral to us that he has been the sole difference in us winning games.

 

 

25 minutes ago, stuie said:

These are the wins Pedersen played in, just so we have some context on this.

Round 1 GWS - Big injury toll, out of form.

Round 4 Collingwood - Even in our worst days we pushed them, massively out of form when we played them. Finished below us on the ladder.

Round 5 Richmond - We've got their number a bit and again, massively out of form. Finished below us on the ladder.

Round 7 Gold Coast - See previous 2 games re: form. Finished below us on the ladder.

Round 20 Hawthorn - Great win. Pedo 1 goal, ranked 3rd lowest player for us.

Round 21 Port - Out for form team. Finished below us on the ladder.

 

 

11 minutes ago, stuie said:

I'm just trying to provide some context to the shallow stats put up mate.

Here's some more:

Pedo - 5 games against teams who finished below us

Dawes - 2 games against teams who finished below us

Would you rate a win against Brisbane equal with a win against Sydney? No. That is why the context of who we played and how they were performing is important.

(Now, before any of the usual suspects jump in, please note I've already clarified in here and repeated previous comments I've made saying I think Pedo will be around next year and Dawes probably won't)

 

 

I feel like the Geelong of yesterday in this thread, killing it.

2 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I feel like the Geelong of yesterday in this thread, killing it.

There's about as much analytical worth in this post as all your others in this thread, so at least you're consistent...

 

2 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I feel like the Geelong of yesterday in this thread, killing it.

Stuie be like: "I am become death, the destroyer of threads."

I thought only Richmond supporters ate their own! 

Unreserved credit where it's due.

1 hour ago, stuie said:

Neither were anywhere near in-form at the time, as I said in my post.

 

Compared to the quality sides we beat without Pedo in the Lions, Pies, GC and Freo...

Shark attacks increase with ice cream sales.  

Should we ban mr whippy?

There is a massive difference between causation (X causes Y) and correlation (X happens and Y happens )

we win more with Pedo may be a factual statement.  But it is correlative, not causative.  There is no evidence that we win because of Pedo.

In analysis, we need to be very careful about how we use stats.  These Pedo stats are interesting, but tell me nothing.  if he was so fricken awesome, why was he playing at Casey?  (Oh, they won...because of Pedo????)

(ps, the link between ice cream and shark attacks relates to how both occur more frequently in hot weather as more people swim at the beach and eat ice cream)

I think Stuie is a closet Pedo    fan.

 

Roos calls him Pedo on TV, it's his nickname.

6 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

Shark attacks increase with ice cream sales.  

Should we ban mr whippy?

There is a massive difference between causation (X causes Y) and correlation (X happens and Y happens )

we win more with Pedo may be a factual statement.  But it is correlative, not causative.  There is no evidence that we win because of Pedo.

In analysis, we need to be very careful about how we use stats.  These Pedo stats are interesting, but tell me nothing.  if he was so fricken awesome, why was he playing at Casey?  (Oh, they won...because of Pedo????)

(ps, the link between ice cream and shark attacks relates to how both occur more frequently in hot weather as more people swim at the beach and eat ice cream)

I'm just stating facts.

3 minutes ago, Diamond said:

But there were 23 games. 9+13=22.

The bye?

6 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

The bye?

Oops

I think the answer as to why we win when Pedo is in the team is pretty simple.

There are forwards out there who aren't there to take all the cream for themselves and are there to let others put the cherry on top of the sundae. Think of Earl Spalding, David Schwarz (after his knee op) and Brad Miller. These blokes don't kick 70 goals a year or lead the team for marks. However, they are valuable. They demand a decent defender, bring the ball to the ground in marking contests and often clear the way for the true finishers to do their job. 

That is Pedo to a tee. Dawes can play that role but he doesn't play it as effectively as Pedo. Simple.