On 12/1/2018 at 12:23 PM, Watson11 said:

Haha. Maybe you and other Luddites can package that up and sell it to the footy department. 

Who knows, maybe they are predicting improvements in players based on age and games played.  I wouldn’t know.  Big data and machine learning is being applied everywhere whether you think it works or not.  Champion data can never predict injuries, but big European and US teams are measuring every training session and game and have been applying big data and machine learning to non contact injury prevention for several years.  They don’t publish much for obvious reasons, but BarcelonaFC recently published 2014 data that showed they can predict 60% of non contact injuries and thus can prevent them.  I’m sure that has improved in the last 4 years.  They have huge budgets and are way ahead of the AFL.  Maybe this is also happening in the AFL.

Point that started all of this is despite your opinion and comments on the CD list rating they have no user bias in the analysis of the data at all.  It is just data and unbiased processing of it, with all of its limitations ie garbage in garbage out.  I personally think it is pretty good in, pretty good out.  It’s not perfect.

Time to move on.

One of the data conundrums would be whether things are better if that figure of 60% goes up or down. If it goes up, does that mean the club has better data or does it mean worse player management?

CD says we have a good list. I think we know that. Not reading a lot more into it.

I'm going to be intrigued as to how the new rule changes apply in 2019, as much as it's significant that you have a good list, I think coaching will play a bigger part in the outcome for 2019.

Steve Hocking indicated that he knew of several clubs that had recruited particularly with the rules about playing on from a behind in mind. The ability to play on immediately from a 50 even prior to the meters being marked out, 6-6-6, the hands in the back and having strong players who can defend the space where the ball drops. I think they are small things in isolation, but the game will be quicker, it will be more open and there will be a lot more running.  

 " can predict 60% of non contact injuries ". Do they have any contact injuries?

As for the data it seems that, over the long term, the unbiased analysis of basic empirical data could be expected to produce patterns that would assist in preparing game plans and even selections against opposing teams to maximise chances.

Are the data available for each team only or are they more broadly distributed to all teams against all opponents?

If more broadly distributed then I can envisage a time where real time data analysis would supplant coaches' decision making.

Please don't let that happen.

 

 

Excuse the bump, wasn’t sure where to post this. The AFL.com writers have ranked the backlines for the upcoming season. I’ve read the bolded part below about 10 times and I’m almost certain that’s completely wrong. The 104.5 was our points for, right?

3. MELBOURNE

At the start of the year, Champion Data had the Demons' defence ranked second in the League. The addition of Jake Lever, alongside Tom McDonald, was set to further strengthen the backline. But all of that was thrown out the window when Lever went down with a serious knee injury early in the season, and McDonald was swung forward with much success. The Dees leaked goals this year. In 2017, they averaged 87.9 points against, but that blew out to a competition high 104.5 in 2018. With Lever to hopefully return mid-season, and the addition of former Suns skipper Steven May, Melbourne’s defence should be in much better shape come next season.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-12-29/who-has-the-best-defence-we-rank-every-club

Edited December 30, 20186 yr by Dee Zephyr

3 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Excuse the bump, wasn’t sure where to post this. The AFL.com writers have ranked the backlines for the upcoming season. I’ve read the bolded part below about 10 times and I’m almost certain that’s completely wrong. The 104.5 was our points for, right

The Dees leaked goals this year. In 2017, they averaged 87.9 points against, but that blew out to a competition high 104.5 in 2018.

Yes thats wrong.  We were 79.5 points against including finals.  Not sure how journos can be so clueless.  There were 4 of them writing this article.

3 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

Yes thats wrong.  We were 79.5 points against including finals.  Not sure how journos can be so clueless.  There were 4 of them writing this article.

About to post the same. They must have confused our Points for v Points Against as we averaged 104.5 points for in the H&A season.

Quality off season journalism from afl.com.au as usual ?

55 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

Yes thats wrong.  We were 79.5 points against including finals.  Not sure how journos can be so clueless.  There were 4 of them writing this article.

Incredible isn’t it? Skipping the proofreading for pavlovas. 

the Demons look to stamp themselves as an AFL superpower in the coming seasons. - Ben Guthrie

Nicest thing ever said about the Dees, pre-season. 

Just reflecting on the statement the title of this thread.  As a MFC supporter, I think the logic it completely wrong.  It should be:

"17 other teams are there for the Demons to beat"

I think that's more the mentality that Goody will be priming his troops with.  No matter how good our list suposedly might be, its still one game at a time, aim to make every post a winner.  

As others have stated, it's probably other factors which will make it or break it for us, like with the further maturity we developed in 2018, hopefully we don't drop as many losses like the ones to St Kilda, Geelong (X2), Hawthorn and Sydney.  Will still need to keep developing that maturity and game sense though as there will no doubt be a different challenge next year being more the hunted than the hunter.

Champion data may well assess the potential and the quality of the teams but one thing that never varies is the high quality of the Melbourne supporter. Take that to the bank.

18 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Excuse the bump, wasn’t sure where to post this. The AFL.com writers have ranked the backlines for the upcoming season. I’ve read the bolded part below about 10 times and I’m almost certain that’s completely wrong. The 104.5 was our points for, right?

3. MELBOURNE

At the start of the year, Champion Data had the Demons' defence ranked second in the League. The addition of Jake Lever, alongside Tom McDonald, was set to further strengthen the backline. But all of that was thrown out the window when Lever went down with a serious knee injury early in the season, and McDonald was swung forward with much success. The Dees leaked goals this year. In 2017, they averaged 87.9 points against, but that blew out to a competition high 104.5 in 2018. With Lever to hopefully return mid-season, and the addition of former Suns skipper Steven May, Melbourne’s defence should be in much better shape come next season.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-12-29/who-has-the-best-defence-we-rank-every-club

As was mentioned by a few posters here during the season in defense of our often lamented supposed lack of defense:

Points against:

2018: 1749

2017: 1934

2016: 1991

2015: 2024

A cursory glance at the ladder shows that at least nine teams conceded more points than us during the regular season.

Maths says no.

4 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Just reflecting on the statement the title of this thread.  As a MFC supporter, I think the logic it completely wrong.  It should be:

"17 other teams are there for the Demons to beat"

I think that's more the mentality that Goody will be priming his troops with.  No matter how good our list supposedly might be, its still one game at a time, aim to make every post a winner.  

As others have stated, it's probably other factors which will make it or break it for us, like with the further maturity we developed in 2018, hopefully we don't drop as many losses like the ones to St Kilda, Geelong (X2), Hawthorn and Sydney.  Will still need to keep developing that maturity and game sense though as there will no doubt be a different challenge next year being more the hunted than the hunter.

It would be great if that was the mentality and message that Goodwin emphasises to the players, and I am sure that is what has underlined his statements in the media, so far. We know it is a game by game proposition but the increasing diversity and depth augers well for this to be a clear victory pathway for 2019; provided:

• Gus is fit and remains fit
• Lever does not break down again, nor Viney, nor Harmes and Hunt
• Those with promise continue to develop, not falling off the bandwagon across the season, heralding a unique yet dominant footy gameplan with added talents, not just talents that can be accommodated (holding their heads above water) within the side
• Frosty is the No. 1 CHB and OMac ain't.