5 hours ago, DV8 said:

Most of the AFL stats were during a very unequal competition.  These days the comp is becoming very even, so much of those stats are just redundant.

This IS the crux. No team can afford slow starts now.

We were 0-3 in 2006 & made the semi final...

I am suprised with such a low % of 0-2 don’t make the 8. 0-2 isn’t exactly panic stations 

Edited March 25, 20196 yr by JV7

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.

Good sides defy history and predictions.

We will put up a better showing down at the cattery.

I'm not losing any sleep about going 0-2

33 minutes ago, JV7 said:

We were 0-3 in 2006 & made the semi final...

I am suprised with such a low % of 0-2 don’t make the 8. 0-2 isn’t exactly panic stations 

They also only took the stat from 2010.  They've done that deliberately to make things seem worse than they are.

8 hours ago, beelzebub said:

This IS the crux. No team can afford slow starts now.

Younger sides will still be inconsistent thru the season,  even if they get away to a flier.   They will be roped back in to the pack, and eventually fall of the back

 as mature sides improve match fitness and take control.

 

But with more space to be found on grounds with 666, younger players will debut early once again, as was back in the day.

it's why you don't lose to fricken port adelaide who have 4 debutants at the mcg :S

So I ran the numbers to see where teams tend to finish on the ladder when they start a season 0-2.

And it wasn't that reassuring.

Since 1995 (i.e 16+ teams) here's where teams that started 0-2 finished:

 

Only 9% of teams that start 0-2 since 1995 have finished in the top 4.

(The Pies last year were 0-2, 74% before finishing 5th.)

If you just look just at teams on the bottom of the ladder after two rounds it's even worse:

 

Only 1 team out of 24 (4%) that was on the bottom after two rounds finished in the top 4.

In case you're wondering, that was St Kilda in 1997.

So, yeah, let's hope we can do a St Kilda.

Edited April 1, 20196 yr by DemonHauntedWorld

This is BS for several reasons. Not your analysis, the concept of your chances based on two rounds. 

What is the difference between losing rounds 1-2 or rounds 3-4 or 5-6? Nothing

in general, poor teams lose games so this obviously skews the numbers 

many finals teams would lose two games in a row throughout the season. It’s not the end of the world... yet. 

Demonhauntedworld if I understand your analysis, being 0-2 and 18th we are a certainty to finish minor premiers like St Kilda in 1997.

 

2 minutes ago, DubDee said:

This is BS for several reasons. Not your analysis, the concept of your chances based on two rounds. 

What is the difference between losing rounds 1-2 or rounds 3-4 or 5-6? Nothing

in general, poor teams lose games so this obviously skews the numbers 

many finals teams would lose two games in a row throughout the season. It’s not the end of the world... yet. 

Yeah I'd like to hope we're a fair bit better than the average 0-2 team since 1995. I'm just providing the numbers. Make of them what you wish.

2 minutes ago, chookrat said:

Demonhauntedworld if I understand your analysis, being 0-2 and 18th we are a certainty to finish minor premiers like St Kilda in 1997.

Spot on chookrat.

A more interesting stat would be finals teams that started the next year 0-2 and went on to make finals.

Edited April 1, 20196 yr by scarlett

7 minutes ago, DubDee said:

This is BS for several reasons. Not your analysis, the concept of your chances based on two rounds. 

What is the difference between losing rounds 1-2 or rounds 3-4 or 5-6? Nothing

in general, poor teams lose games so this obviously skews the numbers 

many finals teams would lose two games in a row throughout the season. It’s not the end of the world... yet. 

Sure, lose the first 6 and you can still get 16 wins and probably finish top 4. The issue is that the further behind you fall, the less margin for error later. Having said all that, I’ll reserve my judgment until after round 6. If we’re 3-3 I think we’ll be ok.

Our weighted team numbers are as low as they've been since Rnd 4 & 5 vs the The Hawks / Tigers respectively last year.  At that point we had a few wins on the board already though.

However, we did get our season back on track beginning with a win against Essendrug the week after in Rnd 6 where our numbers started to improve nicely.

The only other time our weighted team number was this low in any other match was against the Crows in Rnd 19 but it did [censored] down most of the last quarter.

On a positive note:  Our top players are starting to improve but it's mostly Clarry lead.  Hopefully the rest will start taking it up notch by notch also.

On a negative note:  Our bottom 6 on Saturday night were a mile off where the bottom 6 were at low ebbs (even against the Hawks and we all know how bad that was) last year.  Even comparing the output from our bottom 6 on Saturday evening vs the previous week (vs Port) they were a mile off.  That aspect will need some serious addressing by Goody & Co. before Friday evening if we're to get a win on the board.

 

Edited April 1, 20196 yr by Rusty Nails

I hate saying this but the seasons on the line this weekend for us and the bombers, neither team is good enough to recover from such a horror start. It means both teams should be coming out all guns blazing and I’m not gonna lie I’m worried about whether we will bring the heat. 

The few positives from the weekend was that there was lots of balls going inside 50, but the manner in which it was going in and our forwards failure to lock it in was just pathetic. Add to that the fact our defence is totally inept right now made for a massively dirty night. 

Among many things that we are lacking, one is a genuine livewire small forward in the ilk of the Rioli’s. Our forward lack pressure on their defenders which gives them easy exits.

IF we get our mojo we will beat Essendon, that I have no doubt. Whether we will and be able to resurrect this already fading season....

 

11 hours ago, DemonHauntedWorld said:

So I ran the numbers to see where teams tend to finish on the ladder when they start a season 0-2.

And it wasn't that reassuring.

Since 1995 (i.e 16+ teams) here's where teams that started 0-2 finished:

 

Only 9% of teams that start 0-2 since 1995 have finished in the top 4.

(The Pies last year were 0-2, 74% before finishing 5th.)

If you just look just at teams on the bottom of the ladder after two rounds it's even worse:

 

Only 1 team out of 24 (4%) that was on the bottom after two rounds finished in the top 4.

In case you're wondering, that was St Kilda in 1997.

So, yeah, let's hope we can do a St Kilda.

I appreciate your effort, but did you miss every media outlet promoting this same bs during the week? Can you narrow your analysis down to the last three or four years, when the AFL model has been upended by expansion? That said, none of the said media outlets gave a run-down for 1-2 or even 2-2. Can you provide that for us? See the stats-file 2019 thread for further statistical insight - we're not the same as Essendon - but are we statistically different to any other 0-2 teams from the past?

Edit: sorry, I don't mean to come across as hostile: welcome aboard.

Edited April 1, 20196 yr by Skuit

11 hours ago, DemonHauntedWorld said:

 

Yeah I'd like to hope we're a fair bit better than the average 0-2 team since 1995. I'm just providing the numbers. Make of them what you wish.

Indeed. The numbers are what the numbers are.  Not sure why posters are using the word analysis.

Edited April 1, 20196 yr by binman

0-2 doesn’t mean we can’t make top 4 or finals, but it does mean the margin for error has decreases each week we lose.

We now need to go 15-5 for the remainder of the season. If we lose to the Bombers, we have to go 15-4. On form and seeing how other clubs have better adapted to the new rules, it seems unlikely we’ll perform that well. 

It’s a disappointing start to the year thus far, and I’d hate for this year to become a waste. Our list is clearly ready to challenge, so anything else is unacceptable.

4 hours ago, Skuit said:

I appreciate your effort, but did you miss every media outlet promoting this same bs during the week?

Yeah I did.

4 hours ago, Skuit said:

Are we statistically different to any other 0-2 teams from the past? 

I sure hope so. My initial assumption was that I'd find heaps of 0-2 teams make the 8 because it's just two games as everyone keeps saying. I was surprised by how much teams were clustered at the bottom.

I didn't realise I'd need to run a randomised controlled trial to meet the statistical standards of demonland. Lesson learned. 

51 minutes ago, DemonHauntedWorld said:

Yeah I did.

I sure hope so. My initial assumption was that I'd find heaps of 0-2 teams make the 8 because it's just two games as everyone keeps saying. I was surprised by how much teams were clustered at the bottom.

I didn't realise I'd need to run a randomised controlled trial to meet the statistical standards of demonland. Lesson learned. 

Good work DHW.

What i found interesting from your data was the percentage of teams that make top 4 after losing their first two games.

As far i saw the media Skuit refereed to focused on the chances of finishing top 8 

think of all the different ways the club has embarrassed itself over the journey. I fear after Friday night, there might be another one to add to the list.

4 hours ago, DemonHauntedWorld said:

Yeah I did.

I sure hope so. My initial assumption was that I'd find heaps of 0-2 teams make the 8 because it's just two games as everyone keeps saying. I was surprised by how much teams were clustered at the bottom.

I didn't realise I'd need to run a randomised controlled trial to meet the statistical standards of demonland. Lesson learned. 

I apologise again. I actually love stats. Please keep providing them wherever and on whatever subject you see fit. 0-2 to top 4 occurred last year and Sydney were a whisker away from making the top 4 after a 0-5 start in 2017. I get the sense already that this is going to be another even season with no real stand-out performers - so let's hope that trend line continues.