I would pay anything to see Gold Coast take Geelong's spot in the 8. 

16 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Do you think this year is particularly different from others? Don't you think there are "cheap wins" every year?

It’s not often all 4 clubs have Zero or 1 win after 5 weeks

Alot of junk Clubs this year

6 hours ago, WheeloRatings said:

Yeah Melbourne certainly had their fate in their own hands in 2004 and should never have finished 5th.

The paper goes into the home ground advantage as you would've seen but I guess the main thing it illustrates is the drop off from 4th to 5th. This is evident when looking at Preliminary Final appearances with 3rd and 4th making the PF 18 times compared to 5th and 6th three and four times respectively. This is of course what you want - the best four teams playing in the Prelims.

As you have noted though, there has been a clear difference in finals results between 3rd and 4th. I have had a look at (since 2000) how far teams finishing in each ladder position made it in the finals and (in addition to not winning a Premiership) 4th has only made the Grand Final three times compared to 15, 12 and 11 for 1st, 2nd and 3rd respectively.

Interestingly, 5th has a 12-10 record against 8th in Elimination Finals but 6th has a 14-8 record against 7th.

The results for the top 4 based on the outcome of the Qualifying Finals are interesting. Teams in 3rd and 4th have each lost the QF 16 times and both ladder positions have made it to the Prelim 12 times. Teams in 4th after losing the QF have a 1-11 record in the PF whereas teams in 3rd after losing the QF have a 5-7 record in the PF and 4-1 record in Grand Finals.

Your hypothesis of 4th having a tougher finals draw does make sense andmade  is certainly backed by the numbers.

Thanks for this. Brilliant work and much appreciated.

Overall in 22 years you'd expect mathematically these lower teams to win 5 or 6 premierships between them (25% x 22) and the  top 4 to win 16 or 17  (75% x 22) but this assumes 50% probability of each competing team in each game & no home ground advantage (still you wouldn't expect 1-21, maybe 3-19 at worst).

I'm a bit surprised at the QF results. 1 vs 4 16-6 doesn't surprise me, but 2 vs 3 16-6 does. I'd assumed 2 vs 3 would me much more even. The 5-8 results in SFs are really very poor, losing 35 of 44. 1 & 2 have similar QF & SF records and won their premierships largely from winning the QF, PF & then GF, while 3 seems to be capable of winning from anywhere and overcomes its poor QF record. 4 hasn't really managed to get past the PF (lost 15 out of 18). Basically 3 & 4 do equally poorly at QF stage & equally well at SF stage but for some reason 3 goes super-well from then on while 4 goes super-badly. Whenever 4 goes directly through to the PF from the QF it appears to lose to 3 coming through from the crossover. All very strange.

11 hours ago, Sydney_Demon said:

Thanks for this. Brilliant work and much appreciated.

Overall in 22 years you'd expect mathematically these lower teams to win 5 or 6 premierships between them (25% x 22) and the  top 4 to win 16 or 17  (75% x 22) but this assumes 50% probability of each competing team in each game & no home ground advantage (still you wouldn't expect 1-21, maybe 3-19 at worst).

Mathematically, the home ground probabilities are more realistic (but still flawed as they don’t take into account that teams finishing higher are better teams).

I especially like group 2 from the home ground probabilities which now consists of Geelong only. We and other mcg co tenants are Group 5.

 

Good chance Bulldogs will be in the 8 next week.  Swans (7th) and Tigers (8ty) play each other.  If Bulldogs get a good % boost vs the Eagles they will replace one of them.  Reckon it will be short lived given their draw.

Carlton's top 4 position will be tested in the coming months.  After the next two rounds vs Eagles and Ess they play 6 of the top 8 teams.  Credit to them for hanging on to beat the other top 8 team:  Sydney.  Not sure about their ability to do the same vs most of the other top 8.

Win next week and we will have a 3-4 game and % lead over 5th.  Difficult to see us falling out of the top 4 from there.

Edited May 21, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

50 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Good chance Bulldogs will be in the 8 next week.  Swans (7th) and Tigers (8ty) play each other.  If Bulldogs get a good % boost vs the Eagles they will replace one of them.  Reckon it will be short lived given their draw.

Carlton's top 4 position will be tested in the coming months.  After the next two rounds vs Eagles and Ess they play 6 of the top 8 teams.  Credit to them for hanging on to beat the other top 8 team:  Sydney.  Not sure about their ability to do the same vs most of the other top 8.

Win next week and we will have a 4 game and % lead over 5th.  Difficult to see us falling out of the top 4 from there.

I think by now, barring any unforeseen disasters, we are more than certain to be top 4. However the main challenge,it appears, will be to secure top 2. 

We must avoid at all cost to have to travel for the QF round (Brisbane or Perth).

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Win next week and we will have a 4 game and % lead over 5th.  Difficult to see us falling out of the top 4 from there.

Only if the pies beat Freo today.

2 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

Only if the pies beat Freo today.

Thanks.  I'll go back and correct post.

Make of this what you will for the teams vying for the last few spots in the 8.

Eight into Three doesn't go!

On 5/15/2022 at 7:50 AM, Demon17 said:

Over the last 30 years, the Final 8 is settled by Round 9 and only the order of the 8 changes.

Thus we can say now the Pies, Power, Dogs and Hawks have missed out.

And the average annual movement in and out of the 8 is 2.8 teams, rounded up to 3. So this year is an outlier with 4 new teams from last year.

My argument there is that in 2021, the Dons were a false dawn and should not have made the 8, so they don't count this year as a failed finalist, and the Tiges are back where they belong talent-wise anway.

Great to see Freo make it..  And the Dogs slip up.  But again, never has a losing GF team made the GF the following year.

In other words when the Dees beat you, you stay beaten.

The ladder when you posted was:

1. Melbourne

2. Freo

3. Brisbane 

4. Carlton

5. Geelong

6. Sydney

7. St Kilda

8. Richmond

History might be in trouble this year. 
The loser of Swans vs Richmond will drop out of the 8 to be replaced by the dogs when they annihilate WC (say what you will about the dogs but they flat track bully very well). If it’s Sydney they then play us and Port so could drop as far as 10th with their upcoming games over the bye. Meanwhile if it’s Richmond they could be dropping under Port when they play in round 13. Port’s destiny is in its own hands with Dixon coming back for their games against Essendon, Richmond and Sydney, win 2/3 and they’re well and truly back in the race. 
Sadly it looks like Geelong are safe but if Adelaide and the Dogs do us all a favour and beat them they’re back in the thick of the fight (with games against us, Carlton, St Kilda,  Richmond, Port, GC and the Bulldogs again in the run home). 
From what I can see at least one change, possibly two are still likely, bizarrely, given where they sat only a few weeks ago Freo could drop out with games against us x2, Brisbane, Carlton, Sydney, Richmond, St Kilda, Dogs and Port in the run home. 
GC and the Pies are real wildcards here, if they continue their recent form of upsets they will shape the 6-8 positions.

I hope we smash Freo and Sydney these next two weeks, not just because I always love us winning, but if both teams lose they are thrust into a HUGE fight to even make finals.

Edited May 24, 20223 yr by deejammin'

Which Teams Are Good :Squiggle

"Power Rankings measure team strength at a point in time. They ignore the fixture, home ground advantage, and all the other factors that go into predicting the outcome of a match or a season. Instead, they’re a simple answer to Rory’s question: Which teams are actually good?"

 

** I only rate this metric, due to where we are rated 🤷‍♂️

Edited May 24, 20223 yr by Engorged Onion

18 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

Which Teams Are Good :Squiggle

"Power Rankings measure team strength at a point in time. They ignore the fixture, home ground advantage, and all the other factors that go into predicting the outcome of a match or a season. Instead, they’re a simple answer to Rory’s question: Which teams are actually good?"

 

** I only rate this metric, due to where we are rated 🤷‍♂️

Yeah the "Aggregate" Power Rankings is basically the average of the ratings for all the individual Squiggle models. Given all the models use different methods (and rating scales), the ratings are standardised and then averaged.

Here is a graphic I had created from the Squiggle API which shows the variability in some models' ratings of certain teams.

@WheeloRatings what's your take on Carlton's ladder position vs ranking?

On 5/21/2022 at 8:51 AM, Watson11 said:

Mathematically, the home ground probabilities are more realistic (but still flawed as they don’t take into account that teams finishing higher are better teams).

I especially like group 2 from the home ground probabilities which now consists of Geelong only. We and other mcg co tenants are Group 5.

 

These odds are of course out-of-date as GWS & Gold Coast have joined the AFL since the analysis was done and would have joined Group 1. Carlton have moved from Group 2 to Group 4. North Melbourne have moved from Group 5 to Group 4. I think the numbers are all premised on home-ground advantage producing a 58% winning percentage (which I guess will have changed since 1999). And also in reality it would be different for each ground. e.g. Melbourne-based teams would play away at the MCG & Marvel a number of times during H&A season, thus diminishing home-ground advantage. Finally, it is based on the assumption that every team has an equal chance of finishing in any position after completion of the H&A matches.

For 2022 we definitely don't want to finish 3rd  below 2 interstate teams (which realistically could only be Brisbane & Fremantle) because we'd potentially have to play 2 away finals (assuming we lost the QF to Brisbane/Fremantle and Brisbane/Fremantle won the other QF). The knightmare scenario would be also having to play a SF against Richmond/Collingwood/Hawthorn (the winner of an EF between 6th & 7th) with no home-ground advantage. Also we don't want to finish 1st or 2nd and have to play Richmond/Collingwood/Hawthorn in a QF.

This is my predicted ladder for what's it's worth. I'd be very happy with this.

1			MELB	22	76	129.9	19	3	0	W W L	$2.4
2			BL	22	72	127.5	18	4	0	W W W	$5.5
3			CARL	22	64	110.7	16	6	0	L L W	$12
4			GEEL	22	60	117.2	15	7	0	W W W	$13
5			SYD	22	60	115.5	15	7	0	W W W	$15
6			FRE	22	60	115.3	15	7	0	L W W	$13
7			RICH	22	52	111.0	13	9	0	L W W	$14
8			WB	22	52	109.0	13	9	0

Too much to worry about but winning on Saturday against Fremantle would be a very good starting point 😄.

13 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

@WheeloRatings what's your take on Carlton's ladder position vs ranking?

A lot of the models will take into account margin of victory (as well as opposition and venue), not just simply win/loss. Carlton's percentage is the worst of the top 8 teams. They beat Hawthorn by 1 point, Port Adelaide by 3 points (with fewer scoring shots) and the Western Bulldogs by 12 but also with fewer scoring shots. They're all worth 4 points on the ladder but most of the models probably won't see a 1 point win as being much better than a 1 point loss. Luck is a factor in close games and if they lose to Port and Hawthorn, they're currently 8th on the ladder.

The primary purpose of the ratings in these models is to predict future matches, not simply rank how teams have performed this year, and putting too much weight on a 1 point win or on recent matches doesn't help with predicting future matches. As such, the models are somewhat conservative but if Carlton is genuinely a top 4 team this year, that will most likely be reflected in the ratings later in the year.

Another factor is that Carlton started the season from a lower base given the ratings are generally dependent on the previous season. This may still be impacting their rating in some models to some extent, although I haven't quantified how much that may still be impacting their rating in my model.

Their rating in my model has gone from -4.3 after the loss to Fremantle in round 6 to +7.0 currently so they could be up to 4th by my model in a week or two at that rate (they're currently 7th).

8 hours ago, WheeloRatings said:

Yeah the "Aggregate" Power Rankings is basically the average of the ratings for all the individual Squiggle models. Given all the models use different methods (and rating scales), the ratings are standardised and then averaged.

Here is a graphic I had created from the Squiggle API which shows the variability in some models' ratings of certain teams.

I love stats, data and analysis, but there is a real problem with what's going on right now if even the worst assessment of Geelong right now is higher than the best assessment of Carlton right now.

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

I love stats, data and analysis, but there is a real problem with what's going on right now if even the worst assessment of Geelong right now is higher than the best assessment of Carlton right now.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying there's a real problem. Geelong has had more scoring shots than Carlton and conceded fewer scoring shots over their 10 games, and Carlton has only won 50% of quarters. If Carlton's games against Hawthorn and Port Adelaide go much longer, they quite possibly lose both and they're in 8th.

They've done very well but their ladder position probably flatters them a little at this stage.

I provided some additional explanation in my other post:

2 hours ago, WheeloRatings said:

A lot of the models will take into account margin of victory (as well as opposition and venue), not just simply win/loss. Carlton's percentage is the worst of the top 8 teams. They beat Hawthorn by 1 point, Port Adelaide by 3 points (with fewer scoring shots) and the Western Bulldogs by 12 but also with fewer scoring shots. They're all worth 4 points on the ladder but most of the models probably won't see a 1 point win as being much better than a 1 point loss. Luck is a factor in close games and if they lose to Port and Hawthorn, they're currently 8th on the ladder.

The primary purpose of the ratings in these models is to predict future matches, not simply rank how teams have performed this year, and putting too much weight on a 1 point win or on recent matches doesn't help with predicting future matches. As such, the models are somewhat conservative but if Carlton is genuinely a top 4 team this year, that will most likely be reflected in the ratings later in the year.

Another factor is that Carlton started the season from a lower base given the ratings are generally dependent on the previous season. This may still be impacting their rating in some models to some extent, although I haven't quantified how much that may still be impacting their rating in my model.

Their rating in my model has gone from -4.3 after the loss to Fremantle in round 6 to +7.0 currently so they could be up to 4th by my model in a week or two at that rate (they're currently 7th).

3 hours ago, WheeloRatings said:

I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying there's a real problem. Geelong has had more scoring shots than Carlton and conceded fewer scoring shots over their 10 games, and Carlton has only won 50% of quarters. If Carlton's games against Hawthorn and Port Adelaide go much longer, they quite possibly lose both and they're in 8th.

They've done very well but their ladder position probably flatters them a little at this stage.

I provided some additional explanation in my other post:

Fair reason why Geelong might still be a more solid side than Carlton, but the gap just isn't wide enough to have the worst Geelong model scoring just as high as the best Carlton model.

9 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Fair reason why Geelong might still be a more solid side than Carlton, but the gap just isn't wide enough to have the worst Geelong model scoring just as high as the best Carlton model.

It could be just be my anti-Carlton bias coming out but looking at Carlton's record they could well have been 4-6 this year as all of Western Bulldogs, Hawthorn, Port Adelaide & Sydney blew numerous opportunities to run over the top of them. Even if Carlton had won 2 & lost 2 of those they'd be 6-4. The 2 losses they've had have been very ordinary performances against Gold Coast & Fremantle. Carlton's percentage is 114.6%.

Geelong have been up & down but are 6-4 with a percentage of 124.8% & have only won 2 of their 5 close games including a 3-point loss to Fremantle. They've had one bad loss (to Sydney).

I guess it comes down to how you rate wins as opposed to all the other factors and I acknowledge that Carlton have played and won with significant outs through injury (impacting their backline in particular). I hate the way the media are all jumping on the Carlton bandwagon without doing in-depth analysis of the cons as well as the pros. I look at Carlton a bit like Port last year. Port won all 6 close games in 2021 so weren't a true Top 2 team IMV. Similarly I don't think Carlton are a true Top 3 team now as their luck will run out at some stage (but maybe not. Time will tell).

On 5/24/2022 at 1:54 PM, Engorged Onion said:

Which Teams Are Good :Squiggle

"Power Rankings measure team strength at a point in time. They ignore the fixture, home ground advantage, and all the other factors that go into predicting the outcome of a match or a season. Instead, they’re a simple answer to Rory’s question: Which teams are actually good?"

 

** I only rate this metric, due to where we are rated 🤷‍♂️

So on that metric Bulldogs are underperforming and Freo are over performing

On 5/15/2022 at 7:50 AM, Demon17 said:

Over the last 30 years, the Final 8 is settled by Round 9 and only the order of the 8 changes.

Thus we can say now the Pies, Power, Dogs and Hawks have missed out.

And the average annual movement in and out of the 8 is 2.8 teams, rounded up to 3. So this year is an outlier with 4 new teams from last year.

My argument there is that in 2021, the Dons were a false dawn and should not have made the 8, so they don't count this year as a failed finalist, and the Tiges are back where they belong talent-wise anyway.

Great to see Freo make it..  And the Dogs slip up.  

 

I posted this in mid-May after Round 9 , and there was a well deserved pile-on for some  errors and language.

However, this season has now shown to be an outlier with 4 new teams making the 8, as opposed to the avergae over 30 years of 2.8.

Who would have thought that the Pies , at 17 last year,  were the ones to spoil that stat by even being a top 2 possibility. They got there by Round 12 so were on the rise evn then.

Otherwise, 7 of the 8 teams in the 8 this season at Round 9 are now overwhelmingly likely to be Top 8 at round 23.

The Dogs missing are the fascinating ones for me as last year's Grand Finalists.