The gurus at Expected Scores had us losing the game by 1 point - 78.9 to 77.7

I don't know how they worked that out given we had 5 more scoring shots.

https://twitter.com/AFLxScore?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

They also had GWS beating the Dogs on expected scores.

2 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

The gurus at Expected Scores had us losing the game by 1 point - 78.9 to 77.7

I don't know how they worked that out given we had 5 more scoring shots.

https://twitter.com/AFLxScore?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

They also had GWS beating the Dogs on expected scores.

Apparently they do some probability calculation for every shot at goal, including ones that miss all together.

To arrive at that figure they factor in things like how much pressure the player is under when kicking, the angle, i think conditions and i might be imagining this bit, the players record from that spot (i assume for both in play and set shots). 

And then they aggregate all shots to arrive at the expected score.

So I'm guessing despite us having more scoring shots that they missed easier ones (thankfully including Macphersons')? 

5 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Umpiring looked OK live but on review was terrible. Even if we were the beneficiary of some dubious ones late.

 

As a number of folk have already commented. Long took on Kozzie who legally tackled him in possession of the ball. He had prior opportunity, was caught red handed, textbook holding the ball. Umpire fails to correctly apply the rule and decides to ‘neutralise’ the situation by balling up. Absolute dunce disadvantages Demons.

Fast forward to final 20 seconds of the last quarter Chol athletically assisted by the ‘shove’ from Max is now able to leap tall buildings with a single bound. Gawn is either Superman running around in Demon footy jumper. Or Chol is a ‘ham’ actor who overcooked his lines. I’ll take mine with pineapple and cheese. Those media giants Dunstall and Russell can have the rough end.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Tarax Club

3 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

The gurus at Expected Scores had us losing the game by 1 point - 78.9 to 77.7

I don't know how they worked that out given we had 5 more scoring shots.

https://twitter.com/AFLxScore?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

They also had GWS beating the Dogs on expected scores.

They supposedly calculate how hard a shot was, if it was set shot or in play, if pressured kick or open kick, and measure the actual scoring outcome vs probability of those factors. 

On expected score, the Tigers should've beat us by approx two goals also. That one was pretty clear though as they had more shots at goal, more scores registered, more inside 50s, more time in forward half, more tackles, more tackles inside forward 50 etc. We were outplayed and their inaccuracy's our brilliant accuracy saved us. 

It's great we've been winning the majority of matches, but reality is our form has been average for most of this year. Good news is we've got a ton of improvement still in us whilst already sitting in the top four. It's nice to support a good team this past few years!

9 hours ago, AzzKikA said:

Good old Aussie language beats the filter again!

And yet Richard cannot be shortened to [censored]  ([censored])