2024 Expected Score Ladder

[Demonland 73,140]

AFL Expected Score ladder (after Round 8)

1. Sydney Swans (7-0-1, 130.3%) [Real ladder: 1st, 7-1, 147%]

2. Port Adelaide (7-1, 133.7%) [Real ladder: 7th, 5-3, 113.1%]

3. Collingwood (5-2-1, 108.5%) [Real ladder: 9th, 4-3-1, 99%]

4. Fremantle (5-3, 115.8%) [Real ladder: 6th, 5-3, 120.6%]

5. GWS Giants (5-3, 115.3%) [Real ladder: 3rd, 6-2, 126.3%]

6. Western Bulldogs (5-3, 110.6%) [Real ladder: 11th, 3-5, 111.5%]

7. Geelong (5-3, 109.9%) [Real ladder: 2nd, 7-1, 129.5%]

8. Melbourne (5-3, 101%) [Real ladder: 4th, 6-2, 124.3%]

9. Carlton (4-1-3, 111.4%) [Real ladder: 8th, 5-3, 109.8%]

10. Brisbane Lions (4-4, 127%) [Real ladder: 13th, 3-5, 100.3%]

11. Gold Coast Suns (4-4, 100%) [Real ladder: 10th, 4-4, 95.8%]

12. St Kilda (4-4, 98.9%) [Real ladder: 14th, 3-5, 96.4%]

13. Adelaide Crows (3-5, 97.9%) [Real ladder: 12th, 3-5, 101.8%]

14. Hawthorn (3-5, 94.8%) [Real ladder: 16th, 2-6, 74.4%]

15. West Coast Eagles (3-5, 85.2%) [Real ladder: 15th, 2-6, 75.9%]

16. Essendon (1-7, 86%) [Real ladder: 5th, 5-2-1, 95.2%]

17. Richmond (0-7-1, 68.3%) [Real ladder: 17th, 1-7, 71.7%]

18. North Melbourne (0-8, 52.3%) [Real ladder: 18th, 0-8, 57.9%]

Expected Score - Luckiest Team

[Adam The God 30,407]

The most startling stat in that lot is Essendon...😳

And what a pity they aren't bottom 3.

Edited May 6 by Binmans PA

[ElDiablo14 5,002]

9 minutes ago, Demonland said:

AFL Expected Score ladder (after Round 8)

1. Sydney Swans (7-0-1, 130.3%) [Real ladder: 1st, 7-1, 147%]

2. Port Adelaide (7-1, 133.7%) [Real ladder: 7th, 5-3, 113.1%]

3. Collingwood (5-2-1, 108.5%) [Real ladder: 9th, 4-3-1, 99%]

4. Fremantle (5-3, 115.8%) [Real ladder: 6th, 5-3, 120.6%]

5. GWS Giants (5-3, 115.3%) [Real ladder: 3rd, 6-2, 126.3%]

6. Western Bulldogs (5-3, 110.6%) [Real ladder: 11th, 3-5, 111.5%]

7. Geelong (5-3, 109.9%) [Real ladder: 2nd, 7-1, 129.5%]

8. Melbourne (5-3, 101%) [Real ladder: 4th, 6-2, 124.3%]

9. Carlton (4-1-3, 111.4%) [Real ladder: 8th, 5-3, 109.8%]

10. Brisbane Lions (4-4, 127%) [Real ladder: 13th, 3-5, 100.3%]

11. Gold Coast Suns (4-4, 100%) [Real ladder: 10th, 4-4, 95.8%]

12. St Kilda (4-4, 98.9%) [Real ladder: 14th, 3-5, 96.4%]

13. Adelaide Crows (3-5, 97.9%) [Real ladder: 12th, 3-5, 101.8%]

14. Hawthorn (3-5, 94.8%) [Real ladder: 16th, 2-6, 74.4%]

15. West Coast Eagles (3-5, 85.2%) [Real ladder: 15th, 2-6, 75.9%]

16. Essendon (1-7, 86%) [Real ladder: 5th, 5-2-1, 95.2%]

17. Richmond (0-7-1, 68.3%) [Real ladder: 17th, 1-7, 71.7%]

18. North Melbourne (0-8, 52.3%) [Real ladder: 18th, 0-8, 57.9%]

Expected Score - Luckiest Team

Melbourne is must bee very skewed by that one game against Brisbane, percentage wise.

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

What i take from this is what a load nonsense the expected score is. Essendon are not 16th, Collingwood are not 3rd. Also did the expected score predict a draw for Collingwood?? i find that hard to believe.

 

As for us, we have only lost one game to expected score (against PA), which is probably right. 

[Skuit 10,031]

I'm guessing we drop the one match to Port on expected score? A 24-point percentage dive though? 

[Skuit 10,031]

15 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Melbourne is must bee very skewed by that one game against Brisbane, percentage wise.

According to AFLxScore on Twitter

MELB 58 from expected 58.1
BL 82 from expected 82.6

[deanox 9,989]

14 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

What i take from this is what a load nonsense the expected score is. Essendon are not 16th, Collingwood are not 3rd. Also did the expected score predict a draw for Collingwood?? i find that hard to believe.

 

As for us, we have only lost one game to expected score (against PA), which is probably right. 

Essendon this year:

Beat Hawthorn, Bulldogs, St Kilda (by 4 points), Adelaide (by 3 points), WCE (by 6 points)

Lost to Sydney, Port (both very comfortably)

Drew Collingwood

 

Essendon could be 2-6 instead of 5-1-2.

[Skuit 10,031]

I'll take a deeper dive later, but curious to know if the data reveals anything that stands out as to opposition misses/the MFC nailing tougher shots, and if this again suggests anything re. our game plan? 

[WheeloRatings 1,163]

Here is my model's expected scores ladder, where I calculate the win probability for each match based on expected scores, rather than a binary win/loss. I think it's rather pointless simply reporting whether a team won a match on expected scores. The expected margin is more insightful. And using win probability is better for an expected scores ladder.

I'm not going to argue that this is what the ladder "should be" or anything like that, but it does provide a sense for which teams might have been lucky/unlucky with their goal kicking or opposition goal kicking.

 

 

[DubDee 26,117]

worst stat ever you ask?

expected score

should we tell St kilda to enjoy their expected flag in 2010??

[WheeloRatings 1,163]

7 minutes ago, DubDee said:

worst stat ever you ask?

expected score

should we tell St kilda to enjoy their expected flag in 2010??

With all the stats that are tracked in an AFL game, you seriously think that expected scores is the worst? It says a lot more about a match than most other stats in isolation.

No one actually thinks they won a match because they won on expected scores only.

[DubDee 26,117]

56 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

With all the stats that are tracked in an AFL game, you seriously think that expected scores is the worst? It says a lot more about a match than most other stats in isolation.

No one actually thinks they won a match because they won on expected scores only.

love your work mate so not having a go. There are worst stats for sure but some people infer too much into this one. Not just in footy but soccer and others. 

So much comes down to who performs when under pressure, who kicks straight, so I’m not a fan of the expected score

[rpfc 28,769]

I’m sorry, but this is a bad stat. It is just trying to place hard truth upon contests and shots at goal under pressure where there is only nuance and grey. 

There is very little insight with this particular statistic.

[Chook 15,022]

40 minutes ago, rpfc said:

I’m sorry, but this is a bad stat. It is just trying to place hard truth upon contests and shots at goal under pressure where there is only nuance and grey. 

There is very little insight with this particular statistic.

I agree. I think it's relevant if one side loses/wins expected score by a lot, as it indicates one team was dominant but didn't put it on the board. The GWS game in the wet last year is a good example, as I felt we really did dominate that game but failed to score largely due to the conditions ruining our composure and disposal.

But if it's close or even mildly one-sided then it really means little.

Edited May 6 by Chook

[Billy 2,544]

13 hours ago, deanox said:

Essendon this year:

Beat Hawthorn, Bulldogs, St Kilda (by 4 points), Adelaide (by 3 points), WCE (by 6 points)

Lost to Sydney, Port (both very comfortably)

Drew Collingwood

 

Essendon could be 2-6 instead of 5-1-2.

Beat Hawks by 24 & Dogs by 29

They’ve improved 

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,939]

We've been a little fortunate with our oppo's inaccuracy at 44% which is the second worst in the league. The Adelaide, Hawthorn and Richmond games come to mind where the oppo's inaccuracy was deplorable. Unfortunately that will correct itself as the year unfolds so we'll need to be on our game with our accuracy.

Contrast that to last year's finals series where our oppo kicked a combined 20.13 to our 16.28.

Edited May 6 by Bring-Back-Powell

[deanox 9,989]

10 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

We've been a little fortunate with our oppo's inaccuracy at 44% which is the second worst in the league. The Adelaide, Hawthorn and Richmond games come to mind where the oppo's inaccuracy was deplorable. Unfortunately that will correct itself as the year unfolds so we'll need to be on our game with our accuracy.

Contrast that to last year's finals series where our oppo kicked a combined 20.13 to our 16.28.

If people think Xscore is a bad stat then accuracy is even worse.

Xscore is just accuracy but adjusted for factors such as shot location, in the play vs on the run, etc.

 

[jumbo returns 6,741]

Did anyone watch OTC last night?

Their 'premiership' quadrant (with all their data pumped into it) only had two teams in it - Geelong and Swans

They pointed out, that in the last 3 years, the premiers came from that premiership quadrant, after Round 8 (cue spooky music here)

We were just outside the mix

Surprisingly, Carlton were very low indeed - not even close

[Fromgotowoewodin 1,606]

It’s not a good stat or a bad stat, it’s just a stat imo. 

For teams like Port and the Dogs it indicates to me that they’re doing a fair bit right and creating good chances but not executing. For us on the other hand we’re probably overperforming on conversion at the moment. 

Does it mean Port and the Dogs “should” have won more games and we “should” have lost one more? No, executing under pressure is part of the game, if you can’t do it on the night you don’t deserve the win on the night. 

[Lucifers Hero 40,359]

30 minutes ago, jumbo returns said:

Did anyone watch OTC last night?

Their 'premiership' quadrant (with all their data pumped into it) only had two teams in it - Geelong and Swans

They pointed out, that in the last 3 years, the premiers came from that premiership quadrant, after Round 8 (cue spooky music here)

We were just outside the mix

Surprisingly, Carlton were very low indeed - not even close

I chuckled when I saw that as they all looked so chuffed!!

The ‘window’ simply reflects each team’s %, derived by ranking then plotting each team’s pts for/against.  And there is a small affect for the number of wins/losses.   So is it any wonder Geelong and Sydney sit in that quadrant. 

The chart is saying the top 2 teams at Round 8 play off in the grand final.  The chart makes it look clever but it is hardly an earth shattering observation. 

The year that didn’t hold true is 2022.  The top 2 teams at round 8 were Geelong and Melbourne. 

I am confident the top 2 teams won’t play off in this year’s GF.  Melbourne will be one of those teams. 

Edited May 6 by Lucifers Hero

[titan_uranus 25,043]

5 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I chuckled when I saw that as they all looked so chuffed!!

The ‘window’ simply reflects each team’s %, derived by ranking then plotting each team’s pts for/against.  And there is a small affect for the number of wins/losses.   So is it any wonder Geelong and Sydney sit in that quadrant. 

The chart is saying the top 2 teams at Round 8 play off in the grand final.  The chart makes it look clever but it is hardly an earth shattering observation. 

The year that didn’t hold true is 2022.  The top 2 teams at round 8 were Geelong and Melbourne. 

I am confident the top 2 teams won’t play off in this year’s GF.  Melbourne will be one of those teams. 

It’s even more basic than this. 

It’s just plotting points for (the horizontal axis) and points against (the vertical axis). That’s all. 

All they are saying is that premiers tend to be in the top 6 for both stats. Which, as you say, is hardly surprising!

[Lucifers Hero 40,359]

18 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

It’s even more basic than this. 

It’s just plotting points for (the horizontal axis) and points against (the vertical axis). That’s all. 

All they are saying is that premiers tend to be in the top 6 for both stats. Which, as you say, is hardly surprising!

That is what I said:  The ‘window’ simply reflects each team’s %, derived by ranking then plotting each team’s pts for/against. ( I knew what the horizontal and vertical axes were.  But looking more closely the axes names on the chart are very blurred).

I think it true that the top 2 at round 8 play off in the GF .  It was even true in 2021.  While the WBD came from 5th at the end of H&A games they were 2nd at round 8.

Reckon we would both agree the teams in the GF will come from the top 4 at seasons end (or even the top 3) - 2016 being the outlier. 

 

Edited May 6 by Lucifers Hero

[titan_uranus 25,043]

3 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

That is what I said:  The ‘window’ simply reflects each team’s %, derived by ranking then plotting each team’s pts for/against.  It seemed to me the horizontal and vertical axes names were fairly obvious, altho the names are blurred on the chart I posted.

I can't be bothered going back to check but I think it is true that the top 2 at round 8 play off in the GF .  It was even true in 2021.  While the WBD came from 5th at the end of H&A games they were 2nd at round 8.

Reckon we would both agree the teams in the GF will come from the top 4 at seasons end (or even the top 3) - 2016 being the outlier.

Sorry, so you did. 

I think they said last night that the last three premiers were in the “window” at Round 8. 

I’d imagine that this years grand finalists will be at least top 6 in both, and likely higher in defence. I’d be hesitant to say top 3-4 though as I can see a world where we hover at the 4-6 mark for points for, which would suit us pretty well if we keep doing what we’re doing on defence. 

[Lucifers Hero 40,359]

9 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Sorry, so you did. 

I think they said last night that the last three premiers were in the “window” at Round 8. 

I’d imagine that this years grand finalists will be at least top 6 in both, and likely higher in defence. I’d be hesitant to say top 3-4 though as I can see a world where we hover at the 4-6 mark for points for, which would suit us pretty well if we keep doing what we’re doing on defence. 

I would agree the GF teams are likely to be higher in defence.  Which makes Freo interesting, making up the top 4 on the chart for defence with Syd, Geel and Dees.   In fact they rank higher than Syd and Geelong.  Our 2 games vs Freo will be very interesting.

Not their year but Freo are building.

Edited May 6 by Lucifers Hero

[deanox 9,989]

That is such a lazy stat too.

It's simply top 6 in the points F and A. It's not even something like "within a set percentage of the leader". Meaning someone could be 7th, by 1 point, and they miss out, even though they are performing better than in previous years.

Edited May 6 by deanox