Engorged Onion

Nice one Brownie, a bit of locals knowledge please - I used to hit up ‘Ze Germahn Klub’ pre match when I lived up here 10 years ago, alas it’s booked out- any other recommendations? (Not the🍍!!) I’m expecting a tight error riddled match with the Dees pulling away in the third and for Brisbane to ride the crowd a bit in the final.

Flew into Coolangatta last night, 25 degree day up here. Now, looking out at the sun nudging above the horizon on the Coral Sea at Currumbin 15 storeys up. About to go for a run around Burleigh Heads headland and then a dip. Geez I'm glad to be out of the miserable sodding Victorian weather. I'll be sitting in the members tonight, it'll be a blast. Let's get it done... and if we don't, I still think we're the only team within the finals that can win from anywhere. ❤️💙

@Gorgoroth Melbourne's Beltings In 2022. Fremantle - 38 points Geelong - 28 points Collingwood - 26 points Sydney - 11points Western Bulldogs - 10 points Collingwood - 7 points

Good pick up @Stu, effectively what does that mean for us in the present as to how we are playing, and what is likely to change?

*nerd alert Great question @binman it can help reinforce behaviors that lead to success- and let's not use it as the reason to just expect things to occur. What you're discussing is the notion of Self as Context vs Self as Concept from an Acceptance and Commitment perspective. Essentially, the conceptualised self refers to self-evaluations that are formed through interactions with the environment and with others. Although the conceptualised self may be helpful in guiding behavior, trying to teach individuals to view the self as ever-changing and influenced by both internal and external events, is useful. Why? Well, imagine we were a team that always lost to North Melbourne (recent times eh). You might (and supporters are always more likely to) hold on to the story that we always lose. If that 'feels' true to you, you are more likely to engage in behaviours when performing, that inadvertently reinforce that belief coming true..such as playing safe, which leads to another loss. (contingent on how you have gone in the season thus far). The self as concept then turns out to be true "We always lose to North" (the self as concept)... BUT what happens on the day of your first win? You didn't buy into self as concept, you were able to shift into self as context - understanding that your brain is getting caught up in old conceptualised views of the self, that don't have to inform behaviour. On the flip side (when things are going well) It's nice to have a self as concept that we have won x amount of games interstate... That is a really lovely feeling, however it doesn't actually help performance against Brisbane on Friday night...the behaviours still need to be consistent with our teams values and I would hope/expect Goodwin and co, reinforce that, as well as inadvertently, the notion of self as context.

You're bloody right! Whats THAT about....

Perhaps the mods could introduce a way to highlight the background - traffic light style. Green for a happy/positive post Orange for raising concerns Red for vitriol to players/club/other...

Applied for the North or Essendon gigs? 😇

Was it always coming or was it the magnitude and opposition of the weekends loss?

I miss 'old mate' he/she/they were good for stirring up some controversy... did they wander off or were they ejected?

Agreed... and the AFL average is 19% - that's 4 out of 5 entries will result in a turnover across the entire league. I'm not sure tactically what can be done different, aside from 'lowering eyes'.

As always @WheeloRatings, fantastic work.

So close! 😎❤️💙 Patrick Cripps = 1000 Clearances - 144 Matches Played Clayton Oliver - = 989 Clearances - 144 Matches Played.

It feels as though for some, there is only one type of win that legitimizes being a contender once you've won the premiership... the ol 5-7 goal win.

Yep - foolish to drop Spargo - our next best is at AFL average of 19%

Just woke up to the thread title change... Holy Moly... *loooong exhale, shake of head*

Thanks greatly to @WheeloRatings for expanding on Pythagorean stats for AFL on a couple of the other threads... http://www.matterofstats.com/mafl-stats-journal/2011/5/22/win-production-functions-for-afl-teams-1897-to-2010.html Within the article, what I felt was significant was the below 3 paragraphs - and thus an explanation, as to why our game plan (and what we see on tv, or live) is about the process of getting the ball in, time and time again irrespective of positioning, in the F50, and is thus the data/metrics, that drive the rationale behind the decision to play this way. "So, for example, a team that, on average, produced 2 more scoring shots per game than its opponents and that converted them, on average, at the same rate as its opponents would be expected to win about exp(0.164 x 2 + 6.18 x 0)/(1 + exp(0.164 x 2 + 6.18 x 0)), or 58% of its games across the home-and-away season. That expectation applies whether you apply it to a team playing at the turn of the 19th or the 20th century. This equation allows you to ask and answer some interesting what-ifs. For example, if you're a team that currently generates the same number of scoring shots as your opponents and converts them at the same rate as your opponents - hence your expected winning percentage is 50% - would you rather swap in a player who generates 1 more scoring shot per game or who increases your conversion rate by 2% points? An extra scoring shot per game lifts your team's winning percentage to exp(0.164)/(1+exp(0.164)) or 54.1%, while a 1% increase in your team's conversion rate lifts its winning percentage to exp(0.0618 x 2)/(1+exp(0.0618 x 2)) or 53.1%. So, you want the player who can generate 1 extra scoring shot per game." I have no doubt, there are further metrics around the likely scoring %'s of each player within the F50 at certain positions, and that also underpins the rationale. Maybe I have extrapolated too much, and I have also no doubt that there are some Demonland posters who would be more savvy with this info than me, in relating it to what we see on the field. @Axis of Bob@WheeloRatings?

Melbourne have the second best differential (+5.5) by some margin (Sydney at +5.0) - aside from Geelong +8.5 and that depends on how much weight you put on the Kardinia Park advantage and the options to play North twice.

Brilliant stuff @WheeloRatings ❤️💙 - can you confirm what WPF is an acronym for... For those correlating % to Collingwoods finals aspirations here is a nice little image. Expected wins 55% of 20 matches - currently on 75% of matches won, thus a +4.1 games won differential. With the notion that the team will regress back to the mean/average - somewhere somehow, their winning run should come to a dead stop. 😎

Perhaps a bit more detail in the topic title might include something about 'media reports'. Just because it's not in the media, it doesn't mean conversations aren't occurring.

I’ve tried doing one myself. I know nothing about maths at this level, but I can’t work out what the ‘exponent’ should be for AFL specifically. There are calculators online for baseball and basketball. If someone could work out/find the ‘exponent’ I can plug it all in.

Could of sworn we’ve been out of finals contention for about 6 weeks 🤓😏

If you take the lens that the AFL is an entertainment package 24 hours 7 days a week... then, this is how they all get paid 😎

Could you summarise?

I love stats, and sometimes I completely misinterpret them... in interpreting the image on the screen, have I mucked this up? CP = 124 @ 14% =17.36 at AFL Average 19% = 23.56 = that's -6 marks difference over 20 games... CO = 94 @ 13% =12.22 at AFL Average = 17.86 = that's -5.5 marks over 20 games... MG = 59 @ 12% =7.08 at AFL Average = 11.21 = that's -4 marks over 20 games... CS = 56 @ 46% =25.76 at AFL Average = 10.64 = that's +15 marks over 20 games... (in the positive) TS= 54 @ 7% =3.78 at AFL Average = 10.26 = that's -6.5 marks over 20 games... JJ= 53 @ 15% =7.95 at AFL Average = 10.07 = that's -2 marks over 20 games... EL= 50 @ 18% =9 at AFL Average = 9.5 = that's -5. marks over 20 games... Total amount of marks difference negativeve and Spargo's postitive of a 20 game stretch behind AFL average, is 14 marks over a 20 game stretch.. less than .75 of a mark a match.