Can we ban Freomaniac?
The Premiership Standard - 100pts for, 86 pts against
- Thread starter ManWithNoName
- Start date
- Tagged users None
MWPP
Flying High
No, we have 914 for, and 705 against over 9 games which works out to be 101.4/78.3
Ie we average greater than 100 in attack /less than 86 in defense so in the top right quadrant aka the premiership zone
I'm perplexed that this sort of conditional stat has gained much credence. The "premiership standard" would only really mean something if achieving the standard meant you were pretty assured of a premiership.
WC did this in 2015, but didn't win the flag.
In 2014, Adelaide went 99 and 87, and didn't even make the 8. If they'd only kicked one point a game more and conceded one point a game less, they could have won the flag!
In 2013, Geelong and Sydney both went 100 and 86, and neither made the GF. Again, North Melb went 105 and 87, and didn't make the 8. One lousy point!
In 2012, Adelaide, West Coast and Geelong all went 100 and 86, and none of them made the GF.
In 2011, Hawthorn, West Coast and Carlton(!) did it, and none of them even made the GF either.
In 2010, Geelong missed out after doing the deed.
So in 6 seasons, 10 more teams achieved the standard and most didn't even make the Grand Final, 2 more went extremely close and didn't even make the 8!
WC did this in 2015, but didn't win the flag.
In 2014, Adelaide went 99 and 87, and didn't even make the 8. If they'd only kicked one point a game more and conceded one point a game less, they could have won the flag!
In 2013, Geelong and Sydney both went 100 and 86, and neither made the GF. Again, North Melb went 105 and 87, and didn't make the 8. One lousy point!
In 2012, Adelaide, West Coast and Geelong all went 100 and 86, and none of them made the GF.
In 2011, Hawthorn, West Coast and Carlton(!) did it, and none of them even made the GF either.
In 2010, Geelong missed out after doing the deed.
So in 6 seasons, 10 more teams achieved the standard and most didn't even make the Grand Final, 2 more went extremely close and didn't even make the 8!
MWPP
Flying High
I consider it similar to NAPLAN testing
Ie meeting a standard still doesn't mean they're the stand out
But not meeting it can be a warning sign
Ie it's better at identifying those who are struggling than those who are excellent
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
No, we have 914 for, and 705 against over 9 games which works out to be 101.4/78.3
Ie we average greater than 100 in attack /less than 86 in defense so in the top right quadrant aka the premiership zone
Put you hands out in front of you and see which one makes an L.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
You're looking at it backwards.
It's not meets standard = win win the flag, it's meets the standard = may win the flag, or more importantly doesn't meet the standard = won't win the flag.
MWPP
Flying High
Depends how it's plotted , but I was picturing something like the squiggle
ie Being Top Left seems to imply good attack, poor defense
If anything we're the opposite.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
It's points for on the Y axis and points against on the X axis...
100 points for and 86 against is a percentage of 116. Not that amazing a stat to say that a percentage of 116 gives you a shot at a flag.
It's self-evident, like saying - if you don't get in the top 4 on a percentage ladder, you can't make the Grand Final.
(both Grand Finalists in each of the last 15 seasons finished in the top 4 percentage wise)
6 of the last 8 Grand Finals were contested by teams ranked 1 and 2.
2015 - Hawthorn 158 1st, West Coast 148 2nd
2014 - Hawthorn 141 2nd, Sydney 143 1st
2013 - Hawthorn 136 1st, Fremantle 134 3rd
2012 - Sydney 141 2nd, Hawthorn 155 1st
2011 - Geelong 157 2nd, Collingwood 168 1st
2010 - Collingwood 142 2nd, St Kilda 122 4th
2009 - Geelong 127 2nd, St Kilda 156 1st
2008 - Hawthorn 131 2nd, Geelong 162 1st
2007 - Geelong 153 1st, Port Adel 114 3rd
2006 - West Coast 120 3rd, Sydney 129 2nd (Adelaide 1st)
2005 - Sydney 116 4th, West Coast 124 3rd (Adelaide 1st)
2004 - Port Adelaide 132 2nd, Brisbane 137 1st
2003 - Brisbane 122 2nd, Collingwood 122 3rd (Port Adelaide 1st)
2002 - Brisbane 137 1st, Collingwood 110 4th
2001 - Brisbane 128 4th, Essendon 134 1st
2000 - Essendon 159 1st, Melbourne 118 3rd
David King's measure, like this measure, is a nice stat to read, but it's not predictive, it is retrospective.
It's just fitting a line under the premiers consolidated stats *after the fact*.
It's self-evident, like saying - if you don't get in the top 4 on a percentage ladder, you can't make the Grand Final.
(both Grand Finalists in each of the last 15 seasons finished in the top 4 percentage wise)
6 of the last 8 Grand Finals were contested by teams ranked 1 and 2.
2015 - Hawthorn 158 1st, West Coast 148 2nd
2014 - Hawthorn 141 2nd, Sydney 143 1st
2013 - Hawthorn 136 1st, Fremantle 134 3rd
2012 - Sydney 141 2nd, Hawthorn 155 1st
2011 - Geelong 157 2nd, Collingwood 168 1st
2010 - Collingwood 142 2nd, St Kilda 122 4th
2009 - Geelong 127 2nd, St Kilda 156 1st
2008 - Hawthorn 131 2nd, Geelong 162 1st
2007 - Geelong 153 1st, Port Adel 114 3rd
2006 - West Coast 120 3rd, Sydney 129 2nd (Adelaide 1st)
2005 - Sydney 116 4th, West Coast 124 3rd (Adelaide 1st)
2004 - Port Adelaide 132 2nd, Brisbane 137 1st
2003 - Brisbane 122 2nd, Collingwood 122 3rd (Port Adelaide 1st)
2002 - Brisbane 137 1st, Collingwood 110 4th
2001 - Brisbane 128 4th, Essendon 134 1st
2000 - Essendon 159 1st, Melbourne 118 3rd
David King's measure, like this measure, is a nice stat to read, but it's not predictive, it is retrospective.
It's just fitting a line under the premiers consolidated stats *after the fact*.
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,478
- 118,177
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
I don't mind the idea of a Premiership Standard and its good to get close to it as it determines % as well , but ultimately hindsight makes these things more relevant.
( and no its not because Adelaide are not close- hell this weekend may see us out of the 8)
( and no its not because Adelaide are not close- hell this weekend may see us out of the 8)
Tas
Premium Platinum
Veteran
10k Posts
30k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
TheBrownDog
- Dec 23, 2002
- 62,054
- 60,118
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- There can be only one...
As of Round 9 it has moved to 104.5 for and 79.9 against. Now to see if we can keep it in the zone over the next 6 rounds.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,275
- AFL Club
- Geelong
So it coincides with GC and GWS entering the comp and boosting opponents percentage?
Iron
Norm Smith Medallist
- May 26, 2014
- 7,170
- 15,280
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Teams that don't reach this standard don't win the flag. You aren't looking at it properly. It's not trying to tell you what you think it is.
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,592
- 23,342
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
What it's really saying is that in hindsight, 14 of 15 flag (not all!) winning teams reached this minimum standard. And this standard is no different to saying "13 of 16 flag winning teams finished 1st or 2nd H&A" or "all Grand Finalists were in the top 4 percentage wise". It's self evident that you have to perform well to win a flag.
This "standard" is not really that high. And the analysis is certainly not "predictive" as it's being used. But it's a nice stat to show on a graph.
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
- Thread starter
- #141
Interesting that only two teams met the standard at the end of the H&A season last year. Would you like to guess who?
Iron
Norm Smith Medallist
- May 26, 2014
- 7,170
- 15,280
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Of course it relies on hindsight. Any data analysis does. 14 of 15 premiers reached a threshold, which tells us that if you want to win a premiership you should probably reach that threshold.
Don't look too deep. It isn't trying to tell you anything that isn't immediately obvious.
And that's one year out of 15.
Over 11 and 12, six teams met the standard that didn't make the GF.
A standard would suggest that if you get close to it, you are close to the result.
Yet twice in the last 3 years teams got very close to it, yet didnt even make the eight.
My opinion (and thats all it is) is that its a statistic, a nice one, but nothing more.
Given the difference in draws this year, the squiggle shouldn't really be referred to just yet
- May 3, 2007
- 36,534
- 21,175
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Man City, Valencia, Lazio, Panthers
no you cant. not yet anyway. i am innocent until proven guilty
cookster17
Draftee
http://premiershipstandard.com shows the graph
Port Adelaide closing in on the standard, tracking at 100-90, slightly closer than Hawthorn at 99-90.
Pity we probably won't make the 8 and Hawthorn will.
Pity we probably won't make the 8 and Hawthorn will.
cookster17
Draftee
Currently Adelaide is the only team close to that 110-90 average. Probably not ready to win the premiership this year.
http://premiershipstandard.com/ has been updated
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,478
- 118,177
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
So now you're ok with the Premiership Standard?
Similar threads
