Analysis Inexperience watch

[dlanod]

Its interesting that the average experience comes out so similar given that the Lions have a bunch more 25-49s and Essendon so many more 100+.

That's the skewing of a 300+ game player.

 

[joshhem]

You poor Bastard!

Careful what you wish for. Nice if you’re holidaying. Not really if you’re working. Unless you like only seeing airports, planes, traffic and no sightseeing

 

[fanackapan]

Careful what you wish for. Nice if you’re holidaying. Not really if you’re working. Unless you like only seeing airports, planes, traffic and no sightseeing

Yeah, 40-odd hours in a plane and 2.5 days in Bradford probably doesn’t count as a holiday.

 

[Dalions]

Careful what you wish for. Nice if you’re holidaying. Not really if you’re working. Unless you like only seeing airports, planes, traffic and no sightseeing

Yeah, 40-odd hours in a plane and 2.5 days in Bradford probably doesn’t count as a holiday.

Completely tongue in cheek of course!

 

[Jivlain]

Ready to see something that probably doesn't look like you might expect?

• (0 to 10 games - Brisbane 0 vs. Collingwood 0)
• 0 to 24 games - Brisbane 1 vs. Collingwood 2
• 25 to 49 games - Brisbane 6 vs. Collingwood 2
• 50 to 99 games - Brisbane 8 vs. Collingwood 8
• 100 to 199 games - Brisbane 6 vs. Collingwood 7
• 200+ games - Brisbane 1 vs. Collingwood 3

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Brisbane 96.9 vs. Collingwood 107.8 (= -10.9 games on average)
• Average age - Brisbane 25.7 vs. Collingwood 25.7 (= 0 years on average)
• Average height - Brisbane 188.6cm vs. Collingwood 188.8cm (= -0.2cm on average)
• Average weight - Brisbane 90kg vs. Collingwood 88.1kg (= +1.9kg on average)

Yup, dead level on age, and yet behind on games played. It might seem weird, given where we've been recently, but there we are. All to do with the distributions though. Our oldest (besides Hodge) are relatively late starters like Stef and Zorko, pushing our games/age down. Then we also have most of the youngest - 5/7 of the U22 players (Rayner, Witherden, McCluggage, Berry & Hipwood against Stephenson & Brown). They are naturally prominent amongst the least efficient for games/age*.

* the other members of the "least efficient for games/age" club pair up remarkably well:

 

[fanackapan]

That's fantastic, Jiv. The tackles are remarkable, too.

 

[Jivlain]

It's nice having two of us doing this because that means I can check my output too and make sure I haven't bollocked stuff up on one of my many research projects that my crazy code doesn't allowed me to separate out properly.

Also, my keying system is completely cray cray. Like, I have several different "unique keys" for players. One is a unique numeric ID. One is "whatever AFL Tables calls them", which I require uniqueness on and is occasionally consistent with what AFL Tables calls them, which is nice. Then I've got my own system, where they're called <first initial>.<surname>, in lowercase with apostrophes removed. This is not unique, except when you combine it with a year and a team, so brl-r.bastinac (for example) is unique within the year 2019, and this is how I usually refer to players internally*. Of course, you've got a problem if two players on the same team in the same year have the same initial and surname. So when we had Josh Clayton in the team and Jack Clayton in the academy squad and I was doing statistics on both teams Jack Clayton was mostly "Zac Clayton" to me. Sorry "Zac" . Now the bloody Bulldogs have two L. Youngs. Hopefully that doesn't become a problem at some point.

* probably at some point this made sense because I was loading stuff from the Fantasy Freako newsletter and they were just writing out player names like this and my database originally existed for exclusively this purpose.

Also I calculate the age not by storing the age or their date of birth but by storing the number of days between their DOB and Jan 1 1860. Computers usually do this when storing dates** but for some obscure reason I decided to implement this bit myself and to use an unusual epoch at the same time. No idea. Did my DBMS have a datetime format when I first added that column?

** for example, the time per your phone, the servers that run the internet and also the rest of the world, and your router, etc, is the number of seconds between now and Jan 1 1970 in a 32-bit signed int. This means that all computers will run out of dates in 2038 and this, like Y2K***, will be a problem down the line.

*** yes Y2K was a problem. Lots of people spent lots of time fixing it and basically got it pretty much sorted in time.

I really need to work on transitioning this to a new system that's not so bad.

What fresh hell is this. Now they've both played.


FFS. Did seriously noone consider changing one of them by deed poll?

 

[dlanod]

Also I calculate the age not by storing the age or their date of birth but by storing the number of days between their DOB and Jan 1 1860. Computers usually do this when storing dates** but for some obscure reason I decided to implement this bit myself and to use an unusual epoch at the same time. No idea. Did my DBMS have a datetime format when I first added that column?

** for example, the time per your phone, the servers that run the internet and also the rest of the world, and your router, etc, is the number of seconds between now and Jan 1 1970 in a 32-bit signed int. This means that all computers will run out of dates in 2038 and this, like Y2K***, will be a problem down the line.

*** yes Y2K was a problem. Lots of people spent lots of time fixing it and basically got it pretty much sorted in time.

That's crazy talk!

Obviously the one true epoch is 1601 or 1901 or 1969 or 1970 or 1980...

And to take it completely off-topic, my personal favourite: "Bytes 0 & 1 are days since 31/12/1976, bytes 2 & 3 are four second intervals, and byte 4 (optional) is twenty millisecond intervals." Weird on at least five separate points (Why 1976, let alone NYE? Why four seconds? Why twenty milliseconds? Why a five byte format! WHY AN OPTIONAL BYTE!)

 

[Jivlain]

That's crazy talk!

Obviously the one true epoch is 1601 or 1901 or 1969 or 1970 or 1980...

And to take it completely off-topic, my personal favourite: "Bytes 0 & 1 are days since 31/12/1976, bytes 2 & 3 are four second intervals, and byte 4 (optional) is twenty millisecond intervals." Weird on at least five separate points (Why 1976, let alone NYE? Why four seconds? Why twenty milliseconds? Why a five byte format! WHY AN OPTIONAL BYTE!)

1860 in my case was because the oldest players on AFL Tables were born in the 1860s

That's a bizarre system. Certain partitions on the data are trivial, and it's a little easier to visualise the data in a hex editor, but that hardly seems worth it for the added complexity of doing any arithmetic on the resulting dates. And it doesn't even make sense in a different bytesize.

Still, my favourite datetime encoding story...

I started working through the various date and time functions in Basic and the date and time functions in Excel, trying things out, when I noticed something strange in the Visual Basic documentation: Basic uses December 31, 1899 as the epoch instead of January 1, 1900, but for some reason, today’s date was the same in Excel as it was in Basic.

Huh?

I went to find an Excel developer who was old enough to remember why. Ed Fries seemed to know the answer.

“Oh,” he told me. “Check out February 28th, 1900.”

“It’s 59,” I said.

“Now try March 1st.”

“It’s 61!”

“What happened to 60?” Ed asked.

“February 29th. 1900 was a leap year! It’s divisible by 4!”

“Good guess, but no cigar,” Ed said, and left me wondering for a while.

Oops. I did some research. Years that are divisible by 100 are not leap years, unless they’re also divisible by 400.

1900 wasn’t a leap year.

“It’s a bug in Excel!” I exclaimed.

“Well, not really,” said Ed. “We had to do it that way because we need to be able to import Lotus 123 worksheets.”

“So, it’s a bug in Lotus 123?”

“Yeah, but probably an intentional one. Lotus had to fit in 640K. That’s not a lot of memory. If you ignore 1900, you can figure out if a given year is a leap year just by looking to see if the rightmost two bits are zero. That’s really fast and easy. The Lotus guys probably figured it didn’t matter to be wrong for those two months way in the past. It looks like the Basic guys wanted to be anal about those two months, so they moved the epoch one day back.”

 

[Jivlain]

• (0 to 10 games - Gold Coast 2 vs. Brisbane 1)
• 0 to 24 games - Gold Coast 6 vs. Brisbane 2
• 25 to 49 games - Gold Coast 4 vs. Brisbane 5
• 50 to 99 games - Gold Coast 6 vs. Brisbane 7
• 100 to 199 games - Gold Coast 5 vs. Brisbane 7
• 200+ games - Gold Coast 1 vs. Brisbane 1

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Gold Coast 65.4 vs. Brisbane 96.6 (= -31.2 games on average)
• Average age - Gold Coast 24 vs. Brisbane 25.3 (= -1.3 years on average)
• Average height - Gold Coast 188.6cm vs. Brisbane 187.9cm (= +0.7cm on average)
• Average weight - Gold Coast 86.9kg vs. Brisbane 88.9kg (= -2kg on average)

 

[MSB ROYS]

Thanks Jivlain. Reading the lists, its always reassuring when we're matching or ahead of other teams. Got me thinking about the stat of "Finals played for their current club". At a guess, ours would be Daniel Rich 2?

 

[Jivlain]

Thanks Jivlain. Reading the lists, its always reassuring when we're matching or ahead of other teams. Got me thinking about the stat of "Finals played for their current club". At a guess, ours would be Daniel Rich 2?

Think tha's pretty much comprehensive.

 

[MSB ROYS]

Let's hope that this number increases this year...

 

[Nunez]

30 game difference is huge. If we lose this week it'll be incredibly embarassing.

 

[Jivlain]

• (0 to 10 games - Brisbane 1 vs. Sydney 2)
• 0 to 24 games - Brisbane 2 vs. Sydney 5
• 25 to 49 games - Brisbane 5 vs. Sydney 3
• 50 to 99 games - Brisbane 7 vs. Sydney 7
• 100 to 199 games - Brisbane 7 vs. Sydney 5
• 200+ games - Brisbane 1 vs. Sydney 2

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Brisbane 97.6 vs. Sydney 84.6 (= +13 games on average)
• Average age - Brisbane 25.3 vs. Sydney 24.6 (= +0.7 years on average)
• Average height - Brisbane 187.9cm vs. Sydney 187.9cm (= 0cm on average)
• Average weight - Brisbane 88.9kg vs. Sydney 86.3kg (= +2.6kg on average)

(this is assuming the team on the AFL website not in the email)

 

[Jivlain]

• (0 to 10 games - Bulldogs 3 vs. Brisbane 1)
• 0 to 24 games - Bulldogs 4 vs. Brisbane 3
• 25 to 49 games - Bulldogs 3 vs. Brisbane 5
• 50 to 99 games - Bulldogs 6 vs. Brisbane 7
• 100 to 199 games - Bulldogs 9 vs. Brisbane 6
• 200+ games - Bulldogs 0 vs. Brisbane 1

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Bulldogs 77.4 vs. Brisbane 94.4 (= -17 games on average)
• Average age - Bulldogs 24.3 vs. Brisbane 25 (= -0.7 years on average)
• Average height - Bulldogs 186.8cm vs. Brisbane 188.4cm (= -1.6cm on average)
• Average weight - Bulldogs 84.2kg vs. Brisbane 89kg (= -4.8kg on average)

 

[jackess]

View attachment 670664

• (0 to 10 games - Bulldogs 3 vs. Brisbane 1)
• 0 to 24 games - Bulldogs 4 vs. Brisbane 3
• 25 to 49 games - Bulldogs 3 vs. Brisbane 5
• 50 to 99 games - Bulldogs 6 vs. Brisbane 7
• 100 to 199 games - Bulldogs 9 vs. Brisbane 6
• 200+ games - Bulldogs 0 vs. Brisbane 1

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Bulldogs 77.4 vs. Brisbane 94.4 (= -17 games on average)
• Average age - Bulldogs 24.3 vs. Brisbane 25 (= -0.7 years on average)
• Average height - Bulldogs 186.8cm vs. Brisbane 188.4cm (= -1.6cm on average)
• Average weight - Bulldogs 84.2kg vs. Brisbane 89kg (= -4.8kg on average)

Swap Hodge for a debutant and it’d be about even?

 

[Jivlain]

Swap Hodge for a debutant and it’d be about even?

If we swap Hodge for Hinge:

• Average games played - Bulldogs 77.4 vs. Brisbane 79.3 (= -1.9 games on average)
• Average age - Bulldogs 24.3 vs. Brisbane 24.3 (= 0 years on average)
• Average height - Bulldogs 186.8cm vs. Brisbane 188.6cm (= -1.8cm on average)
• Average weight - Bulldogs 84.2kg vs. Brisbane 88.6kg (= -4.4kg on average)

 

[Milux]

4.8 kg advantage. Wow. Not sure what to make of that.

 

[jackess]

4.8 kg advantage. Wow. Not sure what to make of that.

Nothing. The listed weights are a rough estimation. Players lose a couple of kilos during a game and lose a lot of weight over the season.

Eg. Nick Robertson is listed at 97kg and Adams at 93kg.

 

[KissKiss]

Looking at those numbers and I still think we should win. At the Gabba I'd feel we would win be a few goals, at Etihad I feel it would be about even. But at Mars I have no idea

 

[Ironmonger]

Nothing. The listed weights are a rough estimation. Players lose a couple of kilos during a game and lose a lot of weight over the season.

Eg. Nick Robertson is listed at 97kg and Adams at 93kg.

Tim English is listed at 93kg which seems very slight for a 205cm ruckman. McInerney, at 204cm, has a listed weight of 107kg.

We're definitely bigger though. We'd be bigger again if Walker at 100kg had stayed in and Lester (87kg) been dropped instead.

 

[Milux]

How do we do this thing again?

 

[Jivlain]

• (0 to 10 games - Brisbane 2 vs. Adelaide 3)
• 0 to 24 games - Brisbane 3 vs. Adelaide 6
• 25 to 49 games - Brisbane 6 vs. Adelaide 2
• 50 to 99 games - Brisbane 6 vs. Adelaide 5
• 100 to 199 games - Brisbane 6 vs. Adelaide 7
• 200+ games - Brisbane 1 vs. Adelaide 2

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Brisbane 91.8 vs. Adelaide 97.6 (= -5.8 games on average)
• Average age - Brisbane 24.9 vs. Adelaide 25.9 (= -1 years on average)
• Average height - Brisbane 188.8cm vs. Adelaide 187.3cm (= +1.5cm on average)
• Average weight - Brisbane 89.5kg vs. Adelaide 87.2kg (= +2.3kg on average)

How do we do this thing again?

I'm travelling atm, expect some variance (and next week may not happen at all).

 

[Milux]

View attachment 675430

• (0 to 10 games - Brisbane 2 vs. Adelaide 3)
• 0 to 24 games - Brisbane 3 vs. Adelaide 6
• 25 to 49 games - Brisbane 6 vs. Adelaide 2
• 50 to 99 games - Brisbane 6 vs. Adelaide 5
• 100 to 199 games - Brisbane 6 vs. Adelaide 7
• 200+ games - Brisbane 1 vs. Adelaide 2

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Brisbane 91.8 vs. Adelaide 97.6 (= -5.8 games on average)
• Average age - Brisbane 24.9 vs. Adelaide 25.9 (= -1 years on average)
• Average height - Brisbane 188.8cm vs. Adelaide 187.3cm (= +1.5cm on average)
• Average weight - Brisbane 89.5kg vs. Adelaide 87.2kg (= +2.3kg on average)

I'm travelling atm, expect some variance (and next week may not happen at all).

Thx Jivlain. Happy and safe travels.