Mega Thread The Media Thread

[wayToGo_]

So how do you explain our predicted “sharp fall”. We’re gonna be the AFLs biggest sliders... from a lofty 15th, all the way down to 14th!!! Was looking forward to reading about why some abstract formula had us winning the spoon... but they couldnt even substantiate their own headline ffs. Eagles finished 2nd on the ladder and are predicted to be 4th this year... two place drop seems more than our 1 position free fall/spiral/club in crisis. I know it’s based on predicted “W”s, but typical West media crap. It’s so predicable and dependable. Don’t ever change

I think my favourite line from the article is this one...

But the formula has proven itself generally true the last few seasons, predicting 12 of 14 sharp rises and falls (based on an ‘actual’ and ‘predicted’ win/loss difference of 2.5 games) since 2010.

Firstly 2.5 games is a massive margin of error, especially given it is really double that given it could be 2.5 more or 2.5 less - our predicted so called biggest slide in the AFL this season would be within that margin of error. And secondly it is absolute BS. I ran the numbers from 2017 and their expectation was out by more than 2.5 wins for 10 out of 18 clubs. 6 of the teams were out by more than 4 wins (ie more than the difference between 2nd and 12th on the ladder). The only two teams they estimated the correct number of wins for were Brisbane and Essendon. I reckon most people did better than that by just using the ladder predictor. St Kilda were expected to get 10.3 wins according to the algorithm and ended up with just 4 Hawks expected to get just 8.9 wins and ended up with 15. 2016 predictions were no better. 9 out of 18 clubs out by more than 2.5 wins, and again only 2 were correct. Essendon was out by 9 wins, Richmond by 8.5 and North by 6. 6 teams out by more than 4 wins. But in typical journalistic fashion they go back through 10 years of data to selectively pick out 7 examples to fit their narrative.

Conclusion: One of the dumbest prediction models I've ever seen. Fox Footy should be embarrassed for referencing it without checking it was accurate. And The West even more embarrassed for assuming Fox Footy actually checks things and just reproducing the BS without a second thought. Points For/Against Percentage provides good guidance for how a team went in a season beyond wins and losses but it is clear it has little bearing on predicting what will happen the following season (other than teams that have a healthy percentage have more chance of doing well the following year - did we really need to apply a standard deviation to figure that common sense thinking out?). Max Laughton (Fox Footy) is an idiot, and whoever at The West wrote their article (who wanted to remain anonymous by the looks) is also an idiot. Leave the math to mathematicians and statistical analysts please 'journalists'.

 

[M_rash]

I think my favourite line from the article is this one...

But the formula has proven itself generally true the last few seasons, predicting 12 of 14 sharp rises and falls (based on an ‘actual’ and ‘predicted’ win/loss difference of 2.5 games) since 2010.

Firstly 2.5 games is a massive margin of error, especially given it is really double that given it could be 2.5 more or 2.5 less - our predicted so called biggest slide in the AFL this season would be within that margin of error. And secondly it is absolute BS. I ran the numbers from 2017 and their expectation was out by more than 2.5 wins for 10 out of 18 clubs. 6 of the teams were out by more than 4 wins (ie more than the difference between 2nd and 12th on the ladder). The only two teams they estimated the correct number of wins for were Brisbane and Essendon. I reckon most people did better than that by just using the ladder predictor. St Kilda were expected to get 10.3 wins according to the algorithm and ended up with just 4 Hawks expected to get just 8.9 wins and ended up with 15. 2016 predictions were no better. 9 out of 18 clubs out by more than 2.5 wins, and again only 2 were correct. Essendon was out by 9 wins, Richmond by 8.5 and North by 6. 6 teams out by more than 4 wins. But in typical journalistic fashion they go back through 10 years of data to selectively pick out 7 examples to fit their narrative.

Conclusion: One of the dumbest prediction models I've ever seen. Fox Footy should be embarrassed for referencing it without checking it was accurate. And The West even more embarrassed for assuming Fox Footy actually checks things and just reproducing the BS without a second thought. Points For/Against Percentage provides good guidance for how a team went in a season beyond wins and losses but it is clear it has little bearing on predicting what will happen the following season (other than teams that have a healthy percentage have more chance of doing well the following year - did we really need to apply a standard deviation to figure that common sense thinking out?). Max Laughton (Fox Footy) is an idiot, and whoever at The West wrote their article (who wanted to remain anonymous by the looks) is also an idiot. Leave the math to mathematicians and statistical analysts please 'journalists'.

Max Laughton.... more like Max LOLZ(ton). Of course The West take any opportunity to rag on Freo. It’s their bread and butter... or Crumpet and Butter... or Crumpet and Vegemite and Cheese.

 

[Monument Hills]

st_trav_ofWA Was that you on 6PR at lunch time talking about the Winmar statue to be unveiled (hopefully) at the Freo/Saints game at Perth Stadium in April?

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

st_trav_ofWA Was that you on 6PR at lunch time talking about the Winmar statue to be unveiled (hopefully) at the Freo/Saints game at Perth Stadium in April?

yeah that was me

 

[Docker82]

Yep, just the west coast centric media having a cheap dig at Freo

Have a read of the West recycling a Terry Wallace article where he apparently ‘slams’ us.

There’s actually a quote from him saying we’ll be slightly better than last year. I don’t rate Wallace’s opinion at all but at least report it accurately if you’re going to do so.

They basically took his crap and wrote a headline to suit their agenda that doesn’t really relate to the article at all.

 

[wayToGo_]

Have a read of the West recycling a Terry Wallace article where he apparently ‘slams’ us.

There’s actually a quote from him saying we’ll be slightly better than last year. I don’t rate Wallace’s opinion at all but at least report it accurately if you’re going to do so.

They basically took his crap and wrote a headline to suit their agenda that doesn’t really relate to the article at all.

More quality 'unbiased' reporting from Shayne Hope? When he was born his parents went "WHY?!?!" and that is why his name is spelt that way.

 

[Dockers v Channel7West]

Have a read of the West recycling a Terry Wallace article where he apparently ‘slams’ us.

There’s actually a quote from him saying we’ll be slightly better than last year. I don’t rate Wallace’s opinion at all but at least report it accurately if you’re going to do so.

They basically took his crap and wrote a headline to suit their agenda that doesn’t really relate to the article at all.

They had to balance out their delerious excitement over the that f##king Eagles dog race and associated back slapping with muck raking old news from a hack about us..well done for calling out their biased bullshit..

 

[Dockers v Channel7West]

It looks like Channel 7 AND THE West have gone into full propaganda mode, had Simpson on the news saying the Gaff cowards punch is old news and a long time ago.
I know we need to move on but hearing that crap has revived my anger at the arrogance of those pricks and the slime media that feed off them...

 

[Quinz]

I think my favourite line from the article is this one...

But the formula has proven itself generally true the last few seasons, predicting 12 of 14 sharp rises and falls (based on an ‘actual’ and ‘predicted’ win/loss difference of 2.5 games) since 2010.

Firstly 2.5 games is a massive margin of error, especially given it is really double that given it could be 2.5 more or 2.5 less - our predicted so called biggest slide in the AFL this season would be within that margin of error. And secondly it is absolute BS. I ran the numbers from 2017 and their expectation was out by more than 2.5 wins for 10 out of 18 clubs. 6 of the teams were out by more than 4 wins (ie more than the difference between 2nd and 12th on the ladder). The only two teams they estimated the correct number of wins for were Brisbane and Essendon. I reckon most people did better than that by just using the ladder predictor. St Kilda were expected to get 10.3 wins according to the algorithm and ended up with just 4 Hawks expected to get just 8.9 wins and ended up with 15. 2016 predictions were no better. 9 out of 18 clubs out by more than 2.5 wins, and again only 2 were correct. Essendon was out by 9 wins, Richmond by 8.5 and North by 6. 6 teams out by more than 4 wins. But in typical journalistic fashion they go back through 10 years of data to selectively pick out 7 examples to fit their narrative.

I think you’ve misinterpreted that quote. The Max Laughton article on Fox Sports explains it better, that of the 14 teams since 2010 who ‘over’ or ‘underchieved’ the most according to the Pythagorean wins measure, 12 of them moved in the expected direction the next year. Basically, if you’re really lucky or unlucky in one season, that tends to even out the next year. That’s not a bad strike rate, although if it only works on extreme cases you don’t have much predictive power.

Clems Knee makes an interesting point about outliers though. If the margin of the loss to Geelong is an outlier, should it be removed? If you do Freo gets closer to 7 expected wins, but you’d probably downgrade that a bit by giving them a more “normal” margin of loss in the Cats game.

Even so, I think in the Fox Sports article it talks about teams over or underachieving based on a lot of close results, but the Dockers went 2-2 in games under 10 points so it doesn’t really fit the typical over performing team like the 2014 Cats.

 

[wayToGo_]

I think you’ve misinterpreted that quote. The Max Laughton article on Fox Sports explains it better, that of the 14 teams since 2010 who ‘over’ or ‘underchieved’ the most according to the Pythagorean wins measure, 12 of them moved in the expected direction the next year. Basically, if you’re really lucky or unlucky in one season, that tends to even out the next year. That’s not a bad strike rate, although if it only works on extreme cases you don’t have much predictive power.

No I assure you I got it. But neither FoxSports (Max) or The West used the algorithm that way (ie when percentage and win/loss don't marry in extreme cases) within their articles so they can't have it both ways. Max Laughton shouldn't have talked about multiple teams if he was being true to the algorithm only being relevant to the biggest difference at either end (ie two teams). They either should have never produced the articles or they should be called out for being misleading in claiming something is accurate in the way they are talking about it when it isn't (like I have).

The slice of data the original algorithm narrows it down to, to show it gives any real indication, is so slim that it becomes a pointless indicator. It's as meaningless as saying whoever finished top of the ladder will likely play finals the following year, and whoever finished bottom won't. I don't think anyone needs an 'algorithm' to predict Richmond will probably play finals this year, and Carlton probably won't. The algorithm on 2016 data indicated Richmond would slide in 2017 when they ended up winning the premiership the following year. It didn't predict you guys rising up the ladder either last year. Like I said, it's possibly the dumbest prediction model in existence, especially for AFL.

You can't claim you have a 12 out of 14 success rate (over 10 years!!!) and then conveniently apply that to data that doesn't fit to the same criteria. For instance Freo's situation was actually worse in the 2017 data than it was in 2018 - had an even worse margin between actual vs predicted in 2017 and surprise surprise we didn't slide. Was that algorithm fail included in the 12 out of 14 result? No of course it wasn't. Both articles conveniently left out that little fact didn't they? That's the difference between journalism and credible research. Researchers aren't allowed to pick and choose the bits that fit their narrative. Call it what it is - a pathetic attempt to have a dig.

 

[yyou]

My parents are over from Perth & brought me a 6-pack of Emu Bitter & a West Australian newspaper.
I miss an icy cold EB on a stinking hot day, so they will be enjoyed, but having not seen a "West" for a number of years, I was underwhelmed. It was never a "special" rag, but it seems to have gotten worse.
& to those of you who don't like EB, try it ice cold on a hot day. It's the best!

 

[M_rash]

No I assure you I got it. But neither FoxSports (Max) or The West used the algorithm that way (ie when percentage and win/loss don't marry in extreme cases) within their articles so they can't have it both ways. Max Laughton shouldn't have talked about multiple teams if he was being true to the algorithm only being relevant to the biggest difference at either end (ie two teams). They either should have never produced the articles or they should be called out for being misleading in claiming something is accurate in the way they are talking about it when it isn't (like I have).

The slice of data the original algorithm narrows it down to, to show it gives any real indication, is so slim that it becomes a pointless indicator. It's as meaningless as saying whoever finished top of the ladder will likely play finals the following year, and whoever finished bottom won't. I don't think anyone needs an 'algorithm' to predict Richmond will probably play finals this year, and Carlton probably won't. The algorithm on 2016 data indicated Richmond would slide in 2017 when they ended up winning the premiership the following year. It didn't predict you guys rising up the ladder either last year. Like I said, it's possibly the dumbest prediction model in existence, especially for AFL.

You can't claim you have a 12 out of 14 success rate (over 10 years!!!) and then conveniently apply that to data that doesn't fit to the same criteria. For instance Freo's situation was actually worse in the 2017 data than it was in 2018 - had an even worse margin between actual vs predicted in 2017 and surprise surprise we didn't slide. Was that algorithm fail included in the 12 out of 14 result? No of course it wasn't. Both articles conveniently left out that little fact didn't they? That's the difference between journalism and credible research. Researchers aren't allowed to pick and choose the bits that fit their narrative. Call it what it is - a pathetic attempt to have a dig.

Call it what it is - a pathetic attempt to have a dig - backed by scientific rigour!

 

[Sully90]

Guys I think you're really overreacting about the Pythagorean thread. It's a mathematical theory which is right most of the time, and the article is pretty clear in explaining that.

 

[wild side]

Yeah it means sweet F**k all

 

[Monument Hills]

yeah that was me

Nice work!

 

[wayToGo_]

Guys I think you're really overreacting about the Pythagorean thread. It's a mathematical theory which is right most of the time, and the article is pretty clear in explaining that.

But it's not and it's not (at least in the context of AFL). That's the whole thing, nobody checked it properly and so the average punter believes the BS that they read, like you have. Like I said right from the very start it gives no more insight than a quick glance at the ladder sorted by percentage. If you can prove to me otherwise go for your life. It hasn't predicted any of the sharp rises and falls in the last few years so I don't see how it claims to be useful? For every so called 'success', I can show 10 examples where it is way off. I'm just a bit sick and tired of the media saying whatever they like and not being challenged.

 

[yyou]

haha
I say, let them underestimate us.
It will just end up as egg on thei faces of the doomsayers.

 

[theGav56]

haha
I say, let them underestimate us.
It will just end up as egg on thei faces of the doomsayers.

I think another ordinary year is on the cards. That would be very disappointing if it happened, and my expectation is that we can do much better than last season. But the realms of possibility include it as a quite plausible outcome. We have too many weak areas/variables. The upside however is quite significant, and includes the potential for finals. That i where our focus should be.

 

[Monument Hills]

WC - average midfield - beat the Pies - strongest (?) midfield last year as they had a experienced/solid back 6 and potent front 6.

I think our back 6 is going to gel this year (barring inj) into a very solid backline, and our forward line with Hogan and Lobb alone adds goals to our previously average scorelines. With Fyfe, Hills, Blakely (eventually), Cerra, Brayshaw, Conca, Langdon and Darcy through the middle, I still can't see us going too bad (inj aside).

I see a continual development of the synergy between the players, supplemented by higher scoring and a more difficult back unit to get past (inj aside) which should lead to a few more wins and milder losses.

[Disclaimer: all the above predicated on less than the usual decimation of our best players to injury]

 

[blue shark]

WC - average midfield - beat the Pies - strongest (?) midfield last year as they had a experienced/solid back 6 and potent front 6.

I think our back 6 is going to gel this year (barring inj) into a very solid backline, and our forward line with Hogan and Lobb alone adds goals to our previously average scorelines. With Fyfe, Hills, Blakely (eventually), Cerra, Brayshaw, Conca, Langdon and Darcy through the middle, I still can't see us going too bad (inj aside).

I see a continual development of the synergy between the players, supplemented by higher scoring and a more difficult back unit to get past (inj aside) which should lead to a few more wins and milder losses.

[Disclaimer: all the above predicated on less than the usual decimation of our best players to injury]

Two good solid rucks certainly helps, and nullifying the oppositiions top ruckman possessions upset their plans.

 

[Deveraux]

Eddie's looking the goods this season...

 

[wild side]

Eddie's looking the goods this season...

How embarrassing!

 

[stax on the mull]

Eddie's looking the goods this season...

That's twice in a couple of days that Brad has been captioned or pictured wrongly. No wonder he (allegedly) once gave a false name, must be a bit of "who am I?" happening.

 

[Joeltownsmith]

Where’s all the footy shows apart from true footy? The Super Bowl been done and still got nfl live going. Someone needs to do a dockers channel on Youtube

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

Nice work!

thanks ... hopefully we see something come of it