2016 Ladder Predictions

[HeHateMe]

No!

but the poor lebowski someone pissed on his rug and now you will deprive him of this!

 

[Lsta062]

Fortunately i think we will know very early on in the season.

If we win round 1, we have turned the corner and will be top 4. if we lose, it will be more of the same.

The good thing about North is that they have been learning over the last few years. They don't lose in manners that they used to very often anymore (like close games). Only problem with them is the same teams can open them up. They need to stop that from happening. So if they don't allow Adelaide to break them open in Round 1, they have progressed.

I suspect the prediction range for North is amongst the greatest, if not the greatest.

Those who see our last (two) years finals performances and think we've learned enough (above the shoulders) to be in the top four, and those that cite "age" and immediately think "slide". There were lots of those last year with Freo who ended up minor premiers.

I'll be honest and say that before the 2014 and 2015 EFs North played in, I said that the winner of Essendon and North will make the Prelim given that they play Geelong and the winner of North and Richmond will make the Prelim given that the opponent is Sydney.

Geelong were not very good in 2014 despite their top 4 finish (lost by 110 points to a team that got smashed in the GF) and were a little depleted iirc, and Sydney were done for in 2015.

So, the fact that North made 2 Prelims wasn't as impressive as it looks on paper to me. What really impressed me though was how they went against West Coast in last year's Prelim. They showed they were really capable of beating the top teams in a high pressure environment even though they gave up the lead and lost. Could have easily made the GF in 2015. In 2014's EF, they got smashed, so that is a step forward for them. Those who think North will take the next step should use that in their reasoning IMO.

My reasoning of putting them 12th is because of the flip side to North Melbourne's 2015 season - the H&A season. My speculation is that last year's finals series was a performance exceeding their standard performance. They were quite average at various stages in last year's H&A season. It was notably worse than the H&A the year before IMO. So, this decline might be a part of their overall decline as a team due to age.

Like you said, perhaps these different perspectives is why people's views on North Melbourne's 2016 performance is so polarised. They are a just a tough team to predict

 

[Janus]

but the poor lebowski someone pissed on his rug and now you will deprive him of this!

A hard fought North win on the hard deck of Etihad Stadium with both teams smashing in will suit me juuuuust fine

 

[Son_Of_God29]

2016 Ladder

1. Sydney (Buddy's back solid forward line limited older players)
2. Hawthorn (Strong Forwrad line will depend on the aging group but all being equal will finish Top 4 if the aging groups bodies fail they will drop out of the 4)
3. West Coast (Strong Forwrad line not too old a list and should expect less injuries this year)
4. Richmond (they have a good target age isnt against them and seem to developing well)
5. GWS (The Big improver last year was good but teh young guys are stepping up to the next level and seem to be enthusiastic about it, love what I see on the curve they are on will be challenging for a premiership in two to three years)
6. Freo (Desperatly need a good year out of the Pav, if not could be struggle town to kick goals if Pav steps up again will be a reasonable year)
7. Adelaide (Super strong forward line, one player over 30, but will need him to stand up will drop from last year due to PD leaving but is balance out by their forward line)
8. Geelong (Super easy draw, Essendon twice, they will make it if they can keep their injury prone and older players which they have plenty of on the park, if not will fall out of the eight due to no depth)
9. Port Adelaide ( had them in the eight prior to losing two of their top 22 players, depth will be challenged and Schulz and Lobbe coming off extremly poor form they need to step up, may make it but reliant on Geelong keeping their players on the park)
10. Bulldogs (Losing Cameri will hurt but they do have a replacement in Boyd but doubts over his ability their older players could hurt them if they fail to get on the park also teams have probably devised a plan to slow them down as they did with Port the previous year)
11. North Melbourne (their list is aging and it will cost them dearly alos need another big year out of Peitre as there isnt much more up forward)
12. Collingwood (doubts over their forward line but strong midfeild could be wrong if Cloke ever performs as he should)
13. Melbourne (would like to have listed higher but a wait and see on the coach and how the club is run more so than the players)
14 St Kilda (Seem to be reliant on Saint Nick now Carlisle has been rubbed out, too much of an ask on a player who is set to retire soon)
15 GC (Seems to take one step forward two steps back needs a clear direction they may have it now but will take years to develop)
16 Brisbane (definetly on the rebuild will take time but will see an increase to 9-11 the following year)
17 Carlton (rebuild time should have got the spoon but saved by the dons)
18 Essendon (Obvious reasons)

No Depth at Geelong Marty........Didn't they recruit a decent depth player from Adelaide

#lolmarty

 

[marty36]

No Depth at Geelong Marty........Didn't they recruit a decent depth player from Adelaide

#lolmarty

How many retired traded or delisted, and did it outweigh the four players you brought in capable of playing AFL I think two are fairly injury prone not sure if that hinders or helps depth probably hinders I would say. You already have an ageing injury prone list why would you recruit more of that, it is a serious problem that could be realised.

At least then Scott would have an excuse for failure!

 

[threesixpio]

My current ladder prediction after the saga revelations (and some other choices I have rethought)

1. West Coast - great list and I don't think they'll fade away
2. Hawthorn - still have a quality list
3. Geelong - good acquisition should see them go up the ladder
4. Western Bulldogs - their youngsters are fantastic and can definitely see them make the top 4
5. Fremantle - I'll have them falling, but still making the 8 still
6. Collingwood - Should start to climb the ladder as of next year with their acquisitions
7. Port Adelaide - should recover from the dip last year.
8. Richmond - Can have a good year and finish in the top 4, but I think they are more likely to slip than take the next step for some reason. We'll just have to wait and see.

-------------------------------------

9. GWS - They should be pushing hard and may possibly bust in. I can see them being the big risers in 2016. But, I'll leave them here for now.
10. Sydney - They have lost experience, so I think that they should slip down this year while they adjust.
11. Gold Coast - They should push for the 8 too next year. Still have a quality grouo of youth and were decimated with injuries last year.
12. North Melbourne - With possibly the oldest list in the league, I am not sure if they'll make it. Can see them finishing as high as top 2 though.
13. Melbourne - Should start climbing the ladder rapidly over the next couple of years
14. Adelaide - Can see them fall next year with the loss of Dangerfield
15. Brisbane - they'll take time to rise from the depth they have fallen to
16. St Kilda - They could be this year's big climbers, but they seem to rely heavily on their older guys.
17. Carlton - anything above 17 is a bonus for them in their development. A trial and error year for them
18. Essendon - I doubt they'll avoid the wooden spoon after the sactions to be honest.

FINALS


Week 1

QF2: Hawthorn def. Geelong
QF1: West Coast def. Western Bulldogs
EF2: Collingwood def. by Port Adelaide
EF1: Fremantle def. by Richmond

Week 2

SF2: Western Bulldogs def. by Richmond
SF1: Geelong def. Port Adelaide

Week 3

PF1: West Coast def. Geelong
PF2: Hawthorn def. Richmond

Grand Final

West Coast def. Hawthorn

2016 PREMIERS: West Coast Eagles

Great film but terrible ending

 

[Jack_the_Ninja]

Starting to get nervous, got a feeling we're going to be average this year. Draw favoured us heavily last year and we kicked some big scores but opposition teams would of worked out ways to beat us in the off season.

Great film but terrible ending

We're due some luck, been hanging out so long for our 4th flag ( 10 years this year ) don't think this team is special enough yet but we're getting close.

 

[Forward Press]

Starting to get nervous, got a feeling we're going to be average this year. Draw favoured us heavily last year and we kicked some big scores but opposition teams would of worked out ways to beat us in the off season.

We're due some luck, been hanging out so long for our 4th flag ( 10 years this year ) don't think this team is special enough yet but we're getting close.

I wonder what non-Hawthorn/Geelong/Sydney/Collingwood supporters think of that statement...

 

[threesixpio]

Starting to get nervous, got a feeling we're going to be average this year. Draw favoured us heavily last year and we kicked some big scores but opposition teams would of worked out ways to beat us in the off season.

We're due some luck, been hanging out so long for our 4th flag ( 10 years this year ) don't think this team is special enough yet but we're getting close.

I like WC. Along with the Doggies would be less unhappy if youse salute than other teams. Used to say the same for Port then there was the hype, the INXS song and the whinging about umpires.

Stay true

 

[TipBetPro]

We've re-visited our simulations after removing the 17 banned players.

Revised average results (after H&A) from the 5,000 simulated seasons:

1. Hawthorn (ave wins: 17.7)
2. West Coast (ave wins: 16.6)
3. Collingwood (ave wins: 15.3)
4. North Melbourne (ave wins: 14.6)
5. Geelong (ave wins: 14.6)
6. Fremantle (ave wins: 14.4)
7. Port Adelaide (ave wins: 14.4)
8. Gold Coast (ave wins: 11.8)
9. Richmond (ave wins: 11.7)
10. Western Bulldogs (ave wins: 11.7)
11. Adelaide (ave wins: 11.0)
12. Sydney (ave wins: 10.2)
13. GWS (ave wins: 9.4)
14. St Kilda (ave wins: 7.1)
15. Brisbane (ave wins: 6.5)
16. Carlton (ave wins: 6.0)
17. Melbourne (ave wins: 4.6)
18. Essendon (ave wins: 0.2)

As before, happy to answer any questions on the methodology if anyone is interested.

 

[Janus]

4th - 7th - a difference of .2 wins between them all over 5000 simulations. Sounds about right.

Not too sure about Collingwood - think you're overrating them a bit which is skewing the results against Richmond who I'd have in the eight over Gold Coast. But good job anyways

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Richmond 9th after 5,000 simulations. Oh you can't make this up. Funny stuff

 

[joop]

We've re-visited our simulations after removing the 17 banned players.

Revised average results (after H&A) from the 5,000 simulated seasons:

1. Hawthorn (ave wins: 17.7)
2. West Coast (ave wins: 16.6)
3. Collingwood (ave wins: 15.3)
4. North Melbourne (ave wins: 14.6)
5. Geelong (ave wins: 14.6)
6. Fremantle (ave wins: 14.4)
7. Port Adelaide (ave wins: 14.4)
8. Gold Coast (ave wins: 11.8)
9. Richmond (ave wins: 11.7)
10. Western Bulldogs (ave wins: 11.7)
11. Adelaide (ave wins: 11.0)
12. Sydney (ave wins: 10.2)
13. GWS (ave wins: 9.4)
14. St Kilda (ave wins: 7.1)
15. Brisbane (ave wins: 6.5)
16. Carlton (ave wins: 6.0)
17. Melbourne (ave wins: 4.6)
18. Essendon (ave wins: 0.2)

As before, happy to answer any questions on the methodology if anyone is interested.

You have Richmond 9th thus validating the legitimacy of your simulations to the whole BigFooty community.
Well done Sir. Hat...tipped.

 

[Pugz89]

Won't affect us much. If we have a season with little to no injuries, then I expect we'll be a serious comtender in 2016 provided there's no arrogance from our players like last year.

To be fair, this applies to about half a dozen teams this year imo. Injuries are what will influence this year more than anything i think. Team gets a few at once, they'll fall off the pace with top 4.

 

[Pugz89]

True I feel sorry for Adcock he'll be lucky to get a look in at the Bulldogs would have been perfect for Essendon

Feel sorry for him? Seems to be enjoying himself so far. No doubt the Dogs were up front with him and how he'll be utilised. He still came and trained with us and accepted the rookie position, so i'm sure he'll be ok. Crammers' suspension may actually mean he plays a few extra games anyway. Plenty of other options the dons can choose from.

 

[Pugz89]

Last I checked the Hawks have won a 3peat without any quality ruckman better than lobbe, Ryder is a loss but can be covered. I would argue that the ruckman is the easiest position to get by without a top line player

Can confirm haha although makes the mids' job a lot harder though.

 

[gangsta deluxe]

Feel sorry for him? Seems to be enjoying himself so far. No doubt the Dogs were up front with him and how he'll be utilised. He still came and trained with us and accepted the rookie position, so i'm sure he'll be ok. Crammers' suspension may actually mean he plays a few extra games anyway. Plenty of other options the dons can choose from.

Yeah we may have got Adcock for fear of what would happen to Crameri.

Seems to be a good replacement (worse as a forward, but better as a rotation midfielder).

Cram is a good player but not in an area of major deficiency in our side.

 

[Pugz89]

Playing them later in the year is going to be even better when they cop a few injuries and the local footy players have to back up to take on proffesionals

We play them round 22, the only time for the year. Remember when you played every team once AND THEN played the double ups? Pepperidge farm remembers...

 

[Pugz89]

I'm doing an analysis of the entire fixture as we speak - even going as far as to weight mental resilience (not so much 6 to 8 day breaks, but the compound effect of them coupled with playing harder sides in succession - Port saw this first hand last year).

Ryder is a big loss, but not insurmountable. For whatever reason I think Hinkley is set on Lobbe being first ruck regardless of what happened with Paddy. All this has done has dropped Port from a power ranking of third (behind Hawthorn and West Coast) to fifth (behind Hawthorn, West Coast, Geelong and Fremantle) in my eyes. Our draw is still easy as ****, and we get to be the first club to play Essendon in prime time on a Friday night at home.

We are basically 2014 Port + Dixon now. Still good enough to win, and a damn sight better than 2014 Port + Ryder but minus Polec, Carlile, Wines and Trengove like when we played you last.

I wouldn't be writing us off for top four at all.

When you're done, can you please tag me into it or let me know. Very interested to see what you get.

 

[Pugz89]

Starting to get nervous, got a feeling we're going to be average this year. Draw favoured us heavily last year and we kicked some big scores but opposition teams would of worked out ways to beat us in the off season.

We're due some luck, been hanging out so long for our 4th flag ( 10 years this year ) don't think this team is special enough yet but we're getting close.

4th flag? how cute.

 

[TipBetPro]

4th - 7th - a difference of .2 wins between them all over 5000 simulations. Sounds about right.

Not too sure about Collingwood - think you're overrating them a bit which is skewing the results against Richmond who I'd have in the eight over Gold Coast. But good job anyways

Yeah it's a reasonable point re Collingwood.
Looking purely at "Best 22" we only have the Pies ranked 7th yet the season projections have them 3rd on average. The reason is two fold. Firstly: we have a random injury generator in the simulations and we rate Collingwood's "23-30" on list higher than any other side leaving them well placed on depth. Secondly they have a friendly draw (Carlton and Melbourne twice is a huge bonus).

It's so volatile though - the fact that we could have Port dropping from 2nd to 7th (albeit effectively equal 4th) on the back of the removal of just 2 players (neither of whom we rated as elite) is a fairly good demonstration of the uncertainty of predictions and impact of season ending injuries (or conversely a player having a break out season that lifts their rating considerably).

So really all these predictions can be taken with a grain of salt (which is a shame for me because the simulation model took weeks to set up!)

 

[Trav 20]

We've re-visited our simulations after removing the 17 banned players.

Revised average results (after H&A) from the 5,000 simulated seasons:

1. Hawthorn (ave wins: 17.7)
2. West Coast (ave wins: 16.6)
3. Collingwood (ave wins: 15.3)
4. North Melbourne (ave wins: 14.6)
5. Geelong (ave wins: 14.6)
6. Fremantle (ave wins: 14.4)
7. Port Adelaide (ave wins: 14.4)
8. Gold Coast (ave wins: 11.8)
9. Richmond (ave wins: 11.7)
10. Western Bulldogs (ave wins: 11.7)
11. Adelaide (ave wins: 11.0)
12. Sydney (ave wins: 10.2)
13. GWS (ave wins: 9.4)
14. St Kilda (ave wins: 7.1)
15. Brisbane (ave wins: 6.5)
16. Carlton (ave wins: 6.0)
17. Melbourne (ave wins: 4.6)
18. Essendon (ave wins: 0.2)

As before, happy to answer any questions on the methodology if anyone is interested.

I don't have a question for you, but I do have a statement.

How you can think Melbourne will almost halve its wins in 2016 on the back of losing only Howe, who hardly impacts games, is beyond me. I appreciate you use algorithms, etc. but it makes no sense to me whatsoever. Especially after we'd had a tough year with injuries.

Viney, Tyson, Salem, Gawn, Brayshaw, Stretch, Hogan, vandenBerg, Kent, and Harmes are all players who have shown quality at AFL level and are expected to be better.

There's no doubt our senior players in Jones, Vince, Tom McDonald, Garland, Lumumba, Grimes, Garlett, Jetta, Dawes, Watts and the injured Trengove are far from the strongest group going around, but when paired with some seriously talented younger players, as listed above, I'm flummoxed as to how you can rank our best 22 18th, which you did prior to the banned '34'.

But when I see you list Malceski at 64 in your top 100 players at the end of 2015 off the back of a horrible year I start understanding some of the failings of your formulae. You also have Ryder in the 50's when he had his worst year since 2008. You've got Ivan Maric at 51 when he's clearly past his best. And I could go on. You've even got Danyle Pearce in the top 100.

Your terrible list of top 100 players sheds some light on your ordinary predicted ladder. I get it's mathematical, but I question your imputations.

 

[TipBetPro]

I don't have a question for you, but I do have a statement.

How you can think Melbourne will almost halve its wins in 2016 on the back of losing only Howe, who hardly impacts games, is beyond me. I appreciate you use algorithms, etc. but it makes no sense to me whatsoever. Especially after we'd had a tough year with injuries.

Viney, Tyson, Salem, Gawn, Brayshaw, Stretch, Hogan, vandenBerg, Kent, and Harmes are all players who have shown quality at AFL level and are expected to be better.

There's no doubt our senior players in Jones, Vince, Tom McDonald, Garland, Lumumba, Grimes, Garlett, Jetta, Dawes, Watts and the injured Trengove are far from the strongest group going around, but when paired with some seriously talented younger players, as listed above, I'm flummoxed as to how you can rank our best 22 18th, which you did prior to the banned '34'.

But when I see you list Malceski at 64 in your top 100 players at the end of 2015 off the back of a horrible year I start understanding some of the failings of your formulae. You also have Ryder in the 50's when he had his worst year since 2008. You've got Ivan Maric at 51 when he's clearly past his best. And I could go on. You've even got Danyle Pearce in the top 100.

Your terrible list of top 100 players sheds some light on your ordinary predicted ladder. I get it's mathematical, but I question your imputations.

All reasonable points. The Top 100 players is based largely on the AFL player rankings with adjustments for an experience metric, injury protection and upscale for youth (as AFL player rankings are based on best 40 games over last 2 years which unfairly penalises those that haven't played at least 40 games).

The biggest problem with this is that there is a lag in the rankings (because it takes 2 years worth of data) so players can be slow to drop down the rankings.

We've adjusted our in-season algorithm this season to place a far higher weighting on "current season" form which will see our Top 100 players change far quicker than the AFL Player Rankings. However for pre-season projections, obviously we couldn't include this metric and hence you end up with a somewhat flawed view of the Top 100.

Needless to say (as I'm sure you can pick up) - I put far more weight on round to round tips than pre season predictions which have so many unknowns.

 

[marty36]

All reasonable points. The Top 100 players is based largely on the AFL player rankings with adjustments for an experience metric, injury protection and upscale for youth (as AFL player rankings are based on best 40 games over last 2 years which unfairly penalises those that haven't played at least 40 games).

The biggest problem with this is that there is a lag in the rankings (because it takes 2 years worth of data) so players can be slow to drop down the rankings.

We've adjusted our in-season algorithm this season to place a far higher weighting on "current season" form which will see our Top 100 players change far quicker than the AFL Player Rankings. However for pre-season projections, obviously we couldn't include this metric and hence you end up with a somewhat flawed view of the Top 100.

Needless to say (as I'm sure you can pick up) - I put far more weight on round to round tips than pre season predictions which have so many unknowns.

So as we see that the champion data is totally inaccurate with players listed in front of out and out champions, thsi system will have the same flaws? As if we dont agree with the data going in its a totally useless programme you are running?

 

[TipBetPro]

So as we see that the champion data is totally inaccurate with players listed in front of out and out champions, thsi system will have the same flaws? As if we dont agree with the data going in its a totally useless programme you are running?

Not totally inaccurate - the AFL Player Rankings are about as good as ranking system as there is ... but that's not to say it doesn't have flaws as outlined in my post above. As mentioned, I have attempted to address those flaws as best I can in my algorithm for round to round tipping (and done several seasons worth of testing to determine the best algorithm) ... but arguably the biggest change that needs making (far higher weighting to current season form) can't be incorporated into a pre-season prediction simulation.