Certified Legendary Thread Race for the flag, in squiggly lines

[Final Siren]

Round 8, 2016

​

Animated!

A good week for West Coast, who ONLY WIN AT HOME and are therefore not a credible flag threat, apparently. This really undersells the Eagles, who so far in 2016 have performed roughly like you'd expect of a good team, if it gets home state games against Brisbane, Fremantle, Richmond, Collingwood and St. Kilda, and away state games against Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong. Your club would be 5-3 after that, too.

But the "flat track bully" label is back! I think it's one of those easy generalizations, like "they win the close ones" or "always drop the games they should win," which human brains like to use to group data, even when there isn't much to go on. It's actually very unusual for teams to go out and reliably smash weaker teams then collapse to good ones. It's far more common for a smashing to be a sign of a genuinely good side.

So the squiggle likes West Coast. It especially likes them holding the Saints to only 29 points.

Also a great week for the Cats! But not as good as it would have been if they'd kicked straight. Geelong have improved their chart position six weeks in a row, each time by a big margin.

North, though, have had consecutive bad wins. You know how bad wins displease the squiggle. Fremantle had a lot of those last year and look what happened. Justice. That's what. Or more accurately, reversion to the mean. So you'd take 8-0, but the signs are not terrific. Just like "flat track bullies" tend to be actually good teams, clubs that fall across the line against mediocre opposition tend to be not that great.

Worth noting: For a terrible team, Essendon are oddly effective at defending. It may actually be more accurate to say that they're a reasonable team with a terrible attack.

AND THE BIG NEWS: Richmond had their first positive chart movement for 2016! Yaaaaay.

Ladder predictor: The Cats are still comfortable on top, the rest of the 8 is still wide open.

Flagpole!

Live squiggle for clicking back, forward, back, forward, back, forward!

 

[Pessimistic]

Eagles away games arent gimmes given their away form so far.

They might get carlton and collingwood, but a cople of top teams might beat eagles at home too

 

[Oneiros]

Eagles away games arent gimmes given their away form so far.

They might get carlton and collingwood, but a cople of top teams might beat eagles at home too

Just food for thought, but the number of times that a Top 8 side has failed to defend their home deck against an out of state side so far this year is just one, Adelaide v Geelong.

 

[Sirlemsip]

Interesting from the flagpole that the top-of-the-table 8-0 Kangas are the team in the top 8 least likely to win the flag.
I think the run of the next 6 weeks will say a lot - once they have played Carlton, Richmond, Hawks, Cats, Crows, and Swans they could quite easily be 9-5 (and in the lower regions of the top 8).

The opposite could be true for the Hawks. Next 6 are Swans, Lions, Melbourne, Essendon, North and Gold Coast. Swans is clearly a danger game, and North is probably a 60/40 proposition at best, the other 4 should be gimmes which should leave us, at worst, at 10-4.

How things stack up after completion of the Bye rounds (Round 14) should be very interesting.

 

[QS]

They might get carlton and collingwood, but a cople of top teams might beat eagles at home too

Haven't you read the news? We are apparently unbeatable at subi

 

[HawkintheTuarts]

Holding a 2-win team to three goals is an outlier, not evidence of GF credentials. Does Squiggle have any strength of opposition factored into it? If the last 8 weeks hasn't proved anything irt North, then it sure as hell hasn't for West Coast.

 

[Oneiros]

Holding a 2-win team to three goals is an outlier, not evidence of GF credentials. Does Squiggle have any strength of opposition factored into it? If the last 8 weeks hasn't proved anything irt North, then it sure as hell hasn't for West Coast.

Strength of the two teams are the only things it factors in.

 

[J_Moore]

Well, we lost, but have not unduly angered the Squiggle.

For me, that is a win.

 

[BigVic]

The squiggle correctly predicted the Hawks last year. Optimistic about this year

 

[shintemaster]

Can't see North losing more than half of their games from here on in... despite what the squiggle may think about that.

 

[Dagless]

Can't see North losing more than half of their games from here on in... despite what the squiggle may think about that.

Carlton
@ Sydney
Richmond
@ Geelong
Hawthorn
@ Adelaide
@ West Coast
Port Adelaide
Collingwood
St Kilda
Western Bulldogs
Hawthorn
Sydney
GWS

Can definitely see potential for 9 losses (Not expected, but potential), so I would be pretty comfortable saying finishing 17-5 is 'expected', 16-6 on current form, and one additional loss from that lot is definitely a strong possibility.

 

[cryptor]

Holding a 2-win team to three goals is an outlier, not evidence of GF credentials. Does Squiggle have any strength of opposition factored into it? If the last 8 weeks hasn't proved anything irt North, then it sure as hell hasn't for West Coast.

Holding any team to only 3 goals is pretty impressive. In 2012 Hawthorn kept GWS to 4 goals and we were a better side then than West Coast are now, likewise GWS were worse then than St Kilda are now too.

A good game by West Coast and a particularly poor one by St Kilda. Might not be the typical performance by either side but it still happened and West Coast deserve the credit. If it is an outlier then the squiggle should correct over the next few weeks as they fail to meet or exceed the now higher predicted margins.

 

[Augustine]

We're back where we started. That was pointless. Our season starts now.

 

[Handsuper47]

Look at that, in the middle of the Kangaroos, Power and Dogs squiggle it looks as though you can fit a pool!

 

[The Dodger]

​

But the "flat track bully" label is back! I think it's one of those easy generalizations, like "they win the close ones" or "always drop the games they should win," which human brains like to use to group data, even when there isn't much to go on. It's actually very unusual for teams to go out and reliably smash weaker teams then collapse to good ones. It's far more common for a smashing to be a sign of a genuinely good side.

I just want to point something out about the flat track tag as people don't seem to understand it. Its not that we win at home and lose away its the nature of the way you play. At home we usually dominate from the first bounce and no one is afraid to leave their man and run forward. On the road no one runs, no one helps out and it feels from the moment the ball is bounced that its a matter of time until the other team kick a few in a row and put us out of our misery.
Were never in the Hawthorn game. Played about 2 good quarters against Sydney and then 1.5 quarters against Geelong.
If we played in the same manner that we do at home and still go down to these good teams at their home I don't think anyone would have an issue with it. But we don't. We look timid and no one (read midfield) seems to perform anywhere near their standard on the road.

In saying this IMO the signs were better on this smashing. Players weren't doing everything to continue to get the ball to JK like they were against Brisbane in round 1. The defence held up and did its job, as its been pretty leaky especially when we are on top of the opposition.

 

[Billy ray]

I like squiggle watching more than my footy watching at the moment.
This thread keeps me interested. So thanks final siren...

 

[HawkintheTuarts]

Holding any team to only 3 goals is pretty impressive. In 2012 Hawthorn kept GWS to 4 goals and we were a better side then than West Coast are now, likewise GWS were worse then than St Kilda are now too.

A good game by West Coast and a particularly poor one by St Kilda. Might not be the typical performance by either side but it still happened and West Coast deserve the credit. If it is an outlier then the squiggle should correct over the next few weeks as they fail to meet or exceed the now higher predicted margins.

And where did GWS finish that year? I think you're making my argument for me. Of course the result in itself, is impressive, but in the wider picture looking forward it doesn't necessarily mean as much. If you're going to give weight to West Coast letting Saints only kick 3, then what about letting Brisbane kick 15?

My point has always been in relation to how they match up to North and how much of a chance they both have to make the Granny. Aside from this thread, I've seen no talk or evidence from anywhere that West Coast after the last 8 rounds have a better shot at the GF than the Roos. If you want to talk credit due then where is North's for winning 8 straight? Loss of form and losses once schedule gets harder is to be expected, but there still the only undefeated team.

 

[Oneiros]

If you're going to give weight to West Coast letting Saints only kick 3, then what about letting Brisbane kick 15?

That's why our first movement for the year was up (because Brisbane's defence does not normally leak 166) and left (because our defence should not have leaked that many).

It has an expected score for each team based on their attack and the other's defence, the movements in the squiggle are effectively how your team performs against that benchmark on both sides of the ball.

 

[RookiePick]

I like squiggle watching more than my footy watching at the moment.
This thread keeps me interested. So thanks final siren...

I like looking at the squiggle tips and working out which games I think have the best chance of seeing some bold squiggle motion.

Geelong-Collingwood could be one to propel the Cats right into the primo zone this week...

 

[cryptor]

And where did GWS finish that year? I think you're making my argument for me. Of course the result in itself, is impressive, but in the wider picture looking forward it doesn't necessarily mean as much. If you're going to give weight to West Coast letting Saints only kick 3, then what about letting Brisbane kick 15?

My point has always been in relation to how they match up to North and how much of a chance they both have to make the Granny. Aside from this thread, I've seen no talk or evidence from anywhere that West Coast after the last 8 rounds have a better shot at the GF than the Roos. If you want to talk credit due then where is North's for winning 8 straight? Loss of form and losses once schedule gets harder is to be expected, but there still the only undefeated team.

Not sure how I am. GWS were rubbish that year and we were in peak form. St Kilda aren't that bad but they played a shit one and West Coast are very good at home so will play better than expected in half their games. The squiggle will correct over the coming weeks if this is truly an outlier result. But we can't just exclude data because it doesn't fit our narrative.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Big game for west coast away next week v a bottom 8 club

 

[HawkintheTuarts]

Not sure how I am. GWS were rubbish that year and we were in peak form. St Kilda aren't that bad but they played a shit one and West Coast are very good at home so will play better than expected in half their games. The squiggle will correct over the coming weeks if this is truly an outlier result. But we can't just exclude data because it doesn't fit our narrative.

Because you used another result of a top-team thrashing a bottom-team. I don't think those results, especially if the result or score is an outlier, is an indicator in itself of anything concerning GF chances. I put more emphasis into wins against stronger opponents and what a team's average level is, not their extreme, which is to me what data collection/analysis is all about.

As for narratives, West Coast are a GF-team because they can keep Saints to 3 goals isn't one?

 

[MWPP]

My point has always been in relation to how they match up to North and how much of a chance they both have to make the Granny. Aside from this thread, I've seen no talk or evidence from anywhere that West Coast after the last 8 rounds have a better shot at the GF than the Roos. If you want to talk credit due then where is North's for winning 8 straight? Loss of form and losses once schedule gets harder is to be expected, but there still the only undefeated team.

There's never going to be evidence (though I find it interesting that North have moved a lot on the squiggle this year, but are now basically back to their starting point...)
But maybe you should put some money on North (they're behind Geelong/Hawks/Sydney/Eagles in the premiership betting) if you rate them
Also, have you been through Norths' and the Eagles' draws and done your own ladder predictor?
Basically our draw opens up, whilst their draw gets worse
North do have a bit of a Freo 2015 vibe though
Geelong are deservedly the round 8 premiership favourites

 

[Suma Magic]

Tipped to beat Port by 15.

This is a true test of our Premiership hopes and Squiggle reputation.

It does feel like the Squiggle is over-rating us seeing where we are on the flagpole. But if it's one thing I know, it's that the squiggle is right and those who question it are wrong.

 

[cryptor]

Because you used another result of a top-team thrashing a bottom-team. I don't think those results, especially if the result or score is an outlier, is an indicator in itself of anything concerning GF chances. I put more emphasis into wins against stronger opponents and what a team's average level is, not their extreme, which is to me what data collection/analysis is all about.

As for narratives, West Coast are a GF-team because they can keep Saints to 3 goals isn't one?

And that top team who thrashed the bottom team did make the GF, and probably would've won it too most times if the game was played over 10 times. So not sure why this result isn't just as valid.

The flagpole algorithm* shows thrashings are the best indicator of the eventual premier - even if they are against poor sides. The thrashings just have to be that much bigger. And belting a side by 100+ while keeping them to under 30 points isn't an easy task.

*which has been most successful at predicting the premier.