Certified Legendary Thread Race for the flag, in squiggly lines

[HawkintheTuarts]

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.

Never said the result was invalid or WC shouldn't have won. Perhaps we're discussing two different points here, you seemed fixed on the WC part and ignoring the parts with North. The Dodger made a similar point to the one I was getting at with West Coast, and he supports them, so I'm not only one with a bit of scepticism here.

North may not be as strong as their 8-0 record suggests or West Coast as average as their current position either but I'm not going to have the latter over the former as favourites to make GF with only reasoning being atypical thrashings of (weak) other teams against them.

 

[cryptor]

Never said the result was invalid or WC shouldn't have won. Perhaps we're discussing two different points here, you seemed fixed on the WC part and ignoring the parts with North. The Dodger made a similar point to the one I was getting at with West Coast, and he supports them, so I'm not only one with a bit of scepticism here.

North may not be as strong as their 8-0 record suggests or West Coast as average as their current position either but I'm not going to have the latter over the former as favourites to make GF with only reasoning being atypical thrashings of (weak) other teams against them.

Ok I see what you're saying.

North to me have been a bit like Freo last year to me. Just average wins as you'd expect them to get. Winning is great and you can only play who you've come up against so can't hold that against them. Just simply haven't seen anything from them that makes me think they have what it takes. Plenty of time for them to show it though.

West Coast on the other hand have smashed some teams with big margins and their 3 losses while being bad were still against Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong at each of those sides home ground

Either way there's plenty more water to go under the bridge. North have to play more of the top 8 and Eagles have yet to play many top 8 sides on their deck.

 

[djpaulydemon]

Never said the result was invalid or WC shouldn't have won. Perhaps we're discussing two different points here, you seemed fixed on the WC part and ignoring the parts with North. The Dodger made a similar point to the one I was getting at with West Coast, and he supports them, so I'm not only one with a bit of scepticism here.

North may not be as strong as their 8-0 record suggests or West Coast as average as their current position either but I'm not going to have the latter over the former as favourites to make GF with only reasoning being atypical thrashings of (weak) other teams against them.

You're not quite understanding all of what the squiggle is about. But you do seem up for having reasonable discussions, so I really suggest you go onto the squiggle website and read the info page:

http://maxbarry.com/squiggle/#info

In particular it explains how the only thing the squiggle factors in is the strength of either teams, so you will understand that keeping St Kilda to 3 goals, or keeping any team to less goals then the predicted outcome, will result in defensive squiggle movement.

It also explains the flagpole and should clarify to you why it rates West Coast above North Melbourne, which is essentially because throughout history teams which routinely flog other teams win the premiership more often and teams that have good records yet fail to put teams to the sword haven't had much success, even if they make the granny.

 

[Starburns_]

Not quite sure how Squiggles is giving Ninthmond a genuine chance in the game this weekend.

Oh dear.

First the Power Rankings, now The Squiggle, Chunkchicken getting owned by all the rankings systems.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Oh dear.

First the Power Rankings, now The Squiggle, Chunkchicken getting owned by all the rankings systems.

Oh well, enjoy your customary 60 point elimination final loss. Seems like a yearly occurrence these days. Meanwhile in the AFL age, tell me again, Richmond has played how many finals past the elimination stage?

And if I recall, it was me owning the Power Rankings and Roby.

 

[Pugz89]

Squiggle gives the Giants a 6pt win. It's an intriguing match i reckon. Dogs starting to scrape the bottom of the barrell for personnel but have already shown that their system can cover losses. There has to be a tipping point and i wonder if the two suspensions this week are it. I know our defence has been great but i'll be surprised if they don't kick more than 89 points.

 

[chogsauce]

<--

?

Kind Regards,
Sally the Monster Beans Cheese Bobs.

 

[RedStarUncle]

Never said the result was invalid or WC shouldn't have won. Perhaps we're discussing two different points here, you seemed fixed on the WC part and ignoring the parts with North. The Dodger made a similar point to the one I was getting at with West Coast, and he supports them, so I'm not only one with a bit of scepticism here.

North may not be as strong as their 8-0 record suggests or West Coast as average as their current position either but I'm not going to have the latter over the former as favourites to make GF with only reasoning being atypical thrashings of (weak) other teams against them.

The thing about the Squiggle is that it doesn't care about the names of the teams, the brand of footy they play or how they ended up at the scoreline that resulted. It JUST cares about the numbers.

What it *does* do is analyse the numbers in a way that correlates very closely with actual results. It's hard for people to accept (certainly for some of the more vehement Squiggle criticisers to do so) but as people our impressions are often not correct. We all "can see" how the Eagles, for example, are flat track bullies. We are used to terms like "you can only beat who is in front of you" so feel comfortable that the Roos must be a good side to be on top of the ladder.

But the Squiggle uses the pure numbers and historic trends to show us that, in fact, a team doing as the Eagles are is more likely to win the flag than a team doing as the Roos are.



You may not value holding a weaker side like St Kilda to 3 goals and thumping them by 100 points as much as you do North's scrappy win against a contender in the Bulldogs, but the Squiggle does. The Squiggle is not forming an opinion or disagreeing with you, it is just computing based on historic trends.

What's more, the Squiggle is only capturing what is likely. With each result, what it determines is likely changes. It's more flexible and less stubborn than footy experts in that regard. Damian Barrett was big on the Dockers this year so every time they lost it was an aberration. He refused to see them for the side they were. The Squiggle doesn't consider results as aberrations it just factors them in as they are.

The Squiggle doesn't tell you what a result will be. It tells you what result is likely. Watch a game of footy and know that if the Squiggle predicted it it was a predictable result, but if the Squiggle didn't then we're going to get a re-evaluation on Monday of what the season might look like come September. Treat it as a tool to help you enjoy footy and you'll love it. Argue with it and you'll never win, because it's just a mathematic equation and it doesn't have feelings.

 

[Gavin Excell]

The thing about the squiggle is that it doesn't care about the names of the teams, the brand of footy they play or how they ended up at the scoreline that resulted. It JUST cares about the numbers.

What it *does* do is analyse the numbers in a way that correlates very closely with actual results. It's hard for people to accept (certainly for some of the more vehement squiggle criticisers to do so) but as people our impressions are often not correct. We all "can see" how the Eagles, for example, are flat track bullies. We are used to terms like "you can only beat who is in front of you" so feel comfortable that the Roos must be a good side to be on top of the ladder.

But the squiggle uses the pure numbers and historic trends to show us that, in fact, a team doing as the Eagles are is more likely to win the flag than a team doing as the Roos are.



You may not value holding a weaker side like St Kilda to 3 goals and thumping them by 100 points as much as you do North's scrappy win against a contender in the Bulldogs, but the squiggle does. The squiggle is not forming an opinion or disagreeing with you, it is just computing based on historic trends.

What's more, the squiggle is only capturing what is likely. With each result, what it determines is likely changes. It's more flexible and less stubborn than footy experts in that regard. Damian Barrett was big on the Dockers this year so every time they lost it was an aberration. He refused to see them for the side they were. The squiggle doesn't consider results as aberrations it just factors them in as they are.

The squiggle doesn't tell you what a result will be. It tells you what result is likely. Watch a game of footy and know that if the squiggle predicted it it was a predictable result, but if the squiggle didn't then we're going to get a re-evaluation on Monday of what the season might look like come September. Treat it as a tool to help you enjoy footy and you'll love it. Argue with it and you'll never win, because it's just a mathematic equation and it doesn't have feelings.

Indeed. Well constructed post.

My only criticism is you should show the Squiggle respect by capitalising

 

[beert]

The thing about the Squiggle is that it doesn't care about the names of the teams, the brand of footy they play or how they ended up at the scoreline that resulted. It JUST cares about the numbers.

What it *does* do is analyse the numbers in a way that correlates very closely with actual results. It's hard for people to accept (certainly for some of the more vehement Squiggle criticisers to do so) but as people our impressions are often not correct. We all "can see" how the Eagles, for example, are flat track bullies. We are used to terms like "you can only beat who is in front of you" so feel comfortable that the Roos must be a good side to be on top of the ladder.

If you look at the numbers though, you will see that the squiggle consistently over-rates west coast away from home and is either spot on, or underestimates them at home. (This is based on expected vs actual scores).

So it is a valid argument that there is something going on with home ground advantage for this team that the squiggle does not understand. It can be wrong, you know.

 

[Augustine]

Chunky Chicken you're one weird dude. All of us are a little weird to be obsessed with these squiggly lines but you're another level. You dedicated a scary amount of hours of your life trying to prove to the world that some random troll's system of ranking AFL's team was nonsense. Now you're trying to attack the squiggle something that (apart from being demonstrably good at rating football teams) people get a lot of enjoyment out of. What's the point? Why so miserable?

 

[RookiePick]

The thing about the Squiggle is that it doesn't care about the names of the teams, the brand of footy they play or how they ended up at the scoreline that resulted. It JUST cares about the numbers.

...

bovs are you Sarah Connor?

You post had a very T2 voiceover vibe!

 

[DieSwans]

Shattered we don't get the opportunity to smash Geelong in Perth this year.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Chunky Chicken you're one weird dude. All of us are a little weird to be obsessed with these squiggly lines but you're another level. You dedicated a scary amount of hours of your life trying to prove to the world that some random troll's system of ranking AFL's team was nonsense. Now you're trying to attack the squiggle something that (apart from being demonstrably good at rating football teams) people get a lot of enjoyment out of. What's the point? Why so miserable?

That's because it was nonsense

Now you're trying to attack the squiggle something that (apart from being demonstrably good at rating football teams) people get a lot of enjoyment out of. What's the point? Why so miserable?

I'm not attacking it, merely questioning where the teams are being rated and how they're faring in relation to the ratings. I don't think Squiggle predicted Carlton to win 4 in a row, or Collingwood to be so bad, or North to be 8-0. Squiggles had Radelaide pegged as almost grand final certainties at one point and West Coast as dead set grand finalists. It certainly didn't rate Geelong or Sydney and was no where near Melbourne, GWS or Fremantle (but then again, I don't think anyone was).

I like the Squiggles, but I have a questioning nature and I don't take everything at face value. Besides, feedback provides better tools and questioning the methods to obtain a result generally leads to improved methods.

I think that this season is a far different season to any in recent memory and teams are performing unexpectedly worse, or better because of it, and it could very well be that the ratings may need to adjust to work with the changes. They're substantial interpretation and rule changes, not some simple holding the ball adjustment.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Shattered we don't get the opportunity to smash Geelong in Perth this year.

Why can't eagles have a go away from home?

 

[HawkintheTuarts]

The thing about the Squiggle is that it doesn't care about the names of the teams, the brand of footy they play or how they ended up at the scoreline that resulted. It JUST cares about the numbers.

What it *does* do is analyse the numbers in a way that correlates very closely with actual results. It's hard for people to accept (certainly for some of the more vehement Squiggle criticisers to do so) but as people our impressions are often not correct. We all "can see" how the Eagles, for example, are flat track bullies. We are used to terms like "you can only beat who is in front of you" so feel comfortable that the Roos must be a good side to be on top of the ladder.

But the Squiggle uses the pure numbers and historic trends to show us that, in fact, a team doing as the Eagles are is more likely to win the flag than a team doing as the Roos are.



You may not value holding a weaker side like St Kilda to 3 goals and thumping them by 100 points as much as you do North's scrappy win against a contender in the Bulldogs, but the Squiggle does. The Squiggle is not forming an opinion or disagreeing with you, it is just computing based on historic trends.

What's more, the Squiggle is only capturing what is likely. With each result, what it determines is likely changes. It's more flexible and less stubborn than footy experts in that regard. Damian Barrett was big on the Dockers this year so every time they lost it was an aberration. He refused to see them for the side they were. The Squiggle doesn't consider results as aberrations it just factors them in as they are.

The Squiggle doesn't tell you what a result will be. It tells you what result is likely. Watch a game of footy and know that if the Squiggle predicted it it was a predictable result, but if the Squiggle didn't then we're going to get a re-evaluation on Monday of what the season might look like come September. Treat it as a tool to help you enjoy footy and you'll love it. Argue with it and you'll never win, because it's just a mathematic equation and it doesn't have feelings.

Nice post, thanks for your time, but you're misunderstanding as well. I'm not challenging the tool, but the analysis/context/conclusions made from it. I'm rejecting the claim that holding Saints to three goals is anyway indicative of West Coast being a a GF team or that you can claim they are a better chance than North at this stage.

I would claim that Eagles v Saints results is indicative more that "Good teams keep bad teams to low scores" than the claim that it is proof of "Grand Final winners keep bad teams to low scores".

If you suggest the evidence points the other way then I'd be interested in seeing that data; over the past seasons which teams that hold their opponents to 4 or less goals in match, where they end up at seasons end.

 

[Tas]

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.

You are wrong, all of these teams will be no good once we beat them...

 

[DieSwans]

Why can't eagles have a go away from home?

I really dont know, mate.

You'd think the embarrassment in the GF might light some fire in their belly, hey?

We'd better beat Port this week tbh, until we start being competitive away, its hard to get overly excited.

 

[Gavin Excell]

I really dont know, mate.

You'd think the embarrassment in the GF might light some fire in their belly, hey?

We'd better beat Port this week tbh, until we start being competitive away, its hard to get overly excited.

Should beat Port

They are flimsy

 

[Tas]

Ok I see what you're saying.

North to me have been a bit like Freo last year to me. Just average wins as you'd expect them to get. Winning is great and you can only play who you've come up against so can't hold that against them. Just simply haven't seen anything from them that makes me think they have what it takes. Plenty of time for them to show it though.

West Coast on the other hand have smashed some teams with big margins and their 3 losses while being bad were still against Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong at each of those sides home ground

Either way there's plenty more water to go under the bridge. North have to play more of the top 8 and Eagles have yet to play many top 8 sides on their deck.

Except we are nothing like Fremantle last year... Fremantle had a great start of the season based on the domination from Fyfe in what was otherwise a very defensive and accountable team. Players such as Walters and Neale also had outstanding seasons, everything just clicked for them, they were both scoring well (unless their opponent went ultra defensive) and they restricted the opposition from scoring. They were in white-hot form and they steamrolled over teams like West Coast, North, Sydney who finished the season in the top 4. The only teams that bothered them was Richmond and Hawthorn who's style of play is a bit of an Achilles heel for them. When Fyfe went down, again, after R17 they really started to struggle.

Now, what similarities exist between Fremantle's start in 2015 and ours other than the consecutive wins? Nothing. None of our players are in particularly good form, we rely on an even contribution, we aren't really beating anyone convincingly, we haven't come up against the better teams going around. We've beaten two solid sides and a number of others who lets face it, aren't going to be contending this season.

People just need to be patient and wait until we play some of the anticipated contenders before coming to conclusions about us as a side, you can't make educated conclusions without a sample size of substance. All people can say is that we have improved on last year because we haven't dropped games to the kind of teams we have done in recent years which prevented us being in contention for top 4 spots in those years. All this start has done is create an opportunity, that wont be realised until we play and can beat a fair number of the other better teams.

We will need to play significantly better than we have to beat the better teams. If we do or don't then people will at least have some relevant data to make an educated opinion. The only analysis people are currently offering is hot air based on bogus observations between us and sides that were fundamentally different to us.

 

[BotsMaster]

Shattered we don't get the opportunity to smash Geelong in Perth this year.

You had that last year.

This year we evened it up

 

[cryptor]

Maybe actually read my post before responding?

Except we are nothing like Fremantle last year... Fremantle had a great start of the season based on the domination from Fyfe in what was otherwise a very defensive and accountable team. Players such as Walters and Neale also had outstanding seasons, everything just clicked for them, they were both scoring well (unless their opponent went ultra defensive) and they restricted the opposition from scoring. They were in white-hot form and they steamrolled over teams like West Coast, North, Sydney who finished the season in the top 4. The only teams that bothered them was Richmond and Hawthorn who's style of play is a bit of an Achilles heel for them. When Fyfe went down, again, after R17 they really started to struggle.

Now, what similarities exist between Fremantle's start in 2015 and ours other than the consecutive wins? Nothing. None of our players are in particularly good form, we rely on an even contribution, we aren't really beating anyone convincingly, we haven't come up against the better teams going around. We've beaten two solid sides and a number of others who lets face it, aren't going to be contending this season.

"North have been a bit like Freo last year to me"

People just need to be patient and wait until we play some of the anticipated contenders before coming to conclusions about us as a side, you can't make educated conclusions without a sample size of substance. All people can say is that we have improved on last year because we haven't dropped games to the kind of teams we have done in recent years which prevented us being in contention for top 4 spots in those years. All this start has done is create an opportunity, that wont be realised until we play and can beat a fair number of the other better teams.

"Winning is great and you can only play who you come up against, so you can't hold that against them"

We will need to play significantly better than we have to beat the better teams. If we do or don't then people will at least have some relevant data to make an educated opinion. The only analysis people are currently offering is hot air based on bogus observations between us and sides that were fundamentally different to us.

"Either way there is plenty of water to go under the bridge. North have to play more of the top 8"

 

[Tas]

Maybe actually read my post before responding?


"North have been a bit like Freo last year to me"


"Winning is great and you can only play who you come up against, so you can't hold that against them"


"Either way there is plenty of water to go under the bridge. North have to play more of the top 8"

Sadly, I read all of what you said.

"North to me have been a bit like Freo last year to me."

Wrong. Don't care what you feel, your feelings are wrong as the teams have had nothing in common.

"Just average wins as you'd expect them to get."

That isn't how Fremantle played last year early in the season.

"Winning is great and you can only play who you've come up against so can't hold that against them. Just simply haven't seen anything from them that makes me think they have what it takes. Plenty of time for them to show it though."

We haven't played the good teams yet, so how those results go will largely determine what people feel, yet Fremantle won all of theirs, most quite convincingly, other than against Hawthorn. You are setting up a double negative scenario in which you have successfully mind-****ed yourself to write the team off irrespective what occurs. If we don't beat any of the good teams, we are no good, if we drop any of them, then we are like Fremantle and are going to bomb out like they did and not win any games in 2017.

On the other hand...

"West Coast on the other hand have smashed some teams with big margins and their 3 losses while being bad were still against Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong at each of those sides home ground"

Beaten nobody, struggle to win away from Subi against good opposition, smash shit sides at home... winning formula for success?

"Either way there's plenty more water to go under the bridge. North have to play more of the top 8 and Eagles have yet to play many top 8 sides on their deck."

That is the point, there is no water to go under the bridge, you have constructed a scenario where irrespective what we do we are in a no-win scenario because you have convinced yourself that we are the 2016 version of Fremantle, irrespective that there are absolutely no similarities. Fremantle basically only lost a handful and beat almost all of the contenders, what possible scenario would we not be Fremantle in your eyes?

The funny thing is I don't think you even consciously realise what you are doing.

I have no issue if people don't rate us, we aren't travelling that great tbh, I just don't think people need to fabricate reasons to write us off when there are plenty of legitimate reasons to do so.

 

[djpaulydemon]

Nice post, thanks for your time, but you're misunderstanding as well. I'm not challenging the tool, but the analysis/context/conclusions made from it. I'm rejecting the claim that holding Saints to three goals is anyway indicative of West Coast being a a GF team or that you can claim they are a better chance than North at this stage.

I would claim that Eagles v Saints results is indicative more that "Good teams keep bad teams to low scores" than the claim that it is proof of "Grand Final winners keep bad teams to low scores".

If you suggest the evidence points the other way then I'd be interested in seeing that data; over the past seasons which teams that hold their opponents to 4 or less goals in match, where they end up at seasons end.

West Coast actually beat the Saints by almost the same margin as last week in round 23 last year. They also kept the Suns to 43 (winning by 92), kept the Giants to 33 (winning by 87) and kept a lot teams to around 50 points.

Last year the Hawks kept the Dees to 50 (winning by 105), kept the Blues to 35 (winning by 138), kept the Suns to 40 etc. They also smashed the Bulldogs, Swans and Dockers who obviously don't qualify as bad teams. But they still smashed the bad teams.

By the end of round 23 the flagpole had West Coast and Hawthorn as the clear favourites, with Adelaide near because of their big win over West Coast a few rounds earlier. The biggest thrashing Freo could hand out was 68 and 54 (against Melbourne of course), which was reflected on their low flagpole position and ultimately their performance in the finals.

Anyway, it is more that Grand Final winning teams thrash bad teams and often when they do that they keep the team to a low score.
2011 is a good example of the two teams playing in the GF being absolutely miles ahead in squiggle ratings at the start of the finals. Collingwood kept port to 20 and crushed North Melbourne in similar fashion, while Geelong infamously (and soul crushingly) destroyed Melbourne, while pantsing the young Suns and then Collingwood in the final round. Geelong won 8 games over 60+ and won two of those over 150+ and ended up as premiers.

This is just evidence from 2 seasons but many seasons are like this which is why the flagpole has an 80% hit rate at predicting winners in the last 20 years.

 

[caroma]

Have just become a Squiggle convert.
Squiggle is love. Squiggle is life.