Stats questions

[SJ]

Don't need anyone to trawl though stuff manually, but if those with databases can answer this question fairly easily it would be appreciated:

Can you get me a list of the last few years (up to 5 if possible) where players who have been the highest goalkicker in a game (or equal highest) but hadn't kicked 2+ goals in an individual game in their previous 12 games?

An example being Will Hoskin-Elliott in round 20 2012, who kicked 5 and was the highest goalscorer vs Gold Coast but hadn't kicked 2+ goals prior

cheers

Can't do the list but Harry Taylor is a good one. Had never kicked multiple goals in his first 99 games (nine goals total) before kicking six goals in his 100th game.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Can you get me a list of the last few years (up to 5 if possible) where players who have been the highest goalkicker in a game (or equal highest) but hadn't kicked 2+ goals in an individual game in their previous 12 games?

2000-current:

Year|Round|Player|Club|Goals|Career Match #|Max Last 12
\2012|20|Hoskin-Elliott, William|GWS|5|7|1
\2012|10|Taylor, Harry|Ge|6|100|1
\2011|22|Butcher, John|PA|6|2|1
\2011|19|Fasolo, Alex|Co|5|6|1
\2011|11|Ottens, Brad|Ge|5|234|1
\2011|8|Gilbee, Lindsay|WB|6|194|1
\2011|7|Krakouer, Nathan|GC|5|43|0
\2011|7|McGrath, Ashley|Br|6|161|0
\2010|20|Clark, Mitch|Br|5|63|1
\2009|21|Jamar, Mark|Me|5|72|1
\2009|8|Nahas, Robin|Ri|5|6|1
\2008|11|Thompson, Scott|Ad|6|120|1
\2007|21|McPharlin, Luke|Fr|5|112|1
\2007|9|Clark, Mitch|Br|5|7|1
\2005|19|Burgoyne, Peter|PA|5|170|1
\2005|18|Dal Santo, Nick|St|5|69|1
\2005|5|Scott, Chris|Br|5|205|1
\2004|14|Schulz, Jay|Ri|6|16|1
\2004|1|Brown, Leigh|NM|6|86|1
\2003|22|McGrath, Ashley|Br|6|28|1
\2003|21|Zantuck, Ty|Ri|5|53|1
\2002|7|Edwards, Tyson|Ad|5|133|1
\2001|5|Schofield, Jarrad|PA|5|107|1

 

[Lensen]

Thank you very much

Does that only include players who kicked 5+?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Thank you very much

Does that only include players who kicked 5+?

Sorry Lenny, didn't read the question properly. I ran the query against players who kicked 5+ instead of the leading goalkickers in those games. Will publish the correct list when I get home.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Correct list 2008-2012.

* = equal leading goalkickers from the same match
Tied = number of players tied for match's leading goalkicker
Eligible = number of players in match with a best of < 2 goals in their previous 12 games (including players with less than 12 career games)

Same Match|Player|Club|Year|Round|Goals|Tied|Eligible|Career Match #|Max Last 12|Opponent
\|Lynch, Tom J.|GC|2012|22|4|1|20|29|1|Ca
\|Hoskin-Elliott, William|GWS|2012|20|5|1|24|7|1|GC
\|Bugg, Tomas|GWS|2012|19|3|3|25|16|1|PA
\|Rivers, Jared|Me|2012|13|4|2|24|140|1|GWS
\|Tarrant, Robbie|NM|2012|13|4|1|17|14|1|Ad
\|Connors, Daniel|Ri|2012|12|3|3|22|28|1|GWS
\*|Drummond, Josh|Br|2012|10|3|4|21|86|1|WC
\*|Priddis, Matt|WC|2012|10|3|4|21|116|1|Br
\|Elliott, Jamie|Co|2012|10|3|5|19|2|0|GC
\|Garland, Colin|Me|2012|10|2|2|18|68|1|Es
\|Hartlett, Hamish|PA|2012|10|3|2|24|41|1|Ca
\|Taylor, Harry|Ge|2012|10|6|1|27|100|1|GWS
\|Bellchambers, Tom|Es|2012|9|3|4|23|34|1|GWS
\*|Cordy, Ayce|WB|2012|8|1|13|22|7|1|GC
\*|Liberatore, Tom|WB|2012|8|1|13|22|23|1|GC
\*|Lynch, Tom J.|GC|2012|8|1|13|22|21|1|WB
\*|Picken, Liam|WB|2012|8|1|13|22|73|1|GC
\*|Prestia, Dion|GC|2012|8|1|13|22|25|1|WB
\*|Skinner, Zeph|WB|2012|8|1|13|22|2|0|GC
\|Dickson, Tory|WB|2012|7|4|1|18|3|0|NM
\|Duncan, Mitch|Ge|2012|7|3|2|20|36|1|Ad
\*|de Boer, Matt|Fr|2012|6|3|4|20|59|1|GC
\*|Swallow, David|GC|2012|6|3|4|20|27|1|Fr
\|Robinson, Mitch|Ca|2012|5|2|3|16|54|1|Fr
\|Wilkes, Beau|St|2012|5|3|1|22|24|0|Me
\|Bate, Matthew|Me|2012|4|2|5|21|94|1|WB
\|Stewart, Daniel|PA|2012|3|3|2|20|26|1|Sy
\|Selwood, Scott|WC|2011|24|3|3|16|65|1|Ad
\|Masten, Chris|WC|2011|23|3|1|18|50|1|Br
\|Butcher, John|PA|2011|22|6|2|20|2|1|WB
\*|Leuenberger, Matthew|Br|2011|21|2|8|24|63|1|GC
\*|Polkinghorne, James|Br|2011|21|2|8|24|58|1|GC
\*|Rischitelli, Michael|GC|2011|21|2|8|24|129|1|Br
\*|Shaw, Matt|GC|2011|21|2|8|24|12|1|Br
\*|Staker, Brent|Br|2011|21|2|8|24|137|1|GC
\|Fasolo, Alex|Co|2011|19|5|1|15|6|1|Es
\|Keeffe, Lachlan|Co|2011|18|3|1|18|3|1|GC
\|Whitecross, Brendan|Ha|2011|16|3|4|22|40|1|Br
\|Shiels, Liam|Ha|2011|14|3|5|18|30|1|Es
\|Dal Santo, Nick|St|2011|12|2|5|22|204|1|WB
\|Jetta, Lewis|Sy|2011|12|2|5|17|31|1|Ri
\|Ottens, Brad|Ge|2011|11|5|2|23|234|1|WB
\|Roberts-Thomson, Lewis|Sy|2011|11|3|1|23|137|1|Br
\|Gilbee, Lindsay|WB|2011|8|6|1|20|194|1|Ri
\|Reid, Sam B.|Sy|2011|8|3|1|20|8|1|PA
\|McGrath, Ashley|Br|2011|7|6|1|24|161|0|GC
\|Pyke, Mike|Sy|2011|7|2|6|20|28|1|WB
\|Bateman, Chance|Ha|2011|5|3|5|18|162|1|Ge
\|Matera, Brandon|GC|2011|5|4|2|21|4|1|PA
\*|Sherman, Justin|WB|2011|5|4|3|20|118|1|Fr
\*|van Berlo, Jay|Fr|2011|5|4|3|20|26|1|WB
\|Morton, Cale|Me|2011|4|3|2|25|52|1|GC
\|Bartel, Jimmy|Ge|2011|3|2|5|18|184|1|PA
\|Lynch, Quinten|WC|2011|3|4|1|22|167|1|Sy
\|McPhee, Adam|Fr|2011|3|2|3|25|193|1|Ad
\|Clark, Mitch|Br|2010|20|5|2|30|63|1|Ad
\|Ellis, Xavier|Ha|2010|20|3|2|22|67|1|Me
\|Jones, Liam|WB|2010|19|2|2|23|2|1|Ad
\|Cornes, Kane|PA|2010|16|2|4|18|200|1|WB
\|Macaffer, Brent|Co|2010|16|3|2|17|16|1|St
\|Staker, Brent|Br|2010|13|3|4|25|123|1|Ri
\|Ladson, Rick|Ha|2010|11|2|5|22|110|1|PA
\|Rohan, Gary|Sy|2010|11|3|3|20|5|1|Es
\|Kreuzer, Matthew|Ca|2010|8|3|3|20|51|1|PA
\|Montagna, Leigh|St|2010|3|2|2|21|125|1|Co
\|Yarran, Chris|Ca|2010|1|3|3|16|7|1|Ri
\|Drummond, Josh|Br|2009|20|3|4|17|62|0|WB
\|Ruffles, Tim|Fr|2009|17|2|3|25|3|0|WC
\|Morton, Cale|Me|2009|16|3|3|24|35|1|Ge
\|Lewis, Jordan|Ha|2009|14|3|4|20|94|1|WV
\|O'hAilpin, Setanta|Ca|2009|14|4|1|23|53|1|Fr
\*|Hartlett, Hamish|PA|2009|9|2|9|19|5|0|Sy
\*|Kirk, Brett|Sy|2009|9|2|9|19|204|1|PA
\*|White, Jesse|Sy|2009|9|2|9|19|9|1|PA
\**|Graham, Angus|Ri|2009|6|2|8|22|7|0|Sy
\**|Meredith, Brett|Sy|2009|6|2|8|22|5|1|Ri
\**|Tambling, Richard|Ri|2009|6|2|8|22|79|1|Sy
\***|Embley, Andrew|WC|2009|6|2|5|21|172|1|Fr
\***|Hill, Stephen|Fr|2009|6|2|5|21|6|1|WC
\***|Sandilands, Aaron|Fr|2009|6|2|5|21|121|1|WC
\***|Thornton, Scott|Sy|2009|6|2|5|21|76|1|WC
\|Dunn, Lynden|Me|2009|5|2|2|21|42|1|Ad
\|Moss, Garry|Ha|2009|5|4|2|21|5|1|WC
\|McIntosh, Hamish|NM|2009|1|3|1|21|58|1|Me
\|Connors, Daniel|Ri|2008|20|3|3|24|6|0|Ha
\*|Bolton, Jude|Sy|2008|11|2|8|21|198|1|WC
\*|Kerr, Daniel|WC|2008|11|2|8|21|152|1|Sy
\|Thompson, Scott|Ad|2008|11|6|1|16|120|1|Ri
\*|Cox, Dean|WC|2008|9|2|6|19|154|1|Ad
\*|van Berlo, Nathan|Ad|2008|9|2|6|19|62|1|WC
\|Stanton, Brent|Es|2008|4|3|2|16|80|1|WB
\|Griffen, Ryan|WB|2008|3|3|4|23|54|1|St
\|Gamble, Ryan|Ge|2008|2|3|1|15|3|1|Es

 

[Lensen]

Thanks so much ron

 

[worbod]

Why do certain people refer to Australian Football as AFL? Are they simply uninformed? As far as I know, AFL is the name of the league/organisation. The Australian Football competition they conduct is also called the AFL, but surely AFL is not the blanket name for Australian Football nation-wide.

 

[RogersResults]

Why do certain people refer to Australian Football as AFL? Are they simply uninformed? As far as I know, AFL is the name of the league/organisation. The Australian Football competition they conduct is also called the AFL, but surely AFL is not the blanket name for Australian Football nation-wide.

Probably partly because of the Australian Football League marketing and branding in the traditional colonial back-water hold-outs for the games of the empire, NSW and QLD where the unevolved throwball codes of rugby union and league are called "football".

Also unlike in the U.S. where soccer dare not call itself "football", in Australia the carpet-kickers have taken to styling themselves as "Australian Football". Note that the Sydney Morning Herald's online Sport's section for "football" is where you find out that "Alessandro Del Piero produced a 27-metre wonderstrike" and what Real Madrid are up to. (The Age in Melbourne still calls that section "soccer".) So Australian Football is called "AFL" after the national competition.

Once Australia was neatly divided into separate regions where even the trains couldn't cross into and in the south east the indigenous game was just called "football" or "footy", the foreign games were "soccer" and "rugby". Some people were aware the game played and followed in Victoria, W.A. S.A. and Tasmania was officially called Australian Football and that people in NSW and QLD called it "Australian rules" or just "rules" or "code" in condescension that anything Australian couldn't be original, just some variant of the superior games of the 'mother' country. (The dreadful, "Aussie rules" appears to be a left over from the American stationing of troops in Australia - mostly in Queensland during World War II - usage in Australia newspapers appears to date from then.)

So with competing football codes, with none being dominant nation-wide, what they are called regionally and nationally is always going to be problematic.

New generations of New South Welshpersons and Banana-benders and the historically NSW culturally dominated capital enclave of Canberra calling our game "AFL" I think is preferable to the old "rules" and "code" - at least AFL includes what has always been the official name of the game - Australian Football.

If youngsters in traditional Australian Football regions are starting to say that they are playing "AFL" when they kick the footy around the playground at lunchtime, then that is a little peculiar but must be joy for the AFL marketing division.

 

[tigris]

As this is a stats thread, I assume people in here have a lot of knowledge on the subject

I play fantasy football in a very custom league. Our player positions are a lot different to other online leagues, as is our scoring. The scoring is very close to DreamTeam, so some DT research is handy for me, but looking at other peoples rankings or mock drafts is usually not helpful due to players in wrong positions. Simple example, in DT Goddard is a back, probably the highest scoring back so is drafted very early. In our competition he's a midfielder, and as such gets drafted a lot later as he is not up to the standard of Swan/Ablett/Boyd/Cotchin etc.

Anyway, after watching Moneyball and being half decent at math I figured I'd try and come up with some simple algorithms to see how I go. I wouldn't be confident enough to use purely my rankings from said algorithm to draft, but just as more an exercise to help point on some things I might be missing.

To start with, what I have so far is simply taking everyone's score from last year and normalising it into a scoring bracket and assigning that a value out of 100 based on the benchmark score for that position/round. Then I average that out over the course of the season to get a normalised score out of 100 for everyone in their respective position.

Then I do some calculations for consistency, i.e. what percentage of games were they within 10% of their average scoring bracket. As well as some calculations for availability which is simply how often they got on the park.

This works pretty well, but I'd love to hear peoples ideas on other things to take into consideration. One thing I'd like to do is somehow take into account past seasons for people who were injured (e.g. Luke Ball). However when I tried this, it started downranking players who legitimately got better in 2012 (Dayne Beams), which is obviously not ideal.

Anyway, just searching for ideas on how to improve the algorithm or try completely different ones, thoughts are much appreciated!

 

[Krustyy]

As this is a stats thread, I assume people in here have a lot of knowledge on the subject

I play fantasy football in a very custom league. Our player positions are a lot different to other online leagues, as is our scoring. The scoring is very close to DreamTeam, so some DT research is handy for me, but looking at other peoples rankings or mock drafts is usually not helpful due to players in wrong positions. Simple example, in DT Goddard is a back, probably the highest scoring back so is drafted very early. In our competition he's a midfielder, and as such gets drafted a lot later as he is not up to the standard of Swan/Ablett/Boyd/Cotchin etc.

....

I just finished a draft for a league also with custom positions and no dual position players. We have an 18 man team each week, in which you need four defenders (including one key defender) five forwards (including two keys), one ruck, four mids and three more of any position. The value I placed on players took into account all of their last two seasons and a weighted average game by game. If they've played 40 games in two years their most recent game is worth 40/40, second most recent 39/40, etc. down to their first game of 2011 being worth 1/40.

I also built in a "predictor" based on the average scores by age. eg, if the competition average for a 23 year old is 65 and a 24 year old is 68, then someone turning 24 in 2013 gets 3pts added to their value. I then had a spreadsheet which I kept up to date with the draft. This kept track of what position types others had drafted, used that to predict what position types were likely to get picked up between my current pick and my next pick, then told me who to draft using all that info.

If Dangerfield was available and there were likely to be six midfielders drafted before my next pick, the drop from him to the midfielder six places below him might be 8 points. If Pav is also available and there's likely to be two key forwards picked up before my next pick, the drop from him to the key forward two places below him might be 12 points, so I'd take Pav over Dangerfield because I'd be missing out on less by passing on Dangerfield... Hope that makes sense.

18 of my first 20 picks were done using this automated method. Joe Daniher at 111 (Round 10) and Jack Steven at 183 (Round 16) were the two times I went against the model.

 

[tigris]

I just finished a draft for a league also with custom positions and no dual position players. We have an 18 man team each week, in which you need four defenders (including one key defender) five forwards (including two keys), one ruck, four mids and three more of any position. The value I placed on players took into account all of their last two seasons and a weighted average game by game. If they've played 40 games in two years their most recent game is worth 40/40, second most recent 39/40, etc. down to their first game of 2011 being worth 1/40.

Interesting theory. So basically instead of weighting a season as a whole, you weighted each game individually? I imagine some players such as Dangerfield and Cotchin that had outstanding end of season runs ranked quite highly with that algorithm? Actually they are probably bad examples, they should rank highly in any algorithm.

I also built in a "predictor" based on the average scores by age. eg, if the competition average for a 23 year old is 65 and a 24 year old is 68, then someone turning 24 in 2013 gets 3pts added to their value. I then had a spreadsheet which I kept up to date with the draft. This kept track of what position types others had drafted, used that to predict what position types were likely to get picked up between my current pick and my next pick, then told me who to draft using all that info.

Age is an interesting one. I wonder if I'd rather go with games played though. Someone 300+ games may start to be on the decline, vs 100-150 on the way up. 20-50 games is probably still a bit raw to be giving them a higher weighting.

If Dangerfield was available and there were likely to be six midfielders drafted before my next pick, the drop from him to the midfielder six places below him might be 8 points. If Pav is also available and there's likely to be two key forwards picked up before my next pick, the drop from him to the key forward two places below him might be 12 points, so I'd take Pav over Dangerfield because I'd be missing out on less by passing on Dangerfield... Hope that makes sense.

Makes perfect sense, but is straying into the area of draft strategy rather than player rankings. Which is also a fine discussion

 

[*Paul*]

Why do certain people refer to Australian Football as AFL? Are they simply uninformed? As far as I know, AFL is the name of the league/organisation. The Australian Football competition they conduct is also called the AFL, but surely AFL is not the blanket name for Australian Football nation-wide.

There's no need for a politically charged screed to explain it, it's simply a nickname (formerly Aussie rules was more prevalent). It's not confusion with the actual AFL.

Think rugby (when meaning league), gridiron, and that old pressure point, soccer. The people who use those terms aren't especially concerned with the sensibilities of another codes adherents (and why should they be?), and they're convenient and well understood labels.

 

[PapaJ]

Probably partly because of the Australian Football League marketing and branding in the traditional colonial back-water hold-outs for the games of the empire, NSW and QLD where the unevolved throwball codes of rugby union and league are called "football".

Also unlike in the U.S. where soccer dare not call itself "football", in Australia the carpet-kickers have taken to styling themselves as "Australian Football". Note that the Sydney Morning Herald's online Sport's section for "football" is where you find out that "Alessandro Del Piero produced a 27-metre wonderstrike" and what Real Madrid are up to. (The Age in Melbourne still calls that section "soccer".) So Australian Football is called "AFL" after the national competition.

Once Australia was neatly divided into separate regions where even the trains couldn't cross into and in the south east the indigenous game was just called "football" or "footy", the foreign games were "soccer" and "rugby". Some people were aware the game played and followed in Victoria, W.A. S.A. and Tasmania was officially called Australian Football and that people in NSW and QLD called it "Australian rules" or just "rules" or "code" in condescension that anything Australian couldn't be original, just some variant of the superior games of the 'mother' country. (The dreadful, "Aussie rules" appears to be a left over from the American stationing of troops in Australia - mostly in Queensland during World War II - usage in Australia newspapers appears to date from then.)

So with competing football codes, with none being dominant nation-wide, what they are called regionally and nationally is always going to be problematic.

New generations of New South Welshpersons and Banana-benders and the historically NSW culturally dominated capital enclave of Canberra calling our game "AFL" I think is preferable to the old "rules" and "code" - at least AFL includes what has always been the official name of the game - Australian Football.

If youngsters in traditional Australian Football regions are starting to say that they are playing "AFL" when they kick the footy around the playground at lunchtime, then that is a little peculiar but must be joy for the AFL marketing division.

Nice post. On the bold bit, I've never heard that before. I grew up in the greater Fremantle area and I remember using the term 'Aussie rules' quite a bit (80'-90's). Not sure why, but it was a term used quite a bit 'round my circle anyway. Can't say I've heard it too often recently, but it pops up from time to time. Otherwise, I basically have your take on the naming thing. Good post.

 

[PapaJ]

Technically my previous post is off topic, so thought I better post a stats one.

Probably been done somewhere, but a quick search didn't bring it up ... has anybody found/done a statistical analysis of pre-season record versus the real stuff, particularly say over the last 10 years where clubs have really taken the pre-season very differently depending on where they're at etc. Put simply, something which shows what sort of correlation (or lack there of) there is between pre-season form and regular season form

Here is one example someone has done with the NBA: http://www.82games.com/preseason.htm

I've seen even better ones done for the NFL and others leagues, but can't seem to find one for AFL.

 

[RogersResults]

Nice post. On the bold bit, I've never heard that before. I grew up in the greater Fremantle area and I remember using the term 'Aussie rules' quite a bit (80'-90's). Not sure why, but it was a term used quite a bit 'round my circle anyway. Can't say I've heard it too often recently, but it pops up from time to time. Otherwise, I basically have your take on the naming thing. Good post.

"Aussie Rules" in a search of online newspapers starts to turn-up from around 1942. Americans trying to be friendly frequently used "Aussie" instead of "Australian". Once it was realised that Japan had no plans or capability to invade Australia, most American troops were stationed in Queensland in staging camps in route to operations against the Japanese in the SW Paciffic. If they were aware of Australian Football or had been through Melbourne, the Queensland locals would have told them that it was "rules".
See also this article in the Australian Army News from 1943 Is Aussie Rules Football? At the time and into 1950s there were instances of officer cadets at Australian military bases being forbidden to play Australian Football as they were expected to be able to be proficient at rugby went they were sent to England for further training.

In the early 1950s a touring Collingwood junior team was refused permission to use Canberra High School oval for practice. "We'll have none of that 'rules' rubbish here", said the headmaster. (Canberra schools were staffed by the NSW Education Dept.)

During and in the immmediate years after WWII the "rules" tag started to creep into the Melbourne papers. There was a concerted and successful effort by Bruce Andrew of the Australian National Football Council to get them to drop it. (Begins to reappear in the 80s with Sth Melbourne's move to Sydney.) Getting the NSW and QLD papers to call the game 'Australian Football' proved impossible, but by the early 50s, Andrew had gotten the Brisbane Courier-Mail (it tended to call Australian Football "code") to increase its coverage of Australian Football putting it ahead of lacrosse.

How the Courier-Mail headlined its story on Essendon's surprise thrashing of Geelong in the 'National Round' night match in Brisbane in 1952.

 

[RogersResults]

Technically my previous post is off topic, so thought I better post a stats one.

Probably been done somewhere, but a quick search didn't bring it up ... has anybody found/done a statistical analysis of pre-season record versus the real stuff, particularly say over the last 10 years where clubs have really taken the pre-season very differently depending on where they're at etc. Put simply, something which shows what sort of correlation (or lack there of) there is between pre-season form and regular season form

Here is one example someone has done with the NBA: http://www.82games.com/preseason.htm

I've seen even better ones done for the NFL and others leagues, but can't seem to find one for AFL.

If you want to do yourself: For example, all of Fremantle's pre-season results 2000-2013 are here:
http://footystats.freeservers.com/Night/nite-fre.html (A bit of clicking will get you the results of all clubs.)

Some years you'll find the form carries over, others it won't.
Note: Geelong in 2009 thought that by winning both the pre-season comp. and the Premiership that there would be
an extra $1m in prize money. Turned out that there wasn't - it had been a one-off the previous year as an incentive
for the clubs to take the pre-season comp. more seriously.

 

[PapaJ]

If you want to do yourself: For example, all of Fremantle's pre-season results 2000-2013 are here:
http://footystats.freeservers.com/Night/nite-fre.html (A bit of clicking will get you the results of all clubs.)

Some years you'll find the form carries over, others it won't.
Note: Geelong in 2009 thought that by winning both the pre-season comp. and the Premiership that there would be
an extra $1m in prize money. Turned out that there wasn't - it had been a one-off the previous year as an incentive
for the clubs to take the pre-season comp. more seriously.

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that there's very little if any discernible correlation between pre-seaon & proper season form in recent years at least. With such small samples (in terms of number of pre-season games per year) it would be fairly hard to work out on that alone, but still it interests me this time of year pretty much every year.

Thanks for that, I'll have a look around that link you posted.

 

[RogersResults]

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that there's very little if any discernible correlation between pre-seaon & proper season form in recent years at least. With such small samples (in terms of number of pre-season games per year) it would be fairly hard to work out on that alone, but still it interests me this time of year pretty much every year.

Thanks for that, I'll have a look around that link you posted.

Here's some indication of 'form' from the first 4 matches of the premiership season 1995-2012

(83.9% teams on 14-16 match points (0 losses) from their first 4 matches have made the finals.
50% of the 18 premierships have been won by teams on 14-16 match points (0 losses) from their first 4 matches.
None of the wooden-spoons (WS) have been won by teams on 14-16 match points (0 losses) from their first 4 matches.)

 

[LegendLewis]

Hi All,
I'm sure this has been done before and someone here would probably know where to get the information.
I was wondering what correlation there is between Grand Final winners and the number of players from that club that are on the injury list? (either measured at the time of Grand final or at the start of the finals) Subsequent to this does the grand final winner have the fewest injuries when comparing all finals contenders?
Does this make sense?
I'm just curious how important it all is? Obviously Essendon suffered last year with a ridiculous amount of injuries, but does this suffering have a statistical bearing on grand finalists?
The question could go even further and ask if their is any correlation of amount of injuries with final ladder positioning.
Just curious
Thanks in advance if you can EASILY obtain this info

 

[PapaJ]

Hi All,
I'm sure this has been done before and someone here would probably know where to get the information.
I was wondering what correlation there is between Grand Final winners and the number of players from that club that are on the injury list? (either measured at the time of Grand final or at the start of the finals) Subsequent to this does the grand final winner have the fewest injuries when comparing all finals contenders?
Does this make sense?
I'm just curious how important it all is? Obviously Essendon suffered last year with a ridiculous amount of injuries, but does this suffering have a statistical bearing on grand finalists?
The question could go even further and ask if their is any correlation of amount of injuries with final ladder positioning.
Just curious
Thanks in advance if you can EASILY obtain this info

I'm sure someone 'round here will enlighten us, there's some clever chickadees around here.

However, it would be very hard to get an accurate take on it because so many (all?) clubs don't keep their official injury lists accurate for all sorts of reasons. e.g.
- teams that have no chance for finals action will throw people on their lists for end of season surgery where as teams that have shots at the finals will keep players that are 'on the edge' or playing injured off them. Your team has done it plenty of times you'll know. Freo essentially did it with Pav in the last couple of rounds and as they went through the finals as two examples.
- Teams that don't always want to reveal a 'delicate' situation and will often keep players off the injury list even though they can't be selected. They'll do this for either strategic advantage or even PR reasons.
- Then there's the situations where a player is coming off LTI, is fit enough to be training and is technically available, but is not practically available due to lack of conditioning or final stages of rehab. Again my club (Freo) had that with Mundy, Barlow and Fyfe in recent years and later we'll see it with Morabito (hopefully). They'll often find themselves playing in the 2nds for a week or three for example and so not on any official IL, but they're not available either.

Injury lists provide some detail, but are no where near 100% accurate by any stretch.

 

[Marlowe]

Silly question: but do kick-ins (or 'kick outs') count as a disposal?

 

[UpForGrabs]

Silly question: but do kick-ins (or 'kick outs') count as a disposal?

They should, but I'm not sure they do.

The reason I say they should is that if they don't count as official kicks, then how can someone take a mark from a kick which doesn't exist?

 

[Champion_Data]

Silly question: but do kick-ins (or 'kick outs') count as a disposal?

They do not. If a player kicks in to himself then runs and kicks, the second kick does count as a disposal.

 

[UpForGrabs]

They do not. If a player kicks in to himself then runs and kicks, the second kick does count as a disposal.

If kick-ins aren't counted as kicks, then how can a mark be paid from something which isn't technically a kick?

 

[Marlowe]

They do not. If a player kicks in to himself then runs and kicks, the second kick does count as a disposal.

See, that's what I assumed; it only counts if its play-on. :/

If kick-ins aren't counted as kicks, then how can a mark be paid from something which isn't technically a kick?

Maybe, like the kicks, the marks are only officially recorded after the player plays-on?