Certified Legendary Thread The Squiggle is back in 2023 (and other analytics)

[Final Siren]

10-1 to 6-5 is a fair jump with any explanation whatsoever

It's mostly about the low probability of long win streaks even with the odds in your favour. You can actually do some back-of-an-envelope maths to generate your own rough figure.

For example, if I'm bullish on the Eagles, I might rate their chances like this:

90% wins: ESS, WBD, BRI (a)
80% wins: FRE, GWS, ADE (a)
60% wins: POR (a), NOR (a), COL (a)
50% wins: MEL, SYD (a)

And if I add those all together (0.90 + 0.90 + 0.90 + 0.80 ...), I get 7.9 wins. So call it 8 wins 3 losses from here, finishing on 18-4.

So even with optimistic ratings -- in reality, the betting market gives West Coast only a 42% win chance to win their next game against Sydney, for example -- you expect to rack up quite a few losses.

 

[Final Siren]

If you take one thing away from squiggle it should be that even the best teams struggle to win interstate.

And they don't win unfailingly, either!

If you expect a team to get through the season without dropping at least 5 games, you're saying their results will be better than most modern premiership teams.

Richmond dropped 7 games in 2018.

The Bulldogs lost 7 games in their flag season.

In 2015 Hawthorn lost 7 games including a final.

Hawks 2014 lost 5 games.

Hawks 2013 lost 3 games.

Sydney 2012 lost 6 games.

Geelong 2011 lost 3 games.

Pies 2010 lost 4 games.

Cats 2009 lost 4 games.

Hawks 2008 lost 5 games.

Cats 2007 lost 4 games.

West Coast 2006 lost 6 games including a final.

Sydney 2005 lost 8 games including a final.

Brisbane 2004 lost 6 games.

Brisbane 2003 lost 8 games including a final plus had another draw.

 

[roacheee]

Squiggle needs some tweaking if it wants to be taken seriously. I dont think there is one pundit in the world that thinks Richmond is as far ahead as the rest of the competition that the squiggle has it. Think recent history needs to be weighted more heavily that games from months ago. Richmond are also nowhere near the calibre of the 2015 hawks, which the current Richmond squiggle suggests.

that's your bias speaking, not the squiggles

 

[Forward Press]

And they don't win unfailingly, either!

If you expect a team to get through the season without dropping at least 5 games, you're saying their results will be better than most modern premiership teams.

Richmond dropped 7 games in 2018.

The Bulldogs lost 7 games in their flag season.

In 2015 Hawthorn lost 7 games including a final.

Hawks 2014 lost 5 games.

Hawks 2013 lost 3 games.

Sydney 2012 lost 6 games.

Geelong 2011 lost 3 games.

Pies 2010 lost 4 games.

Cats 2009 lost 4 games.

Hawks 2008 lost 5 games.

Cats 2007 lost 4 games.

West Coast 2006 lost 6 games including a final.

Sydney 2005 lost 8 games including a final.

Brisbane 2004 lost 6 games.

Brisbane 2003 lost 8 games including a final plus had another draw.

Yeah I don't see how a team failing to win often away from home against strong opposition should be regarded as a weakness. And even the flag teams occassionally dropped games against weak teams and/or at their home.

 

[Final Siren]

I wonder what weighting is put on last years results? Final did post something about that a few years ago, but I can not be stuffed looking through 48,000,025 replies to find it.

I would have thought that by the half way mark of this season, that the results from last year would have any relevance at all on current performance..

By now there's still some hangover effect from 2017 but it's not huge.

This is a Squiggle of 2018 results alone, i.e. with all teams starting at 50 Attack and 50 Defence.

 

[Final Siren]

that's your bias speaking, not the squiggles

It's fair to say that Squiggle is higher on Richmond than just about anyone at the moment. For whatever reason, everything that Squiggle values, Richmond is doing. Squiggle is probably optimistic, because there's no reason why it should be more right than every other model or pundit, but I don't think it's too far off -- the Tigers' results are exceptional.

The comparison to Hawks 2015 is an interesting one. I was thinking just before about how we consider Hawthorn 2015 to be one of the most dominant teams of the modern era -- and they were -- yet they lost 7 games. At this point in the season, the Hawks were 6th on the ladder with 6 wins and 4 losses.

Their wins were beltings and their losses were narrow, so Squiggle had them #1 all year, but I remember plenty of critics who didn't, because "good teams win the close ones," or who didn't care that the Hawks smashed bad teams by 10 goals if they also lost to good ones.

 

[HTT]

It's fair to say that Squiggle is higher on Richmond than just about anyone at the moment. For whatever reason, everything that Squiggle values, Richmond is doing. Squiggle is probably optimistic, because there's no reason why it should be more right than every other model or pundit, but I don't think it's too far off -- the Tigers' results are exceptional.

The comparison to Hawks 2015 is an interesting one. I was thinking just before about how we consider Hawthorn 2015 to be one of the most dominant teams of the modern era -- and they were -- yet they lost 7 games. At this point in the season, the Hawks were 6th on the ladder with 6 wins and 4 losses.

Their wins were beltings and their losses were narrow, so Squiggle had them #1 all year, but I remember plenty of critics who didn't, because "good teams win the close ones," or who didn't care that the Hawks smashed bad teams by 10 goals if they also lost to good ones.

My view of those Hawthorn sides is that they were great sides all year, that became exceptional during finals and then simply unstoppable on GF day - 2014 and 15 specifically. That ability to turn it on in finals regularly it what sets them apart from other great sides for me. The last 2 years have seen the Bulldogs and Tigers noticeably 'timing their run', but this trend goes back to at least those Hawthorn sides.

 

[roacheee]

It's fair to say that Squiggle is higher on Richmond than just about anyone at the moment. For whatever reason, everything that Squiggle values, Richmond is doing. Squiggle is probably optimistic, because there's no reason why it should be more right than every other model or pundit, but I don't think it's too far off -- the Tigers' results are exceptional.

The comparison to Hawks 2015 is an interesting one. I was thinking just before about how we consider Hawthorn 2015 to be one of the most dominant teams of the modern era -- and they were -- yet they lost 7 games. At this point in the season, the Hawks were 6th on the ladder with 6 wins and 4 losses.

Their wins were beltings and their losses were narrow, so Squiggle had them #1 all year, but I remember plenty of critics who didn't, because "good teams win the close ones," or who didn't care that the Hawks smashed bad teams by 10 goals if they also lost to good ones.

squiggle stockholm syndrome?

 

[roacheee]

My view of those Hawthorn sides is that they were great sides all year, that became exceptional during finals and then simply unstoppable on GF day - 2014 and 15 specifically. That ability to turn it on in finals regularly it what sets them apart from other great sides for me. The last 2 years have seen the Bulldogs and Tigers noticeably 'timing their run', but this trend goes back to at least those Hawthorn sides.

brisbane 3 in a row side as well, didnt win a minor premiership iirc

 

[kaiserchief13]

By now there's still some hangover effect from 2017 but it's not huge.

This is a Squiggle of 2018 results alone, i.e. with all teams starting at 50 Attack and 50 Defence.

So Eagles go down winning by a small margin but Richmond doesn't move getting crushed by 8 goals?

 

[Forward Press]

So Eagles go down winning by a small margin but Richmond doesn't move getting crushed by 8 goals?

They did. That loop at the very top represents when they shifted left after we put 20 goals past them.

We were expected to crush the Saints according to Squiggle and so we shifted downwards - we scored 100 but let them score 80. Still not as a bad as the shift that would accompany a loss.

It's really not that hard to understand.

 

[kaiserchief13]

They did. That loop at the very top represents when they shifted left after we put 20 goals past them.

We were expected to crush the Saints according to Squiggle and so we shifted downwards - we scored 100 but let them score 80. Still not as a bad as the shift that would accompany a loss.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Richmond struggled to beat the Saints the week prior and scores were similar for both teams yet they don't really move - weird.

 

[joelsyt]

Richmond struggled to beat the Saints the week prior and scores were similar for both teams yet they don't really move - weird.

I think the issue may be the scoring shots.

You guys Scored 16.5 against St Kilda and we scored 15.15 against St Kilda.

I could be wrong but that may be the issue.

Final Siren does that sound right or have I misunderstood?

 

[Forward Press]

Richmond struggled to beat the Saints the week prior and scores were similar for both teams yet they don't really move - weird.

They won by 5 goals I believe with loads of scoring shots. We won by 2 goals with what Squiggle rates as a significant home ground advantage. Squiggle would probably have predicted our win against the Saints to be of a greater margin compared to Richmond's game.

It's not surprising they barely moved while we did. You will have to visit the website itself to see the predictions.

 

[Forward Press]

Yeah what joelsyt said.

 

[HTT]

Richmond struggled to beat the Saints the week prior and scores were similar for both teams yet they don't really move - weird.

From a mathematical perspective - I try to assume goals to be worth 4 and behinds to be worth 3 in the squiggle’s eyes, I can’t remember where I got this number, I remember seeing it somewhere though.

So last week Richmond’s win was basically 105-63. A 42 point win generated a slightly negative movement because we were predicted to win by 49.
And this week West Coast’s is more like 89-60. This 29 point win generated a larger negative movement given the prediction was a 40 point win.

 

[the harry]

Squiggle needs some tweaking if it wants to be taken seriously. I dont think there is one pundit in the world that thinks Richmond is as far ahead as the rest of the competition that the squiggle has it. Think recent history needs to be weighted more heavily that games from months ago. Richmond are also nowhere near the calibre of the 2015 hawks, which the current Richmond squiggle suggests.

Pundits are wrong and can't handle the requisite imputes to make sound decisions.

 

[Le Grille]

David King is often wrong

EFA





On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Le Grille]

To be fair though isn’t the squiggle built for season long predictions and on that front the three teams are likely to occupy the top 3 is rich/wce/Mel I guess after 17 rounds you’ll see the teams move closer together


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[kranky al]

that's your bias speaking, not the squiggles

Richmond are a mile ahead the only real proven challenger they have atm is sydney.

Melbourne and wc still have a lot to prove between now and finals

 

[Final Siren]

From a mathematical perspective - I try to assume goals to be worth 4 and behinds to be worth 3 in the squiggle’s eyes, I can’t remember where I got this number, I remember seeing it somewhere though.

So last week Richmond’s win was basically 105-63. A 42 point win generated a slightly negative movement because we were predicted to win by 49.
And this week West Coast’s is more like 89-60. This 29 point win generated a larger negative movement given the prediction was a 40 point win.

Yep, this is correct, except the Eagles vs Saints game comes out as 79-68 (not 89-60), an 11-point win.

That's almost the same as the real-life 13-point margin, since there was hardly any difference in goalkicking accuracy between the two sides -- they were both very accurate. So scoring shots wasn't a factor here.

It's simply that the Eagles beating a bottom-6 side by 11 points at a venue where they enjoy 11 points of home ground advantage is a pretty disappointing result.

Incidentally, you might think that the final scores don't reflect the true nature of the contest, since the Saints only closed the gap very late. I was curious about this idea last year, so I wrote an algorithm that adjusts final scores towards the average during the final quarter. So in a game like this, it would mark up the Eagles since their average lead during the fourth quarter was quite a lot higher than the final margin. The algorithm performed worse than using true final scores, implying that even "junk time" goals are significant.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Yep, this is correct, except the Eagles vs Saints game comes out as 79-68 (not 89-60), an 11-point win.

That's almost the same as the real-life 13-point margin, since there was hardly any difference in goalkicking accuracy between the two sides -- they were both very accurate. So scoring shots wasn't a factor here.

It's simply that the Eagles beating a bottom-6 side by 11 points at a venue where they enjoy 11 points of home ground advantage is a pretty disappointing result.

Incidentally, you might think that the final scores don't reflect the true nature of the contest, since the Saints only closed the gap very late. I was curious about this idea last year, so I wrote an algorithm that adjusts final scores towards the average during the final quarter. So in a game like this, it would mark up the Eagles since their average lead during the fourth quarter was quite a lot higher than the final margin. The algorithm performed worse than using true final scores, implying that even "junk time" goals are significant.

That's an interesting finding. Sort of indicates that taking the foot off the throat is a sign of ... a lesser team?

There is a heap in the Squiggle (and other models) that could, and I guess is being, mined to sort out what type of team behaviours = premierships. Not just winning H&A games, but finals triumph. It's all probalistic, rather than deterministic. But still an interesting piece of work.

 

[jarrod_island_doggies]

But extremely profitable....

 

[roacheee]

Richmond are a mile ahead the only real proven challenger they have atm is sydney.

Melbourne and wc still have a lot to prove between now and finals

i don't agree they have anything to prove per se
squiggle doesn't have a bigfooty expectations metric
no one really expected hawks to win 3
then dogs and tiges to win
you finish top 4 and all bets are off imo.

 

[roacheee]

The algorithm performed worse than using true final scores, implying that even "junk time" goals are significant.

i hope this disproves the 'junk time' myth.
when a team kicks 3 goals in last 5 minutes and wins the game we don't say its junk time, IF they were behind in the last qtr
only if they were already in front

squiggle i daresay wouldn't look at anything so arbitrary