Form ladder 2019
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests Registered Users: None |
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
<snip – Please refrain from backseat moderating. Thanks, David for BBMods.> |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
R10 injury ladder (1 = best; 18 = worst):
1. Brisbane
2. WB
3. WCE
4. Geelong
5. GWS
6. Fremantle
7. Carlton
8. Port
9. Adelaide
10. GC
11. Essendon
12. Sydney
13. NM
14. Collingwood
15. Richmond
16. Hawthorn
17. Melbourne
18. StK
This is before the latest weekend. Many clubs in the middle are hard to separate. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
K wrote: | ...
First, Pie-supporting journo Gleeson has his own injury ladder .
<snip>
This is it. Games missed by best-22 players:
1. Brisbane
2. Western Bulldogs
3. Hawthorn
4. West Coast
5. Adelaide
6. Essendon
7. Gold Coast
8. Port Adelaide
9. Collingwood
10. Fremantle
11. North Melbourne
12. Geelong
13. Carlton
14. Sydney
15. Richmond
16. St Kilda
17. GWS
18. Melbourne
Don't think I agree with this (but he doesn't either)... |
It's a thing.
CD's R11 injury ladder:
1. Brisbane
2. Gold Coast
3. Western Bulldogs
4. Melbourne
5. Essendon
6. St Kilda
7. Adelaide
8. Fremantle
9. Collingwood
10. North Melbourne
11. Geelong
12. Sydney
13. West Coast
14. Port Adelaide
15. Hawthorn
16. Richmond
17. Carlton
18. GWS
https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-06-06/injury-ladder-whos-hit-hardest-whos-defying-the-odds
Don't think I agree with this either, but I haven't done my R11 one yet...
Melbourne & StK 4th & 6th?! Well, that looks like it's just saying their players are all #)%(#( so it doesn't matter if they are injured. (And players who are not #)%(#( but have been out a whole year, such as Jakie Lever, will look like they are #)%(#( to them.) That's mixing up list quality with injury, which my injury ladder is trying to avoid doing. Same with GWS being bottom of the ladder, because they are so star-studded. That doesn't mean they are having an injury crisis this year. (In previous years, they did.)
Well, I've said some of this previously in discussion with tbaker --
K wrote: | ...
We have to be careful what we mean by "value of the injured players", though. It's not meant just to be their overall standing in the whole league, because the injury ladder is supposed to be separate from the quality of the list. If it's not, then GWS will always be low on the injury ladder, because they have so many high-quality players, and GC will always be high, because everyone will just sneer that the injured player is no good. That wouldn't say anything about the injury luck or management, just what we think of their players' footy skills. |
I see CD have GWS 18th and GC 2nd... |
|
|
|
|
tbaker
Joined: 02 Jul 2018 Location: Q19 Southern Stand MCG
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ That CD injury ladder is a joke. So apparently, our injured players just do not rate as high-quality. And Geelong have had it worse than Melbourne, St.Kilda, Collingwood? No way. What they are doing is ranking, say, the absence of Dangerfield, as being far worse than the loss of Moore is to Collingwood, or Lever is to Melbourne. And obviously Cox and De Goey are not critical to Collingwood (perhaps because they don't rack up the stats as much as others). It just ain't right and doesn't pass the sniff test. It's widely believed that Geelong has had a very good run, injury wise, compared to other teams - just a couple of big names missing a week here or there (where it didn't really matter as they were playing weak opposition - eg. Dangerfield missed playing the suns). _________________ I find your lack of faith disturbing |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
They sensibly don't give any details (it's always a good idea not to reveal too much when it's baloney), but we can guess there's some relation to CD's player rankings. Problem for starters: for clubs with chronic injury problems over years, their players' rankings will be low. So past injuries mean CD don't think the players are any good, which means when they get new injuries CD doesn't think it counts as serious injury problems for the club.
For example:
Wells 75.4 points
Elliott 123.8
Reid 160.5
Scharenberg 196.4
Moore 219.8.
CD thinks they are a bunch of hacks. Rance, who didn't miss games before his injury, is 439.6. He's a good player (but also a cheating diver), but if we ignore injuries is he worth more than Moore, Elliott & Wells combined? (In fairness, CD didn't say we should add points like that.) |
|
|
|
|
tbaker
Joined: 02 Jul 2018 Location: Q19 Southern Stand MCG
|
Post subject: | |
|
K wrote: | (In fairness, CD didn't say we should add points like that.) | No, but they also don't divulge the formulas for coming up with their seriously flawed ladder - because they know that it won't hold up to scrutiny. Nonetheless we know it means nothing, and it doesn't really matter anyway - it's not like teams with injuries get compensated in any way - just another part of the luck factor that goes towards deciding the eventual finalists and premier _________________ I find your lack of faith disturbing |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
tbaker wrote: | ... Perhaps one way to do this objectively (and purely mathematically) would be to rate an injured player based on the no# games they've played. For example, something like:
played 0 games: 1 point
played 1-50 games: 2 points
played 51+ games: 3 points
Add the numbers up per club, sort, and there's the ladder. Highest no# points is worst hit.
... |
tbaker wrote: | .... That's why for me, using the no# games played is an indication of "how important a player may be to that team". Players under 50 games may be just new players starting out and/or not yet established. There's not too many players reaching the elite status within 50 games. Whereas, players having played a substantial no# games are obviously doing something right and are likely to be more important to their team. So a 100 game elite player at GWS may be just as valuable to GWS as a 100 game GC player is to GC.
... |
It's an idea, tbaker. The problem is: you can't just do e.g. 1pt, 2pts, 3pts, because that would be saying e.g. that 50+-game players are 1 1/2 times as valuable on average as (1-50)-gamers. They probably are more valuable but we don't know how much more.
If we wanted to do that kind of thing, it'd be better to use the players' salaries. Clubs have to pay almost the same total to their lists, so that would show how valuable a GWS player is to GWS. The problem there is that only the AFL knows the salaries of every AFL player. Even a club must have to guess the salaries of players at all the other clubs. |
|
|
|
|
tbaker
Joined: 02 Jul 2018 Location: Q19 Southern Stand MCG
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ Under my idea, a 50+ game player would be considered 50% more valuable than a 1-50 game player (sounds not as bad as 1.5 times better). But, if that was too high, then it could be 3 points for 1-50 games and 4 points for 51+, so the extra value is reduced to 33%. And it could be tiered further so that 100+ players are worth an extra point - but then it gets really murky, because it'd suggest that players such as Fasolo (103 games) are worth more than players such as DeGoey or Cripps.
The problem with using salaries is that they're not readily available - player game counts are. _________________ I find your lack of faith disturbing |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
The problem is not what points values could be given for games played. Anything could be chosen e.g. 1.7 pts, 2.25 pts, etc. The problem is we don't know what good values are. The scale needs to be calibrated. In the end, you'd just have to calibrate it against something else. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Edit: a few adjustments made in the bottom 10
Round 12 form ladder:
1. Geelong
2. Collingwood
3. GWS
4. West Coast
5. Adelaide
6. Fremantle
7. Richmond
8. Brisbane
9. Essendon
10. Hawthorn
11. Port Adelaide
12. Sydney
13. North Melbourne
14. Western Bulldogs
15. St. Kilda
16. Melbourne
17. Gold Coast
18. Carlton _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:46 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
R11 injury ladder (1 = best; 18 = worst):
1. Brisbane
2. WB
3. WCE
4. Geelong
5. GWS
6. Fremantle
7. Adelaide
8. Carlton
9. Port
10. GC
11. Sydney
12. Essendon
13. NM
14. Richmond
15. Collingwood
16. Hawthorn
17. Melbourne
18. StK
This is before the latest weekend. Many clubs in the middle are hard to separate. |
|
|
|
|
eureka
Joined: 09 Sep 2013
|
Post subject: | |
|
This time last year 8 wins 4 losses and in 6 spot this year 9 wins and 3 loss and out right second |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
WCE 4th... Sydney 14th, just shows how this has absolutely nothing to do with 'form'.... laughable.
Richmond 7th turns the laughter to hysteria. NFI.
Last edited by Skids on Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
What do you mean by "this"? The result of one game? |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010 Location: Ponsford End
|
Post subject: | |
|
West Coast hasn't beaten Sydney at the SCG since 1999.
I think it's a case of being a horrible match-up for the Eagles due to the small dimensions of the SCG whereas they easily adjust better to playing on bigger grounds. _________________ | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
|