Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Form ladder 2019

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 8:34 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pie-supporting journo Gleeson has another ladder. Wink

We are on top of the points-conceded-in-first-quarter ladder: Cool

Collingwood 87
Adelaide 139
Fremantle 149
North Melbourne 150
Gold Coast 154
West Coast 154
Richmond 154
Greater Western Sydney 156
Geelong 164
Essendon 170
Hawthorn 187
St Kilda 203
Port Adelaide 219
Western Bulldogs 228
Melbourne 233
Brisbane Lions 234
Sydney 238
Carlton 246

"Collingwood are the most miserly first-quarter team in more than 50 years ..."

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/magpies-make-history-stopping-fast-starts-20190521-p51pqg.html
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 10:40 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, well, that was with the Future Captain controlling the play.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 11:47 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Not the past captain's son?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 10:13 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Round 10 form ladder:

1. Geelong
2. Collingwood
3. GWS
4. West Coast
5. Richmond
6. Adelaide
7. Brisbane
8. Fremantle

9. Essendon
10. Hawthorn
11. Western Bulldogs
12. Port Adelaide
13. St. Kilda
14. North Melbourne
15. Sydney
16. Gold Coast
17. Melbourne
18. Carlton

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Rd10.1998_11.1#36 

rd10.1998_11.1#36


Joined: 18 Jul 2018
Location: Sevilla, Spain

PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 12:46 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

If you would ever take a look at the actual ladder you would realise what a waste of time this is
_________________
https://forever.collingwoodfc.com.au/sav-sinks-the-dockers/
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 5:06 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

What would vindicate it in your eyes? Something that doesn't resemble the current ladder at all? Or, if your answer is "nothing", because you feel the exercise is fundamentally pointless – which you apparently do, as is your prerogative – then you'd have to admit that its proximity to or distance from the real ladder doesn't really matter all that much either way.

On the other hand, those who do value the exercise (or, at least, appreciate the point of it) will be just as quick to recognise that such a criticism would only be relevant if one was allowing the real ladder to influence their rankings, which I'm not. Otherwise, the proximity of this to the real ladder is entirely beside the point.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 6:03 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
… its proximity to or distance from the real ladder doesn't really matter all that much either way.

… the proximity of this to the real ladder is entirely beside the point.

Yep. You'd hope that it can't be totally different, because that'd mean the fixture is terrible. You'd expect it not to be close to identical, because that'd mean unequal fixtures and luck don't matter at all. How different it "should" be you can't say... Well, the AFL deliberately make the fixture handicap stronger teams, so at the least it's intentionally squeezing the ladder if not flipping some of it...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 6:52 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

R9 injury ladder (1 = best; 18 = worst):

1. Brisbane
2. WB
3. WCE
4. Geelong
5. GWS
6. Fremantle
7. Port
8. Essendon
9. Carlton
10. GC
11. Adelaide
12. Sydney
13. NM
14. Collingwood
15. Richmond
16. Hawthorn
17. Melbourne
18. StK

This is before the latest weekend of carnage.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
tbaker 



Joined: 02 Jul 2018
Location: Q19 Southern Stand MCG

PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 7:51 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

K wrote:
R9 injury ladder (1 = best; 18 = worst):
...

What's really needed with the injury ladder is to quantify it by placing a 'score' on the value of the injured players. 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.

Not perfect, but perhaps better than just counting the no# players on each club's injury list.

_________________
I find your lack of faith disturbing
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 9:57 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

tbaker wrote:
...
What's really needed with the injury ladder is to quantify it by placing a 'score' on the value of the injured players. ...

Not perfect, but perhaps better than just counting the no# players on each club's injury list.

The injury ladder is meant to include the value of the injured players. It's not just the number of injured players. (Even if it ignored quality, it wouldn't just be that, because it'd still include the seriousness of the injury.) Like the form ladder, all games count, so it's not just who is injured now. Missing a game in round 1 counts as much as missing a game in round 10. That's why some clubs may look out of place based on their current injury list. And if some star gets injured now, it may not shift the club's ladder position straight away, unless it's official that e.g. the star snapped his ACL and will miss the rest of the year.

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.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
tbaker 



Joined: 02 Jul 2018
Location: Q19 Southern Stand MCG

PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 11:52 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ ok - thanks for the insight. I had thought it was based solely on the no# players.
Yes, judging the value of injured players can be difficult, and you highlighted some good examples of how results may be skewed . 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.
So, if this is your list, how are you assessing the value of the injured players?

_________________
I find your lack of faith disturbing
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2019 11:17 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^^ Let me get back to that...

First, Pie-supporting journo Gleeson has his own injury ladder Cool.

Err... Wait. This isn't it. This is the ladder for total games missed:

1. Brisbane
2. Adelaide
3. West Coast
4. Geelong
5. GWS
6. Western Bulldogs
7. Hawthorn
8. Richmond
9. Port Adelaide
10. Essendon
11. Carlton
12. Fremantle
13. Sydney
14. Collingwood
15. Gold Coast
16. North Melbourne
17. St Kilda
18. Melbourne

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)... Wink
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
tbaker 



Joined: 02 Jul 2018
Location: Q19 Southern Stand MCG

PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2019 11:47 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ so Geelong has been worse hit than us? I don't think so...unless they count Selwood and Dangerfield as worth 2 or 3 of our best...
_________________
I find your lack of faith disturbing
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 6:18 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Those ladders show it's bad just to count numbers.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:39 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Round 11 form ladder:

1. Geelong
2. GWS
3. Collingwood
4. West Coast
5. Fremantle
6. Richmond
7. Brisbane
8. Adelaide

9. Essendon
10. Hawthorn
11. Port Adelaide
12. Western Bulldogs
13. North Melbourne
14. St. Kilda
15. Sydney
16. Melbourne
17. Gold Coast
18. Carlton

Not sure about 5–8, but the rest seems pretty solid. I've bumped us down to third, which many here will agree was probably a long time coming after our less than stellar last month.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 5 of 9   

 
Jump to:  
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



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group