Analysis Champion data rates every club list

[NZ_Tiger]

Lol, this is one of the better misuse of stats I've read. Surely 6 elite players are worth much more than 6 good players? Well not in Champion data's fantasy world.

 

[BedrockLP]

Not Wood actually, surprisingly, nor JJ. It was Wallis , Stringer, Bont, Murphy, Boyd and Dahlhaus.

I would take Hunter, Wood and Libba before most of these guys. Maybe the stats were done based on 2015?

 

[aussierulesrules]

I think they're based off the last 40 games.

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

Who the **** are the 4 Bulldogs elite players other than the Bont and Wood?
Dahlhaus? Libba? Boyd? Stretching it there Champion Data.

Dahlhaus and Libba are jets.
But even if not considered elite (what the **** is elite anyway) their strength lies in that very fact.
They are so even and have so many Really good players rather than a top 5 then a drop off. Liam Picken, Lachie Hunter, Matthew Boyd, Jack Macrae, JJ, Morris, Wallis,Stringer, Biggs we have nothing like this. We have nothing like Roughead and Tom Boyd either.
Obviously Bont is a gun, Wood is a great player they have very few weaknesses.

 

[Nuffers]

Internet bad arse right here. Cross me man and i'll block you, post an interesting meme criticising you, report your post or put you on ignore.
Yeah boi.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

URL Bad Man

 

[CoggaRules]

Saw this yesterday, we need more depth and we would shoot up that list

Lmaooo I thought I had travelled back in time seeing this but then realised that 2 decades on this statement still holds sway with us. Quite incredible that we never have depth isn't it ? Like right now we are still at the point where 2 players go out and we captitulate. This becomes a serious issue too when the modern game has evolved to the point where you need to rotate the list and give your guns some kind of rest during a hard running year that the game has evolved into. The issue with us is that we continued to retain to many list cloggers and are at the point now that we have 0 depth in KPPs and little to none every where else. This shit happens when those who put the list together are ****ing duds

 

[Hot tigers]

Lmaooo I thought I had travelled back in time seeing this but then realised that 2 decades on this statement still holds sway with us. Quite incredible that we never have depth isn't it ? Like right now we are still at the point where 2 players go out and we captitulate. This becomes a serious issue too when the modern game has evolved to the point where you need to rotate the list and give your guns some kind of rest during a hard running year that the game has evolved into. The issue with us is that we continued to retain to many list cloggers and are at the point now that we have 0 depth in KPPs and little to none every where else. This shit happens when those who put the list together are ******* duds

I Repeat for those that are slow, we need more depth...

 

[CoggaRules]

I Repeat for those that are slow, we need more depth...

I repeat to those that are slower this has been repeated for the last 20 years but somehow those that are slower keep on repeating it

 

[Hot tigers]

I repeat to those that are slower this has been repeated for the last 20 years but somehow those that are slower keep on repeating it

So you disagree? by virtue you are suggesting our depth is sufficient and all the experts are incorrect?

 

[CoggaRules]

So you disagree? by virtue you are suggesting our depth is sufficient and all the experts are incorrect?

yeah of course that is what i am saying, its so obvious..

 

[SunshineBoy]

yep, completely mental. BUT.... I hate to say it, but it doesnt change much with a weighting. Here is an elite worth 2 i/o 1

WBD (6+13) = 25 (1)
GWS (6+11) = 23 (2)
WCE (6+8) = 20 (3)
SYD (6+7) = 19 (5)
ADL (4+10) = 18 (4)
HAW (5+5) = 15 (10)
COL (2+10) = 14 (7)
GEE (5+4) = 14 (11)
POR (3+7) = 13 (8)
STK (1+11) = 13 (6)
MEL (2+8) = 12 (9)
FRE (3+6) = 12 (12)
RIC (3+6) = 12 (13)
GC (3+5) = 11 (14)
NRF (1+6) = 8 (15)
ESS (0+7) = 7 (16)
CAR (2+3) = 7 (17)
BRI (0+3) = 3 (18)

Now can you put that in a graph?

 

[CoggaRules]

has champion data got the stats on how 4 of the top 8 which includes 3 of the top 4 ended up in this?

AFL fines seven clubs for anti-doping breaches
http://www.zerohanger.com/afl-fines-seven-clubs-for-anti-doping-breaches-8554/

 

[Champion_Data]

has champion data got the stats on how 4 of the top 8 which includes 3 of the top 4 ended up in this?

AFL fines seven clubs for anti-doping breaches
http://www.zerohanger.com/afl-fines-seven-clubs-for-anti-doping-breaches-8554/

8/18 teams are top-eight teams (44%)
4/7 fined teams are top-eight teams (57%)

If all teams are as likely as each other to be fined, then the likelihood of random chance meaning all seven teams fined were top-eight teams is essentially 0%.
6+ top-eight teams fined = 1%
5+ top-eight teams fined = 9%
4+ top-eight teams fined = 35% (p-value of about 0.39 for the null hypothesis that top-eight teams are no more likely than others to be fined)
3+ top-eight teams fined = 72%

4 top-four teams fined = 1%
3+ top-four teams fined = 14% (p-value of about 0.17 for the null hypothesis that top-four teams are no more likely than others to be fined)
2+ top-four teams fined = 51%

 

[fleabitten]

8/18 teams are top-eight teams (44%)
4/7 fined teams are top-eight teams (57%)

If all teams are as likely as each other to be fined, then the likelihood of random chance meaning all seven teams fined were top-eight teams is essentially 0%.
6+ top-eight teams fined = 1%
5+ top-eight teams fined = 9%
4+ top-eight teams fined = 35% (p-value of about 0.39 for the null hypothesis that top-eight teams are no more likely than others to be fined)
3+ top-eight teams fined = 72%

4 top-four teams fined = 1%
3+ top-four teams fined = 14% (p-value of about 0.17 for the null hypothesis that top-four teams are no more likely than others to be fined)
2+ top-four teams fined = 51%

Hello. Can I have a job? Even if it's just screening lists for you before you let them go public.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Is this still being debated?

Poor analysis backed by ...

Structure is not addressed.
The link between game plan and 'quality' is not addressed
The quality of he whole list (at least top 20) is not addressed.

Oh well, back to work I guess

 

[richoatthedisco]

8/18 teams are top-eight teams (44%)
4/7 fined teams are top-eight teams (57%)

If all teams are as likely as each other to be fined, then the likelihood of random chance meaning all seven teams fined were top-eight teams is essentially 0%.
6+ top-eight teams fined = 1%
5+ top-eight teams fined = 9%
4+ top-eight teams fined = 35% (p-value of about 0.39 for the null hypothesis that top-eight teams are no more likely than others to be fined)
3+ top-eight teams fined = 72%

4 top-four teams fined = 1%
3+ top-four teams fined = 14% (p-value of about 0.17 for the null hypothesis that top-four teams are no more likely than others to be fined)
2+ top-four teams fined = 51%

So you're saying they're drug cheats.

P.S. Nerd.

 

[tigerz18]

Five? Rance, Martin, Cotchin & then who? Jack at his best maybe but that hasn't been seen now for a couple of years, Caddy & Prestia yet to run out for us and neither have proven to be elite at past clubs.

McBean!!

We have Rance, Dusty, Cotch and Jack. I wouldnt be surprised if they considered Cotch as above average only and Jack as Elite