Draw Difficulty ranking by the numbers

[Dan26]

better playing them away than at home where they would beat you anyway. Gives you easier games at home to win

Yeah, but you're assuming those non-Victorians teams would all win if they played Essendon at Etihad. You're basing that solely on Essendon's form in the second-half of 2015, in which there were obviously extenuating circumstances.

Essendon beat Adelaide and West Coast in Melbourne in 2014. All those games in 2016 would be winnable if they were in Melbourne. We probably wouldn't win all of them, but we'd be a "chance" in all of them. It's doubtful we will win any of them on the road.

The draw as is stands, I think, is very difficult from Essendon's point of view. It's not the second-easiest draw at all. That's bullshit.

 

[Dan26]

What is flawed is saying a team that won 4 games in 2015 is ranked with a side that won 15 games. I know which team is harder to beat.

You know as well as I do that an away match versus Gold Coast in 2016 (who are expected to improve massively) is about the same difficulty as a neutral match versus North Melbourne.

The Age would have you believe that playing North Melbourne (15 points) is FIVE times harder than playing Gold Coast (3 points.)

Even if you think playing North Melbourne is more difficult than playing Gold Coast it is obviously not five times harder. It's not twice as hard. It might be 10-15% harder.

 

[Wild Bill]

You know as well as I do that an away match versus Gold Coast in 2016 (who are expected to improve massively) is about the same difficulty as a neutral match versus North Melbourne.

The Age would have you believe that playing North Melbourne (15 points) is FIVE times harder than playing Gold Coast (3 points.)

Even if you think playing North Melbourne is more difficult than playing Gold Coast it is obviously not five times harder. It's not twice as hard. It might be 10-15% harder.

So your guessing who improves and who slides. You just handed your team a tough rating when it is soft as any.

 

[Dan26]

So your guessing who improves and who slides. You just handed your team a tough rating when it is soft as any.

I didn't 'hand" anyone a tough rating. The AFL did the fixture not me. All I did was assign a fair difficulty for each of the 18 club's 22 matches.

Essendon, as it turns out do have a difficult fixture, but it's not the hardest. Melbourne actually have the hardest fixture.

 

[Dan26]

ST.KILDA
away vs Port...................8
neutral vs Bulldogs..........7
neutral vs Collingwood.....6
away vs Hawthorn...........10
home vs GWS.................5
neutral vs Melbourne........4
neutral vs Nth.Melb..........7
away vs West Coast.........10
neutral vs Essendon.........5
home vs Fremantle..........7
away vs Adelaide.............8
neutral vs Carlton............3
neutral vs Geelong...........7
away vs Gold Coast..........7
neutral vs Essendon.........5
neutral vs Melbourne........4
neutral vs Bulldogs...........7
neutral vs Nth.Melb..........7
neutral vs Carlton............3
home vs Sydney..............7
neutral vs Richmond........7
home vs Brisbane............3

TOTAL DIFFICULTY =137



SYDNEY
home vs Collingwood..............6
away vs Carlton.....................4
home vs GWS........................5
away vs Adelaide...................8
home vs West Coast.............7
away vs Brisbane..................5
home vs Essendon.................3
away vs Richmond.................7
away vs Hawthorn.................10
home vs Nth.Melb..................6
away vs Gold Coast...............7
away vs GWS........................7
home vs Melbourne...............3
home vs Bulldogs..................6
away vs Geelong...................8
home vs Hawthorn................8
home vs Carlton....................2
away vs Fremantle................9
home vs Port........................6
away vs St.Kilda....................6
neutral vs Nth.Melb...............7
home vs Richmond................6

TOTAL DIFFICULTY = 136

 

[The Passenger]

The Age isn't saying it's five times harder playing North Melbourne than Gold Coast. Like you, it's just assigning arbitrary values to allow for some sort of rankings for the draw. The final figures reflect that hardest draw has nearly twice as many points as the easiest draw. But in no world is any draw twice as tough as any other draw. But it does allow for a "spread" to give a good ranking system, and given their rankings of the draw is (very) roughly a reverse 2015 ladder, I'd say it's done pretty well.

Their system is geared towards which teams you play twice which is the biggest factor in determining how hard a draw. In 2015, From round 11 onwards (once the ladder had a chance to take proper shape), the team on top won 74 games, lost 32 and drew twice. A 70% win rate.

You're rankings system is heavily geared towards travel being the biggest factor. This can be seen by the values you've assigned for home games v away games. Hosting some of the top teams in the competition is considered as difficult as travelling to the Gold Coast. That's just incorrect. West Coast (7.5 wins away from home), Sydney (8), Fremantle (8) are all much tougher teams to play at home, then Gold Coast is to play on the Gold Coast, who won only 3.5 home games in 2015. But yet in your system, you assign those four games all a value of 7. That makes no sense.

Then If you had a look at the facts, home teams had a 53% win rate in 2015. 104-2-91. Being at home is nowhere near as important, as just being the better team. Therefore when determining how hard a draw is for the next season, the most important factor is which teams do you play twice.

 

[Dan26]

So far, from most difficult to least.

Melbourne - 144
GWS - 142
Adelaide - 142
Essendon - 140
Brisbane - 140
Carlton -139
Collingwood - 138
St.Kilda - 137
Hawthorn - 137
Fremantle - 136
Sydney - 136
West Coast - 134
Geelong - 133
Port Adelaide - 130

 

[The Passenger]

You know as well as I do that an away match versus Gold Coast in 2016 (who are expected to improve massively) is about the same difficulty as a neutral match versus North Melbourne.

You can't forward project probabilities on something like this. Teams are expected to improve or go backwards all the time, but often do the opposite. The only data you have to work with is 2015 data, of if you really wanted to get in depth, a combined 2014-15 data table to show extended form.

It's fine if you're sitting around the pub and go our draw is probably going to be a little tougher than it appears on paper because we have to travel interstate six times, four times to Adelaide and Perth, and although four of our double ups are non finalists from 2015, Geelong and Gold Coast should improve quite a bit in 2016.

But if you're doing some sort of rankings system then things like that are all completely subjective.

You're trying to tell us that Hawthorn, who have double-ups against four 2015 finalists, including two other preliminary finalists, have an easier draw than Melbourne (one finalist) and Essendon (one finalist, no top six team).... Come on man. Don't piss on us and tell us it's raining.

 

[Dan26]

the most important factor is which teams do you play twice.

I'd suggest it's WHERE you play the teams who you only play once which is the most important factor.

The teams you play twice in some ways don't matter too much, because many of the teams around the middle of the ladder are much the same.

Take a team who plays theee 2015 finalists twice (Nth.Melb, Rich, Bulldogs)

Another team plays 3 non-finalists twice (Geel, Port, Coll)

Is there any real difference between the two? I would suggest all matches between the above 6 teams are abut a 7/10 in difficulty. Yet if you assign last year ladder positions to a numeric value it makes it seem as though the first team has the harder fixture, when really there is no difference.

In 2015, From round 11 onwards (once the ladder had a chance to take proper shape), the team on top won 74 games, lost 32 and drew twice. A 70% win rate

Suppose in 2016 you are the middle ranked team in the AFL, and you finish 9th. There are 8 teams above you, and 9 teams below you. What are the chances that the five teams you play twice are all among the top-8 teams? It's less than 1% (0.90%)

So the chances of being disadvantaged by only playing double-up games against the top-8 is next to nothing. The reality is that the double-up games tend to even out and all teams will play a mixture of top and bottom teams in 2016, based on the 2016 ladder.

Of the teams you play once, WHERE you play them has a huge impact. I would suggest the home ground advantage is usually far more pronounced than what it was in 2015. If 2015 was only a tick over 50% I suggest it was an outlier. Plus, you've got to look at REAL home ground advantage. Most home games are neutral. Games where you actually HOST a travelling opponent would be well over 60% I'm sure.

 

[Dan26]

You're trying to tell us that Hawthorn, who have double-ups against four 2015 finalists, including two other preliminary finalists, have an easier draw than Melbourne (one finalist) and Essendon (one finalist, no top six team).... .

Absolutely, Melbourne have a harder draw than Hawthorn. Here's the proof:

MELBOURNE
home vs GWS................5
neutral vs Essendon........5
neutral vs Nth.Melb.........7
neutral vs Collingwood.....6
neutral vs Richmond........7
neutral vs St.Kilda...........5
away vs Gold Coast.........7
neutral vs Bulldogs..........7
home vs Brisbane............3
neutral vs Port................7
neutral vs Hawthorn.........9
neutral vs Collingwood......6
away vs Sydney...............8
home vs Adelaide.............6
neutral vs Fremantle.........8
neutral vs St.Kilda............5
away vs West Coast..........10
home vs Gold Coast...........5
neutral vs Hawthorn..........9
away vs Port....................8
neutral vs Carlton.............3
away vs Geelong..............8

TOTAL DIFFICULTY = 144



HAWTHORN
Neutral vs Geelong.........7
home vs West Coast.......7
neutral vs Bulldogs.........7
home vs St.Kilda............4
Home vs Adelaide...........6
away vs GWS.................7
neutral vs Richmond........7
home vs Freo..................7
home vs Sydney..............7
away vs Brisbane............5
neutral vs Melbourne.......4
neutral vs Essendon........5
neutral vs Nth.Melb.........7
home vs Gold Coast........5
away vs Port..................8
away vs Sydney.............8
neutral vs Richmond.......7
home vs Carlton..............2
neutral vs Melbourne.......4
neutral vs Nth.Melb.........7
away vs West Coast........10
neutral vs Collingwood.....6

TOTAL DIFFICULTY = 137


I wasn't expecting this to be the case when I did the ranking, but lo-and-behold it is. Melbourne have a harder fixture than Hawthorn

 

[The Passenger]

I'd suggest it's WHERE you play the teams who you only play once which is the most important factor.

You can suggest it all you want, but it's not really that big of a factor. It's a factor no doubt, but not huge.

Being the better team is far more important than being the home team.

Of the teams you play once, WHERE you play them has a huge impact. I would suggest the home ground advantage is usually far more pronounced than what it was in 2015. If 2015 was only a tick over 50% I suggest it was an outlier. Plus, you've got to look at REAL home ground advantage. Most home games are neutral. Games where you actually HOST a travelling opponent would be well over 60% I'm sure.

Home team win % hovers around 56% year in year out. 2015 home team win % was the lowest since 2001, but it was hardly an outlier, and it usually doesn't move from 55-57%, which is where it's resided in 8 of the past 10 seasons.

http://afltables.com/afl/teams/allteams/overall_wl.html#hva

 

[Dan26]

Hawthorn have to play North Melbourne and Richmond twice (both of who were finalists), but this is misleading, because North Melbourne and Richmond are expected to be no better than, say Geelong and Port Adelaide (both of whom Hawthorn only play once) and who missed the finals last year.

If Hawthorn played Geelong and Port Adelaide twice (instead of North and Richmond), it means they would only play two double-up games against 2015 finalists instead of the four they actually have. Yet, their draw would be harder (or at least the same difficulty) if they played Geelong and Port twice instead.

Melbourne play 4 non-finalists twice, but three of those are Collingwood, Port Adelaide, and Gold Coast all of whom are expected to improve. They also have to play Hawthorn twice.

 

[Dan26]

Home team win % hovers around 56% year in year out. 2015 home team win % was the lowest since 2001, but it was hardly an outlier, and it usually doesn't move from 55-57%, which is where it's resided in 8 of the past 10 seasons.

Yes, but what is the home winning percentage when you discount all neutral games?

Only include games where a team hosts a travelling opponent (also include games at Kardinia Park)

Would be much higher.

 

[Dan26]

You can't forward project probabilities on something like this. Teams are expected to improve or go backwards all the time, but often do the opposite. The only data you have to work with is 2015 data, of if you really wanted to get in depth, a combined 2014-15 data table to show extended form.

I'm not interested in 2015 form. I am interested in 2016 form. Sure its guesswork to some extent, but it's far more accurate than assigning last years values to 2016. Last year has nothing to do with 2015 - it's irrelevant.

 

[The Passenger]

Yes, but what is the home winning percentage when you discount all neutral games?

Not available, maybe higher, maybe lower. You can knock yourself out finding that data if you'd like. Maybe Ron The Bear has it at his disposal.

You are still assigning arbitrary values, with a lot of forward projection... Why are we assuming North Melbourne and Richmond will be roughly equal to Collingwood and Port Adelaide? That's just gut feel. There's no data to substantially back that up. It might turn out to be right, but it also might not.

 

[The Passenger]

I'm not interested in 2015 form. I am interested in 2016 form. Sure its guesswork to some extent, but it's far more accurate than assigning last years values to 2016. Last year has nothing to do with 2015 - it's irrelevant.

OK so essentially you are assigning values based upon estimation of which teams will improve and go backwards in 2016. Cool, as long as we have that clear.

 

[Dan26]

Not available, maybe higher, maybe lower. You can knock yourself out finding that data if you'd like. Maybe Ron The Bear has it at his disposal.

You are still assigning arbitrary values, with a lot of forward projection... Why are we assuming North Melbourne and Richmond will be roughly equal to Collingwood and Port Adelaide? That's just gut feel. There's no data to substantially back that up. It might turn out to be right, but it also might not.

Of course we don't know. I don't have a time machine. It's still better than using last years ladder. I think it's a realistic assumption to NOT use Gold Coasts 2015 ladder position as a basis for their 2016 ladder position. A lot of this is just common-sense footy knowledge

 

[Dan26]

OK so essentially you are assigning values based upon estimation of which teams will improve and go backwards in 2016. Cool, as long as we have that clear.

2016 is all that matters here.

What makes the 2016 draw hard for a team is not where their opponents finished in 2015. It's where their opponents WILL finish in 2016 that determines if it's a hard draw or not. Right?

 

[The Passenger]

It's where their opponents WILL finish in 2016 that determines if it's a hard draw or not. Right?

This should read "It's where I THINK their opponents will finish in 2016 that determines if it's a hard draw or not" and as has been shown for years ladder predictions go wildly wrong.

In software development when we write software to predict future outcomes we use past data models that have as much of a concrete base to work from as possible and try to eliminate as much guesswork and subjective variables as we can.

Anyway, carry on. It's all been a bit of fun for a Sunday evening, and you can go nuts all you want with this model. But given how out of line your results are with the AFL's publicly stated aim of who gets the easiest/hardest draws and which another ranking system also agrees with the AFL's aims.... Then you might want to have a rethink.

A better model might be something that uses a teams Home and away (or even home, away, neutral) win-loss record over 2015 (or even 2014 and 15), then has a look at the effect of six day breaks and (in particular) consecutive six day breaks and assigns those a value in line with aforementioned W/L records. Then you might give you something to work with.

That's me done on this one.

 

[Pavlovs Cat]

Our draw is easy as hell, we only play teams who finished below us.

Rigged! Bastards!

 

[EssendonNick]

I'm not interested in 2015 form. I am interested in 2016 form. Sure its guesswork to some extent, but it's far more accurate than assigning last years values to 2016. Last year has nothing to do with 2015 - it's irrelevant.

If 2015 is irrelevant then why is it considered tougher to play Hawthorn then Carlton?

 

[Port01]

If 2015 is irrelevant then why is it considered tougher to play Hawthorn then Carlton?

Carlton are much tougher than Hawthorn from my recollections.

 

[Suma Magic]

Using the 2016 betting market for who will finish in the top 8 would be the best way to rank difficulty for 2016 IMO.

 

[Suma Magic]

The OP has admitted that his system is flawed and so the results are going to be a bit off.

But that's not to say that a system such as this could rank the draw difficulty with a couple of tweaks.

 

[EssendonNick]

After finishing 15th in 2015, Essendon is the only team that does not play a top-six team from 2015 twice next season.

View attachment 189498

That's opponents strength, not to much to look into, another one was a champion data stat but I can't access it because I'm not a digitial member

I like the 'combined wins in 2015' to measure draw difficulty.
Yes we don't know how teams will go in 2016 but 2015 is pretty much all we have got to work with.
Yes of course there will be movers and shakers as always but it is guess work to say who they will be.
I think for every time that a team improves, there will be one that dives so it sort of cancels each other out to some extent.