Since '94, a side from outside the 8 has made the top 4 every year. Who

[Jars458]

Theory still holding water Dan.

How is it a theory. Its statistical fact.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Theory still holding water Dan.

How is it a theory. Its statistical fact.

The theory is that it will remain a fact.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

How is it a theory. Its statistical fact.

The theory is that it will remain a fact.

Projecting forward. It will fail sometime but that will not make it invalid if you get my drift.

Right now, it has happened every year since 1994 and that is fact. Saying it is fact that it will continue to happen is not quite accurate. As you can see, I was predicting next year as well and a fact has to have occurred before becoming a fact.

 

[Hawkk]

I predict Richmond and/or Carlton to play finals next year.

Port Adelaide would have to be the #1 smokey to challenge for a top 4 spot next year, surely?

 

[skzm]

Port Adelaide would have to be the #1 smokey to challenge for a top 4 spot next year, surely?

Watching the game against the Roos - found it hard to believe they weren't there this year....

 

[VolgaBoatman]

I think all of the teams in the bottom 8 (apart from Melbourne) will be a chance to make the finals next year.

In terms of top 4, I think Carlton are a chance.

 

[The Passenger]

its amazing how this continues to happen season after season.

in saying that, one of them still have to win at least one finals game for this to continue, although it's hard to not see the dogs at least making it to the preliminary final...

 

[ok.crows]

Theory still holding water Dan.

The theory is that it will remain a fact.

That is a speculation.

A theory is basically a hypothesis that has in the past succesfully predicted an outcome ... so that fits reasonably well, until you realise that a hypothesis is a "proposed method by which something is thought to work".

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon (an event that is observable),or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.

So what is the suggested explanation whereby this observation is thought to come about?

PS: to be fair, common usage of the term theory is considerably more lax than proper usage, and it can cover wild speculation as well:

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.

So in common usage, it is quite possible to have a completely loopy theory ... but in proper usage a theory is a hypothesis that has made predictions about how something works that have subsequently turned out to be correct.

For example: the theory of evolution - that theory is about "inheritance of characteristics and survival of the fittest" as the mechanism for changes occurring in species over time - and the theory made a successful prediction that there should be a mechanism whereby characteristics of parents are passed on to offspring ... and about 50 years later DNA was discovered. That successful prediction (amongst others) is what makes the theory of evolution a theory and not merely wild speculation.

A proper theory is not the least bit loopy ... but it is not universally prooven yet, either. One more subsequent experiment could still yet disproove the theory.

The "theory" that is the topic of this thread does make predictions, and the predictions are indeed eminently testable (e.g. this year it has turned out to be correct) ... the only thing missing really is the proposed explanation behind it.

At the moment we have a testable statement that makes predictions, but no actual hypothesis.

I'd be interested to find out if anyone has an idea for such an hypothesis.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

its amazing how this continues to happen season after season.

in saying that, one of them still have to win at least one finals game for this to continue, although it's hard to not see the dogs at least making it to the preliminary final...

The theory is about home and away placings;

2001: Collingwood (9th) finished 4th in 2002.

Collingwood made the grand final and finished 2nd.

 

[Godfrey Jones]

he's right, if you want to be technical its not a theory. its a prediction. a theory would explain why it was or will happen.

 

[The Passenger]

The theory is about home and away placings;


Collingwood made the grand final and finished 2nd.

fair enough then, i think either way it still has held true for some 14-15 seasons in a row now.

and you'd be pretty confident it will in 2009 - i don't think fremantle, port adelaide and west coast are as weak as their positions would suggest and certainly are capable of making the improvement to reach the top 8... while the dogs could prove to be a flash in the pan and the 4th position could quite feasibly go to 6 or 7 of the next 10 teams in the competition....

if you were a betting man the only thing you'd be confident on for 2009 is that hawks and cats will be top 4 next year (and as we've seen that's not a certainty either).... the other 2 top 4 spots are wide open and are anyone's guess.

 

[ok.crows]

its amazing how this continues to happen season after season.

I'm not sure that it is amazing at all.

The observation is:

Since '94, a side from outside the 8 has made the top 4 every year.

One hypothesis could be, for example: It is all pretty random since, after all, the luck of the bounce as it were determines the outcomes of many games. There is very often only a game or two in it between top 4 and missing out on the 8. It would actually be more surprising to see the same top 4 or top 8 from one year to the next.

That is an almost-impossible-to-proove-or-disproove hypothesis ... but it does explain the observation perfectly well.

 

[Ricketts]

Bombers or Blues for top 4 2009.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

That is a speculation.

A theory is basically a hypothesis that has in the past succesfully predicted an outcome ... so that fits reasonably well, until you realise that a hypothesis is a "proposed method by which something is thought to work".

So what is the suggested explanation whereby this observation is thought to come about?

PS: to be fair, common usage of the term theory is considerably more lax than proper usage, and it can cover wild speculation as well:

So in common usage, it is quite possible to have a completely loopy theory ... but in proper usage a theory is a hypothesis that has made predictions about how something works that have subsequently turned out to be correct.

For example: the theory of evolution - that theory is about "inheritance of characteristics and survival of the fittest" as the mechanism for changes occurring in species over time - and the theory made a successful prediction that there should be a mechanism whereby characteristics of parents are passed on to offspring ... and about 50 years later DNA was discovered. That successful prediction (amongst others) is what makes the theory of eveloution a theory and not merely wild speculation.

A proper theory is not the least bit loopy ... but it is not universally prooven yet, either. One more subsequent experiment could still yet disproove the theory.

The "theory" that is the topic of this thread does make predictions, and the predictions are indeed eminently testable (e.g. this year it has turned out to be correct) ... the only thing missing really is the proposed explanation behind it.

At the moment we have a testable statement that makes predictions, but no actual hypothesis.

I'd be interested to find out if anyone has an idea for such an hypothesis.

Was thinking the same thing so you saved me the effort of confirming a theory and a hypothesis.

The reason it happens is simple I think. Finish bottom 8 and you have an extra 4 to 6 weeks to do a fuller preseason, you book blokes in early for an operation so that they get a full pre season or close to a full pre season. Usually these are your key players. Finals sides get injuries to players, sometimes long term ones whilst the non finalists are resting. The key to having a good year is that most of your players do a full pre season and have the miles in their legs to last the year.

Some teams who have a stuff up year after a couple of good years get pissed off and finally get it together. Case in point is Geelong. 2004 finished 4th but could have made a GF couldn't quiet get over Brisbane in the PF, 2005 they lost the unloseable semi final to Sydney, 2006 the wheels fell off, a complete review, some blokes in for early surgery and everybody does a full pre season and commit to achieve their full potential.

If you look at the teams that made a big jump, usually the year before or 2 years before were good ones.

Also players who have missed most of a season come back from long term injuries and make a difference, especially senior mid fields or KPPs. Luck with injuries is also another reason this happens.

The opposite happens with top 8 sides. They might scrap in to the finals but lose good players over the finals of preseason. Shorter pre seasons stuff up players form the following year. Sometimes it's as simple as they lose their edge mentally, either losing a few close games or the general crap that sometimes surrounds footy clubs.

About an hour ago I updated Dan's other thread than every year you also get at least one top 8 side end up in the bottom.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12285799&postcount=79

 

[Valve Bounce]

Carlton?

 

[drewie_rama]

whose turn will it be next season?

carlton seem an obvious choice given their young side should improve...any other takers?

 

[Quinz]

West Coast. Bookmark it.

 

[Johnson#26]

Richmond for sure.

 

[Kong]

port adelaide will bounce back.

 

[amos]

Port.

 

[m0nty]

Without seeing the draw, I'd tip Richmond. Dependent on the draw, though.

 

[BLue_Bloys]

Brisbane could be are a bit of an unknown under Voss.

Most likely - Brisbane then either Richmond / Carlton

 

[hawkz]

Hmmm so this trend has still continued until date?


I will be tipping the Lions and Blues!!

 

[Nightwolf]

Carlton have little chance of top 4. That backline is the worst ive ever seen.

 

[Thrawn]

Carlton have little chance of top 4. That backline is the worst ive ever seen.

You don't watch much football then.