Certified Legendary Thread The Squiggle is back in 2023 (and other analytics)

[HTT]

Actually most Tigers fans were struggling for confidence going into last years final series. Not a criticism, it's natural after a very long wait I think. A lot are really making up for it this year

I'd tend to agree with this.
I thought the finals monkey wouldn't affect us in the QF, thought the players had somewhat separated themselves from it, but I was very concerned that despite that we might still lose the QF and then hit Sydney the next week, and have that monkey grow ridiculously, so I think I was reasonably reserved externally (absolutely bouncing off my internal walls that we were top 4 though)
Once we won that first final it was a huge weight off my shoulders, really haven't stopped partying since

 

[Le Grille]

There's a reason FMI is at the top of the FMI leaderboard. Nice for Stattraction to get one back on the field as well.
View attachment 495880

Where's Roby's Power Rankings

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

So how is it that Richmond win, but go backwards on both axes, and North lose, and improve on both axes?


Is losing the new winning?

 

[BEaston]

ugh

 

[The Goon]

So how is it that Richmond win, but go backwards on both axes, and North lose, and improve on both axes?


Is losing the new winning?

Because we didn't beat them by as much as our position on the Squiggle would have expected. I thought we'd drop further TBH, the squiggle must be starting to rate North as a decent team.

 

[BF Tiger]

So how is it that Richmond win, but go backwards on both axes, and North lose, and improve on both axes?


Is losing the new winning?

We're moral losers remember.

 

[Final Siren]

Because we didn't beat them by as much as our position on the Squiggle would have expected. I thought we'd drop further TBH, the squiggle must be starting to rate North as a decent team.

Yeah, North are a mid-table team. They've been thereabouts since Round 5, when they thumped the Hawks.

Also it's harder to go backwards on the chart: Squiggle believes good teams sometimes have an off day, but bad teams rarely have great ones.

And the Tigers had more scoring shots again, 12.10 to 11.6.

The interesting game this round was Carlton v Essendon! In winning 14.7 to 10.18, the Blues actually slightly fell back while the Bombers slightly improved.

 

[Dr Tigris]

So how is it that Richmond win, but go backwards on both axes, and North lose, and improve on both axes?


Is losing the new winning?

One of the interesting things about the Squiggle. it shows you how well team played compared to what was expected. So you can get better on the Squiggle by losing close games to better teams. The ladder don't care.
The Squiggle is information that helps you understand how teams play and how does what comparatively.
The ladder is what really matters.

But notice that upper middle ranked teams don't win grand finals. Maybe there are couple of instances over the last 100+ years. So a team that just grinds out wins, but is fairly much just a bit better than OK might do well on the ladder. But come the pointy end they tends to get found out. See Freo a couple of years ago.

 

[HTT]

Because we didn't beat them by as much as our position on the Squiggle would have expected. I thought we'd drop further TBH, the squiggle must be starting to rate North as a decent team.

Plus we had far more scoring shots than the 10 point win suggests, at 22-17

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Yeah those two first year rookies are certainly going to make a 5 goal difference once they get back into your side

Both walked into the side in round one. They're best 22 players...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Roos Addick]

North have latched onto the back of the peloton

 

[Suma Magic]

Season prediction is nuts.

 

[Headless]

Season prediction is nuts.

View attachment 499773

Melbourne percentage off a home final and we finish 10th.

 

[A Swallow]

Interesting North went slightly backwards defensively on the squiggle, despite keeping GWS below their predicted score (albeit by only 1 point, but I thought we would’ve just gone straight up).

 

[HTT]

Interesting North went slightly backwards defensively on the squiggle, despite keeping GWS below their predicted score (albeit by only 1 point, but I thought we would’ve just gone straight up).

Its because squiggle doesn't look at just the scores, but also the scoring shots. Final Siren might be able to correct me but I remember seeing something about goals effectively being worth 4 and behinds worth 3, rather than 6 and 1, So GWS's score of 9.15 causes Squiggle 2.0 to react the way Squiggle 1.0 reacted to a score of 81.

 

[B4Bear]

Its because squiggle doesn't look at just the scores, but also the scoring shots. Final Siren might be able to correct me but I remember seeing something about goals effectively being worth 4 and behinds worth 3, rather than 6 and 1, So GWS's score of 9.15 causes Squiggle 2.0 to react the way Squiggle 1.0 reacted to a score of 81.

Ah ha. That explains it, I saw the same thing and was wondering how it was so.

Thanks for that.

All hail Squiggle.

 

[Hobbes]

Adelaide +35 v Western Bulldogs
North Melbourne +19 v GWS
Gold Coast v Port Adelaide +30 (no home ground advantage counted)
Essendon v Geelong +39
Sydney +25 v Fremantle
St Kilda v Collingwood +27
Carlton v Melbourne +34
Brisbane v Hawthorn +25
West Coast v Richmond +9

6/9. Although nobody really tipped Essendon or Brisbane, it had been common knowledge for a while that Brisbane were much better than 0-8 suggested. Essendon make no sense. They've beaten only Adelaide, Port and Hawthorn (all serious contenders) and lost to minnows.

1. Richmond 27.3
2. West Coast 24.7 (+1)
3. Melbourne 18.5 (+3)
4. Sydney 13.3 (+3)
5. North Melbourne 13.1 (+3)
6. Adelaide 12.1 (-2)
7. Port Adelaide 11.4 (+2)
8. Geelong 10.5 (-6)
9. Collingwood 4.8 (+1)
10. Hawthorn 1.9 (-5)
11. Fremantle -6.5
12. GWS -6.9
13. Brisbane -8.4 (+2)
14. Essendon -9.0
15. Western Bulldogs -15.5 (-2)
16. Gold Coast -22.0 (+1)
17. St Kilda -23.8 (-1)
18. Carlton -27.5

Dramatic falls for Geelong and Hawthorn. It's good to see Richmond look a bit more mortal, but that comes with a scarier looking West Coast.

Collingwood +20 v Western Bulldogs
Richmond +51 v St Kilda
Brisbane v Sydney +12
Geelong +38 v Carlton
GWS +7 v Essendon
Hawthorn v West Coast +14
Melbourne +12 v Adelaide
Fremantle v North Melbourne +11

1. Richmond 17.5
2. West Coast 17.4
3. Melbourne 15.0 (+2)
4. Port Adelaide 14.28 (+3)
5. Sydney 14.26 (+1)
6. North Melbourne 13.7 (+2)
7. Adelaide 13.2 (+2)
8. Geelong 12.8 (-5)
9. Hawthorn 12.4 (-5)
10. Collingwood 12.1
11. GWS 9.68
12. Fremantle 9.66
13. Essendon 7.6 (+2)
14. Western Bulldogs 7.4 (-1)
15. Brisbane 6.4 (+3)
16. Gold Coast 6.3 (-2)
17. Carlton 4.3 (-1)
18. St Kilda 4.1 (-1)

It looks like the top 10 teams are settled - GWS or Fremantle would need a major form shift to make an appearance in the finals. Despite four wins, I don't think the Bulldogs can be considered a chance.

 

[YippeeYiYeo]

About time the squiggle showed some significant Eagles movement.

 

[Hobbes]

About time the squiggle showed some significant Eagles movement.

It's only in the last three rounds that they have really shown their quality.

 

[beert]

The squiggle's out on its own a bit this week, tipping Melbourne over Adelaide (59% probability), although a couple of models have it close.

Also a little surprised to see that Hawks v West Coast has split the models, and quite a few are tipping Freo vs North.

I guess I'm doing that human thing where I look at last couple of week's results and think that's representative, whereas it might just be an off week.

 

[cryptor]

Surprised the movement for Hawthorn and Brisbane wasn’t larger.

 

[Final Siren]

The squiggle's out on its own a bit this week, tipping Melbourne over Adelaide (59% probability), although a couple of models have it close.

Also a little surprised to see that Hawks v West Coast has split the models, and quite a few are tipping Freo vs North.

I guess I'm doing that human thing where I look at last couple of week's results and think that's representative, whereas it might just be an off week.

Other models usually take a little time to update their tips, so I think there will be more support for Melbourne in the coming days. The two models that are currently quite pro-Adelaide here haven't yet factored in Round 9 results.

Same deal with HAW v WCE: the two models tipping the Hawks at the moment last updated 1 week ago.

Edit: The Arc has now updated; is still tipping Adelaide fairly strongly (63%) but jumped off the Hawks.

 

[B4Bear]

Geelong at the MCG and losing by 3 points. Would have taken that at Round 1.

Onward and upward.

 

[Final Siren]

Surprised the movement for Hawthorn and Brisbane wasn’t larger.

Yeah, it was a pretty big upset, but not a real shocker, given that Brisbane had shown a fair bit this year, it was a Lions home game, and the Hawks have been wobbly.

By way of comparison, the Suns v Hawks upset of last year caused a ton of chart movement because it was earlier in the season (and so more likely to be representative of the teams' new form rather than an aberration), more comprehensive (Suns: +86 points and +16 scoring shots; Lions: +56 points and +11 scoring shots), and the teams were much further apart on the chart to begin with.

 

[the harry]

I'm sure I've posted this in this thread already, but this is a fantastic thread and thanks to all contributors .