Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[sr36]

You just want to cut out a third of the data to close the gap. Now you are adding in highly subjective crap about injections.

NSW & QLD only have 1 team for 2/3rds of the timeframe yet they are still infront of WA.

NSW and Qld only have 1 relevant team for all of the data.

No I want to make the data broader by including port and Freo. You want to narrow the data to make it all about WCE so it skews down, as they, like a couple of Vic teams, have only had one during the time frame you want included. And frankly if you use 1987 debut or later and make a different arbitrary high game cut off like 250, WCE would be up near the top. 11. Collingwood 6. Hawthorn 8. Not going to look at the less successful Vic clubs from the era as I'm confident most would be lower.

The shortening of careers just doesn't stack up.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

Yes every club agrees that travel is not equal between teams.

The WA fans seem to think that all teams should travel the same, a nonsense.

They campaign for extra games in WA to balance out the "travel".

Because they completely disregard that the biggest factor is not travel but ground advantage.

Carlton playing 17 games in Melbourne doesnt give them a home advantage in 17 games. This year Carlton only has 4 games where they get any real ground advantage against their opponent, and they cop 5 where they face a ground disadvantage.

But WC fans think that Carlton should be forced to play an extra game in WA against Freo or WC to make it "fair".

What evidence do you have to that it’s the ground that gives the biggest factor?

 

[Purple Suit]

NSW and Qld only have 1 relevant team for all of the data.

No I want to make the data broader by including port and Freo. You want to narrow the data to make it all about WCE so it skews down, as they, like a couple of Vic teams, have only had one during the time frame you want included. And frankly if you use 1987 debut or later and make a different arbitrary high game cut off like 250, WCE would be up near the top. 11. Collingwood 6. Hawthorn 8. Not going to look at the less successful Vic clubs from the era as I'm confident most would be lower.

The shortening of careers just doesn't stack up.

According to you
Broader = shorting time frame
Narrowing = longer time frame

You are so one eyed you aren’t making sense mate.

Again, quoting single players from single teams distorts it as you only include 1 team players, not duel vic teams. Averages don’t lie, they show a trend and just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

 

[sr36]

According to you
Broader = shorting time frame
Narrowing = longer time frame

You are so one eyed you aren’t making sense mate.

Again, quoting single players from single teams distorts it as you only include 1 team players, not duel vic teams. Averages don’t lie, they show a trend and just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Broader = more teams from WA and thus a better sample to look at WA clubs versus clubs from other states.

Here's what the stats will show for high games if you choose 1987 debut and then weight it for Freo having less time in the comp.

250 games better to be from WA
300 games better to be from Vic
350 games best to be from Freo by a big margin. Their 2 in that time frame is the equivalent to a weighted 4 from a Vic club - an extraordinary number. Only 25 have done it in the history of the game.
400 Only Vics can do that.

But hey you stick to your theory.

 

[Purple Suit]

Broader = more teams from WA and thus a better sample to look at WA clubs versus clubs from other states.

Here's what the stats will show for high games if you choose 1987 debut and then weight it for Freo having less time in the comp.

250 games better to be from WA
300 games better to be from Vic
350 games best to be from Freo by a big margin. Their 2 in that time frame is the equivalent to a weighted 4 from a Vic club - an extraordinary number. Only 25 have done it in the history of the game.
400 Only Vics can do that.

But hey you stick to your theory.

My theory has data to back it up while yours is chopped and changed to suit. You need to include the whole of the modern era, not just when Freo joined. Shorten it and you are just cherry picking.

250 games - I haven’t checked
300 games - VIC by a big margin
350 games - VIC still the best state by average despite Freo getting 2 players across the line as you need to include WC in the averages.

350 games isn’t really as statistically significant as 300 there are bugger all numbers.

 

[sr36]

My theory has data to back it up while yours is chopped and changed to suit. You need to include the whole of the modern era, not just when Freo joined. Shorten it and you are just cherry picking.

250 games - I haven’t checked
300 games - VIC by a big margin
350 games - VIC still the best state by average despite Freo getting 2 players across the line as you need to include WC in the averages.

350 games isn’t really as statistically significant as 300 there are bugger all numbers.

Yours was skewed by 1 team in an arbitrarily chosen data set of 300 games and ignored weighting for opportunity. And began with a ridiculous date where only Vic's were a chance to get to 300 games for the first decade of data you looked at. Then you compared the two samples as though they were even in terms of opportunity. It was ridiculously flawed.

350 - there's 7 from Vic clubs debuting post 1986. 2 from WA - weighted up to about 3.5 due to Freo's less time and opportunity. WA easily - even without the weighting

300 Vics

The travel impact must wear off some time after your 300th game. Gaff should cancel his retirement.

250. haven't done it other than 3 of the better teams of the AFL era, but WCE were comfortably ahead - almost doubling Collingwood and about 30% ahead of Hawthorn. Pretty confident that it'll come out WA if you weight Freo's haul for less opportunity.

The career shortening travel impact doesn't seem to kick in until 250 games. And then it's brutal for the next 50 before wearing off. But then it's brutal again after 350 and stops any wa players getting to 400.

 

[doppleganger]

What evidence do you have to that it’s the ground that gives the biggest factor?

Hint is in the name

Home GROUND Advantage

VFL, SANFL, WAFL all experience home ground advantage

VFL/AFL it was the late 1950s that had the biggest % of home team wins - three seasons in a row where the home team won 65% of games. 1930s, 6 seasons where home team won 60% of games.

No air travel, or hotel sleeping back then. Home GROUND advantage existed.

For comparison, in the 21st century AFL era 2001 onwards, have only been 5 seasons where the home team has won 60% of games.

 

[doppleganger]

I didn’t say debut, I said if they were playing in 2000 or later. That’s 14 seasons since 1987 so enough time to play 300 if you were a freak in a team that didn’t play finals.

No matter what you do, the data shows that WA has had the least by far, Victoria the most. It’s not a trick or furphy. More data points would be great though, let’s get WA3 happening ASAP.

So your methodology includes players who debuted pre 1987, when 92% of players were playing for a VIC club.

So yes, you would expect 90% of 300 gamers who debuted in the 1980s to be from VIC clubs - pretty obvious stuff.

And also travel isn't equal for VIC clubs

Since 1987, Collingwood have travelled the least - under 20% of our games and only 171 outside of Vic.

Hawks and North the most - 30% of their games, 253 outside VIC. An extra 80 trips if a North or Hawk player.

So if travel shortens careers, should be plenty of Collingwood 300 gamers and hardly any Hawk or Roos.

300 gamers, debut in the 1980s or later (so Tuck, T.SHaw, Schimma not included), majority of career with each club

North - 8
Hawks - 7
Pies - 3 (including H.Shaw)

Shouldn't the numbers be swapped?

Confused.

 

[sr36]

Hint is in the name

Home GROUND Advantage

VFL, SANFL, WAFL all experience home ground advantage

VFL/AFL it was the late 1950s that had the biggest % of home team wins - three seasons in a row where the home team won 65% of games. 1930s, 6 seasons where home team won 60% of games.

No air travel, or hotel sleeping back then. Home GROUND advantage existed.

For comparison, in the 21st century AFL era 2001 onwards, have only been 5 seasons where the home team has won 60% of games.

How do you account for the two WA teams having easily the biggest difference in winning when you compare home state to away state. It both looks pretty clear from the data and matches up with the theory and anecdotes that they have a travel disadvantage when playing away which is balanced by a travel advantage when playing at home - we seem to have conveniently forgotten about the advantage they get from teams travelling to them - with both data and player and coach anecdotes suggesting it's really tough to win there. Freo have been as tough to beat in WA as Hawthorn have in Victoria - an incredible stat when you look at those two clubs overall performance and quality of players during Freo's time in the AFL.

 

[doppleganger]

How do you account for the two WA teams having easily the biggest difference in winning when you compare home state to away state.

They have a big home ground advantage. 95% full of one eyed WA fans. And the stadium is usually heaving, especially for an Eagles game.

Subiaco was also skinny like Cat Park, and really long.

Visiting teams play there normally just once per season, unlike the WA teams who are obviously familiar with the ground.

It is like back in old days when a team would play Collingwood at Vic Park.

It both looks pretty clear from the data and matches up with the theory and anecdotes that they have a travel disadvantage when playing away which is balanced by a travel advantage when playing at home - we seem to have conveniently forgotten about the advantage they get from teams travelling to them - with both data and player and coach anecdotes suggesting it's really tough to win there.

It is ground advantage when at home (they are still normally travelling back from a trip in the week leading into a home game, so recovery impacted).

It is tough to win at a ground you play at once a year, with barely any supporters.

That has always been the case.

It is why ground rationalisation has hurt Melbourne teams, as teams like Sydney have a great record at Marvel as they play 4 games a year there.

And it is why Hawthorn and Geelong do so well, as teams only ever play at Cat Park or Tassie once.

Hawks have a big ground advantage in Tassie, despite travelling, sleeping in hotels and all the crap they sook about.

Freo have been as tough to beat in WA as Hawthorn have in Victoria - an incredible stat when you look at those two clubs overall performance and quality of players during Freo's time in the AFL.

Freo also have a similar record at Marvel to Richmond in the last decade.

Both have played 30 games at Marvel, Richmond winning 13 and Freo 12.

When a team is familiar at a ground there is no real advantage / disadvantage.

 

[LoungeLizard]

How do you account for the two WA teams having easily the biggest difference in winning when you compare home state to away state. It both looks pretty clear from the data and matches up with the theory and anecdotes that they have a travel disadvantage when playing away which is balanced by a travel advantage when playing at home - we seem to have conveniently forgotten about the advantage they get from teams travelling to them - with both data and player and coach anecdotes suggesting it's really tough to win there. Freo have been as tough to beat in WA as Hawthorn have in Victoria - an incredible stat when you look at those two clubs overall performance and quality of players during Freo's time in the AFL.

I think a lot depends on who it is.
For example, Collingwood didn't do well at Subiaco, yet do well at Optus.
Geelong don't seem to like Optus, but did well at Subiaco.
Hawthorn seem to not mind either.

I looked at these 3 because they have been strongest teams.

 

[sr36]

Freo also have a similar record at Marvel to Richmond in the last decade.

Both have played 30 games at Marvel, Richmond winning 13 and Freo 12.

When a team is familiar at a ground there is no real advantage / disadvantage.

Tigers aren't like Hawks. Tigers had an awesome half a dozen years, but have been crap for most of the AFL era. Their win loss record for the AFL era is negative both inside and outside of Vic.

 

[Purple Suit]

How do you account for the two WA teams having easily the biggest difference in winning when you compare home state to away state. It both looks pretty clear from the data and matches up with the theory and anecdotes that they have a travel disadvantage when playing away which is balanced by a travel advantage when playing at home - we seem to have conveniently forgotten about the advantage they get from teams travelling to them - with both data and player and coach anecdotes suggesting it's really tough to win there. Freo have been as tough to beat in WA as Hawthorn have in Victoria - an incredible stat when you look at those two clubs overall performance and quality of players during Freo's time in the AFL.

Show me the data and then off set it against the away difference. Geelong still have the biggest advantage, probably Hawks too if you just use Tassie. But plucking out outliers is not good in such a small data set.

There are also multiple factors that affect home records and all interstate teams could be grouped and then compared with Melbourne teams. You would also need to start the data in comparison to your other logic rather than just cherry picking.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Show me the data and then off set it against the away difference. Geelong still have the biggest advantage, probably Hawks too if you just use Tassie. But plucking out outliers is not good in such a small data set.

There are also multiple factors that affect home records and all interstate teams could be grouped and then compared with Melbourne teams. You would also need to start the data in comparison to your other logic rather than just cherry picking.

If you want to find data to help your argument, you will.

Like this little beauty, West Coast have a positive record at the Gabba, the furthest travel?

You see anyone can do it.

Grand finals are what teams try to win, West Coast have 4, Brisbane has 3, that's up there with the best, so we may need a few more years to work this out.

 

[Purple Suit]

If you want to find data to help your argument, you will.

Like this little beauty, West Coast have a positive record at the Gabba, the furthest travel?

You see anyone can do it.

Grand finals are what teams try to win, West Coast have 4, Brisbane has 3, that's up there with the best, so we may need a few more years to work this out.

That’s a single data point and outlier. Vic have a much higher average of flags than interstate teams, maybe because you get the GF at home regardless unless there is a pandemic. Seems like a big advantage that is supported.

Maybe offsetting that with academies, opening round, gather round is fair. Just need something coming back to WA now after years of nothing.

 

[LoungeLizard]

That’s a single data point and outlier. Vic have a much higher average of flags than interstate teams, maybe because you get the GF at home regardless unless there is a pandemic. Seems like a big advantage that is supported.

Maybe offsetting that with academies, opening round, gather round is fair. Just need something coming back to WA now after years of nothing.

4 premierships is the 2nd best in the AFL era, last one was 2018, that's not that long ago, geeze wouldn't a club like St.Kilda love that?

That's not an outlier.

 

[sr36]

Show me the data and then off set it against the away difference. Geelong still have the biggest advantage, probably Hawks too if you just use Tassie. But plucking out outliers is not good in such a small data set.

There are also multiple factors that affect home records and all interstate teams could be grouped and then compared with Melbourne teams. You would also need to start the data in comparison to your other logic rather than just cherry picking.

AFL Tables - State Win/Loss Records

Right hand columns have teams overall breakdown by home state versus away state since 1987.

Geelong, Sydney, WCE, Port, Adelaide and Brisbane are the only teams to have won more than 60% of home state games. Remarkably, when you look at their teams during the AFL era, Freo not far off - a smidge below Hawthorn and higher than Collingwood. As the above 60% club includes Geelong the one Vic team with a clear home ground in their home state and otherwise only non-Vic teams, there's the home ground advantage that doppleganger talks about.

When you then look at the away state records and differences between home state and away state and notice that the longest distance travellers WCE, Freo and Brisbane have big differences between home state and away state performance it looks very likely that travel is also a factor. Although climate likely also a factor particularly for Brissy. Then when you look at the other columns - every single team has a negative record when travelling to WA but not the case with SA.

Who do you think I mentioned that were an outlier? Hawthorn and Freo winning their respective percentages in home state are very representative of the data set. And point very much to what Daoppleganger is saying about home ground advantage but also a travel advantage/disadvantage. WA teams have an advantage when teams travel to them as well as a disadvantage when they travel to other teams. Which is hardly surprising. But for some reason, WA are blitzing in the persuasive rhetoric and we just seem to ignore the travel advantage when they play at home and focus only on the disadvantage when they play away.

Now it's possible that there's a cumulative travel disadvantage. Would probably need to look at performance by round and whether longer travelling team's performance dips as the year goes on. No idea where to get that info. But it's not something I've noticed or seen discussed anecdotally.

 

[Back One Out]

Ask any of the clubs - all of them would sooner play in Melbourne than in Tasmania. If they thought that playing in Tasmania was a disadvantage to them why would North and Hawthorn do it?

It’s a financial decision to play our lowest-drawing games in Tassie and make a profit instead of breaking even or incurring losses from those games

Why the F would do think we’d care about the convenience or comfort of our opposition who travel over for those away games?

Care factor zero.

It gives all you whingers something else to moan about besides the umpires.

 

[blue harvest]

Since 1987, Collingwood have travelled the least - under 20% of our games and only 171 outside of Vic.

Hawks and North the most - 30% of their games, 253 outside VIC. An extra 80 trips if a North or Hawk player.

So if travel shortens careers, should be plenty of Collingwood 300 gamers and hardly any Hawk or Roos.

300 gamers, debut in the 1980s or later (so Tuck, T.SHaw, Schimma not included), majority of career with each club

North - 8
Hawks - 7
Pies - 3 (including H.Shaw)

Shouldn't the numbers be swapped?

Confused.

Yeah but Hawks and North choose to travel so it doesn't count you dufus!

 

[doppleganger]

Tigers aren't like Hawks. Tigers had an awesome half a dozen years, but have been crap for most of the AFL era. Their win loss record for the AFL era is negative both inside and outside of Vic.

The stats were for the last decade

Tigers won 56% of games overall in that period. They won 60% of games at the G, their home. They only won 43% of games at Marvel.

Collingwood similar, we have 54% overall winning record. But a losing record at Marvel.

Freo won 49% of games overall in same period. They won 57% at Optus, their home. They won 40% of their games at Marvel.

The lazy VICBias sook is Richmond enjoy a home ground advantage at Marvel because it is a game in Melbourne and they get to sleep in their beds etc.

The reality is Richmond are not familiar with Marvel, their fans dont like it, it is akin to playing a "home game' at Princes Park in the old VFL days.

Home GROUND advantage is the real, but you need to actually play at your home ground to get any advantage.

When you are the away team, you only get an away ground disadvantage if the opponent has a ground familiarity advantage.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

HGA is real - Home State advantage is real.
Travel issue is real.

None of this can be denied, every stake holder in the AFL system be it administration, Coaches, players, runners, water boys etc etc all agree the above is true.

Yet here we are still trying to make a case it is not true.

 

[sr36]

Yeah but Hawks and North choose to travel so it doesn't count you dufus!

I think that's also why they ignore their home state and home ground advantages. They choose to play at home, so it doesn't count.

 

[LoungeLizard]

HGA is real - Home State advantage is real.
Travel issue is real.

None of this can be denied, every stake holder in the AFL system be it administration, Coaches, players, runners, water boys etc etc all agree the above is true.

Yet here we are still trying to make a case it is not true.

This might be all true, but put a price on it, how much does it hurt?

One bloke who should know, who is also crying about it now, took the team he coached on a holiday to the Gold Coast during finals, hypocrite?

Please explain why he would do that if travel is so bad?

Remember finals.

 

[doppleganger]

Geelong, Sydney, WCE, Port, Adelaide and Brisbane are the only teams to have won more than 60% of home state games.

Check the teams who have unique ground advantages.

Hawthorn in Tassie - a 75% win rate.

Geelong are 80% at CatPark in the last decade, well above their "home state" win rate.

Ground familiarity advantage is more important than whether you slept in a hotel.

Which teams enjoy the biggest ground advantage - nonMelbourne teams (and Tassie).

Which teams have dominated the 21st century, teams which enjoy the biggest ground advantage.

 

[doppleganger]

HGA is real - Home State advantage is real.
Travel issue is real.

None of this can be denied, every stake holder in the AFL system be it administration, Coaches, players, runners, water boys etc etc all agree the above is true.

Yet here we are still trying to make a case it is not true.

HGA trumps travel as the biggest issue.

25 years of H&A results show that the ladder is skewed to teams who have an actual HGA.

AFL House policy created the discrepancy, and now they think they should do something to "fix" geography.

By the way, looking forward to the now "traditional" Port top4 H&A fnish and subsequent home finals loss to a stronger team.