What They're Saying - The Bulldogs Media Thread - Part 4

[wayniac]

"pales!" It's "pales" you idiot geoffjennings79 !

My kingdom for a sub-editor!

Add "towing the line", "could of" and "from the get go". I'll be quite pacific about this

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Add "towing the line", "could of" and "from the get go". I'll be quite pacific about this

...not to mention the "golden goose" that gets a run fairly regularly.

 

[geoffjennings79]

Add "towing the line", "could of" and "from the get go". I'll be quite pacific about this

...not to mention the "golden goose" that gets a run fairly regularly.

I'll have both of you know I only called myself out as it's rare my grammar is not perfect!

Theirs lots of examples where they're are such poorly written posts, there enough to drive me to distinction...

 

[Fossie 32]

The expected score isn't calculated prior to the match, it's calculated after the match. Every shot on goal is analysed, based on where on the ground it was taken (distance and angle) and how much pressure the player was under, using the competition average over the last 10 seasons.

For example, a set shot from 30 metres out on a 45-degree angle has an expected accuracy of 50 per cent. So a team would be expected to score three points (reflecting the 50-50 chance of a goal).

If they kick the goal, their expected score would be 3, but their actual score would be 6.

If they kick a behind instead, their expected score would still be 3, with their actual score being 1.

As another example, a snap in general play from 40 metres out on the boundary has an expected score of 0.6 points (10 per cent accuracy).

Over the course of a game these are added up to create an expected score for the match.

The expected score of each shot does not take into account the individual player’s records, nor the team’s records. It always uses the league-wide average.

If the actual score is more than expected, you've kicked well, and vice versa, it's become a key metric for clubs over the past 5-10 years as it's a useful indicator of how the team is performing regardless of accuracy and if you are getting enough good shots (shot quality) at goal.

People often misinterpret a win on expected score but a loss on actual score as a match that the team "should've won", which of course is ridiculous, it's essentially just a way of analyzing a team's shot at goal profile compared to the competition average. Just using goals and behinds doesn't tell the full story and can be misleading as some teams may tend to use the corridor more often, or get shallow entries, etc, etc.

You can find a detailed explanation here...

‘People often misinterpret a win on expected score but a loss on actual score as a match that the team "should've won", which of course is ridiculous’

Why is that ridiculous? Because it should be compared against opposition expected scores??

 

[Sentinel]

‘People often misinterpret a win on expected score but a loss on actual score as a match that the team "should've won", which of course is ridiculous’

Why is that ridiculous? Because it should be compared against opposition expected scores??

Because each 'expected' score is a hypothetical only, and (where the expected score didn't match the actual score) changes the course of a game given the ball is subequently returned back for a centre bounce/kicked out instead of what actually happened in the game.

The only real value to expected score is a guage of how well a team is kicking at goal compared to expected, not to extrapolate what score they 'should' have kicked for the full game. You can only look at each shot in isolation, not as a whole across a full game.

 

[wayniac]

I'll have both of you know I only called myself out as it's rare my grammar is not perfect!

Theirs lots of examples where they're are such poorly written posts, there enough to drive me to distinction...

I sea what you did their

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Because each 'expected' score is a hypothetical only, and (where the expected score didn't match the actual score) changes the course of a game given the ball is subequently returned back for a centre bounce/kicked out instead of what actually happened in the game.

The only real value to expected score is a guage of how well a team is kicking at goal compared to expected, not to extrapolate what score they 'should' have kicked for the full game. You can only look at each shot in isolation, not as a whole across a full game.

For me it's less is "the ball returns to the middle" difference (because the better team would still generate more shots, if they're moving the ball from a kick-in or centre bounce, the football skills used for both are broadly similar), but more the fact that you can't deliniate between an "expected win" and an "expected loss" because it's hypothetical.

Not only do teams play differently according to the actual scoreboard - pushing a player behind the ball to protect a lead for example - the concept of a "win" only relates to the actual scoring of points. There's no such thing as 3.54 points scored for a shot. It's a statistical estimation. One person's mathematical model might have it a 3.65 points instead of 3.54 points. The idea of an "expected win" thus doesn't make any sense, even statistically. Philosophically, you can't measure the absoluteness of a win or a loss with a mathematical approximation of a shot. Two entirely valid and competing philosophical approaches to expected score - how rushed behinds or marks on the goal lines for shots falling shot, for instance - might gather different expected scores, and then different teams winning. Both trying to measure the same thing, but both having either team winning. Which makes no sense in the definitive nature of a team winning!

 

[Fossie 32]

Because each 'expected' score is a hypothetical only, and (where the expected score didn't match the actual score) changes the course of a game given the ball is subequently returned back for a centre bounce/kicked out instead of what actually happened in the game.

The only real value to expected score is a guage of how well a team is kicking at goal compared to expected, not to extrapolate what score they 'should' have kicked for the full game. You can only look at each shot in isolation, not as a whole across a full game.

Thanks but wouldn’t it suggest at least that as we are second on the ladder for expected score we should be higher than 9th or whatever? At some point it would be right to say a team should have won on expected score if it’s better than real score like to go to extreme 0.10 to 2.0

 

[threenewpadlocks]

‘People often misinterpret a win on expected score but a loss on actual score as a match that the team "should've won", which of course is ridiculous’

Why is that ridiculous? Because it should be compared against opposition expected scores??

Thanks but wouldn’t it suggest at least that as we are second on the ladder for expected score we should be higher than 9th or whatever? At some point it would be right to say a team should have won on expected score if it’s better than real score like to go to extreme 0.10 to 2.0

One other proper answer from a statistical POV is because the whole purpose of expected value on a shot on goal is that it is a random variable in which goal, behind, no score are possible. Understanding that random variability of shots on goal is part of the process. It helps us understand the variability of goal kicking to remove the luck elements of football (goalkicking accuracy) from the controlled football skill elements of football (quality and quantity of shots compared with opposition), which serves a purpose for coaches instructing the players, and analysts/fans predicting underlying skill and quality for future results, but an expected ladder also removes the idea that the shots themselves need to be taken and that there's always going to be variable outcomes, which is at the end of the day ... what actually occurs on a football team.

It's like if you and I played a game and I rolled three dice and you rolled two dice, and whoever has the higher scores wins. If we played out that game numerous times you would win some games, so having a "expected ladder" is pointless, because I would have an expected win every time we played.

If we treat goalkicking as an entirely random process akin to a dice roll - the number of rolls being the number shots on goal, and the expected value representing the number of sides and the value attributed to each side on the dice (being 0, 1 and 6), you start to get the idea.

Thus a statistician saying that a team with a greater accumulation of expected scores is not to say that that team should have won, but they would win a majority of the time, assuming that goalkicking accuracy is an entirely random process.

A team with 1 more expected point in every game to their opposition would have 23 "expected wins" for the season and would be top of the "expected ladder" but people rightfully understand that they would most likely win 12 out of 23 games with a high chance that they win 11, or 13, or 10, or 14 etc., because they would kick more accurately than their opponents in half their games, and less accurately than their opponents in half their games.

 

[Sentinel]

Thanks but wouldn’t it suggest at least that as we are second on the ladder for expected score we should be higher than 9th or whatever? At some point it would be right to say a team should have won on expected score if it’s better than real score like to go to extreme 0.10 to 2.0

Only if you could say that we have lost games as a result. It's very difficult to conclude that given the butterfly effect as mentioned above and by threenewpadlocks.

Another thing to add is that shots on goal are a element of overall performance of a team. You see people look at expected score ladders and conclude that their team is actually better than their ladder position but their shots are poor, as though that is relevant to the ladder but not so much towards a team's performance . Saying a team "should" have won IF they kicked better at goal is entirely hypothetical and moot. If my grandma had wheels she would have been a bike.

 

[MYOB]

A bit to much being read in to it I think.

Isn't it as simple as if everyone had kicked the scores that they are "expected" to kick, we'd be sitting 2nd.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

Charlie Clarke brother must be the biggest brain dead nuffy.

What an embarrassment to the family.

 

[Fossie 32]

A bit to much being read in to it I think.

Isn't it as simple as if everyone had kicked the scores that they are "expected" to kick, we'd be sitting 2nd.

You would need to look at each game and see whether we lost any due to inaccuracy ? Then there is also perhaps the factor of inaccuracy being demoralising which could affect performance

 

[Dogs Rule]

The way I think of expected scores is this.

I would have EXPECTED Chris Grant to score in that late goal square tangle with Hudson in the 97 Prelim. He didn't and we lost.

So expected score tallies are great, but it doesn't necessarily translate into wins and that's all that counts.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

A bit to much being read in to it I think.

Isn't it as simple as if everyone had kicked the scores that they are "expected" to kick, we'd be sitting 2nd.

The ladder also can't account for the fact that there's no such thing as kicking 3 points or whatever. The shots still need to be taken and then there's going to always be some randomness involved.

Soccer uses expected goals but the infrequent nature of their scoring allows people to understand this better, when they used expected goals - is it an "expected win" if one team scores 1.26 expected soccer goals to an opposition 0.74? Because it "should have" been 1-nil? What even is a partial goal in soccer? Nobody is therefore treating a given soccer game as an "expected win", even if they understand that they may have been the better team on the day if they had more expected goals.

There's always going to be variance around a shot, so in AFL, if your expected score is always 1 point above the opposition, you will only win about half your games, as you posted above. It is literally impossible to kick a fractional goal.

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

Charlie Clarke brother must be the biggest brain dead nuffy.

What an embarrassment to the family.

They’re obviously not too embarrassed to be photographed with him covered in grass stains after the game.

What an absolute moron.

 

[ossie_21]

Don’t let this distract you from the fact Klay Thompson shot 0/10 in an elimination game.

 

[dogwatch]

"pales!" It's "pales" you idiot geoffjennings79 !

My kingdom for a sub-editor!

Only Charlie Bucket is allowed to pail into anything.

Not sure he'd wear "insignificance" though.

 

[dogwatch]

Because each 'expected' score is a hypothetical only, and (where the expected score didn't match the actual score) changes the course of a game given the ball is subequently returned back for a centre bounce/kicked out instead of what actually happened in the game.

The only real value to expected score is a guage of how well a team is kicking at goal compared to expected, not to extrapolate what score they 'should' have kicked for the full game. You can only look at each shot in isolation, not as a whole across a full game.

As the actual AFL ladder is not looking great for us at this stage of the season I'm looking forward expectantly to us playing in the expected score finals where we are expected to get the double chance and even expect to play the QF and SF/PF on our expected home ground.

Can anyone tell me when this series is expected to be played?

Yours in expectation,
dw

 

[Sentinel]

A bit to much being read in to it I think.

Isn't it as simple as if everyone had kicked the scores that they are "expected" to kick, we'd be sitting 2nd.

Nope, that's a common misconception because it ignores the affect that every shot has on the rest of the game's events. The simplistic view is the wrong view when it comes to this stat.

It's also the reason why, unless it's right at the very end of the game, blaming a missed shot/player mistake/umpiring decision for a loss in a close game is pretty silly. E.g. North supporters on the weekend can probably feel fairly aggrieved about the non-paid 50m penalty given they would have likely had a shot on goal from close distance with 30 seconds left to go, but the potentially touched goal in the first quarter is not really relevant to 1 point loss.

 

[Werewolf]

Charlie Clarke brother must be the biggest brain dead nuffy.

What an embarrassment to the family.

What happened?

 

[Next Waiting]

The recent content in this thread is not meeting my expectations. And by Dickens they're not great expectations.

 

[dogwatch]

The recent content in this thread is not meeting my expectations. And by Dickens they're not great expectations.

Great expectorations perhaps?

 

[Next Waiting]

Great expectorations perhaps?

Wasn't that a painting by van Cough? I'll see myself out.....

 

[SPower]

Very Slow Week this week!!