Banter Who will be better in 2024? Carlton or Collingwood? Part 2

[Fadge]

You do know what "~" means right?

The '~' refers specifically for the commentary related to Hawthorn and Collingwood. Because the ramifications are different for Hawthorn and Collingwood.

If there was a '~' in the table for all teams in the win r19 and lose r19 columns, that is how the data should be presented.

Schooling. Again.

 

[Fadge]

And again you miss some vital components in relation to this post

You ain't schooling anyone here

What vital components did I miss?

 

[carlton_99]

The '~' refers specifically for the commentary related to Hawthorn and Collingwood.

If there was a '~' in the table for all teams in the win r19 and lose r19 columns, that is how the data should be presented.

Schooling. Again.

No - any person with any sense of logic would know that if the ~ sign applies to Collingwood/Hawthorn it is going to apply to all of these results.

 

[Fadge]

No - any person with any sense of logic would know that if the ~ sign applies to Collingwood/Hawthorn it is going to apply to all of these results.

Rubbish.

The table was standalone, with no reference to 'approximate'.

The additional commentary was specific to Collingwood and Hawthorn, and they wrote it as such instead of specificying the slightly different probabilities they'd calculated for the two teams.

 

[carlton_99]

Rubbish.

The table was standalone, with no reference to 'approximate'.

The additional commentary was specific to Collingwood and Hawthorn, and they wrote it as such instead of specificying the slightly different probabilities they'd calculated for the two teams.

Why would one matchup be approximate and every other not? This isn't being published in Nature - they can assume some logic use by the reader

 

[Fadge]

Why would one matchup be approximate and every other not? This isn't being published in Nature - they can assume some logic use by the reader

Oh boy.

They could have written:
A win for Collingwood and they increase to 42%; a win for Hawthorn and the increase to 39%.

Conversely, a loss to Collingwood and they decrease to 12%; a loss to Hawthorn and they decrease to 10%.

Instead, they wrote what they did to simplify the commentary.

 

[Arr0w]

What vital components did I miss?

Case in point

Your initial response is as simplistic and basic as that table, yet you keep missing vital data

Pies look like finishing very close to 13th

Hmmmm

 

[Fadge]

Case in point

Your initial response is as simplistic and basic as that table, yet you keep missing vital data

Pies look like finishing very close to 13th

Hmmmm

So what data did I miss?

 

[Sector 7G]

Indeed. When a player is leading both awards, and is only overtaken in the final round for both awards after missing the final three games, that is what one would regard as a reasonable data set.

As opposed to 17 games v. 12 games v. 9 games v. 5 games...

Lets not forget that he didn't get votes in his last 3 games of the season so their is no guarantee he would get votes n the next 3 if he played.

 

[Irish BlueBagger]

I came across this on Facebook, so i just thought i'd leave it here.

 

[carlton_99]

Oh boy.

They could have written:
A win for Collingwood and they increase to 42%; a win for Hawthorn and the increase to 39%.

Conversely, a loss to Collingwood and they decrease to 12%; a loss to Hawthorn and they decrease to 10%.

Instead, they wrote what they did to simplify the commentary.

None of that is true. Any team's % would change win or lose depending on other results by smallish factors. And so instead of creating a massive table which would be pretty much unreadable they use approximations.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Fudgelytics still trying to deflect? Just come out and admit your teams cooked Fudgey boy!

Oldest team in the comp with less youth than a retirees complex

 

[CCurnow3votes]

Dirty Birds are tipped heavily to lose this week to Hawthorn - ouch!!

How the average have fallen!

 

[Aphrodite]

So Charlie 6th?

Where's Harry?

Not even in the top 100

 

[CCurnow3votes]

Fudgelytics still trying to deflect? Just come out and admit your teams cooked Fudgey boy!

Oldest team in the comp with less youth than a retirees complex

Reported 5 key players are likely to retire at end this year!

Pendlebury
Sidebottom
Howe
Elliott
Cox

Ouch! - how could any team bounce back from losing Cox??

No doubt he’ll be bronzed in all his glory next to Leigh Matthews, outside the G.

With or without swimming goggles?

 

[Aphrodite]

Reported 5 key players are likely to retire at end this year!

Pendlebury
Sidebottom
Howe
Elliott
Cox

Ouch! - how could any team bounce back from losing Cox??

No doubt he’ll be bronzed in all his glory next to Leigh Matthews, outside the G.

With or without swimming goggles?

 

[Worm4]

I love how you guys are very happy to repost 'analysis' from random twitter posters without first reviewing and performing due diligence on the data you're share.

I suspect this is because you don't have the intellectual capacity to perform the analysis yourselves, or assess the accuracy of the data you are resharing.

First there was the table calculating 'draw difficulty', that ignored more than 10% of the data (that has the potential to have a significant effect on the calculation - refer to my comments about Carlton and Collingwood's first two games), and then used the incorrect divisor for teams who played in the Opening Round.

So naturally there were going to be flaws in the table reshared by CArr0w, given it would have been shared without any thought.

The 'probabilities' provided for whether teams win or lose this week should not be a single figure... instead there should be a range.

Obviously, if Carlton win this week, their top 4 chances improve. But if Brisbane, Geelong, Fremantle, Essendon, Port Adelaide and GWS all win, their top 4 chances don't increase as much compared to if those 5 teams lose. And if some of the aforementioned teams win and others lose, the rate of increase falls somewhere in between...

Happy to school you all. Again.

I'm too busy for analysis stuff leave that for the nuffies who have too much spare time on their hands. You know, 3 kids, labouring job etc etc keeps one busy at times

 

[Arr0w]

So what data did I miss?

Shall we start slowly and pick apart each point?

How can both Essendon and Adelaide " All win or all lose"?

 

[Fadge]

None of that is true. Any team's % would change win or lose depending on other results by smallish factors. And so instead of creating a massive table which would be pretty much unreadable they use approximations.

Yeah, nah.

You guys missed it until I pointed it out to you.

Don't be ashamed to put your hand up and thank me for schooling you... again.

 

[Fadge]

Cox

Ouch! - how could any team bounce back from losing Cox??

No doubt he’ll be bronzed in all his glory next to Leigh Matthews, outside the G.

With or without swimming goggles?

Well he has got one more premiership medallion than every player on Carlton's list has in total, and he has kicked as many goals in a single finals game than Charlie has in his entire finals career (on multiple occasions).

 

[carlton_99]

Yeah, nah.

You guys missed it until I pointed it out to you.

Don't be ashamed to put your hand up and thank me for schooling you... again.

You just have no clue as was evident with your totals v averages malarkey yesterday. Genuinely embarrassing

 

[Fadge]

Shall we start slowly and pick apart each point?

How can both Essendon and Adelaide " All win or all lose"?

Comprehension struggles again?

When I write 'Port Adelaide', I am referring to Port Adelaide.

If I wanted to refer to both Port Adelaide AND Adelaide, I'd either write:
Port Adelaide and Adelaide, or
Port, Adelaide.

Oh my.

You want to keep trying to point out what I've allegedly missed and continue to embarrass yourself, or just slink away quietly to the corner?

 

[Worm4]

Yeah, nah.

You guys missed it until I pointed it out to you.

Don't be ashamed to put your hand up and thank me for schooling you... again.

How come you are no good at probabilities but ?
Carlton 16th , cmon bud, own it

 

[carlton_99]

How come you are no good at probabilities but ?
Carlton 16th , cmon bud, own it

Everyone read it the same way except Fadge and we are the ones needing to be "schooled".

"Oh my".

 

[South of the Yarra]

You just have no clue as was evident with your totals v averages malarkey yesterday. Genuinely embarrassing

Carlton are genuinely embarrassing. They walk around with their chests out and inflated heads when this list has achieved nothing. Absolutely nothing. Then their supporter base sit there and tee off on players who have won Premierships. Bob Chitty would turn in his grave at what Carlton have become.