5 premo FWDS

[cdcanman]

Yeah of course that can happen but it is just simple probability that if you score consistently you are more likely to win.

Maths mustn't be peoples strong suit. 'Simple probably' (as opposed to 'complex probability'???) would suggest that the HIGHER you score, the more likely you are to win, not how consistently you score. It's the same as saying that Essendon will win the flag this year because they 'consistently' score 100 points per week. If their opponents are scoring 110 points per week what does their consistency matter? ILLOGICAL

Yeah but if essendons opponents score 90, 2 weeks out of 3 and then 110 on the 3rd week essendon would win more games than they loose despite averaging the same score! Common sense

Nobody is arguing that consistency isn't a great thing. We all want that. But earlier arguments mentioned a preference for taking a player with a lower average but greater consistency. Over the course of entire season, the higher scoring team with the higher scoring average will win more games than the consistent team with the consistent scoring players. If avoiding frustration is your goal, choose consistent players, if finishing as high as possible is your goal, choose the highest scoring players, simple.

[quinny88]

Yeah of course that can happen but it is just simple probability that if you score consistently you are more likely to win.

Maths mustn't be peoples strong suit. 'Simple probably' (as opposed to 'complex probability'???) would suggest that the HIGHER you score, the more likely you are to win, not how consistently you score. It's the same as saying that Essendon will win the flag this year because they 'consistently' score 100 points per week. If their opponents are scoring 110 points per week what does their consistency matter? ILLOGICAL

Yeah but if essendons opponents score 90, 2 weeks out of 3 and then 110 on the 3rd week essendon would win more games than they loose despite averaging the same score! Common sense

Nobody is arguing that consistency isn't a great thing. We all want that. But earlier arguments mentioned a preference for taking a player with a lower average but greater consistency. Over the course of entire season, the higher scoring team with the higher scoring average will win more games than the consistent team with the consistent scoring players. If avoiding frustration is your goal, choose consistent players, if finishing as high as possible is your goal, choose the highest scoring players, simple.

Yeah if the average is marginally different it's smarter to start with the consistent guy. Obviously a player that out scores someone by over 10 ppg is better to have than someone 10 ppg less..
If you are looking at an average of around the same at the end of the season though then you will win more games with the consistent guy and are better starting with him as inconsistent players will have a price slump so you can get them in later.

[locknload]

I am personally going for the mid pricers in my fwd line (too many good ones to ignore).

And that is SC in a nutshell.

these two claims do not correlate. the fundamentals of SC are a premo/rookie structure, anything outside this- regardless whether or not it is effective- is not the norm.
[/quote]

A premo rookie structure works if you pick the right premos.
One could of argued Cloke was a premo last year and he just leaked and leaked..
Same with J Roo N Roo.. Tippett.. none of those guys were in the top 10.
Hence you pick the certainties of Cox Franklin and guys that play further up like Bartel Rocky etc.. as the floor isn't as bad as a Cloke or Riewoldt floor.

[Marstar]

Umm mate you are proving my point... Pavlich averaged a whole 12-13 points more than Bartel yet only beat him 2 more times. If Bartel averaged 111 as well so they were the same average Bartel would have out scored him most weeks

WoW, just WoW.

a) You claimed that a consistent player with 10ppg less would win 2 out of 3 times. Wrong.
b) You move the goal posts and now want to claim you were right, because 'if they were the same average' Bartel would outscore most weeks. Again wrong.

Obviously if they BOTH averaged the same then they would both have an EQUAL opportunity to outscore each other. Law of average would see them dead even with an infinite number of mathematically possible scores.

I'll make it easier for you RE: 100ppg consistent vs 110ppg Roller-coaster

Player A: Super constant 100ppg.

Round 1: 100
Round 2: 100
Round 3: 100
Round 4: 100
Get the Idea?
Round 23: 100

Player B: Mr. Erratic WTF Roller-Coaster 110ppg

Round 1: 10
Round 2: 20
Round 3: 30
Round 4: 40
Round 5: 50
Round 6: 60
Round 7: 70
Round 8: 80
Round 9: 90
Round 10:  100
Round 11 : 110
Round 12:  120
Round 13 : 130
Round 14 : 140
Round 15 : 150
Round 16 : 160
Round 17 : 170
Round 18 : 180
Round 19 : 190
Round 20 : 200
Round 21 : 210
Round 22: 220
Round 23: 0 (rested for finals)

Final result : Mr. Consistent 10 wins : 1 Draw : 12 losses. None of this 2 out of 3 rubbish.

Feel free to extrapolate over 10 seasons, with Mr Consistent scoring 100ppg every round for 10 years. 

(Note: to be completely accurate assume they each play for 9 seasons and 14 rounds)

That's 221 games with 100 every single game.

Mr.Roller-coaster can start on 0 points for the 1st game of his career and increase by 1 point per round every round for about 10 years total until he gets  his 110ppg average.

After 10 years the Mr. Consistent will get 23 wins for years 1,2,3 and4. Year 5 he will win 8 : draw 1 : lose 14 then go on to lose all 23 rounds in years 6,7,8 and 9 and as well as all 14 rounds in year 10.

Again he scores 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ........ 215, 216, 217, 218, 219 and 220. Can't get more inconsistent than that, nor are there any other scores between 0 - 220 that haven't been used.

Final result : Mr. Consistent wins 100 : 1 Draw :  106 losses. Again none of this 2 out of 3 rubbish.

Conclusion : NO-ONE is claiming 110ppg is MILES ahead of 100ppg ... and yes depending on the standard deviation and sample size a consistent player CAN get more wins head to head than an erratic scorer, but that's only if you manipulate the numbers on a small sample size ... like your example 90 , 90, 130 vs 100, 100 , 100.

[Ziplock]

it depends how consistent they are

if you have lets say a bloke who goes


70
70
70
70
70
70
230
= 92.9 average

against someone who goes

85
85
85
85
85
85
85
= 85 average

mr consistent wins 6/7 despite averaging 8 ppg less :P 

[quinny88]

Umm mate you are proving my point... Pavlich averaged a whole 12-13 points more than Bartel yet only beat him 2 more times. If Bartel averaged 111 as well so they were the same average Bartel would have out scored him most weeks

WoW, just WoW.

a) You claimed that a consistent player with 10ppg less would win 2 out of 3 times. Wrong.
b) You move the goal posts and now want to claim you were right, because 'if they were the same average' Bartel would outscore most weeks. Again wrong.

Obviously if they BOTH averaged the same then they would both have an EQUAL opportunity to outscore each other. Law of average would see them dead even with an infinite number of mathematically possible scores.

I'll make it easier for you RE: 100ppg consistent vs 110ppg Roller-coaster

Player A: Super constant 100ppg.

Round 1: 100
Round 2: 100
Round 3: 100
Round 4: 100
Get the Idea?
Round 23: 100

Player B: Mr. Erratic WTF Roller-Coaster 110ppg

Round 1: 10
Round 2: 20
Round 3: 30
Round 4: 40
Round 5: 50
Round 6: 60
Round 7: 70
Round 8: 80
Round 9: 90
Round 10:  100
Round 11 : 110
Round 12:  120
Round 13 : 130
Round 14 : 140
Round 15 : 150
Round 16 : 160
Round 17 : 170
Round 18 : 180
Round 19 : 190
Round 20 : 200
Round 21 : 210
Round 22: 220
Round 23: 0 (rested for finals)

Final result : Mr. Consistent 10 wins : 1 Draw : 12 losses. None of this 2 out of 3 rubbish.

Feel free to extrapolate over 10 seasons, with Mr Consistent scoring 100ppg every round for 10 years. 

(Note: to be completely accurate assume they each play for 9 seasons and 14 rounds)

That's 221 games with 100 every single game.

Mr.Roller-coaster can start on 0 points for the 1st game of his career and increase by 1 point per round every round for about 10 years total until he gets  his 110ppg average.

After 10 years the Mr. Consistent will get 23 wins for years 1,2,3 and4. Year 5 he will win 8 : draw 1 : lose 14 then go on to lose all 23 rounds in years 6,7,8 and 9 and as well as all 14 rounds in year 10.

Again he scores 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ........ 215, 216, 217, 218, 219 and 220. Can't get more inconsistent than that, nor are there any other scores between 0 - 220 that haven't been used.

Final result : Mr. Consistent wins 100 : 1 Draw :  106 losses. Again none of this 2 out of 3 rubbish.

Conclusion : NO-ONE is claiming 110ppg is MILES ahead of 100ppg ... and yes depending on the standard deviation and sample size a consistent player CAN get more wins head to head than an erratic scorer, but that's only if you manipulate the numbers on a small sample size ... like your example 90 , 90, 130 vs 100, 100 , 100.

When did I claim that a consistent player with 10 ppg less would win 2/3 games!? I never said that!
I said 2 players averaging the same. one consistent, one inconsistent, then the consistent player would win you more games!

And those numbers you just came up with are absolute bullshower. No one scores like that. Do you honsestly think that if 2 players average 100 for a season the more consistent player isnt going to win you more games?

[colmullet]

jeez this thread got retarded

[Marstar]

When did I claim that a consistent player with 10 ppg less would win 2/3 games!? I never said that!

Lets say your key forward scores a big game winning ton every 3 weeks. That's probably realistic.
So he goes 90, 90, 130 = 100ppg avg

The mid goes 100, 100, 100 = 110ppg avg

100ppg avg each yet I win 2 out of 3

I said 2 players averaging the same. one consistent, one inconsistent, then the consistent player would win you more games!

Read above.

And those numbers you just came up with are absolute bullshower. No one scores like that. Do you honsestly think that if 2 players average 100 for a season the more consistent player isnt going to win you more games?

I am mathematically proving that 100ppg consistent will NOT beat 110ppg erratic statistically in an ideal world. 

This isn't reality this is logic.

For every bullship example you can come up with e.g.

Yeah but if essendons opponents score 90, 2 weeks out of 3 and then 110 on the 3rd week essendon would win more games than they loose despite averaging the same score! Common sense

or my favorite

Yeah of course that can happen but it is just simple probability that if you score consistently you are more likely to win.

For every example you can come up with, there are more examples where you are wrong.

[colmullet]

you can make up any imaginary example with numbers to prove any point you want guys

[Marstar]

you can make up any imaginary example with numbers to prove any point you want guys

And when you add that infinite number of imaginary example of numbers, one thing remains. Logic.

110 average head to head against 100 average has a higher probably of winning on a round by round basis.

THAT is common sense.

[colmullet]

i agree yeah, but on the same point if the 110 guy has a very high standard deviation compared to the 100 point guy then the 100 point guy stands a higher chance to win in a given round. He won't ever be the favourite though unless you take it to  an extreme non real world example

[quinny88]

you can make up any imaginary example with numbers to prove any point you want guys

And when you add that infinite number of imaginary example of numbers, one thing remains. Logic.

110 average head to head against 100 average has a higher probably of winning on a round by round basis.

THAT is common sense.

It was a miss type on my behalf mate. Both scores were meant to be an average of 100 and my point was and always has been that a player that scores more consistently will win more often that a player that doesnt. If you dont see how thaats the case then I give up

[Marstar]

i agree yeah, but on the same point if the 110 guy has a very high standard deviation compared to the 100 point guy then the 100 point guy stands a higher chance to win in a given round. He won't ever be the favourite though unless you take it to  an extreme non real world example

Already covered that base. I completely agree and have already stated that with with standard and a low sample size (22 rounds) a constant performer CAN win more head to head games in 2013.

But you can't spout 'statistically I'm correct ' and 'I'm using common sense' and be anything but.

[Ziplock]

what the shower, I thought I responded to this.

Basically, as we showed, you can use different numbers to prove your point, whatever side of the argument is. It's better to use real life examples rather than made up stats in some cases.

Like stanton vs Joel selwood.

I'll use dt for this since their numbers are more comparable (stanton averages slightly more). The name I write down wins the round they both played 20 games, albeit, missed certain rounds etc. But I cbf finding what rounds they missed, so i'll just match their numbers up in order :P


selwood/stanton/winner

      
114   153   stanton
104   116   stanton
106   93   selwood
130   175   stanton
69   77   stanton
106   193   stanton
136   140   selwood
100   124   stanton
62   93   stanton
122   105   selwood
103   89   selwood
119   115   selwood
105   111   stanton
97   74   selwood
95   85   selwood
113   84   selwood
125   62   selwood
88   72   selwood
67   61   selwood
101   109   stanton

Stanton: 9
Selwood: 11

Stantons average: 106.6
Selwoods average: 103.1


it all depends on how inconsistent they are.

[Marstar]

It was a miss type on my behalf mate. Both scores were meant to be an average of 100 and my point was and always has been that a player that scores more consistently will win more often that a player that doesnt. If you dont see how thaats the case then I give up

I accept the typo Quinny.

If there is a footballer who has erratic scoring with many scores just below 100 and only a couple MASSIVE scores over 150 that drag his average up to 100. Then yes some1 who consistently get 100 will win head to head most weeks. That is the common sense you were trying to portray.

But for every example like that there is an equal and opposite example where there's a footballer who scores just over 100 most weeks and has the occasional SPUD of 50, which drags his average score down to 100. He would win most head to head vs a consistent 100 player.

Ultimately people with the same average are statistically likely to have an equal number of wins against each other head to head.

That is common sense.