Team Changes

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Lockett was lucky enough to become the greatest goalkicker of all time because he was lucky that he kicked over 1000 goals instead of over 1000 behinds.

I think Judd was lucky to win a Brownlow last year as he was lucky enough that to keep getting the ball and so lucky that whenever he disposed of it, it went to a teammate or for a goal.

And those lucky Brisbane players were lucky enough to kick a higher score than their opponents on enough occasions to be lucky enough to win a few flags...

How lucky are these people...

Nahh, plugger wasnt lucky. If he kicked 1000 goals, 0 behinds, 0 OOF, then I would consider him lucky. But he kicked his fair share of points, which meant he had the ball a fair bit.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by barry
Nahh, plugger wasnt lucky. If he kicked 1000 goals, 0 behinds, 0 OOF, then I would consider him lucky. But he kicked his fair share of points, which meant he had the ball a fair bit.

He kicked about 5-2 per game and 3 other disposals.

Carey, the premier CHF, averaged 17 possessions and 3-2 per game.

Both of them had games when they kicked goals and no behinds - it's not luck.

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
He kicked about 5-2 per game and 3 other disposals.

Carey, the premier CHF, averaged 17 possessions and 3-2 per game.

Both of them had games when they kicked goals and no behinds - it's not luck.

Call it luck, call it what you will. But 4 shots at goal for 4 goals is something that no player has sustained beyond one or two games. Its abnomally good fortune.

[ScottH]

Didn't plugger go a number of games without missing, late in his career?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by barry
Call it luck, call it what you will. But 4 shots at goal for 4 goals is something that no player has sustained beyond one or two games. Its abnomally good fortune.

And how is this relevant to Lucas kicking 4.0 on Saturday night?

Lockett kicked 23.1 in 3 games in 1995. He also kicked 12.0 in 3 games in 1997. He also kicked 15.1 in 3 games in 1998. He also kicked 29.0 in 13 games in 1999. He also kicked 9 straight against Collingwood and 8 straight against Adelaide.

Lucas has kicked 6 straight twice before and 4 straight a few times.

As usual, you are basing your comments on your own invented 'facts'.

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
And how is this relevant to Lucas kicking 4.0 on Saturday night?

Lockett kicked 23.1 in 3 games in 1995. He also kicked 12.0 in 3 games in 1997. He also kicked 15.1 in 3 games in 1998. He also kicked 29.0 in 13 games in 1999. He also kicked 9 straight against Collingwood and 8 straight against Adelaide.

Lucas has kicked 6 straight twice before and 4 straight a few times.

As usual, you are basing your comments on your own invented 'facts'.

Calling these events abnormal is hardly inventing facts.

How many times has Lucas kicked 4 or more straight. Then get his total games and work out the standard deviations, and the probability of kicking 4 straight in any one game, and I can assure you its what would be classified by any sane man as "abnormal".

Not to say unlikely events dont happen. They do, sometimes often. The general publics term for the times when they do is "lucky". A nice simple phrase that only a pedant would argue against whether you believe in luck or not.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Ruckman
It's none of my business but I was wondering whether you're a short person by any chance?

6'4" but I don't follow your line of questioning.

[ugg]

Originally posted by Sanecow
6'4" but I don't follow your line of questioning.

Randy Newman's alter-ego?

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by barry
How many times has Lucas kicked 4 or more straight. Then get his total games and work out the standard deviations, and the probability of kicking 4 straight in any one game, and I can assure you its what would be classified by any sane man as "abnormal".

Whilst it may well shock NMW, I agree with him on this one. And you are flogging a dead horse.

LRT had a pretty ordinary game, a bad one if I want to be less diplomatic. His opponent, regardless of "luck" towelled him up with as many goals as any other player. 4.0 is a LOT in a game as low scoring as that one. We won but with little thanks to LRT.

I like the determination of the guy, I really do. But determination is never enough on its own to win a premiership. If he continues to improve his skills and decision-making, he could well turn into a player with as much significance as a Kelly, Cressa or Kirk (all of whom struggled with their own demons early in their careers). But there is no harm in giving him extensive stints in the seconds along the way, and now that we have a replacement in Vogels for his height and weight, there should be no fear in dropping him.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by barry
Calling these events abnormal is hardly inventing facts.But 4 shots at goal for 4 goals is something that no player has sustained beyond one or two games. Its abnomally good fortune.

You actually said "But 4 shots at goal for 4 goals is something that no player has sustained beyond one or two games." This is patently untrue. Kicking 4 straight in a game is not "abnomally good fortune." It doesn't happen that often but that doesn't mean it is unusually lucky.

Not to say unlikely events dont happen. They do, sometimes often. The general publics term for the times when they do is "lucky". A nice simple phrase that only a pedant would argue against whether you believe in luck or not.

Only an apologist would argue a footballer doing well is good luck - was it good luck when Lockett kicked 12 goals or that Ablett did or that Skilton won three Brownlows or that Brisbane won a few flags.

These things are abnormal, and of course there is an element of luck in everything, but they occur mainly because of skill by the practioner. To write it off as 'being lucky' is churlish to say the least.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Whilst it may well shock NMW, I agree with him on this one.

Doesn't really shock me - we actually agree on a number of things I've noticed - you're just blindly optimistic on the others...

Oh, and I completely agree on your LRT assessment too - it's essentially the same as my earlier comments.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
[B]You actually said "But 4 shots at goal for 4 goals is something that no player has sustained beyond one or two games." This is patently untrue. Kicking 4 straight in a game is not "abnomally good fortune." It doesn't happen that often but that doesn't mean it is unusually lucky.


Only an apologist would argue a footballer doing well is good luck - was it good luck when Lockett kicked 12 goals or that Ablett did or that Skilton won three Brownlows or that Brisbane won a few flags.

These things are abnormal, and of course there is an element of luck in everything, but they occur mainly because of skill by the practioner. To write it off as 'being lucky' is churlish to say the least.

cf your previous statements:

[QUOTE][B]Our previous conversion rate was unsustainably high.[B][QUOTE]

and

[QUOTE][B]Teams are typically not able to maintain those conversion ratios indefinitely.[B][QUOTE]

and

[QUOTE][B]It suggests that an unbelievably high level is not sustainable for a length of time. That's not the same thing as saying excellence is not sustainable for a period of time (although it of course is limited too).[B][QUOTE]

and

[QUOTE][B]Nevertheless, in some cases it is so compelling that it provides a strong case - for example a team might kick 20+ goals 6 weeks in a row, but the evidence suggests this is not sustainable. Common sense suggests it's not also, for a variety of reasons.[B][QUOTE]

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
But there is no harm in giving him extensive stints in the seconds along the way, and now that we have a replacement in Vogels for his height and weight, there should be no fear in dropping him.

Now this is silly, Vogels is a pure forward, so the game after he debut's lets uproot him and play him in the backline for the first time this season. That'll really help him to settle into the firsts

Originally posted by Schneiderman
If he continues to improve his skills and decision-making, he could well turn into a player with as much significance as a Kelly, Cressa or Kirk (all of whom struggled with their own demons early in their careers).

Interesting how many people seem to focus on grassburners, I just noticed Schneidermans list of improvers and there aren't any talls in the list. It's probably not significant but it reminds me of how many LRT baggers want him replaced by some other member of the 'hiho brigade' as if height wasn't important.

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Whilst it may well shock NMW, I agree with him on this one.

There are two ways to view things the quantitative and the qualitative, NMW is a big stats man (amongst others) and I appreciate their research skills. Sometimes I think stats can be misleading, particularly when evaluating players whose primary role isn't the accumulation of stats.

I guess that's why when I analysed LRT's game I looked at what happened in each interaction rather than going for a calculator (I only allocated points as a nod towards the quantitatively orientated ~ I'm not one for multiplying 7 possesions and 3 goals by 2 or whatever).

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by Ruckman
It's none of my business but I was wondering whether you're a short person by any chance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Sanecow
6'4" but I don't follow your line of questioning.

My line of questioning milud, replied "Ruckman of of the Bailey" is that big guys having played in the spine usually have a better 'feeling' for what goes on there. I can't remember who it was who said it but the "spiritual benefit of ruckmen" it also applies to KPP's, and while many 'grassburners' are oblivious to it (possibly too busy counting stats), they are it's primary beneficiary.

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
You actually said "But 4 shots at goal for 4 goals is something that no player has sustained beyond one or two games." This is patently untrue. Kicking 4 straight in a game is not "abnomally good fortune." It doesn't happen that often but that doesn't mean it is unusually lucky.

Now you are just arguing symantecs. You know my point.

Only an apologist would argue a footballer doing well is good luck - was it good luck when Lockett kicked 12 goals or that Ablett did or that Skilton won three Brownlows or that Brisbane won a few flags.

These things are abnormal, and of course there is an element of luck in everything, but they occur mainly because of skill by the practioner. To write it off as 'being lucky' is churlish to say the least.

You're picking the great players of the last century who had so many good performances, often luck wasnt involved.

I do think its lucky that:
- Woewoeful won a brownlow.
- Pies made 2 grand finals in a row recently.
- We kicked straight in 2003 (but cant do it now)
- The swans boomed at precisely the same time RL imploded, getting us to where we are today.