Is Roos a genius?

[Go Swannies]

This long article makes fascinating reading for every Swans supporter:

http://tinyurl.com/zyey4

It also xexplains why our PR was looking very realxed when we were playing poor footy at the start of the season.

Here's the vital bit:

"Which place on the ladder at Rd 7 has spawned most Premierships?

The Premier has come anywhere from top place at Rd 7 to 11th place; Adelaide was 11th after Rd 7 in 1998. Sydney was 10th at Rd 7 last year. The team in first place has won the flag twice (Carl 1995; Ess 2000 ? both were 7-0). But the position with the most success is fifth, which has won three Premierships (NM 1996; Bris 2002 and 2003). Does that mean Sydney will repeat its 2005 success?"

And how close is he modelling his season plan this year on Leigh's back-to-backs??

[j s]

There is one obvious flaw in that whole statistical analysis - where is Sydney 1996?

If they are going to start leaving results out then the whole thing becomes pointless.

[RogueSwan]

Re: Is Roos a genius?

Re: Is Roos a genius?

Yes

[shippo]

He's a genius, a la Ivan Reichman.

[msb]

Those like all stats mean nothing

[NMWBloods]

To say that all stats mean nothing is simply ill-informed.

Some of those states are interesting. Some are obvious. Some of the conclusions are specious.

The ladder position and premierships is the most questionable conclusion.

[CureTheSane]

The one thing that was made abundantly clear to me after lest season was that it's all about making the final 8.

Sure, the higher up you are means you have the better win/loss ratio, but in a comp. where not every team plays each other twice, that can lose it's meaning.
Also the form of a team entering the finals maens a lot.

So the upsaide for me is that I find it easier to watch the Swans play (and lose) so long as we finish in the top 1/2 of the teams.

The downside is that I lost a bit of the home & away passion for winning.

[barry]

Originally posted by CureTheSane
The one thing that was made abundantly clear to me after lest season was that it's all about making the final 8.

\

Its all about making top 4 IMO.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by j s
There is one obvious flaw in that whole statistical analysis - where is Sydney 1996?

But we didn't win the premiership in 1996.

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

The ladder position and premierships is the most questionable conclusion.

As I interpreted it, no conclusion was drawn - that was the point.

Or to put it "statistically", if one did a regression analysis to predict the premier based on ladder position after round 7, there would be a very large error term. I suspect the result wouldn't be that much different using even the round 22 ladder position.

[NMWBloods]

Sorry yes - he didn't draw a conclusion, but the inference was there and I think it doesn't really mean anything.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by barry
Its all about making top 4 IMO.

Or the top five for Adelaide.

[Legs Akimbo]

I am pretty certain that a regression would show that being inside the eight at the end of the season is a good predictor variable for dependent variable, Premier. After that, it's getting pretty muddy.

[Sanecow]

I think you'll find it's restricted to the top five.

[katie-scarlett]

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
I am pretty certain that a regression would show that being inside the eight at the end of the season is a good predictor variable for dependent variable, Premier. After that, it's getting pretty muddy.

i just passed stat170.
dear goodness me to whatever you just attempted to explain..