Monday, April 17, 2017

AFL Power Rankings: Round 4 2017

There are likely many factors that have contributed to Hawthorn’s huge decline this season, but one factor that captured a lot of attention was their somewhat questionable moves over the off-season. The Hawks traded away their two highest disposal winners, four-time premiership heroes Sam Mitchell and Jordan Lewis, and threw a lot of money and draft picks at bringing in three players from other clubs: Jaeger O’Meara (Gold Coast), Tom Mitchell (Sydney), and Tyrone Vickery (Richmond). The early returns haven’t been good, both for the new recruits – or for O’Meara and Vickery at least – and for the team as a whole.
Hurling People Now did a great analysis of each of Hawthorn’s moves. They said that the trade for Tom Mitchell was a good one, and in his four matches so far Mitchell has done relatively well. They also said that the Hawks got fair value for Sam Mitchell, who likely only has a year or two of football left.
By their assessment however the Hawks lost out badly by trading Jordan Lewis – who should have a good few years left – for virtually nothing. That is nothing though compared to what they gave up for O’Meara; as HPN pointed out Hawthorn gave up more than an entire draft of picks to eventually land their man. The Hawks had a low expected stock of future games within their list anyway, and these trades dropped them even lower in this regard. If the first round pick they gave to St. Kilda turns out to be a high draft pick, which currently looks very likely, Hawthorn’s 2016 off-season could be seen as a disaster.
The Beitzel Review has a more optimistic view. This article points out that the Hawks haven’t built their list on high draft picks anyway, and instead enhanced it by bringing in several proven players in exchange for late first round picks, which used to be generally overvalued. It also points out that Hawthorn can strengthen its list in the coming years through free agency. All true – but based on what we have seen so far the Hawks look like they are starting from much further back than they, or anyone else, could ever have expected.

Sunday, April 9, 2017

AFL Power Rankings: Round 3 2017

We’ve got some colour into these AFL Power Rankings … Usually I don’t care too much about making my tables and charts look colourful after having worked out the main result I want to show. If I’ve got that and then someone suggests adding some colour changes I’m generally thinking something like: ‘WHY? Can you NOT SEE that the RESULT IS CLEAR?’ (Also, I’m colour blind …)
But somebody has been experimenting with the conditional formatting in Excel this week. You’ll see that the ranking point column now has a colour scale, which I think is pretty nifty. What I like is that it gives a better picture of the distance in quality between teams (as determined by the rankings) than the ranking position does. For example, based on its ranking points seventh placed Port Adelaide is much closer in quality to fifth placed West Coast, and even to third placed Sydney, than it is to eighth placed Collingwood. I reckon the AFL Ladder should be coloured this way, particularly after the season’s half way mark. I definitely suggest using a colour scale on the ladder when doing your footy tips.
You’ll also see that the next column has been coloured red and blue to more clearly indicate which teams gained or lost ranking points this week. Though for Gold Coast and Hawthorn a simple shade of red or blue does not really do justice to how much our assessment of them shifted this week. Gold Coast, who gained a whopping ten ranking points, should be a more volcanic red, and Hawthorn should be as blue as the Arctic seas. Unsurprisingly as I’ve only been doing these rankings since 2011 the Hawks have never been ranked anywhere near as low as they are now. And if anything I feel like that their ranking isn’t falling fast enough …

Sunday, April 2, 2017

AFL Power Rankings: Round 2 2017


Last year’s top ranked team Sydney falls a bit further this week after losing again to its Grand Final conquerors the Western Bulldogs. Despite its 0-2 start to this season the Swans are still highly regarded by the rankings, and are still considered a good chance to play in the finals. Matt Cowgill showed over on his column on ESPN that Sydney was – by his ratings – still a 60 per cent chance to make the finals even if it lost this week, and would probably still be considered a better-than-even chance of making it after Round 4 as long as it did not lose its first four matches. That’s a fair bit better than the 2 per cent chance Herald Sun journalist Jon Ralph gave teams starting 0-2 this week. I’d say that Ralph’s figure, which is based on the amount of teams that have recently made the finals after starting 0-2, probably indicates that it’s rare for top teams to start the season with two straight losses.

At the other end of the rankings Essendon remains near the bottom despite winning their first two matches, albeit this week’s win was against the bottom-ranked club Brisbane. No adjustment has been made in the rankings to account for the Bombers having regained some of their best players who were banned from playing last year by the World Anti-Doping Agency. In general because I use a simple formula I don’t make any adjustments for player movements, departures and returns.

I think this works fine in most cases but is probably much less accurate in a significant case like this one. Another consequence is that teams that play Essendon are perhaps penalised more than they should be. For example, Brisbane’s modest 27 point loss this weekend was considered equivalent to a whopping 74 point loss once home ground advantage and Essendon’s relative ‘strength’ – still largely based on its depleted side from last year – was taken into account.

Of course if Essendon performs above its level of last year – which most people expect they will – then it will move up the rankings to its ‘true’ level of competency soon enough. (Similarly the performances of clubs that play against Essendon will naturally adjust in the rankings as well.) Note though the Bombers were playing very badly in late-2015 before those players were banned. They are playing much better so far in 2017, but Essendon has a history over the past few years of starting the season off much better than they finish it. It has done this basically every year since 2012 and repeatedly made my rankings look ‘foolish’ until they drop off. So while I definitely think Essendon is better than the current rankings suggest I’m not prepared to say that the rankings are waaaaaaaaay off just yet.