The Wooden Finger Depot

The Finger Points Outwards - No. 38

2012-02-15T16:20:00.002+11:00

A report on Award reliance and differences in earnings by gender that I contributed to has been printed and posted today.

As a skeptic of AFL leadership groups, I quite liked this article by The Age's Greg Baum.

Comic Books For Hipsters

2012-02-12T11:25:00.010+11:00

Yes, when one thinks of comic books, one might imagine Sheldon Cooper from ‘The Big Bang Theory’ and his mylar-covered collections of ‘Flash’ and ‘Green Lantern’, but it needn’t be that way. There are plenty of alternative options for the hipster wanting to add some sequential pictorial storytelling to their sharehouse. Not too many of course... only about 20 or so, rather than making the mistake I did and hoarding 2,000, which makes visitors and girlfriends wonder if you have a huge stash of porn in all of those boxes. With this in mind, let’s run through some careful selections.

First, the obvious choice - you need ‘Scott Pilgrim’. If you don’t already know, here’s the premise: the eponymous Scott must defeat the seven evil exes of his love, the uber-hipster chick Ramona Flowers (who moves to Toronto from New York, naturally). In terms of comics, this is the mother lode of hipsterism: shitty punk bands, slackers, record stores, obsession with one’s age, t-shirts, chic outfits for the girls, parties, relationships, and old-school video games. Furthermore, whereas for all other series you should only have a couple of issues or volumes, preferably in non-sequential order to emphasise their randomness, it is acceptable to have all six of the ‘Scott Pilgrim’ books. This is because they’re small, hence making good beer coasters, and because you really need all six to get the full story. Also get a ratty second-hand copy of the DVD for good measure.

Next, make sure to pick up a graphic novel each by Daniel Clowes and by Chris Ware. Clowes has done a cover for ‘The New Yorker’ and wrote the ‘Ghost World’ screenplay (based on his graphic novel) for the film that starred Steve Buscemi and a pre-fame Scarlett Johansson. Based on this you might be tempted to pick up the ‘Ghost World’ volume, but a better choice is ‘Like A Velvet Glove Cast In Iron’, which has a cooler title, came out before ‘Ghost World’, and has a David Lynch-like plot involving a dominatrix and a woman who looks like a potato. Ware, meanwhile, guest-edited a volume of ‘McSweeney’s’, and you’d be well-advised to pick up an issue of his ‘Acme Novelty Library’ wherever you can find one (probably eBay, but don’t admit this). Each volume has its own distinct design and is never reprinted, making them rarer than a New Order 7-inch.

It might at first be considered compulsory to have a book by comics’ greatest writer, Alan Moore (UK), but this is a tricky case. While no-one who has read Moore’s original graphic novels—‘Watchmen’, ‘From Hell’, ‘V For Vendetta’, ‘The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen’, etc.—doubts their quality, they have been made into terrible, terrible movies. So it really depends: if you have friends that you think may be hip to Moore’s writing, keep a volume or two around, but otherwise be aware that you potentially open yourself up to ridicule. A safer bet may be a ‘Sandman’ volume by fellow Brit and Twitter superstar Neil Gaiman, in which one can’t help but look at the title character and think of The Cure’s Robert Smith.

Another Brit, Grant Morrison, also poses difficulty. Morrison is the closest thing that comics has to a “hipster laureate”; his book ‘Supergods’ is full of tales of punk rock, drugs, travels to Kathmandu, and sex with hipster chicks. But Morrison’s biggest successes have all been with superheroes: Superman, the Justice League and the X-Men. With this in mind, you may want to limit yourself to a couple of random issues. Perhaps an issue of ‘New X-Men’ with the cool reversible logo from around the middle of his run (preferably with art from his hipster-in-crime Frank Quitely), and the new Action Comics #1 (not the old one which sells for a kazillion dollars), which has an updated, working-class Superman in t-shirt and jeans, while keeping a 1930s-type backdrop. (This Superman has also been described as ‘hipster Superman’ - a ringing endorsement.)

Finally, you need an issue of a current comic book series to make it look like you’re keeping up with the trends. My pick is ‘Batwoman’ - don’t laugh yet, I’ll explain... First, the current Batwoman is Kate Kane (which is close to a name of a vintage clothing store - truly), who sports a short red bob, was kicked out from the military for being gay, and whose sister dresses up as a super-villain based on ‘Alice in Wonderland’. Second, the art is by a penciller named J.H. Williams III, and it’s beautiful, with panel sequences routinely spreading over two pages, and often looking like something out of a fairly tale. With that in mind, you’re best advised to just leave a copy open on the coffee table so that visitors will be dazzled by the art before they realise it’s a ‘Batwoman’ comic, again potentially opening you up to ridicule. And for God’s sake don’t put it next to a ‘Green Lantern’ book.

Picking the 2012 NBA All-Stars

2012-02-08T11:49:00.005+11:00

In the NBA, there’s about half a dozen or so superstars, and then on the next tier down there’s the All-Stars - players who are pretty damn good (for one season at least) but in all likelihood will never be the main guy on a championship team, and in 10 or 15 years may hardly be remembered at all. Really, if crowds were more realistic in their support of their favourite players, they would less often chant ‘M-V-P! M-V-P!’, and more often chant ‘All-Star Reserve! All-Star Reserve!’ Because for many players that’s really the pinnacle they have to aspire to.

Being named an All-Star reserve is an honour though, despite some dubious choices over the years, which is why so much column space is devoted to arguing who should and will be on the team. Even I have an opinion on it, and I’ve barely watched a second of basketball this season thanks to Channel One dropping the NBA from their TV schedule (fuck you, Channel One!), but I’m not going to let that stop me from reading and regurgitating other people’s views on who should make the game so as to come up with my own list.

First off, we know who the starters for the All-Star game are, and anyone with knowledge of YouTube clicks and American population densities could have predicted those before voting even began. For the East, we have Derrick Rose (Chicago) and Dwyane Wade (Miami) as the guards, LeBron James (Miami) and Carmelo Anthony (New York) as the forwards, and Dwight Howard (Orlando) as the center. For the West, we have Chris Paul (LA Clippers ) and Kobe Bryant (LA Lakers) as the guards, Kevin Durant (Oklahoma City) and Blake Griffin (LA Clippers) as the forwards, and Andrew Bynum (LA Lakers) as the center. All of those guys deserve to be there, with the possible exception of Anthony, but since every New York sports writer and countless others have pointed out that his former team is playing much better without him, I won’t repeat those arguments here.

First off, the West, where it’s easier to find deserving candidates. Everyone I’ve read seems to think that Kevin Love (Minnesota), LaMarcus Aldridge (Portland) and Russell Westbrook (Oklahoma City) are locks, and I’d have to agree. Finding a back-up center for both conferences is a bit of a stretch, given the lack of quality centers nowadays. Marc Gasol (Memphis) seems to be getting a lot of support, but Al Jefferson (Utah) is putting up similar numbers on a more successful team so I think he’ll get it. As for the other spots, we need two more guards - one of which has to be Tony Parker (San Antonio) given he is putting up impressive numbers on a good Spurs team, and the other of which I think will be James Harden (Oklahoma City). Kyle Lowry (Houston) and Steve Nash (Phoenix) are both a chance, but the Thunder has a really good record, and it looks a bit strange to me to pick three point guards on the bench. I’ll go for Danilo Gallinari (Denver) over Paul Millsap (Utah) for the final spot, so that another of the West’s Cinderella teams has a representative, but given Gallo’s recent injury Millsap would slot into the team in any case.

In the East... ugh... Chris Bosh (Miami) is having a good season (or so I’m told, Channel One!) and won’t have any questions about his selection this year. Andre Iggy should get his first call-up given Philadelphia’s success. (Sorry, I can never remember to spell Iggy’s surname and I can’t be bothered looking it up, and anyway, being known colloquially as ‘Iggy’ can only help his case.) Chicago sits atop the East, and so by the Grand Rules of Coaches’ All-Star Voting they need another representative, making Luol Deng the other forward. For the guards, Deron Williams (New Jersey) hasn’t set the world on fire but he remains one of the few top-shelf players in the East. I’m a bit dubious about Brandon Jennings’ (Milwaukee) All-Star credentials, but he’s scoring well, which always goes down well when it comes to voting, and he’ll get the credit for the Bucks not being horrendous despite Andrew Bogut’s injury woes. It’s a toss-up between Rajon Rondo (Boston) and rookie Kyrie Irving (Cleveland) for the last spot, but I think Rondo wins out through seniority. I’m omitting Joe Johnson (Atlanta), even if it does give three point guards on the bench, purely because I think the words ‘Joe Johnson, six-time All-Star’ should never be uttered. At the center position, someone made the case that the Knicks’ struggles are not Tyson Chandler’s fault, and if you look past the problems of his teammates he has clearly been the second-best center in the East. The guy is making 70 per cent of his shots! Good enough for me.

Anyway, we’ll find out later this week who made the cut. I’m hoping against hope that young Greg Monroe, despite the Pistons’ diabolical win-loss record, will still get a gig.

Album Review: Pretenders – Pretenders II (1981)

2012-02-05T15:35:00.004+11:00

I've posted this album review over at the Guardian's website, but I thought I'd post it here as well.

Accepted critical opinion says that ‘Pretenders II’ is not in the same class as its predecessor, lacking that album’s freshness and originality. Accepted critical opinion is wrong. By the time their second Long Play turned up, the Pretenders were a much tighter band (at least in terms of their sound) and able to rock ’n’ roll as readily as anyone, as implied by the band shot on the back of the album sleeve. ‘Message Of Love’ is the standout track, with James Honeyman-Scott’s punchy guitar counterpointing Chrissie Hynde’s undulating vocals, but all the other songs shine in their own way. ‘Day After Day’ is almost as perfect a piece of pop, as both band and its Ohio-born singer take off with the soaring chorus lines of ‘Way up in the sky/ Over the city and Lake Erie’. Other, rougher tracks such as ‘The Adultress’, ‘Bad Boys Get Spanked’, ‘Jealous Dogs’ and ‘Louie Louie’ come on like a more accessible form of punk, potent in force yet leaving enough space for Chrissie’s confessions, double entendres, and wry musings (‘I’m convenient and I make good tea’). Balancing these out though are the slower, quieter tunes, including a cover of Ray Davies’ ‘I Go To Sleep’, ‘Birds Of Paradise’, and ‘The English Roses’, which preface some of the Pretenders’ later work, only with more compelling musicianship. And unlike the ubiquitous ‘Brass In Pocket’ on the first album, which felt strangely out of place amongst its lesser-known companion tracks, this album’s hit single ‘Talk Of The Town’ fits seamlessly into the mix. Honeyman-Scott and bassist Pete Farndon (who was fired for drug abuse) died not long after the release of this album and the Pretenders became decidedly less interesting; we’ll never know if, had they lived, ‘Pretenders II’ would have turned out to be their final burst of creativeness or a step on the road to even greater things. Over thirty years on though, it still sounds like the type of album any band going around today would be proud of.

Album Cover Review: Lana Del Rey – Born To Die [Deluxe Edition] (2012)

2012-02-05T11:09:00.003+11:00

With the proliferation of images and clips of New York-born songstress Lana Del Rey over the web, the cover of her debut album, ‘Born To Die’ stands as one of the most highly anticipated album covers of the year. With that in mind, the cover itself seems a bit understated. Our artist merely stands looking front-on at the camera, in a way that is somewhat reminiscent of Andrew WK’s classic album cover to ‘I Get Wet’ (minus the blood on the face), her spaghetti-strap dress having been traded for a demure blouse. The expression on her face, depending on how you want to interpret it (and probably depending on what you think of her music) is either weary, defiant, vacant or inviting trouble, possibly all at once. In the background is a nondescript wooden barrier, possibly from some back or front yard somewhere in Hollywood, though perhaps it’s just the blue sky, excerpts from old movies, Lana’s ‘Hollywood’ t-shirt in previous press photos, and that whole ‘gangster Nancy Sinatra’ thing that has imprinted that idea in the brain.

But when you open up to the centre gatefold … hello! It’s the pout and head tilt that launched millions of YouTube clicks. Paragraphs could (and have) been written about those overflowing lips; in this case they are daring you in to listen to her smoulder, tease, and roll her eyes at you. We’re still no clearer as to what that nondescript wooden barrier is. Maybe behind it is a spa and champagne, and a party to rival those in ‘Boogie Nights’ or ‘Anchorman’. Maybe there isn’t, and it’s just the two of you. These are the ambiguities that modelling contracts are made of.

Tucked away in the back flap of the packaging is a thin, pink case with a disc inside. Give it a spin – it has the great torch song for the millennium ‘Video Games’, as well as a semi-anthemic title track, and a nice track called ‘National Anthem’ which is about as close to the ‘gangster Nancy Sinatra’ concept that she’s managed to this point. As for the rest, well, sometimes it’s best not to look behind those nondescript barriers.

The Taylor Rule and the Reserve Bank of Australia

2012-01-28T16:31:00.007+11:00

The Taylor rule is an equation that relates the nominal interest rate to inflation and output (Gross Domestic Product, or GDP). A forward-looking version of the rule could be expressed as follows:

Nominal interest rate = (Underlying) Inflation + Real neutral interest rate + a * (Expected (underlying) inflation - Target inflation) + b * Expected Output Gap

Now that the Reserve Bank of Australia has been publishing its output and inflation forecasts in its quarterly “Statement on Monetary Policy” since early-2008 I thought it would be an interesting nerdly exercise to see if you could relate the RBA’s setting of the cash rate to its output and inflation forecasts using the Taylor rule formula.

First, some assumptions

OK, there’s a lot of assumptions we have to make before we can put the rule into effect. First, we need to assume a value for the real neutral interest rate. The real neutral interest rate is, in theory, the value of the cash rate adjusted for inflation that means that monetary policy is neither expansionary nor contractionary. For those monetary policy newbies, a real interest rate below the neutral rate should tend to heat up the economy and raise output and inflation, while a real interest rate above the neutral rate should tend to slow things down. Understandably, the RBA has been reluctant to say what it thinks the value of the neutral rate is, but we can take an educated guess. A value of 3 per cent or more seems too high, given that the real cash rate has been lower than that for the majority of the “inflation targeting” era. In May 2011, when the cash rate was 4.75 per cent and underlying inflation was 2½ per cent, giving a real rate of 2¼ per cent, the RBA said that “this represents a mildly restrictive stance of monetary policy”. Then in November 2011, when the cash rate was reduced to 4.5 per cent and underlying inflation was 2½ per cent, giving a real rate of 2 per cent, the RBA said that “a more neutral stance of monetary policy was now appropriate”. Based on this, a real neutral interest rate of 2 per cent is good enough for me.

Next, how far in the future should we measure expected inflation and expected output? Gruen, Romalis and Chandra (1997) found that there was an average lag of about five or six quarters in monetary policy’s impact on output growth. So I’m going to assume that the RBA are looking at inflation and output five or six quarters out. Since they publish forecasts at six-monthly intervals, I’ll use the forecasts for five quarters out when those are available, and the forecasts for six quarters out when those are available.

Third, we need to calculate the expected output gap. The output gap is equal to real GDP less the level of real potential output (all divided by real potential output). Real potential output is the highest level of real GDP that can be sustained based on the supply of workers and capital and how productive they are; if real GDP is higher than real potential output than inflation tends to increase. Basically, if you can accurately work out what potential output is you’re an uber-nerd. I’m going to assume that potential output is growing at 3 per cent per year, and that it was less than real GDP back in early-2008 and about the same as real GDP in late-2011. This means that real GDP was expected to be well below potential output (i.e. the output gap was negative) during late-2008 and 2009 due to the effects of the global financial crisis and the resulting downturn in the world economy.

Fourth, I’m going to set target inflation at 2.5 per cent, the mid-point of the RBA's target band for inflation over the medium-term.

As mentioned above, I’m using underlying inflation figures rather than changes in the Consumer Price Index. Underlying inflation strips out the most volatile prices, and is therefore less affected by short-term movements (such as temporary rises or falls in petrol or food prices).

Finally, I’m setting a = 0.5 and b = 0.5, as John Taylor originally did.

So, the results ...

The graph below compares the actual cash rate from the March quarter 2008 to the November quarter 2011 with the cash rate as implied by my Taylor rule and my mangling of the RBA’s forecasts.

I don’t know - it doesn’t look too bad a fit to me ... I could probably make it fit a bit better by fiddling around with the potential output series, but I think you could characterise the RBA’s policy-setting as “Tayloresque”. There’s a bit of a difference around the global financial crisis era, but you could understand if the RBA wanted to be aggressive in cutting rates around that time.

It’s all a bit rough - I don’t imagine any major banks would be staking their millions on using this to accurately predict the RBA’s next move, but in a world of baffling economic models it’s always nice when you can use something simple to explain behaviour.

The Shit Gamer’s Review: The Legend of Zelda – Skyward Sword

2012-01-22T17:34:00.001+11:00

When I was eight or nine (or maybe twelve), my Mum bought me a copy of ‘The Bard’s Tale’, a role-playing game, for our Apple IIGS (before Apple was cool). Apparently the guy in the shop said it was a good game for boys my age, and perhaps it was. But things started to go quickly awry. First, there was this mournful intro, where the eponymous bard with his ghoulish grin sat in a bar and recounted the deeds of a brave party of warriors. I then hesitantly selected said party, carefully weighing up their various strengths – a sorcerer for magic, a barbarian for strength, there was probably a dwarf and elf as well, though I’m damned if I can remember what they did. It was all to no avail – within ten minutes my whole party was dead. Dead. Dead. Dead. Dead. Dead. Dead. I was depressed for hours afterwards, and for years later I would feel a horrible chill down my spine whenever my Dad loaded up ‘The Bard’s Tale’ and I had to hear that mournful tune.

All of this is possibly to explain my love/hate relationship with ‘The Legend of Zelda’ series over the years. The two Zelda Wii games – Twilight Princess and now Skyward Sword – are two of the most beautiful games ever to grace my outdated screen, and yet I’m partially afraid to play them. I got lost in one of Twilight Princess’ labyrinths about a year and a half ago, and haven’t bothered to get myself out since. With Skyward Sword, I can reveal that the intro is very nice. Zelda and Link seem to have a thing for each other. I’ve got the Skyward Sword now, and it’s pretty flash. You hold your arm up, and the sword lights up, and then you go ape shit on whatever is in your way. But I can’t defend with my shield for crap, which is a bit of a problem, given that, you know, you have to ward off enemies to get anywhere.

I think when I stopped I was about to enter some dark cave, and I don’t know if it’s the worry that I’ll get lost, or that I can’t defend for crap, but I haven’t gone in yet. I’m sure I will someday, but I’m just not ready. I don’t think it’s the fear of dying. I play Super Mario Galaxy quite happily (more or less) and I die all the time in that. But Mario games are fairly linear, you generally know where you’re going and when you die you know where you’ll go back to. Zelda games have these huge, sprawling areas that you need a map to negotiate your way around. In Mario, I’ll die by booping a little wrong trying to get to some colourful platform and I’ll fall daintily down a rectangular hole and then I’ll go back to the last flag-marked check-point, but in Zelda I’ll probably die alone in the middle of that cave with the flesh-eating flytraps picking at my bones, or worse, after negotiating all those enemies that I can’t defend for crap against I’ll have to go back to the mouth of that cave and start all over again.

Which is all to say that ‘The Legend of Zelda – Skyward Sword’ is another outstanding creation from the people at Nintendo, and a game that no Wii owner should be without. It deserves at least four and a half stars, and probably five stars, and I’m sure if you can get past that cave you’ll find an endlessly rewarding experience. And it’s less scary and depressing than ‘Monster Hunter Tri’ (I don’t even want to go into that one).

How to Rate Every One Day Batsman Ever, or Why Viv Richards is Probably The Best

2012-01-13T16:35:00.005+11:00

As I have said before on this blog, the value of a batsman in cricket depends on how quickly they score runs relative to the average batsman and how long they stay in relative to the average batsman. Using these principles, we can look at the value of each batsman in one-day internationals, which last 50 overs, or 300 balls (‘no-balls’ excepted), per side. Let’s look at the value of how quickly they score runs first.

The value of how quickly a batsman score runs is the difference between the average runs per ball of that batsman (i.e. their strike rate) and the average runs per ball of all batsmen (i.e. the average strike rate) multiplied by the average amount of balls the batsman stays in. Using this very useful article from S Rajesh, we can look at the example of, say, Dean Jones:

Dean Jones: Average runs per out = 44.61; Average runs per ball = 0.7256; Average balls faced per out = 44.61/0.7256 = 61.48.

Average batsman during Jones’ era: Average runs per ball = 0.6656.

Therefore the value of Dean Jones from how quickly he scores runs is:
[0.7256 - 0.6656] * 61.48 = 3.69 runs over the average batsman.

What this result says is that, for every ball Dean Jones faced before he went out, if you were to replace him with average batsmen, the team’s score would be expected to be 3.69 runs lower. Batsmen who could score at the average rate would be expected to score 0.06 runs less per ball, and when that is multiplied over the 61.48 balls on average that Jones stayed in this equates to 3.69 runs.

Rajesh compared the strike rates and batting averages of 29 batsmen with the average strike rates and batting averages of all batsmen during their respective eras. Using these statistics, we can calculate the respective values of each of these batsmen from how quickly they score runs:

Viv Richards: +12.63
Virender Sehwag: +9.61
Adam Gilchrist: +8.46
Sachin Tendulkar: +6.56
Sanath Jayasuriya: +6.21
MS Dhoni: +5.95
Yuvraj Singh: +4.78
Saeed Anwar: +4.71
Aravinda de Silva: +4.65
Allan Lamb: +4.46
Chris Gayle: +3.75
Dean Jones: +3.69
Brian Lara: +3.65
Mark Waugh: +3.32
Matthew Hayden: +3.27
Ricky Ponting: +2.93
Graeme Smith: +2.40
Mohammad Azharuddin: +2.36
Allan Border: +2.32
Michael Bevan: +1.11
Inzamam-ul-Haq: +0.97
Michael Clarke: +0.70
Javed Miandad: +0.27
Mohammad Yousuf: -0.09
Sourav Ganguly: -0.12
Gary Kirsten: -0.15
Gordon Greenidge: -0.74
Jacques Kallis: -1.51
Desmond Haynes: -1.91

Looking at things in this way has the potential to lead to a huge re-evaluation of the value of some batsmen. Richards, Sehwag and Gilchrist all do particularly well, as they all scored much faster than the average batsman in their eras. Richards comes out on top because he stayed in longer on average than the other two and therefore his team got the extra value from his high strike rate for longer. On the other hand, batsmen like Greenidge, Kallis and Haynes do badly. Consider the case of Haynes: his average runs per ball were 0.6309, compared to an average runs per ball of all batsmen during his era of 0.66, and he stayed in on average for 65.57 balls. If one replaced Haynes with batsmen who could score at the average rate for those 65.57 balls, then on average his team would score almost 2 runs more.

To make this clearer, consider the respective cases of Michael Bevan and Adam Gilchrist. Gilchrist had a much higher strike rate than the average batsman, whereas Bevan had only a slightly higher strike rate than the average batsman, although his team received the benefit of that higher-than-average strike rate for more balls. Gilchrist though averaged 0.2285 runs per ball more than the average batsman, and so it took him, on average, only five balls to add one more run to his team than an average batsman would. Bevan, in contrast, averaged 0.0153 runs per ball more than the average batsman, and so it took him, on average sixty-five balls to add one more run to his team than an average batsman would. In other words, Gilchrist was much more efficient in adding extra runs for his team.

Clearly though there is some benefit from Bevan managing to stay in longer than Gilchrist, and benefits from Greenidge, Kallis and Haynes for managing to stick around for much longer than the average batsman. Part of that value would likely be the increase in the team’s strike rate that results from the team having one extra wicket in hand while the batsman stays in. However, I think that this value, while not negligible, would be small compared to the values given above. Some quick calculations I did over a small sample of games suggested that the average decrease in the strike rate for each wicket lost by a team during its innings was less than 10 per cent of the average strike rate. So if the average strike rate was 0.75 runs per ball, and a team on average lost 7 wickets in an innings, then a team that lost all 10 wickets would have an expected strike rate of no less than 0.525 runs per ball, and a team that lost 4 wickets would have an expected strike rate of no more than 0.975 runs per ball. These are pretty rough calculations, but they seem broadly plausible.

As I said though, this benefit is relatively small. For Michael Bevan, who stayed in on average for 72.24 balls, the expected value from him staying in compared to the average batsman is probably no more than 2.14 runs. This is calculated as the expected difference in the team’s strike rate from having lost one less wicket (no more than 10 per cent of 0.7224, or 0.0722 per cent), multiplied by the difference in the average number of balls Bevan faced and the average number of balls faced by all batsmen during his era (72.24 less 42.74 equals 29.50). Since Bevan stayed in on average longer than the other batsmen above, the respective values for other batsman will be less, in a lot of cases considerably less. No-one is going to overtake Richards simply based on that additional value.

There is another benefit from staying in longer than the average batsman, which is that your team is less likely to be all out, in which cases they will have unused balls. The cost of each unused ball will be the average strike rate of all batsmen (so if the average strike rate is 0.75 runs then the cost of each unused ball is in turn 0.75 runs). Note that, even if a batsman goes out first ball, you would expect on average a team would complete all of its 300 allotted balls, since there would be nine other wickets and the average batsman stays in for around 40 balls. But the probability of them having unused balls would be higher.

My idea for how to calculate this value would be first to create a frequency distribution of number of balls faced by batsmen before going out. Next, you could run a large number of simulations in which you draw from this distribution and insert the average number of balls faced by the batsman in question to work out the expected number of balls the team faces given the average number of balls that batsman faces. But again I expect this value to be relatively small. Say that a batsman averages only 5 balls per dismissal (a really bad No. 11 for instance): I reckon that the expected number of balls the team faces would still be around the 290 mark. If the average batsman faces 40 balls per dismissal, then that awful batsman is probably only costing his team less than 4 runs on average from the increased likelihood that his team will have unused balls. Taking this into account could substantially narrow the gap between batsmen like Bevan and Sehwag, given that Bevan averaged almost 40 more balls per dismissal, but I think Richards would still come out on top.

Note that the value from the change in likelihood that the team will have unused balls will probably vary considerably across the different forms of cricket. In Twenty20, where the team is unlikely to have unused balls the change in likelihood that the team will have unused balls from losing a wicket quickly is probably very small. Therefore, for Twenty20, a batsman’s strike rate is the best indicator of his value. In Test match cricket, however, which lasts for 5 days, the change in likelihood that the team will have unused balls from losing a wicket quickly would be quite large. Therefore, for Test match cricket, how long a batsman can stay in becomes quite important (and hence, why the batting average, which depends heavily on balls faced, becomes a better indicator of a batsman’s worth). In one-day cricket, the value is somewhere in between, but the results here suggest strike rate may be more important than often given credit for, and a batsman like Richards who can score really fast but still stay in a bit longer than the average batsman is king.

Note: I just worked out Rajesh's stats are based on Top 7 batsmen only, not all batsmen, but even if the numbers change a bit the general points would still stand.

The 15 Best Blur Songs

2012-01-10T22:22:00.002+11:00

And let's finish off the day with my 15 favorite Blur tracks. This will be the most eclectic list by far - when it comes to Blur I seem to have a thing for beauty over poppiness.

1. Ambulance
2. Blue Jeans
3. Yuko & Hiro
4. This Is A Low
5. Coffee & TV
6. The Universal
7. Death Of A Party
8. Tender
9. Music Is My Radar
10. Out Of Time
11. Country House
12. No Distance Left To Run
13. To The End
14. For Tomorrow
15. On Your Own

The 15 Best Oasis Songs

2012-01-10T22:02:00.003+11:00

I could keep going with this theme all night. Here's my favorite Oasis tunes:

1. Live Forever
2. Whatever
3. Champagne Supernova
4. Some Might Say
5. Don't Look Back In Anger
6. Slide Away
7. The Masterplan
8. Bag It Up
9. Columbia
10. Supersonic
11. Wonderwall
12. Listen Up
13. Acquiesce
14. Round Are Way
15. Morning Glory

I don't mind their later stuff, but looking over this list it seems even I'm more partial to their earlier material.

The 15 Best Beatles Songs

2012-01-10T21:32:00.003+11:00

I realized after I wrote down my 15 favorite Bowie songs that I've never written down my 15 favorite Beatles songs. Well, let's rectify that right away:

1.Tomorrow Never Knows
2. A Day In The Life
3. Something
4. Get Back
5. Day Tripper
6. While My Guitar Gently Weeps
7. She Said She Said
8. Long, Long, Long
9. Back In The USSR
10. I Am The Walrus
11. Helter Skelter
12. Revolution
13. Hey Jude
14. I'm Only Sleeping
15. Lady Madonna

I'd like to count the entire 'Abbey Road Medley' as one track - if I did that would come in at, say, No.9.

The 15 Best David Bowie Songs

2012-01-10T09:10:00.002+11:00

After listening to a lot of Bowie over the past few days, these are currently my 15 favourites:

1. "Heroes"
2. Panic In Detroit
3. Ziggy Stardust
4. Moonage Daydream
5. What In The World
6. Be My Wife
7. Quicksand
8. Starman
9. Aladdin Sane
10. Sorrow
11. Sound And Vision
12. Always Crashing In The Same Car
13. Scary Monsters (And Super Creeps)
14. Changes
15. Up The Hill Backwards

I consider Side One of 'Low' to be his best stuff, with Tracks 3 to 6 ('What In The World', 'Sound and Vision', 'Always Crashing In The Same Car' and 'Be My Wife') all making the list, and Track 2 ('Breaking Glass') not being far off. So many great songs missing though - 'Life On Mars', 'Ashes to Ashes', 'Look Back In Anger', 'Modern Love', 'Cat People', 'Beauty And The Beast', 'The Man Who Sold The World', 'Drive-In Saturday', 'Golden Years', 'Station To Station', 'Young Americans' ... but this would be my 1-CD ultimate Bowie mix.

Unearthing the Musical Past

2012-01-07T08:41:00.004+11:00

Lately I've been listening to a lot of old, partly forgotten music. This has been the result of four things. First, reading 'Retromania', which though it argues vehemently against pop music's obsession with it's past, made me think 'wow, there is a lot of old music I haven't listened to'. Second, I bought the book '1001 albums you must hear before you die'. Third, I finally realized 'hey, YouTube has a lot of old music I can listen to for free'. And fourth, the 'Original Album Series' has appeared, where you can buy five albums from a band for just twenty bucks.

So who have I discovered? I recommend the following: Ride (particularly 'Dreams Burn Down'), Roxy Music (lots of great non-radio tracks), the Pretenders first two albums (same), X, the Jesus and Mary Chain, the 70s Bowie I hadn't listened to yet, King Crimson, The Boo Radleys, Wire, the Violent Femmes first three albums, My Bloody Valentine's first album (everyone knows the second), Spiritualized and Spacemen 3, Pere Ubu, XTC, Black Sabbath, Kate Bush's 'Hounds of Love' album, and to finish off with some irony, LCD Soundsystem's 'Losing My Edge'. OK none of that list is really out there and people who are cooler than me will have listened to a lot of it, but it's what's got me excited at the moment.

One problem though is I may rapidly reach the point where I have nothing new that's worthwhile to listen to. Perhaps I'd better start liking jazz soon.

The Top 10 Richmond Players In My Football Following Lifetime (1985 onwards)

2011-12-08T08:07:00.012+11:00

1. Matthew Richardson

On his day Richo could destroy entire backlines. He played football like a sixth year boy against third years: larger, faster and more talented than his opponents, but not the most disciplined player on the park. A joy to watch... most of the time.

2. Dale Weightman

My memories of the 'Flea' have dimmmed over time, except for him collecting a gazillion possessions (give or take a few) every time he played for Victoria. But apart from Richo he's the only guy on this list who was ever among the very best players in the land, and so he has to rate this highly.

3. Wayne Campbell

Many Tiger supporters would favour Knights over Campbell, due to a perception that Campbo was a bit "soft". He wasn't: Campbell could certainly win his own ball, and was more of a natural leader than he was given credit for. You don't win four best-and-fairests by accident.

4. Matthew Knights

"Knighter" gets points for his brilliant 1998 season, his braving Tony Liberatore's fist, and for leading one of the most beloved non-premiership teams, the '95 Tigers. Another remarkably consistent player.

5. Joel Bowden

Starting as a talented midfielder, Bowden then became the main cog of the backline after Gaspar and Ben Holland "vanished". Should have been captain.

6. Brendon Gale

"Benny" was the smartest guy on the team and the one with the most interests outside of football, but no-one seemed to care more about the result of a match than he did. At crucial stages, he'd launch his big frame into packs to take match-saving marks.

7. Darren Gaspar

"Gas" is the only defender to make this list, which explains why the Tigers have routinely had big scores kicked on them. For a couple of years in the early 2000s he was one of the best defenders going around, restricting star forwards with his skinny fist.

8. Brett Deledio

Trent Cotchin and Dustin Martin may overtake him eventually, but for now Deledio has been our best player over the past few years. His quickness, accurate kicking and huge, running goals were all things that Tigerland has needed for a long time.

9. Jack Riewoldt

Richo may be gone, but in Jack the Tigers have the next best thing: a big forward who rips through packs and who on his day can be unstoppable. He's a smart footballer too, able to give off the quick handball or kick to a running teammate to set up an easy goal.

10. Michael Roach

"Disco" no doubt had a better career than some of the others on this list, but I only caught the tail-end of it. Nevertheless I have to include my first football idol on this list.

McGrath v Warne

2011-11-14T21:53:00.006+11:00

As Gideon Haigh once put it 'Warne and McGrath. McGrath and Warne. Who is to decide their proper ordering? Should it be the man with the more wickets or the lower average?' Well, as I've argued here before, the lower average matters but the other relevant statistic for a bowler is not their wickets but their strike rate. A team's chance of winning a cricket match is a function of how quickly they score and how long they stay in, so how could a bowler who takes wickets more quickly and more cheaply than another bowler not be considered more valuable? And on both these measures, McGrath comes out ahead:

McGrath - Average: 21.64; Strike rate: 51.95
Warne - Average: 25.42; Strike rate: 57.49

But hang on, McGrath is a fast bowler and Warne is a spinner. How do they each compare to bowlers of similar characteristics? Well, if you take the average bowling average and strike rate of each of the top 10 spin bowlers and top 10 non-spin bowlers by wickets taken, you get these stats:

Non-spin bowlers - Average: 24.39; Strike rate: 54.88
Spin bowlers - Average: 28.98; Strike rate: 68.89

And if you take each of McGrath's and Warne's bowling averages and strike rates and transform them into a percentage of the corresponding averages just above, you get these figures:

McGrath - Average: -11.2; Strike rate: -5.3
Warne - Average: -12.3; Strike rate: -20.1

So Warne's average is slightly better compared to the top spin bowlers relative to McGrath's average compared to the top non-spin bowlers, but his strike rate is much, much better compared to the top spin bowlers relative to McGrath's strike rate compared to the top non-spin bowlers. Does this mean we're much more likely to see another McGrath than another Warne? It would seem so. Part of the reason why McGrath's figures, and those of non-spin bowlers in general, are better than those of Warne and other spin bowlers could be that non-spin bowlers face easier bowling conditions on average. Think about it: if bowling conditions are good then fast bowlers clean up before the spin bowlers get much of a chance but if bowling conditions are tough then both fast and spin bowlers have to rough it out. I haven't proven this theory yet, so let's just stick with the view that a spin bowler as good as Warne is rarer than a fast bowler as good as McGrath for now. Which, given the trouble Australia has had on settling on a new spinner since Warne's retirement, isn't all that surprising a finding..

The Finger Points Outwards - No. 37

2011-10-31T16:45:00.003+11:00

At what point is it worth the NBA players caving in on the lockout?

The best statistics question ever.

A less than favourable review of the new Tintin movie.

The truth behind the Scrabble "cheating" scandal.

Who Has The Easiest AFL Draw in 2012?

2011-10-30T13:23:00.006+11:00

With the release of the Australian Football League draw for 2012, analysts were quick to rate the difficulty of each team's fixture. Some went so far to come up with a numerical rating of this difficulty, generally based on who each team plays twice, road trips, and matches played against teams from interstate (see example here).

Using the AFL post-final power rankings posted on this blog a few weeks back, I have come up with the following ratings of the difficulty of each team's draw in 2012. Each team's rating is a sum over all matches of the reverse of the ranking points of their opponents (which themselves are based on those opponents' expected winning margins), adjusted for any home ground advantage. These adjustments for home ground advantage were explained here.

For now, I've assumed that Greater Western Sydney's ranking points are -50, and have treated their adjustments for travel in the same way as other non-Victorian teams (that is, +12 points for playing at home, -12 points for playing away) rather than Sydney (who have a smaller adjustment when playing Melbourne teams). I might change this before the season starts. Note also that I treat Hawthorn games in Tasmania as if they were playing in Melbourne (i.e. an advantage against non-Victorian teams, but not Victorian teams).

As an example, if Team X is playing West Coast in Perth then I deducted them -33.3 points: -21.3 due to West Coast having a ranking of +21.3, and -12 due to playing in Perth.

One main difference between my calculations and those of other analysts is that the latter do not account for the fact that higher-ranked teams do not have to play themselves. For example, Geelong gets a big boost in the ease of their fixture just by virtue of the fact that they don't have to play Geelong and other teams do.

Here are the rankings for the difficulty of each team's draw in 2012 - a higher ranking means that your draw is easier. Most team's rankings for difficulty of draw are positive since ranking points for AFL teams are skewed to the negative side, particularly with the introduction of Greater Western Sydney.

Adelaide 169.3
North Melbourne 164.4
Gold Coast 152.9
Fremantle 149.2
Melbourne 144.9
Richmond 115.1
St. Kilda 114.2
Geelong 100.7
Hawthorn 93.7
Brisbane 93.1
Greater Western Sydney 92.7
West Coast 86.6
Carlton 79.7
Port Adelaide 65.5
Essendon 46.9
Sydney 46.8
Western Bulldogs 4.5
Collingwood -9.0

So according to this system Adelaide has the easiest draw, and Collingwood has the hardest, which has pretty much been the consensus among commentators. However, Greater Western Sydney's draw is not as easy as some people think, partly because they don't get to play themselves, and partly becuase they don't have many home games at their own stadium. On the other hand, Geelong and Hawthorn have easier draws than most people think, partly because they don't have to play themselves, and in Hawthorn's case because they only travel three times to "hostile" territory.

But does it make a lot of difference? Essentially, Adelaide's draw advantages them by 178 points compared to Collingwood, so Collingwood needs to be a 178-point better team than the Crows to be expected to perform as well as them. Over the course of a season, that's about eight points per week. It's not negligible, but really if your team finds itself in 14th spot you shouldn't be blaming the fixture.

Monster Is REM's Acthung Baby

2011-10-20T23:59:00.005+11:00

Why does REM's 'Monster' get so little love? OK, it gets some here, but it's generally seen as the tipping point for REM's popularity. Certainly it's a departure from their previous records, but that shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. I bought it on CD recently and listening to it again after the space of over 15 years I was struck by how much it reminded me of U2's 'Achtung Baby', widely considered one of the Irish band's most accomplished and inventive records. Both have a sense of irony and dirtiness after the clean, earnest soft rock of the albums that took them into the big leagues ('Automatic For The People' and 'The Joshua Tree') yet both still contain some of their band's most moving tracks ('Strange Currencies' and 'Let Me In' on 'Monster' and of course 'One' on 'Achtung Baby'). And the distorted glam-rock guitars on 'What's The Frequency Kenneth?' and 'Crush With Eyeliner' can match it with those on U2's 'Even Better Than The Real Thing' and 'The Fly'. Yet 'Achtung Baby' sold bucketloads and 'Monster' ended in the bargain bins. Maybe 'Monster' was just a little too murky for to garner mass appeal, or maybe it just didn't have the hits that U2's album had. Nevertheless it deserves to be remembered in a better light than REM's retreat from the mainstream.

Book Review: Supergods

2011-10-15T11:10:00.007+11:00

Grant Morrison's 'Supergods' is uneven, a little bloated, but still weirdly compelling. A central thesis to the book is lacking, if not non-existent. Morrison's tome is part-history of the development of the American superhero, part memoir (although being one of the superhero genre's greatest writers, the two parts are almost necessarily intertwined), part-philosophical discussion. Contradictions abound - Morrison seems to both revere and mock the movement to make superheroes more realistic within the space of a few paragraphs, as well as his own efforts to bring high art to the long underwear characters. But then why should a unified view be imposed on multiplicity - shouldn't the author, like everyone else, have the freedom to change his mind? And really what does it matter when the best of Morrison's observations are so good, perfectly describing characters and tropes for which you thought everything had been said, such as his noting of the Sub-Mariner's 'fuck you snarl' and how the Silver Surfer was the first emo superhero. Morrison's choice of titles to focus upon mixes the accepted classics with his personal favourites (many of which seem like they might be better enjoyed on an acid trip), but in all cases his enthusiasm for the source materials makes the reader want to seek them out. Like much of Morrison's work, 'Supergods' could have benefitted from a little more discipline in the writing, but its best parts are pretty much as good as anything that has been said about this seventy odd year old genre.

Pop Will Eat Itself

2011-10-10T19:41:00.006+11:00

I read a review today of a book called 'Retromania' which, according to the reviewer, essentially argued that pop music in the 2000s had lost its forward momentum and more than any other decade was obsessed with the past.

A few observations about this:

1) Every musical era is backward-looking to some degree. (I think the author would agree with this.)
2) Having said that, I think a case can be made that the 2000s have been more backward-looking than previous decades. It is possible this may in part be associated with the massive increase in access to pop's history through digital libraries.
3) Doing it first is not necessarily doing it better.

Is pop's time of innovation over and we are now doomed to an endless recycling of past tunes? Maybe, but you never know where the next wave of innovation will come from. A book I once read suggested that the next mega innovative pop star will come from outside the US and probably from one of the less developed nations. That was over ten years ago and we're still waiting, but hey don't count it out yet.

Why On Earth Does France Play Rugby?

2011-10-09T08:27:00.001+11:00

Apparently it was introduced there by British residents in the 1870s - surely one of the crowning achievements of British 'colonization'. And apparently it's the most popular sport in the southern part of France.

AFL Power Rankings - Post-Finals 2011

2011-10-02T14:30:00.002+11:00

Here are the final rankings for 2011. Collingwood were the No.1 team for much of the year, but that changed when Geelong beat them easily in Round 22, and the gap widened even further over September.

1 Geelong 51.2
2 Collingwood 35.9
3 Hawthorn 28.4
4 Carlton 27.0
5 West Coast 21.3
6 St. Kilda 16.3
7 Sydney 10.3
8 North Melbourne 1.3
9 Western Bulldogs -4.6
10 Essendon -11.1
11 Richmond -16.2
12 Brisbane -17.8
13 Fremantle -23.3
14 Adelaide -23.7
15 Melbourne -29.9
16 Port Adelaide -46.2
17 Gold Coast -46.9

More Thoughts On The DC Relaunch

2011-09-20T22:03:00.006+10:00

When I first learned of DC Comics relaunching their entire line I wasn't a fan, as I considered it a giant waste of 70-plus years of continuous publication for some small short-term gains. Now the first few weeks worth of books have appeared and my anger has subsided, so what do I think?

Actually I don't mind it, or at least I don't mind certain aspects of it. One aspect I like is the best of the books feel like they inhabit their own little corner of the universe. Titles like Grant Morrison's 'Action Comics', JH Williams' 'Batwoman' and Jeff Lemire's 'Animal Man' all provide very different reading experiences. Indeed, apart from the ho-hum 'Justice League' book, there has really been only minor interaction between the various major characters at this point. Kind of like Marvel Comics in the old days, rather than Marvel now, where there's a crossover and 50 tie-in books every six months and everyone hangs out in the Avengers Tower.

Another aspect that I'm really liking is the digital versions coming out the same day as the print versions. There's quite a few #1s that I wouldn't pay full price for in the store (or are sold out), but are quite happy to pay a reduced price to read it on my phone. Basically it's another example of price discrimination, which as an economist I find intriguing. And I think that's really part of the rationale for this whole relaunch thing (beyond the gimmick), that is to give readers a chance to try out a bunch of stuff and work out what types of titles suit them. Actually I wish they'd been even a little bit bolder in the types of titles they tried out rather than have a dozen Batman and half a dozen Green Lantern titles, but I suppose they've got to keep the cash flow going, and hey, that's kind of what they have the Vertigo imprint for.

Already some are suggesting that Marvel do the same thing. Speaking for myself, I hope not - I think you can achieve creative diversity and savvy marketing without necessarily hitting the reset button. But if it helps you find new audiences then I guess it's all up for grabs. Either that or go the way of the pulp novel!

AFL Power Rankings - 2011 Summary

2011-09-04T20:05:00.005+10:00

To finish off the home-and-away season, here is a summary of the ranking of each team for each round:

The graph might be a little crowded to follow, so let me summarize:

Adelaide - Biggest fall for the season, starting at 6th and ending in 14th. They dropped steadily until round 10, and then settled in the 12th-14th range.

Brisbane - Spent most of the year in 15th or 16th, but jumped to 11th after narrow loss to Collingwood, and ended in 12th. Their average net margin was not too bad considering they only won 4 games.

Carlton - Started in 7th, climbed to 4th by Round 3, and then spent most of year switching between 3rd and 4th.

Collingwood - Was in top spot for almost the entire year, often by a considerable margin, but lost it with Round 24 thrashing to Geelong.

Essendon - Climbed from 12th to 6th by Round 8 with a good start to the season, then fell back to 10th by Round 13, and spent rest of season in 8th-10th range.

Fremantle - Billed as a top four prospect early in the season by the media, the rankings showed that the Dockers were vastly overrated - they started in 11th, never climbed higher than 9th, and finished in 13th, not too far away from their final ladder position. (Good for me, because I bet on the Dockers to miss the eight on the basis of this ranking system.)

Geelong - Was in 2nd for most of the season, but nabbed 1st in the final round with huge win over the Pies.

Gold Coast - Should have started them off in 17th, because after their huge loss to Carlton in their first game that's where they stayed.

Hawthorn - Spent entire year in either 3rd or 4th.

Melbourne - Got some criticism earlier in the year, but maintained a ranking between 9th and 11th up to Round 18. Alas, maybe the criticism was justified, as they fell away badly, finishing in 15th.

North Melbourne - Was between 10th and 12th for first half of season, and between 7th and 10th for second half.

Port Adelaide - Started in 13th, dropped to 15th by Round 5, and stayed in 15th or 16th for rest of season, though only narrowly missed bottom ranking in the end.

Richmond - Was 16th in Round 5, but then spent most of season between 13th and 15th, though relatively strong finish to the season moved them up to 11th.

St. Kilda - The Saints' supposed early-season slump was always vastly overplayed because they had a tough fixture to start off with. Fell from 3rd to 5th by Round 3, then stayed between 5th and 7th for rest of season.

Sydney - Stayed between 5th and 8th for entire season.

West Coast - The biggest improvers by far: started in last place, climbed to 12th by Round 8, and then vaulted to 8th with huge win over the Bulldogs. Managed to climb into 5th spot by end of season.

Western Bulldogs - In contrast to the media, never considered a grand final chance by the rankings. Was in 6th-8th range until Round 8, when huge loss to Eagles saw them dive into 13th. Clawed their way back into 9th in the end.

There you have it. I'll wrap up with the final rankings after the Grand Final.

AFL Power Rankings - Round 24

2011-09-04T19:57:00.000+10:00

In a stunning end to the home-and-away season, Collingwood lose the top ranking spot they have held all season to Geelong, with the Cats beating the Pies by 96 points in the final round. A bit further down, the Eagles and Saints close in on the Hawks and Blues, who have been the clear 3rd and 4th placed teams for most of the year. And at the other end, Gold Coast make up some ground with their narrow loss to the Hawks, but finish up in last place.

1 (Last week 2) Geelong 47.2 (Last week 36.3)
2 (1) Collingwood 43.3 (51.6)
3 (3) Hawthorn 29.2 (33.8)
4 (4) Carlton 25.3 (27.7)
5 (6) West Coast 23.1 (18.5)
6 (5) St. Kilda 21.2 (18.6)
7 (7) Sydney 9.8 (7.8)
8 (8) North Melbourne 3.0 (3.0)
9 (9) Western Bulldogs -2.9 (-5.9)
10 (10) Essendon -5.6 (-6.1)
11 (12) Richmond -15.1 (-17.2)
12 (11) Brisbane -16.2 (-15.4)
13 (13) Fremantle -21.2 (-17.6)
14 (12) Adelaide -22.6 (-19.5)
15 (15) Melbourne -28.4 (-27.3)
16 (16) Port Adelaide -44.1 (-45.6)
17 (17) Gold Coast -45.3 (-50.0)

The Wooden Finger 2011 All-Australian Team

2011-09-04T07:55:00.004+10:00

In contrast to previous years I am going to have the courage to jump the gun and name what I think will be this year's AFL All-Australian team before the squad of 40 is named.

B: Grant Birchall, Darren Glass, Corey Enright
HB: Heath Scotland, Ben Reid, Leon Davis
C: Dale Thomas, Scott Pendlebury, Marc Murphy
HF: Steve Johnson, Travis Cloke, Andrew Walker
F: Stephen Milne, Lance Franklin, Adam Goodes
R: Dean Cox, Chris Judd, Gary Ablett
I: Sam Mitchell, Todd Goldstein, Dane Swan, Matthew Boyd

AFL Power Rankings - Round 23

2011-08-29T17:44:00.002+10:00

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 51.6 (Last week 49.1)
2 (2) Geelong 36.3 (40.9)
3 (3) Hawthorn 33.8 (33.6)
4 (4) Carlton 27.7 (27.6)
5 (6) St. Kilda 18.6 (14.2)
6 (5) West Coast 18.5 (19.8)
7 (8) Sydney 7.8 (3.0)
8 (7) North Melbourne 3.0 (8.2)
9 (10) Western Bulldogs -5.9 (-5.4)
10 (9) Essendon -6.1 (-1.8)
11 (11) Brisbane -15.4 (-16.7)
12 (14) Richmond -17.2 (-19.5)
13 (13) Fremantle -17.6 (-17.6)
14 (12) Adelaide -19.5 (-17.2)
15 (15) Melbourne -27.3 (-25.7)
16 (16) Port Adelaide -45.6 (-49.3)
17 (17) Gold Coast -50.0 (-51.1)

AFL Power Rankings - Round 22

2011-08-22T08:54:00.003+10:00

The biggest riser this week is actually a team that lost on the weekend - Brisbane's relatively narrow away loss to Collingwood takes them up three spots to 11th. After weeks of swapping places with Carlton, Hawthorn settled into 3rd with their win over the Blues.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 49.1 (Last week 54.7)
2 (2) Geelong 40.9 (41.7)
3 (3) Hawthorn 33.6 (33.1)
4 (4) Carlton 27.6 (27.6)
5 (5) West Coast 19.8 (16.5)
6 (6) St. Kilda 14.2 (15.7)
7 (7) North Melbourne 8.2 (2.2)
8 (8) Sydney 3.0 (1.3)
9 (9) Essendon -1.8 (0.2)
10 (10) Western Bulldogs -5.4 (-8.8)
11 (14) Brisbane -16.7 (-23.0)
12 (12) Adelaide -17.2 (-19.8)
13 (11) Fremantle -17.6 (-10.6)
14 (13) Richmond -19.5 (-19.8)
15 (15) Melbourne -25.7 (-25.1)
16 (16) Port Adelaide -49.3 (-45.6)
17 (17) Gold Coast -51.1 (-50.0)

The Finger Points Outwards - No. 36

2011-08-18T09:28:00.001+10:00

The AFL "supercoach" doesn't exist - I completely agree (as Leigh Matthews did, and he should know).

AFL Power Rankings - Round 21

2011-08-15T09:26:00.003+10:00

Hawks get a boost from their 165-point win over Port, again switching places with Carlton; perhaps next week's square-off between the teams will determine who is the best team outside "the Big Two". Port meanwhile, are giving the Suns their first serious competition for many weeks as the lowest ranked team.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 54.7 (Last week 56.3)
2 (2) Geelong 41.7 (43.6)
3 (4) Hawthorn 33.1 (22.8)
4 (3) Carlton 27.6 (25.2)
5 (5) West Coast 16.5 (13.5)
6 (6) St. Kilda 15.7 (13.4)
7 (8) North Melbourne 2.2 (1.6)
8 (7) Sydney 1.3 (6.0)
9 (9) Essendon 0.2 (-3.9)
10 (10) Western Bulldogs -8.8 (-5.4)
11 (11) Fremantle -10.6 (-11.0)
12 (12) Adelaide -19.8 (-22.8)
13 (15) Richmond -19.8 (-26.8)
14 (14) Brisbane -23.0 (-26.7)
15 (13) Melbourne -25.1 (-23.8)
16 (16) Port Adelaide -45.6 (-38.6)
17 (17) Gold Coast -50.0 (-48.0)

AFL Power Rankings - Round 20

2011-08-08T09:34:00.002+10:00

A bit of shuffling around the edges this week, but there's huge gaps opening up between the top few and the bottom few. Collingwood are now considered at least a 13-goal better team than everyone from Adelaide on down, and Geelong are considered a least an 11-goal better team than all of that group. Even Carlton and Hawthorn would be expected to win by at least 8 goals against the teams in that group on neutral turf.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 56.3 (Last week 50.5)
2 (2) Geelong 43.6 (38.7)
3 (4) Carlton 25.2 (22.8)
4 (3) Hawthorn 22.8 (25.2)
5 (6) West Coast 13.5 (12.1)
6 (5) St. Kilda 13.4 (12.4)
7 (7) Sydney 6.0 (7.0)
8 (8) North Melbourne 1.6 (0.8)
9 (9) Essendon -3.9 (-5.5)
10 (10) Western Bulldogs -5.4 (-5.8)
11 (11) Fremantle -11.0 (-10.3)
12 (13) Adelaide -22.8 (-23.5)
13 (12) Melbourne -23.8 (-20.7)
14 (15) Brisbane -26.7 (-26.1)
15 (14) Richmond -26.8 (-25.6)
16 (16) Port Adelaide -38.6 (-32.6)
17 (17) Gold Coast -48.0 (-44.0)

The Best Basketball Player In Each Position

2011-08-01T17:21:00.010+10:00

In a series over at ESPN.com over the past week, five "basketball nerds" have been asked each day who is the best player currently playing at each position, and who is the best player at that position of all time. These were the players who received the most votes at each position.

Current players

Point Guard: Chris Paul
Shooting Guard: Dwyane Wade
Small Forward: LeBron James
Power Forward: Dirk Nowitzki
Center: Dwight Howard

All-time players

Point Guard: Magic Johnson
Shooting Guard: Michael Jordan
Small Forward: Larry Bird
Power Forward: Tim Duncan
Center: Bill Russell

In terms of current players, I would absolutely choose Paul, Wade (yes, over Kobe), James and Howard (isn't it weird how all their surnames are first names?). All of these players are productive on multiple levels and are more or less at the peaks of their careers. I wonder though if Kevin Love would be a better choice than Dirk Nowitzki. Yes, Nowitzki achieved amazing things this year by being the leading offensive option on the team that won the championship, and that prevented James and Wade from winning a championship in the process. But let's compare Love's and Nowitzki's statistics:

Love: field goal %: .470; 3-point field goal %: .417; free-throw %: .850; rebounds per game: 15.2; assists per game: 2.5; points per game: 20.2.

Nowitzki: field goal %: .517; 3-point field goal %: .393; free-throw %: .892; rebounds per game: 7.0; assists per game: 2.6; points per game: 23.0.

Love has a huge rebounding advantage, and Nowitzki holds slight advantages in most of the other categories. I guess in the end though it's hard to make a case against the guy who won the ring.

In terms of the all-time choices, Magic, Michael and Larry seem to me the obvious picks. The center spot seems to me the toughest to pick with Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Shaquille O'Neal all having strong claims. In this case, it's hard to argue against the guy who won 11 rings - i.e. Russell (even if I think rings are overvalued). Russell certainly didn't score as much as the others, but his rebounding and reportedly his defence were close to unparalleled. You could argue about this for more space than I will here, but for now I have no problem with Russell being the pick.

For me, the power forward battle is between Duncan, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley and Kevin Garnett. Their stats were all fairly similar, though Malone was the highest volume scorer, while Barkley was a hugely efficient scorer (FG%: .541) and the most effective rebounder. But in the end Duncan has had a lot of success, so he probably deserves the spot.

So, in the end, I guess I'm agreeing with the consensus. With Duncan's success though, the debate about the all-time best at each position has become fairly settled. An all-time Top 10 though, I think, would be another story.

AFL Power Rankings - Round 19

2011-07-31T20:17:00.002+10:00

Not a lot of movement in ranking positions this week, despite some huge results. Geelong halve the gap from Collingwood with their mammoth 186-point win over Melbourne. The Demons remain in 12th, but are now a lot closer in ranking points to the bottom group. The Hawks move into third with their big win in the west.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 50.5 (Last week 48.8)
2 (2) Geelong 38.7 (26.6)
3 (4) Hawthorn 25.2 (23.2)
4 (3) Carlton 22.8 (23.3)
5 (5) St. Kilda 12.4 (13.6)
6 (6) West Coast 12.1 (11.2)
7 (7) Sydney 7.0 (6.8)
8 (8) North Melbourne 0.8 (0.4)
9 (9) Essendon -5.5 (-3.6)
10 (10) Western Bulldogs -5.8 (-5.2)
11 (11) Fremantle -10.3 (-7.6)
12 (12) Melbourne -20.7 (-9.0)
13 (14) Adelaide -23.5 (-25.7)
14 (13) Richmond -25.6 (-24.5)
15 (15) Brisbane -26.1 (-26.2)
16 (16) Port Adelaide -32.6 (-30.0)
17 (17) Gold Coast -44.0 (-46.2)

AFL Power Rankings - Rounds 17 and 18

2011-07-25T13:46:00.003+10:00

I was away last week, so this week we have two rounds worth of updates. St. Kilda have moved up to fifth, and Hawthorn and Carlton are closing the gap on Geelong.

Round 17

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 50.6 (Last week 51.6)
2 (2) Geelong 25.8 (26.8)
3 (3) Hawthorn 19.9 (19.9)
4 (4) Carlton 19.6 (18.5)
5 (5) West Coast 12.6 (12.7)
6 (7) St. Kilda 8.4 (7.6)
7 (6) Sydney 5.4 (8.9)
8 (8) Essendon 0.7 (-0.8)
9 (10) North Melbourne -0.5 (-3.1)
10 (9) Western Bulldogs -3.8 (-1.9)
11 (11) Melbourne -6.5 (-5.3)
12 (12) Fremantle -8.3 (-12.7)
13 (13) Adelaide -19.4 (-18.6)
14 (14) Richmond -23.5 (-20.6)
15 (15) Brisbane -25.1 (-26.7)
16 (16) Port Adelaide -30.5 (-32.2)
17 (17) Gold Coast -48.2 (-52.0)

Round 18

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 48.8 (Last week 50.6)
2 (2) Geelong 26.6 (25.8)
3 (4) Carlton 23.3 (19.6)
4 (3) Hawthorn 23.2 (19.9)
5 (6) St. Kilda 13.6 (8.4)
6 (5) West Coast 11.2 (12.6)
7 (7) Sydney 6.8 (5.4)
8 (9) North Melbourne 0.4 (-0.5)
9 (8) Essendon -3.6 (0.7)
10 (10) Western Bulldogs -5.2 (-3.8)
11 (12) Fremantle -7.6 (-8.3)
12 (11) Melbourne -9.0 (-6.5)
13 (14) Richmond -24.5 (-23.5)
14 (13) Adelaide -25.7 (-19.4)
15 (15) Brisbane -26.2 (-25.1)
16 (16) Port Adelaide -30.0 (-30.5)
17 (17) Gold Coast -46.2 (-48.2)

AFL Power Rankings - Round 16

2011-07-11T09:47:00.004+10:00

A huge gap has now opened up between Collingwood and everyone else - only Geelong would now be expected to get within five goals (and Gold Coast would be expected to lose by 19 goals in Melbourne).

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 51.6 (Last week 44.7)
2 (2) Geelong 26.8 (28.4)
3 (4) Hawthorn 19.9 (20.1)
4 (3) Carlton 18.5 (22.3)
5 (5) West Coast 12.7 (10.9)
6 (6) Sydney 8.9 (6.8)
7 (7) St. Kilda 7.6 (5.3)
8 (9) Essendon -0.8 (-2.2)
9 (11) Western Bulldogs -1.9 (-7.6)
10 (8) North Melbourne -3.1 (2.2)
11 (10) Melbourne -5.3 (-5.4)
12 (12) Fremantle -12.7 (-12.2)
13 (13) Adelaide -18.6 (-18.9)
14 (14) Richmond -20.6 (-19.0)
15 (15) Brisbane -26.7 (-28.2)
16 (16) Port Adelaide -32.2 (-28.9)
17 (17) Gold Coast -52.0 (-48.9)

My 10 Favourite Beers To Date

2011-07-05T20:29:00.003+10:00

I'm sure this list will change dramatically within a year's time, but here are my current fave brews:

1. Effen

2. Rogue Dead Guy Ale

3. Hoegaarden

4. Coldstream Pilsner

5. Little Creatures Pale Ale

6. Traquair Jacobite Ale

7. Mountain Goat Rare Breed IPA

8. Chimay Red

9. Coopers Vintage

10. Tokyo (Brewdog)

AFL Power Rankings - Round 15

2011-07-03T19:54:00.003+10:00

This week, Carlton moves back to 3rd and closes the gap on 2nd-placed Geelong.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 44.7 (Last week 43.3)
2 (2) Geelong 28.4 (32.1)
3 (4) Carlton 22.3 (16.3)
4 (3) Hawthorn 20.1 (21.8)
5 (5) West Coast 10.9 (10.0)
6 (6) Sydney 6.8 (6.9)
7 (7) St. Kilda 5.3 (5.3)
8 (8) North Melbourne 2.2 (2.6)
9 (10) Essendon -2.2 (-6.2)
10 (9) Melbourne -5.4 (0.3)
11 (12) Western Bulldogs -7.6 (-13.5)
12 (11) Fremantle -12.2 (-12.6)
13 (14) Adelaide -18.9 (-19.7)
14 (13) Richmond -19.0 (-14.7)
15 (15) Brisbane -28.2 (-28.3)
16 (16) Port Adelaide -28.9 (-29.9)
17 (17) Gold Coast -48.9 (-48.6)

AFL Power Rankings - Round 14

2011-06-27T08:24:00.002+10:00

West Coast's unexpected win over Carlton has re-arranged the top half of the rankings, with the Hawks taking over third spot from the Blues, and the Eagles moving up to fifth.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 43.3 (Last week 46.1)
2 (2) Geelong 32.1 (32.4)
3 (4) Hawthorn 21.8 (18.3)
4 (3) Carlton 16.3 (22.5)
5 (7) West Coast 10.0 (4.5)
6 (6) Sydney 6.9 (4.8)
7 (5) St. Kilda 5.3 (5.7)
8 (8) North Melbourne 2.6 (-0.1)
9 (9) Melbourne 0.3 (-0.4)
10 (10) Essendon -6.2 (-3.4)
11 (12) Fremantle -12.6 (-13.4)
12 (11) Western Bulldogs -13.5 (-13.2)
13 (13) Richmond -14.7 (-13.4)
14 (14) Adelaide -19.7 (-20.0)
15 (16) Brisbane -28.3 (-27.6)
16 (15) Port Adelaide -29.9 (-27.3)
17 (17) Gold Coast -48.6 (-49.3)

Debut Albums Rock!: Which Number Albums Are The Best?

2011-06-23T13:53:00.005+10:00

Following on from my evidence suggesting that the best tracks on great albums are weighted towards the front of the album - particularly opening tracks - I've gone on to see if the most highly rated albums tend to be albums that are early in a act's career. What I did was go back to the Best Ever Albums website, and note down for each of the Top 100 highest-ranked albums what album number it was in the act's chronology (for example, OK Computer is album No.3 for Radiohead). I excluded "Magical Mystery Tour" by the Beatles, which was originally an EP, and "Kind Of Blue" by Miles Davis, because it was too hard to work out which number it was (it was high). The graph below shows the outcomes:

As I expected, the top-ranked albums tend to be earlier albums within a band's chronology, with about one-fifth of the "Top 98" being debut albums, and about another 30 per cent being either the second or third album. After that, there is a general downward trend, which is in part to be expected, given that many great acts don't make it past a sixth album.

Opening Tracks Rock!: What Are The Best Track Numbers On Albums?

2011-06-21T09:24:00.004+10:00

For a long time I've believed that a great album needs a great opening track, and probably a good closer too. To test this theory, I went through the top 50 ranked albums at Best Ever Albums (except for monster albums "The White Album" and "The Wall") and noted down all the top-ranked tracks (as voted by the site's members; note that one album can have multiple top-ranked tracks). And here are the results in graphical form:

OK, it's still a small sample, but my theory about great albums tending to have great opening tracks is looking pretty good. It also appears you need some heavy hitters around the Track 2 to Track 5 mark. After that, it drops off a bit; the results for Track 6 to Track 9 are all about the same, and it appears that you don't really need a good closer at all given the results for Track 10 onwards (although many older albums did end at Track 9). Actually, this kind of makes sense when you think about it: OK Computer? "The Tourist" was the last track - there were better ones. Dark Side Of The Moon? "Eclipse" was the last track - that was almost a coda. And so on.

Now to test my theory if great bands also tend to have great first albums...

The Finger Points Outwards No. 35 - Beer and Economic Growth

2011-06-21T09:21:00.002+10:00

I'm not sure I'm totally convinced by the evidence here, but I like the thinking!

The RBA's Target Band and the Economic Cycle

2011-06-20T17:52:00.008+10:00

Here is a fun question for the nerdy economists. In 1996, the Reserve Bank of Australia agreed that their target for monetary policy was to achieve inflation of 2-3 per cent, on average, over the cycle. Since the start of 1997, is there any way you can define the "cycle" so that average year-ended inflation has always been inside the target band?

Strictly, not really. Pretty much anything short of taking the past 14 years as a whole (which is a defensible view), no matter how long you define the "cycle" to be there is some point from March 1997 that average year-ended inflation has been outside it. But taking the RBA's series which removes the effects on prices of the introduction of the Goods & Services Tax in 2000, the RBA have been pretty much always there if you define the cycle as 21 quarters (i.e. just over 5 years) - see the graph below. They would have to be fairly pleased with that outcome.

The Finger Points Outwards - No. 34: Who Had The Best Civil War Facial Hair?

2011-06-19T19:54:00.006+10:00

Over at the Smithsonian website, a survey is being run on who had the best civil war facial hair? Frankly, I think there is one obvious standout (and the voters appear to agree with me): Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside:

Meanwhile, though I don't usually talk about work on this forum, I thought I'd note that a bunch of FWA Research Reports are appearing on Australian Policy Online. I wonder though, if by linking it up with an image of Ambrose Burnside, I can get more hits for this report here.

AFL Power Rankings - Round 13

2011-06-19T19:18:00.004+10:00

Nothing really to comment on this week, except I'm hoping that Melbourne continue their schizophrenic form and have an off day next week against the Tiges.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 46.1 (Last week 45.1)
2 (2) Geelong 32.4 (32.8)
3 (3) Carlton 22.5 (20.3)
4 (4) Hawthorn 18.3 (18.6)
5 (5) St. Kilda 5.7 (5.9)
6 (7) Sydney 4.8 (5.2)
7 (6) West Coast 4.5 (5.3)
8 (8) North Melbourne -0.1 (-1.6)
9 (10) Melbourne -0.4 (-6.8)
10 (9) Essendon -3.4 (-2.6)
11 (12) Western Bulldogs -13.2 (-14.6)
12 (11) Fremantle -13.4 (-8.6)
13 (13) Richmond -13.4 (-16.9)
14 (14) Adelaide -20.0 (-19.2)
15 (16) Port Adelaide -27.3 (-28.6)
16 (15) Brisbane -27.6 (-25.2)
17 (17) Gold Coast -49.3 (-50.4)

Final Thoughts on the 2010-11 NBA Season

2011-06-14T17:07:00.005+10:00

Well done on the Dallas Mavericks for winning this year's NBA championship. Dirk Nowitzki and owner Mark Cuban have put their team in a great position to win for over a decade now and it's good to see it all (in Cuban's case, quite literally) pay off. Plus, the Mavs conform roughly to my ideal of how a team should be constructed: astute drafting, clever trading, a couple of handy free-agent signings, all combining to form a deep and balanced team that can handle just about any situation that is thrown at them. Essentially they're another version of my beloved 2004 Detroit Pistons team.

Meanwhile, I've grown well past tired of the level of vitriol that has been thrown at the Miami Heat over the past season. That Cleveland and Toronto fans will never forgive LeBron James and Chris Bosh for leaving I can understand, absolutely. But really, when you put it all together, what have they done to inspire the general level of hatred they have received from other fans? LeBron's "Decision" TV special? Yeah, it was self-promoting and a kick in the teeth to Cleveland fans, but it's not like he went up there and gave the middle finger to anyone - he seemed genuinely torn and sad to be leaving the only team he had known for seven years. (What he did behind the scenes might be another matter.) The "Welcome Party"? Yeah, it was over the top, but is it a lot different to how New York or Chicago would have reacted if they had managed to sign up the three most desired free agents in the league? The on-court and off-court posturing? It's no worse than a lot of other players; indeed, compared to what was going on in the early '90s when the league first gained global prominence, it's relatively subdued. If you're not from Ohio or Toronto, get over it. They lost anyway.

Now, unfortunately, it seems we are headed for the owners locking the players out over disputes around a new collective bargaining agreement. Presumably it's in no-one's interest for it to go on too long, but it may eat up a sizable part, if not all, of next season at least. This is during a time where interest in the NBA (according to TV ratings) has ignited again, and a lockout would surely slow this momentum.

Anyway, to finish off, here are my five most memorable moments from season 2010-11:

5. Following a mutiny in Detroit, the Pistons' bench laughs as their coach John Kuester is thrown out.
4. Jason Terry inexplicably lobs a long-range 3 in the dying moments of Game 5 of the Finals - and essentially ices the game for Dallas.
3. Blake Griffin dunks over a car.
2. Blake Griffin dunks over the Knicks.
1. The Miami Welcome Party - you have to admit it was memorable.

AFL Power Rankings - Round 12

2011-06-14T09:07:00.002+10:00

North Melbourne in the top half of the rankings? Yes, a couple of big wins to the Roos - even against lowly-ranked teams - combined with the ineptitude of the teams directly above them, pushes them into eighth position.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 45.1 (Last week 41.0)
2 (2) Geelong 32.8 (32.8)
3 (3) Carlton 20.3 (19.2)
4 (4) Hawthorn 18.6 (18.0)
5 (6) St. Kilda 5.9 (4.8)
6 (7) West Coast 5.3 (0.5)
7 (5) Sydney 5.2 (6.5)
8 (10) North Melbourne -1.6 (-4.6)
9 (8) Essendon -2.6 (-1.1)
10 (9) Melbourne -6.8 (-3.7)
11 (11) Fremantle -8.6 (-10.5)
12 (12) Western Bulldogs -14.6 (-13.1)
13 (14) Richmond -16.9 (-18.6)
14 (13) Adelaide -19.2 (-14.8)
15 (15) Brisbane -25.2 (-24.4)
16 (16) Port Adelaide -28.6 (-30.5)
17 (17) Gold Coast -50.4 (-47.7)

@$&! ... Everyone's An Avenger

2011-06-09T22:48:00.002+10:00

And talking about things in comics that piss me off - today I found out that Daredevil is joining the New Avengers. So much for being an Avenger meaning something. Excluding the X-Men characters, the only major Marvel heroes who do not have Avenger membership now are the Silver Surfer, Nick Fury (although it's recently been revealed that he led some 1950s Avengers group, and he hangs around so much he may as well be a member), the Human Torch, Ghost Rider, and the Punisher (who is not really a hero anyway). Sorry, despite his movie success I don't count Blade as a major Marvel hero. Luke Cage, Doctor Strange, Iron Fist, Spider-Woman, Nova ... they're all Avengers now... essentially if you've appeared in more than forty Marvel comics and haven't been given membership you should feel miffed (if you were something other than paper and ink, that is).

To some extent, this is an inevitability of the serial nature of the comics running up against the static nature of the Marvel Universe. The major characters at Marvel now are essentially the same major characters as there were in the 1960s. Take away the X-Men characters, and there haven't been any major Marvel characters introduced in 30 years. Things can change, only in the past five years have some of the characters introduced in the 1970s, including Cage, Spider-Woman and Ms Marvel, become cornerstones of the Marvel U. But Marvel seem to has missed their chance for generational change, and it seems that all we might get now are the shuffling around of the same basic pieces. Perhaps this is why one should stop reading comics at 20. I'll stop now before I depress myself...

My Mid-Season AFL All-Australian Team 2011

2011-06-09T16:18:00.004+10:00

B: Matthew Scarlett, Michael Jamison, Heath Shaw.
HB: James Kelly, Sam Fisher, Brett Deledio.
C: Scott Pendlebury, Jobe Watson, Joel Selwood.
HF: Dale Thomas, Lance Franklin, Steve Johnson.
F: Josh Kennedy, Jack Riewoldt, Jeff Garlett.
R: Aaron Sandilands, Chris Judd, Gary Ablett.
I: Marc Murphy, Dean Cox, David Mundy, Nathan Fyfe.

The DC Relaunch

2011-06-08T21:39:00.003+10:00

This one pisses me off. DC have announced that, in September, they will be relaunching most (if not all) of their titles at issue #1. This probably includes titles such as Action, Detective, Superman and Batman, all of which have had unbroken runs for over 70 years. 70 years of history gone, just like that, to a marketing gimmick.

One possible justification for the line-wide relaunch is that it will boost sales. But will it? True, #1 issues do tend to have higher sales, but often they settle down after a few issues so that within a few months it won't matter if it was issue #6 or #206. And it's debatable how much sales will spike for the new #1s, given the limited budgets of comic buyers.

What about from a creative standpoint? The shuffling around of most of the titles' creative teams could yield some hits - Brian Azzarello on Wonder Woman for instance sounds interesting - but couldn't this have been done without relaunching every title? Word of mouth about which titles are worth reading should spread regardless of the numbering system.

Really, DC have trashed 70 years of tradition for a short term gain. I wouldn't go so far as to say I hope it fails, but I hope they sorely come to regret it.

AFL Power Rankings - Round 11

2011-06-06T09:42:00.004+10:00

Sydney make the most significant jump this week after their big win in Brisbane, moving from eighth to fifth, but another notable movement is Carlton knocking Hawthorn out of third place to become the highest-ranked team behind the "Big Two".

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 41.0 (Last week 40.2)
2 (2) Geelong 32.8 (31.5)
3 (4) Carlton 19.2 (15.9)
4 (3) Hawthorn 18.0 (19.7)
5 (8) Sydney 6.5 (2.0)
6 (5) St. Kilda 4.8 (6.7)
7 (6) West Coast 0.5 (2.7)
8 (7) Essendon -1.1 (2.2)
9 (9) Melbourne -3.7 (-6.0)
10 (10) North Melbourne -4.6 (-8.1)
11 (13) Fremantle -10.5 (-11.9)
12 (11) Western Bulldogs -13.1 (-11.1)
13 (12) Adelaide -14.8 (-11.1)
14 (14) Richmond -18.6 (-17.5)
15 (15) Brisbane -24.4 (-19.6)
16 (16) Port Adelaide -30.5 (-27.9)
17 (17) Gold Coast -47.7 (-49.4)

AFL Power Rankings - Round 10

2011-05-29T20:22:00.003+10:00

This is the week where the relative part of "relative adjusted net margin" comes into focus. West Coast getting belted by Collingwood is still a better relative performance than Sydney's narrow win over North Melbourne, so the Eagles move up to sixth. Similarly, the Bulldogs' loss to Hawthorn is not as bad in a relative sense as Fremantle's loss to St. Kilda and Adelaide's loss to Brisbane, so the Dogs move up to eleventh.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 40.2 (Last week 41.8)
2 (2) Geelong 31.5 (30.1)
3 (3) Hawthorn 19.7 (18.5)
4 (4) Carlton 15.9 (13.4)
5 (5) St. Kilda 6.7 (3.5)
6 (8) West Coast 2.7 (1.4)
7 (7) Essendon 2.2 (2.2)
8 (6) Sydney 2.0 (2.3)
9 (9) Melbourne -6.0 (-3.9)
10 (12) North Melbourne -8.1 (-8.3)
11 (13) Western Bulldogs -11.1 (-9.7)
12 (10) Adelaide -11.1 (-5.3)
13 (11) Fremantle -11.9 (-8.1)
14 (14) Richmond -17.5 (-15.6)
15 (15) Brisbane -19.6 (-24.8)
16 (16) Port Adelaide -27.9 (-29.6)
17 (17) Gold Coast -49.4 (-48.2)

LeBron vs Jordan

2011-05-28T12:15:00.003+10:00

OK, right now I'd say Michael Jordan was better than LeBron James is, but there's one argument that I never want to hear again for why Jordan was better, which is that LeBron has teamed up with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh to try and win a championship. Jordan had great teammates in Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant, and then Pippen and Dennis Rodman. The difference is this: Jordan's front office in Chicago got him his great teammates, LeBron had to leave Cleveland to find his. Yes, the 'taking my talents to South Beach' quote does grate, but it doesn't impact how effective LeBron is on a basketball court. If anyone wants to say Jordan was better than LeBron is, find another argument (and there's plenty of other arguments that one can use).

Thus ends the rant.

So Where Are the Cuban Mavs On The List of Most Memorable Non-Title Winning NBA Teams Now?

2011-05-26T14:17:00.003+10:00

Up to No. 4 I reckon, although of course if they win the title they fall off the list entirely. And if Miami don't win the title, they knock out the 2004 Lakers for the No. 10 spot.

More Wins = More Brownlow Votes?

2011-05-25T17:38:00.006+10:00

Yes they do, but the effect hasn't been uniform across clubs. In particular, the newer clubs have considerably higher correlations between average votes per match and winning percentages across home-and-away seasons (excluding those seasons in which the 3-2-1 system of voting was not in place).

Brisbane Bears/Lions: 0.97
West Coast: 0.96
Adelaide: 0.95
Port Adelaide: 0.92
Fremantle: 0.91
St. Kilda: 0.81
Hawthorn: 0.78
Richmond: 0.75
Bulldogs: 0.74
Geelong: 0.73
Carlton: 0.73
Essendon: 0.73
Sydney: 0.72
North Melbourne: 0.67
Melbourne: 0.66
Collingwood: 0.61
Fitzroy: 0.59

The likely explanation for this is that votes have become more highly correlated with wins over time.

AFL Power Rankings - Round 9

2011-05-23T09:18:00.003+10:00

Most interesting week this year in terms of movement in the rankings. West Coast and the Bulldogs essentially swap spots after the Eagles toasted the Dogs. The Eagles, remember, were dead last when the season began. The Saints jump back to fifth after their win, but are still a fair way off the top four teams, which have been settled for a while now.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 41.8 (Last week 43.8)
2 (2) Geelong 30.1 (31.8)
3 (3) Hawthorn 18.5 (16.5)
4 (4) Carlton 13.4 (12.3)
5 (7) St. Kilda 3.5 (2.6)
6 (5) Sydney 2.3 (6.2)
7 (6) Essendon 2.2 (4.0)
8 (12) West Coast 1.4 (-9.6)
9 (9) Melbourne -3.9 (-3.1)
10 (10) Adelaide -5.3 (-6.8)
11 (13) Fremantle -8.1 (-11.9)
12 (11) North Melbourne -8.3 (-7.5)
13 (8) Western Bulldogs -9.7 (2.0)
14 (14) Richmond -15.6 (-17.9)
15 (16) Brisbane -24.8 (-25.8)
16 (15) Port Adelaide -29.6 (-25.5)
17 (17) Gold Coast -48.2 (-47.4)

The Overvaluation of Rings in Basketball

2011-05-16T16:29:00.010+10:00

Most basketball fans would have heard this one before: Player X has won more (championship) rings than Player Y, therefore Player X is better. Certainly the number of rings that a player has won gives some indication to how good they are - no-one wins a championship, let alone multiple championships, purely through luck. But as a method for evaluating players they are vastly over-valued.

Now I think it's true that in basketball one or two or three players can have a much larger influence on the outcome than a lot of other sports. So the amount of games a player wins does say quite a bit about a player's ability. The fact that Jordan, Magic, Bird, Tim Duncan, Shaq and Kobe have all been major contributors to teams that won championships indicates they were among the best players than the NBA has ever produced - you would have a very hard time arguing otherwise. But the difference in ability between them and a few of the players who did not win championships is not as large as often thought, and in some cases may not even exist at all.

The first reason is that a lot of basketball playoff games are very close, and there was a substantial probability that they could have turned out differently to how they did. Consider Kobe for instance - three of his championship runs involved a Game 7 that was close to going the other way: 2000 (against the Blazers), 2002 (against the Kings), and 2009 (against the Celtics). Had the Lakers lost all three he would have won "only" two rings to date. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't think of him any differently at all because he has won five rings: his team was able to win those games after all. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't think that much differently of him whether he ended up winning two championships or five, because the margin between him winning two or five championships was very slim.

The second reason is that, as dominant as the best players are, whether you win a championship or not depends to a considerable degree on your teammates. If Kobe had been an LA Clipper instead of an LA Laker, would he have won a single ring? Unlikely. But the wide disparity in results would barely be any reflection on him, rather it would be a reflection of the respective teams around him. Conversely, put Tracy McGrady (at his peak) on those Laker teams and he would have had a great chance to pick up a few rings by now. It should never be argued that a player wasn't great simply because he never won a ring. What that means is his team wasn't great. If you want to argue a player was or wasn't great, you have to have more of an argument that the number of rings he has won.

Yes it is great to win and it sucks to lose. But don't let the huge difference in emotion fool you into thinking there is a huge difference in ability. The difference is often not as large as it seems.

AFL Power Rankings - Week 8

2011-05-16T09:43:00.002+10:00

There were a few unexpected results this week, with Geelong beating Collingwood, North Melbourne beating Melbourne, and West Coast beating Fremantle. St. Kilda fall to 7th after another loss, while Fremantle fall to 13th.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 43.8 (Last week 45.3)
2 (2) Geelong 31.8 (30.2)
3 (3) Hawthorn 16.5 (15.5)
4 (4) Carlton 12.3 (12.1)
5 (6) Sydney 6.2 (4.1)
6 (7) Essendon 4.0 (1.2)
7 (5) St. Kilda 2.6 (4.7)
8 (8) Western Bulldogs 2.0 (0.8)
9 (9) Melbourne -3.1 (0.3)
10 (10) Adelaide -6.8 (-6.7)
11 (12) North Melbourne -7.5 (-11.3)
12 (13) West Coast -9.6 (-13.8)
13 (11) Fremantle -11.9 (-9.6)
14 (14) Richmond -17.9 (-16.8)
15 (16) Port Adelaide -25.5 (-23.8)
16 (15) Brisbane -25.8 (-22.7)
17 (17) Gold Coast -47.4 (-49.3)

AFL Power Rankings - Round 7

2011-05-10T09:41:00.003+10:00

All the action is around the middle this week, as Melbourne rebound back into ninth, while the Crows and Dockers take sizable hits in terms of ranking points. In terms of next week, even if Geelong beat the Magpies it's highly, highly unlikely they'll take the top spot, but it will close the gap between them.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 45.3 (Last week 46.1)
2 (2) Geelong 30.2 (29.6)
3 (3) Hawthorn 15.5 (14.2)
4 (4) Carlton 12.1 (10.9)
5 (5) St. Kilda 4.7 (5.3)
6 (6) Sydney 4.1 (2.4)
7 (8) Essendon 1.2 (2.2)
8 (7) Western Bulldogs 0.8 (2.4)
9 (11) Melbourne 0.3 (-8.2)
10 (9) Adelaide -6.7 (0.8)
11 (10) Fremantle -8.8 (-3.9)
12 (12) North Melbourne -11.3 (-10.5)
13 (13) West Coast -13.8 (-14.2)
14 (14) Richmond -16.8 (-20.6)
15 (15) Brisbane -22.7 (-21.3)
16 (16) Port Adelaide -23.8 (-23.6)
17 (17) Gold Coast -47.4 (-49.3)

AFL Power Rankings - Round 6

2011-05-02T09:53:00.003+10:00

Essendon jump into eighth after their 139-point thrashing of Gold Coast, although a 139-point win against the Suns doesn't get you as many ranking points as it did a few weeks back. Indeed, the Bombers are now barely out of sixth place as they continue their rapid rise up the rankings. Melbourne fall to eleventh after being belted out west.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 46.1 (Last week 44.1)
2 (2) Geelong 29.6 (29.6)
3 (3) Hawthorn 14.2 (13.9)
4 (4) Carlton 10.9 (8.5)
5 (5) St. Kilda 5.3 (5.6)
6 (6) Sydney 2.4 (3.7)
7 (7) Western Bulldogs 2.4 (3.5)
8 (11) Essendon 2.2 (-5.6)
9 (8) Adelaide 0.8 (-0.5)
10 (10) Fremantle -3.9 (-4.0)
11 (9) Melbourne -8.2 (-3.8)
12 (12) North Melbourne -10.5 (-14.4)
13 (13) West Coast -14.2 (-19.4)
14 (16) Richmond -20.6 (-21.3)
15 (14) Brisbane -21.3 (-20.1)
16 (15) Port Adelaide -23.6 (-20.7)
17 (17) Gold Coast -49.3 (-39.5)

The 12 Most Memorable Non-Title Winning NBA Teams Since Jordan Started Winning Everything - Part Two

2011-05-01T16:09:00.010+10:00

6. The Mid-‘90s Sonics

Peak years: 1992-97.
Best result: NBA Finals ’96.
Key players: Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton, Detlef Schrempf, Hersey Hawkins, Nate McMillan, Sam Perkins.

Kemp and Payton just edge out Shaq and Penny because they hung around for longer and they avoided getting swept in the finals. They were also arguably even brasher, what with Kemp’s spectacular dunking and Payton’s non-stop mouth. They first rose to prominence in ’93 when they stretched Barkley’s Suns to seven games in the West Finals, then had two embarrassing first round exits (including becoming the first No.1 seed to lose in the first round in ’94), and then finally broke into the NBA Finals in ’96, knocking off the two-time champion Rockets before becoming fodder for the rampaging Bulls. After that they kind of faded away, so much so that I had to look up when their era actually ended – it was when Kemp got annoyed about the Sonics giving too much money to Jim McIlvane and was traded to Cleveland in ’97. Payton then soldiered on with Vin Baker for a few years, and then he was gone, and then a few years later the Sonics were gone also.

5. The Late-‘90s Jazz

Peak years: 1994-2000.
Best result: NBA Finals ’97, ’98.
Key players: Karl Malone, John Stockton, Jeff Hornacek, Bryon Russell, Greg Ostertag, Howard Eisley.

Though the Stockton-to-Malone era lasted for what seemed like an eternity, they reached their peak when Jeff Hornacek joined the line-up. The Jazz are memorable for how uncool they were, with Stockton and Hornacek forming the dorkiest backcourt of the ‘90s, and Malone standing as an imposing pillar of blandness. But they faced Jordan’s Bulls for two years in the Finals, and gave a decent showing both times, adding some more memorable moments to Jordan’s highlight reel in the process. Malone even stole two MVPs in the process, one which should have belonged to Jordan (though most people were happy to see Malone win one) and one which should have gone to Tim Duncan. They were a great team no doubt, but I can’t put them any higher than fifth.

4. The Early-‘00s Kings

Peak years: 2001-03.
Best result: Western Conference Finals ’02.
Key players: Chris Webber, Mike Bibby, Peja Stojakovic, Vlade Divac, Doug Christie, Bobby Jackson, Hedo Turkoglu.

Oh, the agony… the Kings surely deserved to beat the Lakers in the 2002 Western Conference Finals, but were stopped first in Game 4 by a Robert Horry buzzer beater and then in Game 6 by (allegedly) the referees, and then they lost Game 7 in overtime. Had they won that series, they no doubt would have destroyed the Nets in the Finals (which, admittedly, would have been watched by about five people). This team also probably went up a couple of notches because of Doug Christie’s wife, who brought a whole new level of crazy to the WAGs club.

3. The Seven Seconds Or Less Suns
Peak years: 2004-08.
Best result: Western Conference Finals ’05, ’06.
Key players: Steve Nash, Shawn Marion, Amare Stoudemire, Leandro Barbosa, Joe Johnson, Boris Diaw, Raja Bell.

When Steve Nash re-joined the Suns in 2004, they quickly became the most popular team going around, with their “run and gun” or “seven seconds or less” offence seen as a welcome antidote to the defensively-orientated Pistons and Spurs. That popularity gained Nash two MVP awards, and the Suns made two straight trips to the Conference Finals, making the world a better place in which to be a skinny white basketballer with bad hair. Joe Johnson’s departure hurt their chances to win it all, as did Stoudemire’s microfracture surgery in ’05-06 (though it did help Nash win his second MVP award). Then, inexplicably, Marion was traded for an aging Shaquille O’Neal and his massive contract in ’08, effectively killing off the SSOL era, though the Suns would again reach the Conference Finals in 2010. Coach Mike D’Antoni and Stoudemire’s ego are now using a “run and gun” style in New York, but it isn’t quite the same without Nash on board.

2. The Riley Era Knicks

Peak years: 1991-95.
Best result: NBA Finals ‘94
Key players: Patrick Ewing, John Starks, Charles Oakley, Charles Smith, Anthony Mason, Doc Rivers, Derek Harper.

Say what you want about Pat Riley’s Knicks teams, but they were memorable (though not always for the right reasons). Ewing’s jumpshot and battles against Hakeem, the thuggish frontline of Oakley and Mason, Starks’ dunk on the Bulls and his epic fail in Game 7 of the ’94 Finals, Charles Smith getting blocked 47 times by the Bulls’ defence, and so on … This team also spawned a memorable rivalry when Riley jumped ship to the Miami Heat and the Heat and Knicks proceeded to pound on each other for the next few seasons. It’s a shame they never went up against the Pistons’ “Bad Boys” more often, maybe then we would have seen if Riley’s hair could ever be ruffled.

1. The Mid-to-Late ‘90s Pacers

Peak years: 1993-2000.
Best result: NBA Finals ‘00
Key players: Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, Dale Davis, Antonio Davis, Mark Jackson, Jalen Rose, Derrick McKey.

You wouldn’t think a team from Indiana could stand out as the most memorable non-title winning team of the past couple of decades, but there’s a number of factors that earned them the top spot on this list. First, their long run of success: they made the Eastern Conference Finals in ’94, ’95, ’98, ’99 and 2000. Second, their depth: Miller, Smits, the Davises, Jackson and Rose were all All-Stars at some point in their careers. Third, their memorable rivalries with the Knicks and the Bulls: who can forget Miller’s mouthing off at Spike Lee, or his eight points in 8.9 seconds? Between Miller’s shooting and the Davises toughness on the boards they could do it all: except win the title that is. So they will have to settle for being No.1 of the non-winners instead.

The 12 Most Memorable Non-Title Winning NBA Teams Since Jordan Started Winning Everything - Part One

2011-04-29T11:39:00.012+10:00

12. The “Dream Team” Lakers

Peak years: 2003-04
Best result: NBA Finals ‘04
Key players: Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant, Karl Malone, Gary Payton.

This team barely qualifies for this list, as Shaq and Kobe won multiple titles with the Lakers, and this line-up was only together for one season. But with four future Hall-of-Famers it’s still a memorable team, made even more so by their Finals loss to the non-superstar-studded Detroit Pistons in 5 games. In that series, the cracks in this heavily favoured Lakers team were burst open, as Chauncey Billups obliterated Payton, Kobe couldn’t hit the side of a barn, and Malone spent half the series grizzling on the bench (I have fond memories of that series). At season’s end Shaq was traded to Miami and Malone and Payton were let go, leaving Kobe as the lone star of the team - needless to say, it would be a few years before the Lakers were a force again.

11. The Pre-Brawl Pacers

Peak years: 2001-05
Best result: Eastern Conference Finals ‘04
Key players: Jermaine O’Neal, Ron Artest, Reggie Miller, Brad Miller, Stephen Jackson, Jamaal Tinsley.

The Pacers were on the rise in the early/mid-‘00s, earning the best regular season record in 2003-04 before losing to the Pistons in the Eastern finals. Jermaine O’Neal finished 3rd in the MVP voting that year and Artest won Defensive Player of the Year, and they looked like they would be a contender for years to come. The team is more memorable though for their spectacular flame-out as a result of Artest and Jackson’s infamous brawl with the spectators at Auburn Hills. From that game, Artest received a 73-game suspension, Jackson received 30 games, and O’Neal received 25 games, effectively killing their ’04-05 campaign. Artest would be traded the next year and the Pacers never recovered. Funnily enough though, O’Neal has emerged the worst from the Pacers’ collapse for earning big contracts and putting up mediocre numbers, while Jackson earned a measured of respectability as captain (!) of the Warriors and Artest won a championship and recently the J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award (!!) as a member of the Lakers.

10. The Barkley Era Suns

Peak years: 1992-96.
Best result: NBA Finals ’93.
Key players: Charles Barkley, Kevin Johnson, Dan Majerle, Mark West, Danny Manning, A.C. Green.

Barkley’s arrival in Phoenix changed the team from moderately successful to championship contenders, and they were only stopped from winning it all in ’93 by Jordan’s three-peating Bulls. Actually, what I remember most from this era in Phoenix is the awesome ads they produced, including the “Godzilla vs. Charles Barkley” series and the Nike ad of Dan Majerle diving around the court. This team could be higher, but no-one really remembers anyone in the team outside the “Big Three” of Barkley, KJ and Majerle (oh, and Richard Dumas... let’s not forget him).

9. The Late-‘90s/Early-‘00s Blazers

Peak years: 1999-2001.
Best result: Western Conference Finals '99, ’00.
Key players: Rasheed Wallace, Scottie Pippen, Steve Smith, Damon Stoudamire, Arvydas Sabonis, Bonzi Wells, Brian Grant, Detlef Schrempf.

No team has ever been more stacked than the 2000 Trail Blazers, and no team is better remembered for losing a big lead in a pivotal game, as they lost a 15 point fourth-quarter lead to hand the Lakers the Western Conference finals. They were so stacked that a young Jermaine O’Neal could hardly get on the court, which some say may have been their undoing given the difficulties involved in getting everyone ample minutes. But if they could have just held on to that lead against the Lakers, then maybe people would have ended up singing the praises of having a deep roster over having two superstars and nothing else. Two years later, another team with a deep roster would come even closer to knocking off the Lakers, forging some of the most painful-ever memories for us Lakers-haters ... we’ll get to that...

8. The Cuban Era Mavericks

Peak years: 2000-present (it’s all a blur, really ...)
Best results: NBA Finals ‘06
Key players: Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash, Jason Terry, Michael Finley, Jason Kidd, Josh Howard.

Since Mark Cuban took over ownership of the Mavericks in the early 2000s they have been successful for a remarkably long period of time, and through a considerable number of roster changes without ever winning it all. Apart from the aforementioned key players, other former All-Stars that the Mavs have employed include Shawn Marion, Antawn Jamison, Caron Butler and Devin Harris. Many observers think they should have won in the ’06 Finals, when Dwyane Wade was famously awarded more free throws in one game than the entire Mavericks team. Then the next season they were even more famously ousted in the first round by the 8th-seeded Warriors, after they had won 67 games and Nowitzki was named the MVP. But still, all those 50 and 60-win seasons are hard to ignore. What keeps this team from placing higher is that they haven’t really had a stable core throughout this era: their most memorable line-up was when Nash and Finley were on the team, but their greatest successes came after those two left.

7. The Mid-‘90s Magic

Peak years: 1993-96.
Best result: NBA Finals ‘95
Key players: Shaquille O’Neal, Penny Hardaway, Horace Grant, Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott.

In the mid-‘90s the Orlando Magic were cooler than “Seinfeld” or Pearl Jam, with Shaq and Penny coming to prominence in the era where mass-marketing was at its peak for young, high draft picks. If you were a teenager playing basketball in this era, the rules were simple: if you were a smaller guy you thought you were Penny, if you were a big guy you thought you were Shaq. When Grant joined in ’95 they shot up the standings and into the Finals, beating Jordan’s Bulls along the way (the only team to do it in this era), only to get swept by Hakeem Olajuwon and the Houston Rockets. The next year, Jordan’s Bulls destroyed everything in their path, and the year after that Shaq was in LA. Fans in the mid-‘90s would soon get used to seeing potential dynasties rise up and then get suddenly dismantled; no-one encapsulated that more than Shaq and Penny on the Magic.

Swan v Hockey: The Inflation Debate

2011-04-28T11:31:00.005+10:00

ABC News is reporting that Treasurer Wayne Swan and Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey are engaging in a "slanging match" over the recent Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation figures. Swan, according to the report, is "laying the blame" for the spike in inflation on the recent floods and Cyclone Yasi, whereas Hockey is reportedly saying the figures are more about economic management than the weather. Let's take a closer look at who is being more misleading here.

CPI inflation in the March quarter 2011 was 1.6 per cent. Over the past ten March quarters, inflation has averaged about 0.9 per cent. So the latest figure is somewhat higher than what you would usually see at that time of year. The Treasurer's media release says that the large rise in fruit and vegetables prices contributed about 0.4 percentage points to the CPI. Hence, there seems to be a little bit more going on than just the effects of the natural disasters. As the release itself points out, automotive fuel prices also rose strongly, contributing 0.3 percentage points to the inflation figure.

In response, Hockey noted that "[Prices of] Pharmaceuticals [are] up 13 per cent - totally unrelated to Yasi and the floods; fuel up 9 per cent, lamb and mutton up 7 per cent, education 6 per cent, electricity 5 per cent across the board." First, the jump in fuel prices is largely out of Australia's hands, because it is primarily determined by world oil prices. Pharmaceutical prices rise strongly in the March quarter every year due to the mechanics of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme whereby co-payments are reduced at the start of each year. Similarly, education prices rise strongly in the March quarter every year, due to increases in school fees of course. So yeah, some of the large price rises have been for items unaffected by Yasi and the floods, but it's hard to see what the Government should have done differently to prevent the rise. And underlying inflation (which is intended to show the general trend in inflation, absent large temporary spikes in prices) is relatively low, which doesn't help Hockey's case.

In conclusion then, I think Hockey is being the more misleading here, at least in this instance.

AFL Power Rankings - Round 5

2011-04-26T18:07:00.003+10:00

Only a couple of surprise results this week, so very little change in the rankings.

(What may be a surprise is the relatively low rankings of Fremantle and Essendon, given their current ladder positions. The Dockers' position reflects their mediocre form over the second half of 2010, and their win in Adelaide was their only result this year that has had a notable change on their ranking - that is, all their other results (including their recent win over the Bulldogs) have been fairly much in line with their current rating. As mentioned before in this space, the system may be under-rating the Bombers: they had some dreadful results late last year, but seem to have significantly improved this year - if they can keep up this form, they should soon be able to break into the top half.)

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 44.1 (Last week 45.1)
2 (2) Geelong 29.6 (28.9)
3 (3) Hawthorn 13.9 (13.5)
4 (4) Carlton 8.5 (8.9)
5 (5) St. Kilda 5.6 (5.9)
6 (7) Sydney 3.7 (3.8)
7 (6) Western Bulldogs 3.5 (4.0)
8 (8) Adelaide -0.5 (-2.4)
9 (9) Melbourne -3.8 (-4.1)
10 (10) Fremantle -4.0 (-5.4)
11 (11) Essendon -5.6 (-8.0)
12 (12) North Melbourne -14.4 (-13.0)
13 (14) West Coast -19.4 (-19.6)
14 (15) Brisbane -20.1 (-20.9)
15 (13) Port Adelaide -20.7 (-18.9)
16 (16) Richmond -21.3 (-24.1)
17 (17) Gold Coast -39.5 (-42.2)

The Finger Points Outwards - No. 33

2011-04-24T09:35:00.001+10:00

I've often experienced a feeling similar to that expressed in this article about the 'two eras' of pop music history, or any other medium for that matter.

AFL Power Rankings - Round 4

2011-04-17T20:28:00.004+10:00

A match against Gold Coast is the gift that keeps on giving - this week it's the Demons who benefit from playing the Suns, moving up from eleventh to ninth. The top eight remains the same, but the Crows' position is looking more precarious.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 45.1 (Last week 44.3)
2 (2) Geelong 28.9 (29.0)
3 (3) Hawthorn 13.5 (16.4)
4 (4) Carlton 8.9 (11.4)
5 (5) St. Kilda 5.9 (5.8)
6 (6) Western Bulldogs 4.0 (5.3)
7 (7) Sydney 3.8 (3.7)
8 (8) Adelaide -2.4 (1.3)
9 (11) Melbourne -4.1 (-10.8)
10 (9) Fremantle -5.4 (-5.6)
11 (10) Essendon -8.0 (-9.4)
12 (12) North Melbourne -13.0 (-12.4)
13 (14) Port Adelaide -18.9 (-23.2)
14 (15) West Coast -19.6 (-23.3)
15 (13) Brisbane -20.9 (-21.6)
16 (16) Richmond -24.1 (-23.5)
17 (17) Gold Coast -42.2 (-35.7)

The Greatest De-Motivational Poster Ever

2011-04-12T14:16:00.003+10:00

Yeah, it's an oldie, but it still hasn't been topped:

AFL Power Rankings - Round 3

2011-04-10T20:38:00.003+10:00

The Bombers continue to re-shape the rankings after another big win over a highly rated team, moving them up to 10th, and knocking the Saints out of the top four.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 44.3 (Last week 44.1)
2 (2) Geelong 29.0 (28.4)
3 (3) Hawthorn 16.4 (13.7)
4 (5) Carlton 11.4 (12.1)
5 (4) St. Kilda 5.8 (12.7)
6 (6) Western Bulldogs 5.3 (4.2)
7 (8) Sydney 3.7 (3.1)
8 (7) Adelaide 1.3 (3.8)
9 (9) Fremantle -5.6 (-9.0)
10 (12) Essendon -9.4 (-15.9)
11 (10) Melbourne -10.8 (-9.8)
12 (11) North Melbourne -12.4 (-12.2)
13 (16) Brisbane -21.6 (-23.6)
14 (15) Port Adelaide -23.2 (-22.4)
15 (14) West Coast -23.3 (-22.3)
16 (13) Richmond -23.5 (-20.6)
17 (17) Gold Coast -35.7 (-33.2)

AFL Power Rankings - Round 2

2011-04-03T23:03:00.003+10:00

Well, the Gold Coast make their first appearance this week, and given their 119-point capitulation at home to Carlton, they rightly bring up the rear. They are joined down the bottom by Brisbane, who were well beaten by the Bulldogs, and Port Adelaide, who were beaten at home by our previous bottom-ranked team, the Eagles.

Up the other end, Carlton have made the largest jump in ranking points, almost grabbing a spot in the top four. Time will tell if it's a sustainable leap, or if other teams that play the Gold Coast Suns also experience a boost in their ratings. Other clubs that have considerably raised their standing this week through strong wins are the Bulldogs (up a couple of slots to No. 6), Hawthorn (up to No. 3), and of course, Collingwood, who now look to be nearly three goals better than their closest rivals. Sydney, despite their win over Essendon, fall to eighth, partly because the teams just below them had great weeks, although the ranking system may still be under-rating the Bombers at this stage.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 44.1 (Last week 39.9)
2 (2) Geelong 28.4 (28.7)
3 (4) Hawthorn 13.7 (10.5)
4 (3) St. Kilda 12.7 (14.6)
5 (7) Carlton 12.1 (3.1)
6 (8) Western Bulldogs 4.2 (0.7)
7 (6) Adelaide 3.8 (3.1)
8 (5) Sydney 3.1 (3.4)
9 (11) Fremantle -9.0 (-11.5)
10 (9) Melbourne -9.8 (-7.2)
11 (10) North Melbourne -12.2 (-9.8)
12 (12) Essendon -15.9 (-18.2)
13 (15) Richmond -20.6 (-24.4)
14 (16) West Coast -22.3 (-26.1)
15 (13) Port Adelaide -22.4 (-20.8)
16 (14) Brisbane -23.6 (-21.3)
17 (-) Gold Coast -33.2

AFL Power Rankings - What To Do With The Gold Coast Suns?

2011-03-28T09:52:00.004+11:00

The AFL Power Rankings are meant to be a reflection of a team's form over their past 22 matches (discounting the pre-season), with more recent matches receiving a higher weighting. However, until next week, the total number of games the Gold Coast Suns will have played is zero. Hence, there is the potential for the Suns to add a great deal of instability into the rankings over their first few matches. This is not only because there will not be a lot of data by which to determine Gold Coast's ranking, but also because there will not be a lot of data to determine a team's relative performance against them. For example, if Carlton beats Gold Coast by 6 goals next week is that a relatively good result or bad result for the Blues?

I like the following solution best. I am going to assume that the Gold Coast, in their first season, are essentially the equivalent of the Brisbane Bears in their first season (1987). In their first season, the Bears had an average net margin over 22 rounds of -25.1 points. I will therefore populate each of the past 22 weeks of data for Gold Coast (thanks to Lauren for this part of the idea) with a net margin of -25.1 points.

The result is that Gold Coast currently sit 16th in the rankings, between Richmond and West Coast. Any team that played Gold Coast next week would have to beat them by 14 points or more (remember there is an adjustment of +12 points for playing in Queensland) for their performance to be considered above par. The best part about this solution is that Gold Coast's ranking will now change at broadly the same pace as other clubs: if they get off to a great start they will move up the rankings, but pretty much no faster than any other team near the bottom who has a few good games. And teams that play the Gold Coast will have their ranking no less affected than if they played any other team down the bottom of the rankings.

It may be that Gold Coast turn out to be a better/worse team than the 1987 Bears, but I think that's a reasonable expectation for them for now.

Until next week...

AFL Power Rankings - Round 1

2011-03-27T21:57:00.003+11:00

As promised, here is the first installment of the weekly AFL Power Rankings for 2011. Most of the results in Round 1 were consistent with the rankings post-2010 finals, so there is not much changing of positions from then. The big exception was Essendon smashing the Bulldogs, with the result that the Bombers fly up a couple of rungs, and the Bulldogs, continuing their rather average ending to 2010, crash from fifth to eighth. I'll figure out where to slot in new team the Gold Coast Suns when they play next week.

1 (Last week 1) Collingwood 39.9 (Last week 39.8)
2 (2) Geelong 28.7 (30.6)
3 (3) St. Kilda 14.6 (12.9)
4 (4) Hawthorn 10.5 (12.0)
5 (7) Sydney 3.4 (3.4)
6 (8) Adelaide 3.1 (1.6)
7 (6) Carlton 3.1 (4.2)
8 (5) Western Bulldogs 0.7 (8.2)
9 (9) Melbourne -7.2 (-7.1)
10 (10) North Melbourne -9.8 (-9.9)
11 (11) Fremantle -11.5 (-11.1)
12 (14) Essendon -18.2 (-25.4)
13 (12) Port Adelaide -20.8 (-21.0)
14 (13) Brisbane -21.3 (-21.7)
15 (15) Richmond -24.4 (-25.9)
16 (16) West Coast -26.1 (-26.3)

My SuperCoach Starting Line-Up For 2011

2011-03-25T09:30:00.002+11:00

Plenty of cheap Gold Coast players, although all on the bench for Round 1 (because of the bye):

Defenders: Goddard, B (StK), Gibbs, B (Carl), Deledio, B (Rich), Grimes, J (Melb), Adcock, J (BL), Otten, A (Adel), Heppell, D (Ess), Toy, J (GC), Lower, N (Fre), Duigan, N (Carl).

Midfielders: Swan, D (Coll), Pendlebury, S (Coll), Bartel, J (Geel), Gaff, A (WC), Conca, R (Rich), Atley, S (NM), Swallow, D (GC), Bennell, H (GC), Harris, D (GC).

Rucks: Sandilands, A (Fre), Hale, D (Haw), Fraser, J (GC), Smith, Z (GC).

Forwards: Riewoldt, N (StK), Franklin, L (Haw), Pavlich, M (Fre), Goodes, A (Syd), Higgins, S (WB), Krakouer, A (Coll), Tapscott, L (Melb), Petrie, D (NM), Matera, B (GC), Darling, J (WC).

My Top 5 Favourite Places to Drink in my Little Circle of Melbourne

2011-03-13T22:50:00.002+11:00

5. SweatShop - Lonsdale St, CBD: This is a tough call between this bar, Black Pearl (Brunswick St, Fitzroy), Troika Bar (Little Lonsdale St, CBD), and Town Hall (Errol St, North Melbourne). All of them play great music, but I will go with Sweatshop because even if you don’t get a table you can still hang about, which doesn’t work so well in the other spots. The design of Sweatshop is simple enough: it’s essentially a bunker with a whole bunch of ‘1sts’ scrawled along the walls (all of them appear to be in-jokes, don’t try to understand them). But it has a decent atmosphere at any time of night (possibly because it always feels like it is 11pm there), making it a good stand-by for any night out in the CBD.

4. Berlin Bar – Corrs Lane, CBD: I’ve only dropped by Berlin Bar twice, but it’s certainly a place that makes an impression. First you have to walk up a flight of nondescript stairs to an equally nondescript door, and ring the bell for access. Once inside you walk past a large photo of Hitler (or Charlie Chaplin I suspect) standing over a globe, and then up to the bar itself, which has been divided into a very plush ‘West Berlin’ section, and a plush but faux-rundown ‘East Berlin’ section. The drinks menu itself is also fairly satisfying, with plenty of German beers, and a good range of cocktails. It’s not necessarily a place you would go to on a regular basis, given the degree of difficulty in obtaining access, but it’s worth making the trip at least once.

3. The Corner Hotel – Swan St, Richmond: In terms of design, the Corner Hotel is no better than any of the other pubs in the Swan St area; its rooftop beer garden is quite good, although not even necessarily among the best beer gardens in Richmond. But of course, that’s not what the Corner is most famous for: it’s the great line-up of bands that play at the venue each year. It’s pretty handy to have a beer upstairs and then walk down to the bandroom, and on some nights, to go back and forth between the two: music, beer, music, beer, and so on… It would rate higher, but getting up to the rooftop beer garden can sometimes be frustrating, and there’s some chance one of your party will be kicked out before the night is through.

2. Der Raum – Church St, Richmond: Der Raum is apparently considered one of the best bars in the world, and I would say with good reason. Any drink there is guaranteed to be some sort of experience: mine so far have been a Jamaican Black Strap served in a medicine bottle and wrapped in a little brown paper bag, and a coffee-flavoured cocktail that looked like a miniature stout. And they all taste great, hence justifying the relatively hefty price tag. Alas, Der Raum is soon to become a ‘members’ bar’, which may make it harder to gain access, but if I’m passing by and feeling wealthy I’ll still give it a shot.

1. Madame Brussels – Bourke St, CBD: Madame Brussels has pretty much everything you would want in a Melbourne bar: an outside rooftop area, kitsch décor, a back room parlour, good-looking wait staff, jugs of cocktails, and imported beers. And it used to be a brothel. Just about the perfect place to drink - except when it rains, that is …

The Finger Points Outwards - No. 32: The Australian "Housing Bubble"

2011-03-11T13:54:00.003+11:00

While I'm still not prepared to definitively call it a 'housing bubble', I reckon this is a pretty convincing argument on why we should be at least a little concerned about Australian housing valuations.

Gig Review: MGMT - Palace Theatre, Melbourne

2011-03-09T12:51:00.004+11:00

First on stage were Pond, who essentially looked like MGMT if they had been de-aged by a decade. They also looked like they had come directly from a 'Time To Pretend' video shoot given their various states of undress. Listening to their set was basically a game of 'pick the late '60s psychedelic hippie tune', but they passed the time for the audience in attendance, and playing to a large crowd seemed like it was a thrill to them at least.

The real MGMT then stood up, opening with three of my favourites: 'Weekend Wars', 'I Found A Whistle', and the duke of all rock manifesto anthems: 'Time To Pretend'. For all the kerfuffle about how much of a departure their second album was from their first (always an exaggeration), the songs were woven pretty much seamlessly together, backed by the obligatory arty footage of coloured lights and transposed images. The set was well executed and very rarely dull, no small achievement for a band that has the 12-minute 'Siberian Breaks' in their repertoire. There wasn't much in the way of putting on an actual 'show' for the punters - the exception being 'Kids' where Andrew and Ben left their instruments and danced and rolled about the stage - but the band didn't really need to resort to theatrics when the music they were playing was so multi-layered and, to use a 'late '60s psychedelic hippie' term, groovy. The audience reacted well also, obviously the popster trinity of 'Kids', 'Electric Feel', and 'Time To Pretend' received the most enthuastic responses, but in contrast to reports I have read of other shows, the band's other material wasn't drowned out by the murmuring. All in all, worth a pat on the back and a great big congratulations for Brooklyn's shaggiest, and let's see where they go from here.

The Finger Points Outwards No.31

2011-02-28T09:14:00.001+11:00

A research report I contributed to on employees earning below the Federal Minimum Wage has been released (Report 3/2011 - Employees earning below the Federal Minimum Wage: Review of data, characteristics and potential explanatory factors).

The Finger Points Outwards - No.30: 65 Greatest Shots in NBA History

2011-02-16T14:35:00.002+11:00

Hmm, there's been quite a few basketball posts here recently, but I can't resist a link to this cool visualisation of the NBA's 65 Greatest Shots.

(Also, on the same site - every slam dunk video from the NBA Slam Dunk Contest.)

Game Review - NBA Jam

2011-02-16T00:11:00.007+11:00

If you're a junior basketball coach, you'd want to keep your charges well away from NBA Jam, where players are rewarded for showing off and shoving the other team on defence. As a rule-follower myself, I felt a bit uncomfortable at first with this laissez-faire approach to the game J.Naismith built, but after a while you get used to the mania, and how it marks a refreshing change from the 'if it's in the game, it's in the game' attitude of other sports sims. For those unfamiliar with the original, NBA Jam essentially revolves around a fast-paced game of 2-on-2, in which players have abnormally big heads and can leap higher than the backboard to deliver court-shaking dunks. For those already converted to the church of 'Boomshakalaka!' this version updates the players to today's rosters, but you're able to unlock the players from the early '90s version, as well as other basketball legends not named Jordan. There's also a 'remix tour' which involves a slightly different version of 2-on-2 with power-ups (but these don't tend to affect the game that much), as well as a backboard smashing game, a 'domination' game in which you shoot and try to capture seven spots on the floor, and boss battles. And you can still catch 'on fire' if you make three consecutive shots. Like all sports games it tires after a bit, still it's not like you can replace it by going down to your local court and doing backflips from the free throw line. Or growing a gigantor head. Or shoving your opponent to the ground. At least not without some unintended side-effects.

Album Review – Cut Copy: ‘Zonoscope’

2011-02-12T12:53:00.002+11:00

What is the difference between OK and addictive? When Cut Copy’s second album, ‘In Ghost Colours’ was released, it seemed like the perfect soundtrack to Melbourne city nightlife (or indeed, any Western city’s nightlife) – swooning vocals, open guitar, pulsating synths - with every track flowing seamlessly into the next and demanding your attention. Most of the same elements are present on their new album, ‘Zonoscope’, and yet it feels much more like scenery than its predecessor. It should work … for example, the 15-minute closer ‘Sun God’ has the potential to be an epic Mancurian-like final track for the ages, with its insistent beat and looping chorus of ‘Are you gonna give me your love/Love will treat you’, and then its winding down for a patient breather before heading into the final flurry. But maybe that’s the problem – it’s all a little bit too much in the head, and built around what should work rather than what does. On ‘In Ghost Colours’, even though a lot of work and craftsmanship undoubtedly went into the music, it also felt like it had been bursting to get out ever since Dan Whitford bought his first Casio. ‘Zonoscope’, in contrast, feels too drawn out, which is not to say that there are not some good tracks on here – ‘Alisa’, ‘Take Me Over’, ‘Pharaohs and Pyramids’ and ‘Blink And You’ll Miss A Revolution’ in particular. But it’s never a good sign when listening to a band’s new album makes you long for their last one. Never mind Cut Copy – I’ll still see you when you tour.

Image copyright Modular

Introducing the AFL Power Rankings - Part Three

2011-02-09T15:55:00.005+11:00

OK so far I have introduced the formula for the AFL Power Rankings, which is built around the concept of relative adjusted net margin, where points for versus points against are adjusted for the strength of the opposition and the state where each game is played. I have also talked about what adjustments could be made to net margins, based on the historical results of teams when they travel interstate. Now it is time to calculate us some numbers.

When calculating the numbers, I made one major change to the methodology I had outlined to date. In a previous post, I had proposed using the following formula:

Team Score = 2/3*(Average relative adjusted net margin over past 22 games) + 1/3*(Average relative adjusted net margin over past 5 games)

But I have since replaced it with this formula:

Team Score = Sum over past 22 games of (Weight for game * Relative adjusted net margin for game)

Where weight for game = (1/22) + (1/22) * (11.5 – No. of games ago)/11.5

Essentially the difference is that, in the latter formula, each game has a progressively lower weight the less recent it is. This seemed to me a better weighting pattern than my first formula where, for example, every game from 6 games ago to 22 games ago had the same weight.

Applying this formula gives us the following rankings after the 2010 AFL home-and-away season:

1. Geelong 35.6
2. Collingwood 34.0
3. Western Bulldogs 17.1
4. Hawthorn 16.0
5. St. Kilda 9.6
6. Carlton 5.9
7. Sydney 4.0
8. Adelaide 3.5
9. Melbourne -5.7
10. North Melbourne -7.6
11. Fremantle -9.4
12. Port Adelaide -19.1
13. Brisbane -20.1
14. Essendon -23.5
15. Richmond -24.1
16. West Coast -24.8

Given what we know transpired in the finals, it may seem that Collingwood and St. Kilda are too low. However, while it may be difficult to remember this fact now, Geelong and Collingwood were roughly equal favourites for the premiership heading into the finals series, with Geelong coming off thumping wins against the Bulldogs and Carlton heading into September, and Collingwood squeaking past Adelaide and losing (albeit narrowly) to Hawthorn. Meanwhile, St. Kilda had a so-so second half of the season, only winning three and drawing one of its last seven games.

The rankings of Hawthorn and Fremantle may also be controversial, given that the Dockers polished off the Hawks in their first final. But leading up to that game Hawthorn were displaying much better form than Fremantle, with the Hawks making up for their poor start to the season, and the Dockers squandering their great start. If you take away Fremantle’s 116-point thrashing in Hobart, where it fielded a second-string side, it would move up to ninth in the rankings, which is perhaps a fairer reflection of its form.

If we factor the 2010 finals in, we come up with the following rankings:

1. Collingwood 39.8
2. Geelong 30.6
3. St. Kilda 12.9
4. Hawthorn 12.0
5. Western Bulldogs 8.2
6. Carlton 4.2
7. Sydney 3.4
8. Adelaide 1.6
9. Melbourne -7.1
10. North Melbourne -10.0
11. Fremantle -11.1
12. Port Adelaide -21.0
13. Brisbane -21.7
14. Essendon -25.4
15. Richmond -25.9
16. West Coast -26.3

Collingwood has now pulled clear of Geelong, and St.Kilda has moved up to third, reflecting the good form of both of those teams during September. In terms of its score, Hawthorn has been punished for its first-up loss in Fremantle, although it remains in fourth position overall. (The scores of non-finals teams also change as all of the relative margins change, but only by small amounts.)

I’m reasonably happy with the post-finals rankings, so I think this formula will stick. That being the case, the Depot will bring you the updated AFL Power Rankings every week throughout the season (though with considerably less discussion). Stay tuned.

Introducing the AFL Power Rankings - Part Two

2011-02-07T09:31:00.003+11:00

In my previous post on a proposed ‘Power Rankings’ system for AFL teams, I talked about the concept of adjusted net margin, where the net margin for a team (points for – points against) would be adjusted by the relative advantage/disadvantage from playing home/away. I said there that the adjustments would need to be worked out; in this part I offer some opinions on what those adjustments could be.

To answer this, I calculated the average losing margins of ‘away’ teams at the seven main home grounds of AFL teams: AAMI Stadium in Adelaide, the GABBA in Brisbane, Skilled Stadium in Geelong, the MCG and Etihad Stadium in Melbourne, Subiaco Oval in Perth, and the SCG in Sydney. I did this from 1987 onwards, when West Coast (and the Brisbane Bears) joined the league, but did not bother including the Bears or Fitzroy in my calculations. For the two Melbourne grounds, I assumed that those grounds were ‘home’ grounds for all of the Victorian teams. There were some differences in the Victorian teams' performance between the two grounds, but I think that has more to do with how successful each team has been since Etihad Stadium opened in 2000.

The average losing margins of ‘away’ teams at each ground were as follows:

Skilled Stadium – 22.6
AAMI Stadium – 18.7
GABBA – 18.6
Subiaco – 12.2
MCG – 8.0
Etihad – 7.0
SCG – 6.6

From these figures, it seems that Geelong, the Adelaide teams, and Brisbane have the highest home ground advantages, but one thing that needs to be remembered is all those teams have been fairly successful over the past couple of decades. For example, Geelong’s average net margin since 1987 is itself over two goals. If you look at those teams’ overall average net margins – that is, roughly how well those teams would be expected to do at a ‘neutral’ venue – then I reckon their home ground advantage is worth about two goals in each case. I also think the home ground advantage at Subiaco is worth about two goals, once you account for West Coast’s and Fremantle’s overall performances.

The SCG result is a little surprising, even accounting for the fact that it includes some games where two ‘away’ teams played (for example, when North Melbourne and the Bulldogs played ‘home’ games there). My first thought was to say that the MCG, Etihad and the SCG all have a home ground advantage of about nine points against all interstate teams. But looking closer at the figures, I noticed that Sydney tends to perform better in Melbourne than other interstate teams, and Victorian teams tend to perform better in Sydney than other interstate teams. Therefore, I reckon a better approach is to say that playing at the SCG is worth one goal advantage to Sydney against Victorian teams, and two goals against all others, and that playing at the MCG or Etihad is worth one goal to Victorian teams against Sydney, and two goals against all other interstate teams. (If you hadn’t already worked it out, I’m setting the advantage of playing in Melbourne against another Victorian team as zero.)

Those results seem fairly reasonable to me, so now I have pretty much all I need to go calculate some ranking points.

Movie Review - Easy A

2011-02-05T21:08:00.005+11:00

Usually I hate 'teen movies', and those set in California even more. But this one is really good, and smarter than your average flick. The title of the movie itself is a reference to Nathaniel Hawthorne's 'The Scarlet Letter', and there's a few Huck Finn jokes as well. Also, jokes take a while to pay off, which means you have to pay attention for more time than it takes to tweet. Emma Stone is excellent as the high school girl who pretends to be a skank in order to help boost the reputations of the socially awkward - her character is a clever mixture of self-awareness and naïveté, cynicism and hope. I also picked up two phrases I will have to use in future - 'terminological inexactitude' (as in 'there was a lot of terminological inexactitude around the office today'), and 'you burn through a lot topics really quickly' (as in 'shut up'). An even nicer surprise than 'Mean Girls'.

Introducing the AFL Power Rankings

2011-02-01T13:35:00.002+11:00

Over at ESPN.com each week, columnists Marc Stein and John Hollinger produce their NBA Power Rankings. The aim of these rankings is to ‘look through’ the standings to see where each team really stands in the scheme of things. Stein’s rankings are based on his opinion, while Hollinger’s rankings are based on a statistical formula.

I have wondered if Hollinger’s approach could be translated across to the Australian Football League. After some pondering, I think a formula that could be used is as follows:

Team Score = 2/3*(Average relative adjusted net margin over past 22 games) + 1/3*(Average relative adjusted net margin over past 5 games)

Let me explain:

1) Like Hollinger, I think the strength of each team should be based on their average net margin (points scored less points conceded) rather than their wins and losses. I have not checked if winning or losing margin is indeed a better predictor of a team’s future success in AFL than wins and losses, but if makes sense that it would, given teams that keep winning close games are riding their luck to an extent.

2) Average net margin needs to be adjusted for the strength of teams played, hence giving us the concept of average relative net margin. Average relative net margin is calculated as the average over all a team’s games of their net margin against each opponent less the average net margin by all teams against each of those particular opponents. So if Team A beats Team B by 3 points but if, on average, teams beat Team B by 13 points then relative net margin for Team A from playing Team B is -10 points. Over the long-run, as they play most of the teams, a team’s average relative net margin should more or less simply approximate a team’s average net margin.

3) Average relative net margin in turn needs to be adjusted for the advantage from playing at home and/or the disadvantage from playing interstate, giving us the concept of average relative adjusted net margin. To do this, all the net margins for a team would need to be adjusted by the relevant advantage/disadvantage (which would need to be worked out) from playing home/away. So if a Team A wins by 3 points when playing interstate but the disadvantage from playing interstate is 18 points then the adjusted net margin of Team A is 21 points.

4) I have put two-thirds weight on a team’s success over the last 22 games, and one-third weight on their success over the last 5 games. That seems to me a reasonable estimate of how people generally weigh up a team’s performance in recent matches.

If/when I can put some figures together, I’ll try and put this system into practice.

The Wooden Finger Mix Tape 2010

2011-01-29T16:49:00.003+11:00

Side One:

1. A More Perfect Union - Titus Andronicus (7:09)
2. Black Sheep - Suckers (3:42)
3. Madder Red - Yeasayer (4:03)
4. Round And Round - Ariel Pink's Haunted Graffiti (5:08)
5. Undertow - Warpaint (5:53)
6. Monster - Kanye West (6:18)
7. We Used To Wait - Arcade Fire (5:01)
8. Radar Detector - Darwin Deez (3:09)

Side Two:

1. Terrible Love - The National (4:39)
2. Spanish Sahara - Foals (6:49)
3. The High Road - Broken Bells (3:52)
4. On Melancholy Hill - Gorillaz (3:53)
5. Shampain - Marina and the Diamonds (3:11)
6. Run - Vampire Weekend (3:52)
7. There's Nothing In The Water We Can't Fight - Cloud Control (3:59)
8. Vital Signs - Midnight Juggernauts (5:23)
9. Mace Spray - The Jezabels (5:09)
10. I Found A Whistle - MGMT (3:40)

(Thanks to Daniel S for giving me the idea for this post.)

The Finger Points Outwards - No. 29 - Why Derrick Rose is NOT the NBA's Most Valuable Player

2011-01-28T14:45:00.007+11:00

The buzz around NBA circles is that Chicago Bulls point guard Derrick Rose is the frontrunner for the Most Valuable Player Award. Derrick Rose? Really? As far as I can tell the case for this seems to be that the Bulls are playing well even though Joakim Noah and Carlos Boozer have been injured for semi-lengthy periods this season. Wait, did I say Joakim Noah... I think that means I can use this photo ...

(What did the NBA blogosphere do before Joakim Noah showed up?)

Anyway, this post puts the case for why Derrick Rose isn't even the best player at his position in his conference.

But for those who don't have the foggiest what 'Wins Produced' means, this put the case against Rose's MVP candidacy in layman's terms.

Graphic Novels You Would Like If You Weren't Too Chicken To Read Them - Asterios Polyp/Wilson/Lint (Part Three)

2011-01-25T11:05:00.005+11:00

Comic book readers have their fair share of fetishisms, and writer/artist/colourist/auteur Chris Ware seems only to encourage them with his ‘Acme Novelty Library’ series. Each issue comes with its own unique design and packaging, and is printed in limited numbers (also enabling it to be re-sold for an exorbitant price on eBay). Issue number 20, ‘Lint’, is no exception, with its eye-catching floral cover design and gold lettering.

Each page of ‘Lint’ recounts an episode from the life of its protagonist, Jordan/Jason Lint, starting at birth, ending at death, and with a whole lot of sexual imagery in between. It may sound linear; however it is anything but, as Ware’s choice of images and words hide as much as they reveal, and they are arranged across the page in such a way that it is not always clear which panel follows from which. Images from the past intrude upon the present, and often to disturbing effect. Lint makes a number of wrong turns in his life: from schoolyard bully to pothead musician… to worse; still he is a somewhat more sympathetic figure than Mazzuchelli’s Asterios Polyp or Clowes’ Wilson, for he has less of an inflated sense of his own importance, and seems more regretful than they do for the damage he causes. (Also, he is drawn in the soft, fattish sad-sack manner in which Ware tends to depict his protagonists.) ‘Lint’ may take less than an hour to read, but by the end of it you will feel you know this man better than characters you have read about hundreds of more times.

So that’s the end of my brief look at comics’ brush with the literary establishment. Nothing to do now but sit and wait for that Green Lantern movie.

Images copyright Drawn & Quarterly

Rating Cricketers – Further Thoughts

2011-01-23T15:59:00.003+11:00

In a previous post, I said that a team’s chance of winning a match can be modelled as a function of the following factors:

- how many runs the team scores
- how many runs the other team scores
- how many wickets the team loses
- how many wickets the other team loses
- how quickly the team scores runs
- how quickly the other team scores runs

Actually, you can reduce a team’s chance of winning a match to:

- how quickly the team scores runs
- how quickly the other team scores runs
- how long the team stays in
- how long the other team stays in

For example, assume in one-day internationals that an average team will score 200 runs and stay in for 250 balls. For a team to bat better than average it has to either score faster than the average team or stay in longer than the average team. For a team to bowl better than average it has to either make the other team score slower than the average team or bowl the other team out faster than the average team. If a team is below average in all of these facets it would be expected to lose more than it wins.

The value of a batsman then is:

Value of how quickly batsman scores relative to average batsman + Value of how long batsman stays in relative to average batsman

And the value of a bowler is:

Value of how slowly bowler concedes run relative to average bowler + Value of how quickly bowler gets batsmen out relative to average bowler

The first part of these formulas appears relatively easy to calculate. In the long-term, for a batsman, the value of how quickly they score is:

Average runs scored by batsman – Average strike rate of all batsmen * Average balls faced by batsman

Let’s say the average strike rate of all batsmen is 0.75. Then a batsman who averages 40 off 60 balls is, on average, creating a value of -5 runs relative to the average team from how quickly they score. A batsman who averages 30 off 35 balls is, on average, creating a value of 3.75 runs relative to the average team from how quickly they score.

But hang on, one batsman is averaging 40 and the other batsman is averaging 30; doesn’t that automatically make the first batsman more valuable? Well no, if the batsman averaging 40 is scoring slower than the average batsman then they are taking away value the longer they are batting in terms of keeping pace with the average team. But the batsman averaging 40 is offsetting this negative effect by virtue of being able to stay in longer than the average batsman, and therefore helping their team stay in longer than the average team.

What is the value of staying in? This appears more difficult to calculate, as it is likely to depend on how many overs are left and how many wickets have been lost. Essentially you would need to work out when a batsman typically comes into the innings and calculate how many more or less runs the team is expected to score as a result of the batsman staying in longer or shorter than the average batsman. Let’s assume the average batsman stays in for 25 balls. For the batsman who averages 40 runs off 60 balls, their value from staying in longer than the average batsman is equal to the extra runs the team is expected to score by not being one wicket further down for those 35 extra balls. If, as a result of this, the team can be expected to score more than an extra 5 runs (recall the batsman was costing the team 5 runs relative to the average team from their slow batting), then that batsman is still making a positive contribution.

For a bowler, the value of how slowly they concede runs is:

Average economy rate of all bowlers * Average balls bowled by bowler - Average runs conceded by bowler

And the value of getting batsmen out would be the difference in runs the other team is expected to score as a result of the bowler getting batsmen out faster or slower than the average bowler.

Alas, I don’t think I have the patience to work out the figures. But the main message I wanted to get across here is that batting and bowling averages in themselves are not useful except as an indication of how long a batsmen can stay in or how quickly a bowler can get batsmen out, and that you can not evaluate a batsman or bowler without taking into account their strike rate or economy rate (a batsman with an average of 40 but a strike rate of 50 in one-day internationals is not a useful batsman). It’s working how to best weight the fall of wickets relative to the pace of scoring which is the tricky part.

P.S. Yes I know that strength of opposition and pitch conditions matter to performance. I'm assuming that, in the long run though, the effects of these on a cricketer's performance should roughly even out.

The Finger Points Outwards - No. 28

2011-01-20T23:11:00.002+11:00

A webcomic written by a 5 year-old and illustrated by his 29 year-old brother? Whether you think that idea sounds awesome or awful will probably determine whether you like Axecop.

NBA All-Star Picks 2011

2011-01-18T15:22:00.005+11:00

Every year, I run through my head my list of who I think will make the NBA All-Star Game; it’s a handy way of filling in time or trying to get to sleep. This year though, I thought I would broadcast my picks for all the world to see! Aren’t you lucky? Well, first up, let’s assume that those players currently leading the voting in each position will keep their leads, meaning the starting line-ups will be as follows:

Eastern Conference: Guards: Derrick Rose (Chicago) and Dwyane Wade (Miami); Forwards: LeBron James (Miami) and Amare Stoudemire (New York); Center: Dwight Howard (Orlando)

Western Conference: Guards: Chris Paul (New Orleans) and Kobe Bryant (LA Lakers); Forwards: Carmelo Anthony (Denver) and Kevin Durant (Oklahoma City); Center: Yao Ming (Houston)

Now of the West starters, at least one and maybe two will not take their spots – firstly, Yao Ming will be having enough trouble standing upright, let alone stepping on to a basketball court against the best players in the league, and secondly, within a week or two, some sucker franchise near the Hudson River (either New York or New Jersey) may have finally, FINALLY, traded away their future for the most over-rated player this side of Allen Iverson, namely Carmelo Anthony (there goes my chance of him ever following me on Twitter). In Yao’s case, the LA Lakers’ bearded behemoth Pau Gasol - who must certainly get voted in the coach’s by a reserve - is a good replacement at center (although El Pau is listed as a forward, he has played most of his basketball at center this season).

The West team virtually picks itself: Pau’s rival in lanky limbs and shaggy locks, Dirk Nowitzki (Dallas) has once again led the Mavericks to one of the league’s best records, Deron Williams (Utah) has kept the Jazz together after Carlos Boozer did what he does best, i.e. skip town, Spurs’ backcourt chums Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili (San Antonio) will surely be rewarded for being the two leading scorers on the league’s most successful team this season, Russell Westbrook (Oklahoma City) is getting plaudits from everywhere for leading his team in the occasional absences of Kevin Durant, and Kevin Love’s (Minnesota) gaudy rebounding stats and token white guyishness should be enough to overcome the crappyness of his team’s record.

That leaves one spot, possibly two if Anthony goes east. Monta Ellis (Golden State) scores a lot, which will probably get him in, but I’d much prefer Blake Griffin (LA Clippers) who, apart from his spectacular dunking which was spotlighted here earlier this week, can both score a lot and rebound a lot, as well as make rangas everywhere dream of playing basketball. Ellis gets the nod if Anthony goes; alas, perennial pillar of virtue Tim Duncan must miss out and be content with being The Onion’s favourite target for gentle mockery.

Out East, the pickings are slimmer: Rajon Rondo (Boston) is, I think, an even better pick than Rose for a starting spot, but I subscribe to the Wins Produced theory of player value, and am not concerned by the fact he looks like Earthworm Jim, Rondo’s teammate Paul Pierce also gets in due to the simple equation ‘Leading Scorer on Best Team = All-Star Appearance’, Chris Bosh (Miami) started off the season as that funny kind of guy who only looks good because he hangs around the cool kids (LeBron and Wade) but has turned out to be a very fine third wheel indeed, and Raymond Felton (New York) should get enough of a NY media campaign behind him to join Stoudemire at the game.

After that, ugh… I feel Atlanta’s record, particularly in the weak-ass East, will net them an All-Star; I’ll say Al Horford over Joe Johnson, as Johnson is averaging under 20 points a game which is tough to sell as being worthy of an All-Star berth when you are on a max contract and what you are being paid to do is score. One of the Bulls’ big men, Joakim Noah or the Great Deserter Carlos Boozer should probably get a spot, but both have been injured for long stretches; I reckon Boozer gets it as he has been injured slightly less. Although just mentioning Joakim Noah gives me an excellent excuse to use this photo.

Andrea Bargnani will get some support for the final spot, but I can’t support anyone who is seven foot tall and grabs less than six rebounds a game, so let’s give it to another Celtic, either Ray Allen or Kevin Garnett, probably Allen I guess to even up the guards and forwards.

So, there’s my thoughts… damn it, now what will I use to get to sleep?

The Finger Points Outwards No. 27 - Age and Ranking of Men's Tennis Players

2011-01-17T09:41:00.005+11:00

Read an article in 'The Age' on the weekend about how the top male tennis players are becoming older - this article shows this is indeed right, at least when you look at the top 100.

The Finger Points Outwards No. 26 - 10 Best Blake Griffin Dunks (So Far)

2011-01-15T11:17:00.003+11:00

(Half-)White rangas can jump!

Who's Crying Now?

2011-01-13T12:50:00.003+11:00

England have won the Ashes not once, but twice, since I posted this (despite, as the Betfair ad would have us believe, the man in this picture betting against them).

Graphic Novels You Would Like If You Weren't Too Chicken To Read Them - Asterios Polyp/Wilson/Lint (Part Two)

2011-01-11T13:31:00.003+11:00

There are few graphic novel creators that are more beloved by purveyors of all things hip and cool than Daniel Clowes and Chris Ware who, because we are also so hip and cool, are exactly the creators we are going to cover over the next few days! On Sunday, I termed the character Asterios Polyp a pompous ass; well, the titular character of Clowes’ most recent graphic novel ‘Wilson’ could best be described as loathsome and, according to the descriptions on the back of the book, ‘a sociopath’ and ‘a delusional blowhard’. (Though he is also described as ‘a delicate flower’ and ‘a devoted father and husband’, which are apt descriptions as well.) It would spoil the humour of the book to give away too much about how he manages to offend every person he encounters, but refusing to give directions to somebody just because they are driving a large vehicle, and sending a family a box full of dog shit are fairly typical examples. So why bother reading about this guy? Because, for all his bile, Wilson is actually not too far wrong in places about the manner in which people live their lives, and the myriad ways in which he confounds norms and expectations will make you think a little even as you cringe in your chair. That said if you don’t like stories in which the characters have few redeeming qualities, this probably isn’t for you. Perhaps the best approach is to pick it up in the bookstore, read a few pages, and see if you chuckle along or want to hit someone over the head with it. Though if it’s the latter, maybe this is for you as well!

Next up, Chris Ware’s latest beautiful issue of his irregular series ‘Acme Novelty Library’: ‘Lint’!

Image copyright Drawn & Quarterly

Graphic Novels You Would Like If You Weren't Too Chicken To Read Them - Asterios Polyp/Wilson/Lint (Part One)

2011-01-09T11:34:00.003+11:00

Perhaps coincidentally, three of the most lauded graphic novels of the past couple of years have been one-off character studies of somewhat maladjusted men: David Mazzuchelli’s ‘Asterios Polyp’, Daniel Clowes’ ‘Wilson’, and Chris Ware’s ‘Lint’. Maybe graphic novel writers and readers are best suited to dealing with these types of people… I’m not going to judge (lest I implicate myself)… but each of these authors does seem to have a pretty good understanding of what it means to be something of a misanthrope. And going down this route does appear to gain the medium more respect than capes and power fantasies have ever done, partly because it allows the personal styles of the creators to shine through, thus showing that the medium has far more to say about the human condition than many believe.

Mazzuchelli’s ‘Asterios Polyp’ is the most self-consciously literary of the three (the author notes claim that Mazzuchelli has been making comics for years, but this is his first graphic novel), and takes as its subject an architect-slash-professor-slash-author. Polyp is, to put it bluntly, a pompous ass; at one point his long-suffering wife, herself a brilliant artist, exasperatedly asks him if he thinks she is stupid because he seems to always assume that what she says is wrong. Polyp’s story is interrupted at points to allow him to pontificate on his theories of architecture and duality, much of which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but they are presented in such creative ways that you wish you knew what he was talking about. Unsurprisingly, the thrust of the story is how Polyp learns to curb his arrogance and recognise the importance of others; however, there is no lightbulb-goes-off-in-the-head moment, and Polyp’s journey takes some unconventional routes, involving dream sequences with figures from Greek mythology, radical Communism-spouting country punk bands, and a big-bosomed astrology expert who calls herself ‘a goddess’. Mazzuchelli’s visuals themselves are pretty simple and clean – where the complexity comes from is the way he alters his figures and arranges his symbols so as to develop meaning (abstract though that meaning may be). Yes it all sounds very arty, but it also pokes fun at its own arty-ness, and it’s a bit of a pleasant surprise from an artist who, rightly or wrongly, is still best known for his collaborations with Frank Miller on ‘Batman: Year One’ and ‘Daredevil: Born Again’ (both of which are excellent by the way). Most people who have taken a college or university arts course at some point in their lives would get a kick out of this.

That’s it for the moment; I’ll cover off ‘Wilson’ and ‘Lint’ another time, hopefully later this week.

Image copyright Pantheon Press.

Game Review - Donkey Kong Country Returns

2011-01-06T21:28:00.002+11:00

The two-player co-operative mode on ‘Donkey Kong Country Returns’ is a microcosm of any co-dependent relationship: you need to co-ordinate your efforts, use each other’s strengths to progress, know when to let the other monkey forge ahead and when not to leave the other monkey behind, and be careful not to free-ride too much on the larger monkey’s back. My wife and I have made our way across the beach, through the cave, along the forest, and on to the cliff, each of us alternating between Donkey Kong and Diddy Kong (aka the Didmeister), and it has done more to strengthen our video gaming co-existence than any game this side of ‘Rock Band’. Perhaps more so, given that DKCR also has a greater variety of situations than any game this side of ‘Super Mario Galaxy’; we’ve learned that I seem to have an advantage in swinging from vines, while my wife has an advantage in jumping around in mine carts and finding secret stashes of bananas. Alas, the dodgy controls that plagued DK ‘Jungle Beat’ are also evident here at times: you don’t always jump when you think you’ve jumped (or not as high), or duck when you think you’ve ducked. There is also a tendency for “spontaneous primate disappearance”, where you can’t work out where your chosen monkey is amongst the jungle backdrop and the little shits that are out to kill you. Never mind, it’s still fun enough for you to get past these frustrations and save the poor possessed beasts. Although perhaps it’s best not to tell people how much monkey business is going on in your household.

Image copyright Nintendo

Gig Review – Public Enemy – Corner Hotel, Richmond – Dec 29

2011-01-02T20:57:00.000+11:00

The ticket claimed that Public Enemy would be performing their famous album, ‘Fear of a Black Planet’. However, after just six tracks in PE announced they would be interspersing their set with tracks from their other famous album, ‘It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold us Back’… except two or three more tracks in that plan was jettisoned as well. Instead PE went on for almost an hour past their scheduled finishing time with a marathon mix of greatest hits, new cuts, blues covers, guest MCs, two-man banter… and the band suggested that, if it wasn’t for a council curfew, they would have gone on for even longer than that. It was somewhat of a contrast from their heyday, when Chuck D’s tight, booming lyrical flow made the group seem like a major musical and political force to be reckoned with. Indeed, it seemed like Chuck’s position as the leader of the group has been usurped by his ‘sidekick’, Flava Flav, who has kept himself in remarkable shape, both physically and vocally. And the show itself seemed to reflect Flav’s on-stage persona: loose, rambling, a little nonsensical, politically conscious but not quite on the same cerebral level as what the PE of old brought to hip-hop. Tellingly it was Flav who delivered the final message of the night about how regardless of colour we are all part of the human race, which was certainly consistent with PE’s past messages of racial tolerance, but lacking a little in terms of the anger and eloquence about racial tensions in America that fuelled PE’s best work. Of course, the social landscape in the US has changed considerably over the past couple of decades – even before Obama’s ascent – and it may not necessarily be a bad thing that the group can nowadays kick back a little and have some fun. But you kind of wish that they had a new cause to put their fists behind – whatever, it was still cool to see one of the most important acts in hip-hop history. Fight the powers that be, then…

Rating Cricketers: Thoughts On A Simple Model

2010-12-30T13:11:00.003+11:00

One way to rate cricketers is to measure them on their contribution to winning, or not losing, a match. A team’s chance of winning a match can be modelled as a function of the following factors:

- how many runs the team scores
- how many runs the other team scores
- how many wickets the team loses
- how many wickets the other team loses

And because of the time constraint on a cricket match, whether it is a Test or first-class match to be completed in a given number of days or a match with limited overs, these factors matter as well:

- how quickly the team scores runs
- how quickly the other team scores runs

According to this view, a cricketer’s contribution to the result of the match will depend on their contribution to each of these factors. In terms of bowling, a cricketer’s contribution will depend upon:

- how many wickets the cricketer takes
- how quickly the cricketer takes wickets (i.e. the cricketer’s bowling strike rate)
- how many runs the cricketer concedes from their bowling
- how quickly runs are scored from the cricketer’s bowling (i.e. the cricketer’s economy rate)

What would need to be done to measure the cricketer’s contribution in terms of bowling is to determine how each of these factors affects the team’s chance of winning. For example, each wicket a team takes could increase its chance of winning by, say, 0.5 per cent. A bowler who took 10 wickets in a match would therefore have increased their team’s chance of winning by 5 per cent. As another example, each run a team concedes may decrease its chance of winning by, say, 0.05 per cent. A bowler who concedes 100 runs in a match then would therefore have decreased their team’s chance of winning by 5 per cent.

In terms of batting, a cricketer’s contribution to the result of the match will depend upon:

- how many runs the cricketer scores
- how quickly the cricketer scores runs (i.e. the cricketer’s batting strike rate)
- whether the cricketer loses their wicket
- how long the cricketer can stay in before losing their wicket

And similarly to bowling, what would need to be done to measure the cricketer’s contribution in terms of batting is to determine how each of these factors affects the team’s chance of winning. For example, each run a team makes could increase its chance of winning by, say, 0.05 per cent. A batsman who makes 100 runs in a match would therefore have increased their team’s chance of winning by 5 per cent.

It would be interesting to estimate how important each of these factors is to the result of a cricket match, and how we might reassess the contribution of cricketers in light of them. One concern with this simple model is how to capture the contribution of fieldsmen. All thoughts and comments welcome.

The Whitest Band In The World

2010-10-16T22:43:00.004+11:00

A few years ago Christian Lander, the creator of the blog 'Stuff White People Like', when asked who was the whitest band, replied 'Vampire Weekend... they're pushing it to levels unseen'. As it turned out that assessment may have been a bit premature, as several other contenders have emerged in the meantime. Fleet Foxes and Bon Iver made city-dwelling white people all over fantasise about leaving their problems behind and going to sing and play guitar in a cabin in a mountain forest. The Arcade Fire continue to reach new levels of whiteness, releasing an album that is an extensive love/hate tribute to growing up in the suburbs. And Yeasayer, from Brooklyn via Baltimore, with their world music-influenced pop, and band members named Anand Wilder and Ira Wolf Tuton are perhaps even stronger contenders for the title than Ezra Koenig's crew.

But none of them can compare to the xx. Name a prerequisite for whiteness and this band can tick it off. First, they are all as pale as the moon. The guy singer (Oliver Sim) has the smooth, deep, understated voice to make all white girls swoon and want to buy him a Shiraz Cabernet. The girl singer (Romy Madley Croft) is not overly physically attractive, so white girls don't feel threatened by her and white guys can like her and make believe they are sensitive. They hail from South London, placing them closer to the Tate Modern than Old Trafford. Their name centers around the white person's favourite letter (despite 'The X-Factor', the word 'ex' retains a special place in white people's vocabularies), and their album cover was a masterstroke of white person design - all black, with a white 'x' in the middle of it. Their music is dark, brooding, and romantic; a more mature version of teenager outsider poetry, with lines about bridges being on fire, and becoming crystallised, and watching things on VCRs. The xx are the ubiquitous white person group - they could fit into any white person club in any white person city and be wholeheartedly embraced. Because secretly every white person wants to form a band that is just like them.

P.S. I quite like the xx.

How To Choose A Beer

2010-10-10T18:08:00.003+11:00

People who know me would know that I like variety in my beer choices - someone once remarked that they had never seen me drink the same beer twice. Hence, I was excited when a store opened up near my place (Purvis Cellars) which had over 700 different types of beer - enough for me to try a new beer a day for almost two years. So far I have tried about a dozen new beers from there (note the introduction of the 'What I've Been Drinking' box on this blog), and have found that, really, beers are not all that different. The Whistler Lager from British Columbia I had today was fairly similar to the dozens of Crown Lagers I have had, and even the more exotic Rogue XS and Boont Amber Ale were not that different to other red and amber ales I have had.

And yet I'm still excited by going back to try more beers! Why? (OK, maybe being an alcoholic is part of it.) There are many wines I haven't tried, and yet I'm not as excited in seeking them out. A big part of it I think is the distinctive packaging and naming of beers. Have a new wine and you're likely to forget what it was in five minutes, whereas if you have a new beer, particularly a bottled beer, you're much more likely to remember it and can converse about it at a later date. This applies between beers as well; so far I've been more interested in trying the US and Canadian beers with cool names like Dead Guy Ale rather than the blandly packaged German beers whose names I have little chance of remembering. Frankly, if more wines had names like Dead Guy Merlot I would be more excited about tracking them down as well.

Well, that and beers taste better...

Cheers! - The Man With the Wooden Finger

Reflections on the AFL Grand Final Replay

2010-10-04T21:03:00.003+11:00

Each year the AFL Premiership is surrounded by its own mythology about why the premier won and why in some sense it was inevitable. You would think that this year's replay would dispel some of those notions, given how different it was from the first match. But no, stories abound how Collingwood had the class to win a premiership and St. Kilda didn't - never mind that, if Lenny Hayes' kick had bounced the right way into Stephen Milne's hands, St. Kilda would most likely have won the premiership last week.

This is not to deny that Collingwood was generally the best performed team this year - its winning percentage this year indicates that it was - but to dispute how much weight is given to one match. Teams can play seven-game final series and still the better team can lose (even in this case, I thought Collingwood were the better team), so one should be cautious about passing judgment on a player or team based on the events of last Saturday. Collingwood played well enough over the season that they gave themselves a chance to play off for the premiership, but so did Geelong and so did St. Kilda, and we shouldn't overstate the gap between those sides. Last week there was nothing separating the Magpies and the Saints, and if the Saints had scored one more point, some of those 'expert judges' who are singing the Magpies' virtues would be calling them supreme choke artists. And that would be the wrong conclusion to draw as well.

Who is Shane Walsh-Smith?

2010-09-30T08:21:00.015+10:00

Yesterday at work I received several emails from someone called Shane Walsh-Smith, who for some reason had put the qualifier (ne Smith) at the end of his email. This prompted speculation around the office as to why Mr Smith would decide to hyphenate his name. I offered that the most likely explanation was that he had gotten married and changed it - not an unheard-of step for a newly married young man, although certainly unusual. The (completely unsubstantiated) contention was that Ms Walsh-Smith may be the sort of person who would make Mr Walsh-Smith do the cooking and laundry when he got home, as well as paint Ms Walsh Smith's toenails and curl her hair.

I then suggested that there were a couple of other possibilities: first, Shane Walsh-Smith may actually be a woman (think Shane Gould), or second, Shane Walsh-Smith may be Shane Smith's cross-dressing alter-ego. This was too much - the mystery had to be solved! I typed 'Shane Walsh-Smith' into Google and got a link through to his Facebook page (I won't be so mean to our Shane to post a link to that page in this forum). This revealed that Shane Walsh-Smith was indeed a dashing young man from Canberra, who is married to Katie Walsh-Smith (nee Walsh), and has a baby girl named Annie (perhaps the real reason Shane decided to hyphenate his name).

He even has a blog at which you can find out about more things Shane-related (this I will post a link to):

Select From Shane

If you visit his blog, you will discover that Shane Walsh-Smith is a writer of graphic novels, both of which you can read for free on his website. It turns out his wife Katie also has a blog, which is more rudimentary than Shane's but appears to be updated more regularly. Katie claims that she is happily married to Shane - whether that is because he does do all the cooking and laundry and paints her toenails is yet to be revealed. (Note: We are only kidding, Ms Walsh-Smith! ... Although maybe we are only saying that because we are afraid of you.)

So, mystery solved! Well, it wasn't really all that much of a mystery, but it's interesting to know that you can find out pretty much anything about anyone nowadays...