Our fixture difficulty analysis

[tbaker]

There's been some conjecture (and suspicion) over the difficulty of our fixture this year, so I did some analysis of our fixture to see how hard we had it compared to other teams.

First, a ranking of fixture difficulty based on venue only (i.e. based on teams given a positive score for having home ground advantage, negative for being disadvantaged). Rank 1= hardest, 18 = easiest:
Rank Score Club
1 -23 Hawthorn
2 -18 Collingwood
3 -14 Carlton
4 -14 St Kilda
5 -12 Essendon
6 -11 Richmond
7 -11 Western Bulldogs
8 -8 Melbourne
9 -5 Geelong
10 -4 North Melbourne
11 -2 Sydney
12 1 Greater Western Sydney
13 16 Fremantle
14 18 West Coast Eagles
15 18 Port Adelaide
16 19 Gold Coast
17 20 Brisbane
18 30 Adelaide

Next, a ranking of days break advantage compared to opposition. This is a calculation of the number of games with extra break but factored according to % of extra days rest each team has over the opposition (a positive value given when having the extra break, negative when on the receiving end). Where both teams had 7+ days break it was not calculated as an advantage for either team. Rank 1= hardest, 18 = easiest:
Rank Score Club
1 -8.47 Hawthorn
2 -6.80 Greater Western Sydney
3 -4.35 Fremantle
4 -3.87 Adelaide
5 -2.65 Geelong
6 -2.55 Collingwood
7 -2.50 Brisbane
8 -1.83 North Melbourne
9 -1.53 Essendon
10 -0.72 Gold Coast
11 1.78 Carlton
12 2.07 St Kilda
13 2.47 Sydney
14 2.92 Melbourne
15 3.05 West Coast Eagles
16 5.53 Richmond
17 7.62 Port Adelaide
18 9.83 Western Bulldogs

Clearly, Hawthorn has been the most disadvantaged by this year's fixture, being the worst affected by both home ground advantage plus the worst of days rest relative to opposition. When combining the ladders, we would come in 2nd hardest. At the other end of the scale, I'd suggest that Port Adelaide has benefited the most, having both a significant home ground advantage factor AND significant days rest advantage.

[simon tonna]

Fantastic analysis of the rogering we coped this season. This info will bode well when I cross paths with the usual anti Collingwood scum on the golf course today👍

[tbaker]

^ Thanks. For all those saying that the days break between games evens out in the end, it clearly doesn't. Plus, there are those simple analyses out there that just compare a total of days break (i.e. sum of all the + days and the - days), but doesn't consider how many games each team has been advantaged or disadvantaged. For instance, if team A:
in game 1 has a 9 day break vs a 5 day break (+4 diff)
in game 2 has a 5 day break vs a 7 day break (-2 diff)
in game 2 has a 4 day break vs a 5 day break (-1 diff)
...then using the simple differential sum method, it indicates a +1 differential (i.e. was better off), but in reality was advantaged in just 1 game and disadvantaged in 2 games, so the calculations I performed correct this misinterpretation. So in the above example, the calculation would be:
game 1: 9/5 = +1.8
game 2: 7/5 x -1 = -1.4
game 3: 5/4 x -1 = -1.25
total = -0.85

[23 YIPPEE!!!]

Richmond has had it easy probably too easy

[Pies2016]

It’s a brilliant objective analysis.
I find myself thinking about just how various teams have been impacted by the unique hurdles that they have all faced.
I tend to believe that bubble living is probably more suited to younger list profiles than those with ageing lists.
I also have no doubt that if you’re used to playing in front of huge crowds nearly week with majority support, then this would have some intangible impact from one player to the next.
If you add it all up, intangibles included, it might add some weight to Ports rapid climb and the Hawks very rapid fall.

Hopefully, if you can get through this thread without anyone linking your analysis as an excuse for Buckley’s failings as a coach, then you will have done very well.

[Uncle Jack]

I t would be an interesting exercise to study home ground umpiring differences. If there is an advantage, did the games with zero crowds nullify it?