The Hinkley Factor

[Booney]

Playing more games late in the season won't affect your Hinkley Factor (as it's percentage-based). Teams playing fewer games will have greater variance but it works both ways so cancels out.

Remember that the Hinkley Factor is a relative measure - i.e. how well does a team perform post-June, as compared with their early season performance, so winning premierships should not necessarily lower your Hinkley Factor.

The correlation appears to be that premiership winners tend to improve throughout the season, which isn't a coincidence, but isn't logically necessary either.

Bullshit, when you win those games

You saying finals are harder to win than minor round games?

You'll need more words than that to explain your hypothesis.

[Mr Beefy]

Playing more games late in the season won't affect your Hinkley Factor (as it's percentage-based). Teams playing fewer games will have greater variance but it works both ways so cancels out.

Remember that the Hinkley Factor is a relative measure - i.e. how well does a team perform post-June, as compared with their early season performance, so winning premierships should not necessarily lower your Hinkley Factor.

The correlation appears to be that premiership winners tend to improve throughout the season, which isn't a coincidence, but isn't logically necessary either.

Bullshit, when you win those games

You saying finals are harder to win than minor round games?

You'll need more words than that to explain your hypothesis.

I'm making no judgement on how hard finals are to win compared to minor round games.. I'm pointing out that winning grand finals will have a positive impact on your second half winning percentage, so therefore, it is logical that premiership winners are predominantly in the negative hinkley factor.

[RB]

You saying finals are harder to win than minor round games?

For HF calculation purposes, they're not.

There are 9 finals wins and 9 finals losses up for grabs each season, all of which go into the data. So teams that play finals have as many opportunities to increase their HF as decrease it.

The average HF is basically zero (see first post).

If the inference you've drawn was correct Booney, the average HF would be much higher than zero.

I get the point you're making, but I think you've actually misunderstood mine.

[Booney]

I haven't read any of it if I'm honest.

[Trader]

They are both correct.
Mr Beefy is correct that by winning a flag, you'll have a slightly larger win percentage in the second half of the year than if you didn't win the flag.
RB is correct in that its negligable in terms of the hinkley factor.

I'll expand:

Winning a flag means you've won 3 finals (occasionally 4).
3 finals wins spread over a stat that covers 13 seasons.
13 seasons, 23 games a year, 299 games (roughly).

As a side who made finals, let's assume you have a 60% win rate.
180/300, or 183/303 with a flag.
Your win percentage moves from 60% to 60.39%
If you won it after losing the qualifying final, like Brisbane this year, then you get 183/304, and the boost is to 60.19%, or less than 0.2%

Its worth 0.4% in terms of raw data.
Yet the spreads we are seeing are covering a range of 25%.


So yes, winning a flag will boost your hinkley factor slightly, but its less than 0.5% on a range over over 25%.

[Mr Beefy]

Or be like Richmond, win flags or dont make finals

[RB]

I haven't read any of it if I'm honest.

That figures

[Booney]

I haven't read any of it if I'm honest.

That figures

I'm sure it's a riveting read though.