This weeks’ Standard Methodology simulations see the average team’s Expected Win count change by 0.6 wins, probability of making the 8 change by just under 9% points, and probability of finishing Top 4 change by 6.5% points. The equivalent values for the Heretical Methodology are 0.8 wins, 8% points, and 7% points.

By way of context, those values are quite similar to those for the previous round, which were:

• Standard Methodology: 0.7 wins; 9% points for Top 8; 6% points for Top 4

• Heretical Methodology: 0.8 wins; 7.5 points for Top 8; 5.5% points for Top 4

All of which is to say that, on those metrics, the Round 4 results altered the average team’s chances by about the same amount as did the Round 3 results.

MoSHBODS is still making fairly large adjustments in its Team Ratings, and this is reflected in the simulation details that appear below.

With twice the amount of information about each team’s 2020 season form, it’s no surprise that the estimates of their Finals and other chances have changed quite a bit again this week.

The first round results have, as usual, changed most people’s estimates of many of the 18 team’s chances of playing Finals football, and they’ve changed MoSHBODS’ estimates, too.

In this the third-ever, wildly speculative, pre-season ladder simulation, I’ll again be using the two methodologies I call Standard and Heretical, which are described below.

Today we take a look at the results of the final MoSHBODS-based simulation for the season.

Today we take a look at a MoSHBODS-based simulation of the remaining five games of the Finals.

Today we take a first look at a MoSHBODS-based simulation of the nine games of the Finals.

The latest simulation results appear below in what is a relatively short post this week, as only a few of the analyses seem particularly relevant

(For details about the methodologies I’ve used, see this earlier blog.)

The latest simulations of the final home and away ladder appear below.

Using the Standard Methodology we have:

• six teams certain to play Finals, four teams with chances roughly in the 40 to 50% range, two with chances in the 8 to 12% range, and one team with a 1-in-500 chance

• one team certain to finish Top 4, three teams with chances in roughly the 90 to 95% range, one team with a 20% chance, and another with a 3% chance.

Under the Heretical Methodology we have:

• six teams certain to play Finals, four teams with chances roughly in the 40 to 55% range, two with chances in the 8 to 11% range, and one team with a 1-in-500 chance

• one team certain to finish Top 4, three teams with chances in roughly the 85 to 95% range, one team with a 25% chance, and another with about a 1-in-40 chance.

The latest simulations of the home and away ladder appear below. In reviewing them, note that the comparisons to the Round 19 simulations include some changes that are related to the late venue changes in that round, which were not included in the simulation results that were published here last week. Those effects should be relatively small.

In any case, this week we find from using the Standard Methodology that we have:

• six teams certain to play Finals, one team about a 2-in-3 shot, another about a 2-in-5 shot, four more teams with about 1-in-6 to 1-in-3 chances, and one team with a 1-in-25 chance

• three teams with about 19-in-20 to 99-in-100 shots at the Top 4, one with around 2-in-3 chances, one team with about a 1-in-3 chances, and one with about 1-in-13 chances

Under the Heretical Methodology we have:

• six teams certain to play Finals, one team about a 3-in-5 shot, another about a 9-in-20 shot, four more teams with about 1-in-6 to 1-in-3 chances, and one team with a 1-in-20 chance

• three teams with about 19-in-20 to 99-in-100 shots at the Top 4, one with around 2-in-3 chances, one team with about a 1-in-3 chances, and one with about 1-in-13 chances

As we would expect, the Standard and Heretical Methodologies become more similar as the season nears its end.

I’ve waited about as long as I could for the venues to be announced for two of the Round 20 games but, as I type this, they are still officially TBC. So, I’ve assumed that both the Suns’ and Giants’ home games will be played at Cararra. I’ll post an update if that’s not correct, and there’s time.

In the meantime, this week we find from using the Standard Methodology that we have:

• six teams certain to play Finals, one team about a 3-in-4 shot, and four more teams with about 1-in-4 to 1-in-3 chances

• three teams with about 8-in-9 shot or better chances at the Top 4, two with around 1-in-2 chances, and one team with about a 1-in-4 chance

Under the Heretical Methodology we have:

• six teams certain to play Finals, one team about a 3-in-4 shot, one team with about a 2-in-3 chance, and four more teams with about 1-in-4 to 2-in-5 chances

• three teams with about 8-in-9 shot or better chances at the Top 4, two with around 1-in-2 chances, and one team with about a 1-in-4 chance

Just time to slip in an end of home-and-away season ladder simulation before we start doing it all again.

And, this week we find from using the Standard Methodology that we have:

• nine teams with a better than 2-in-5 shot at playing Finals, including six that are virtual certainties

• five teams that have roughly a 5-in-9 shot or better at the Top 4, including three that are virtual certainties

Under the Heretical Methodology we have:

• nine teams with a better than 1-in-3 shot at playing Finals, including six that are virtual certainties

• five teams that have roughly a 2-in-5 shot or better at the Top 4, including three that are virtual certainties.

I’ve updated the simulations to reflect the confirmed venues for Rounds 19 and 20 (at this stage assuming the Round 20 GWS v Port Adelaide game will be played at Manuka), and the results are shown below.

The main difference is in the switch of the Swans v Freo game from the SCG to Kardinia Park, which directly benefits Fremantle and penalises Sydney. Under the Standard Methodology, it also penalises GWS and West Coast. The picture is less clear under the Heretical Methodology because the 2,500 replicates makes for less precise probability estimates.

We’re back to a slightly more normal week this week, with all of the venues for the upcoming round already locked in, so we can feel a little more confident about the ladder simulations as they stand.

And what we find in those simulations is that, using the Standard Methodology, we still have nine teams that have a better than 1-in-3 shot at playing Finals, and seven that have about a 1-in-2 or better shot. There are also five teams that have roughly a 1-in-3 shot or better at the Top 4.

Under the Heretical Methodology, there are also nine teams that have a better than 1-in-3 shot at playing Finals, and only seven that have about a 1-in-2 or better shot. There are only four teams, however, that have a better than 1-in-3 shot or better at the Top 4.

I’ve updated the simulations to reflect the venues for Rounds 17 and 18, and the results are shown below.

The latest simulation results come with something of an asterisk given the uncertainly still surrounding the fixturing for the remainder of the season. For the purposes of these simulations, I’ve assumed that all remaining matches are played at the venues as currently set down, although I realise that this mightn’t be true even for the Round 17 games.

That said, the likely impacts of any variation to the gazetted fixturing is likely to be small, and the competition is at such an interesting point, that I think some simulations are better than none at all.

(I’ll update it, time permitting later in the week once the venues for Round 17 are locked in)

To me - and I admit I might be in a small echoey theatre all but alone in applauding on this one - it’s fascinating to watch how the markets respond to a result from a game involving the top teams, and to compare it to how emotionless models respond to that same result. The Dogs’ loss to the Cats in Round 14 has provided a perfect example of this.

But, more on that in a moment.

In the meantime, based on the latest Standard Methodology simulations, we still have 11 teams that have a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, and eight that have about a 2-in-3 or better shot. There are also five teams that have roughly a 1-in-2 shot or better at the Top 4.

Under the Heretical Methodology, there are also 11 teams that have a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, and also eight that have about a 2-in-3 or better shot. There are also five teams that have a roughly 1-in-2 shot or better at the Top 4.

In the latest Standard Method simulations, we are up to 11 teams that have a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, and eight that have a 2-in-3 or better shot. There are also five teams that have a better than 1-in-3 shot at the Top 4.

Under the Heretical Methodology, there are also 11 teams that have a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, but just seven that have a 2-in-3 or better shot (with Sydney just missing out). There are also five teams that have a better than 1-in-3 shot at the Top 4.

In the latest Standard Method simulations, we are now down to 10 teams that have a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, and eight that have a 3-in-5 or better shot. There are also five teams that have a better than 4-in-9 shot at the Top 4.

Under the Heretical Methodology, there are also 10 teams that have a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, but just seven that have a 3-in-5 or better shot. There are also five teams that have a better than 4-in-9 shot at the Top 4.