Everybody happy with the draft
David Clayton
every club got just about exactly what they wanted and they are all
delighted with their picks.
Now every club can go and sell its memberships telling all prospective
members this fantastic news.
Pity it really means that no club has really got any real advantage over
another, because it is impossible for *everyone* to have done so well
*and* to have obtained any significant advantage, isn't it?
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
David J Richardson
David Clayton <dcs...@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Again we see the "ratings" of how clubs did in the draft and
> apparently every club got just about exactly what they wanted and
> they are all delighted with their picks.
>
> Now every club can go and sell its memberships telling all
> prospective members this fantastic news.
>
> Pity it really means that no club has really got any real advantage
> over another, because it is impossible for *everyone* to have done so
> well *and* to have obtained any significant advantage, isn't it?
I predict Richmond did poorly. Therefore, every other team (yes, even
Freo) did better than average.
--
David J Richardson -- work...@davidj.richardson.name
http://davidj.richardson.name/ - Dr Who articles/interviews/reviews
http://www.boomerang.org.au/ - Boomerang Association of Australia
David Clayton
> In article <pan.2009.11.26....@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com>,
> David Clayton <dcs...@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> wrote:
.........
>> Pity it really means that no club has really got any real advantage over
>> another, because it is impossible for *everyone* to have done so well
>> *and* to have obtained any significant advantage, isn't it?
>
> I predict Richmond did poorly. Therefore, every other team (yes, even
> Freo) did better than average.
Since "average" is 50% of the 16 AFL sides, how can 15 sides be better
then it?
CDK
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:05:01 +1100, David J Richardson wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2009.11.26....@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com>,
>> David Clayton <dcs...@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> wrote:
> .........
>>> Pity it really means that no club has really got any real advantage over
>>> another, because it is impossible for *everyone* to have done so well
>>> *and* to have obtained any significant advantage, isn't it?
>> I predict Richmond did poorly. Therefore, every other team (yes, even
>> Freo) did better than average.
>
> Since "average" is 50% of the 16 AFL sides, how can 15 sides be better
> then it?
>
If all teams but Richmond did 8/10 in the draft and Richmond did 6/10
then all teams other than Richmond have done better than average.
CDK
Greg
<dcs...@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> wrote:
>Again we see the "ratings" of how clubs did in the draft and apparently
>every club got just about exactly what they wanted and they are all
>delighted with their picks.
>
>Now every club can go and sell its memberships telling all prospective
>members this fantastic news.
>
>Pity it really means that no club has really got any real advantage over
>another, because it is impossible for *everyone* to have done so well
>*and* to have obtained any significant advantage, isn't it?
How great it is for the 2 top draft picks going to a club that is
going nowhere. I have heard the comment a few times how the top 8 are
ready made AFL players. The Melbourne picks would be best to go to Uni
for a couple of years
Greg
David Clayton
.......
> How great it is for the 2 top draft picks going to a club that is going
> nowhere. I have heard the comment a few times how the top 8 are ready made
> AFL players. The Melbourne picks would be best to go to Uni for a couple
> of years
>
the *right* uni.....
David J Richardson
David Clayton <dcs...@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > I predict Richmond did poorly. Therefore, every other team (yes,
> > even Freo) did better than average.
>
> Since "average" is 50% of the 16 AFL sides, how can 15 sides be
> better then it?
<<sigh>>
I dunno why the difference between median and average is so foreign to
most.
Of course, knowing the difference is what makes the initial statement
so much funnier than just saying Richmond did worse than average.
CDK
> In article <pan.2009.11.27....@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com>,
> David Clayton <dcs...@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>>> I predict Richmond did poorly. Therefore, every other team (yes,
>>> even Freo) did better than average.
>> Since "average" is 50% of the 16 AFL sides, how can 15 sides be
>> better then it?
>
> <<sigh>>
>
> I dunno why the difference between median and average is so foreign to
> most.
>
> Of course, knowing the difference is what makes the initial statement
> so much funnier than just saying Richmond did worse than average.
>
Median is a form of average along with mean and mode, although most
people consider mean to be what is meant by average.
CDK