How come we use percentage instead of point difference?

[Benno_900]

Why is percentage not calculated out of 100?
If you win round 1 with a score of 80-20, shouldn't your % be 80%, instead of 400%?

 

[eth-dog]

I like the percentage system. It makes it difficult for idiots to work out exactly how much their team needs to win by to make the top 4 or 8 in the final round.

Well, at least you admit that you have trouble with it Barry

 

[SterlingArcher]

Percentage allows for different style of play to be measured the same, an offensive team that wins 150-75 would be the same as a team playing a defensive style 60-30, both teams doubled their opponent so they are equal, this also allows for different weather conditions, when raining it's harder to score so it would be harder to get a larger point difference over a team playing in dry conditions, having % fixes this problem.

I think it's because our scores are so much higher and so very different to other sports.
In soccer a blow-out thrashing is something like 5/6-0. In League it's 20 points.
In AFL 20 points is a reasonably close game.

It's also far more dependent on weather conditions, ground sizes etc etc. A team on Saturday might win comfortably at 75-34 in the wet, while a team on Sunday might win 148-102 in great conditions (in soccer the equivalent might be 2-0 and 5-3) - it's a whole different scale to what you get in other sports.

It's also a unique part of our game - why do you want us to be like everybody else?

Thread should have just been closed after these two posts.

 

[gavaniacono]

I've unlearnt things reading this thread. Thank you.

 

[gothecrows]

If you double the oppositions score in a wet weather game where scoring is low then you should get the same contribution to the end of season percentage as doubling the oppositions score in a high scoring game at Etihad.

Again, why?

Put it this way instead. If you beat a team by 30 in a wet-weather game, why should you "get the same contribution" as a 60 point win at Etihad?

Nothing but personal preference, and certainly nothing to indicate that it's any fairer or better that way.

 

[Seeds]

Again, why?

Put it this way instead. If you beat a team by 30 in a wet-weather game, why should you "get the same contribution" as a 60 point win at Etihad?

Nothing but personal preference, and certainly nothing to indicate that it's any fairer or better that way.

Because it values both defence and offence equally and removes random luck with weather whereas the current system places more value on offence and allows random luck with weather play a factor in leader positions. I.e. My system is fairer (which is a virtue in itself, it doesn't need a reason) and treats both the defence and offence parts of the game equally. That second part is a preference but preferring offence over defence undervalues an important part of the game.

 

[gothecrows]

Because it values both defence and offence equally and removes random luck with weather whereas the current system places more value on offence and allows random luck with weather play a factor in leader positions. I.e. My system is fairer (which is a virtue in itself, it doesn't need a reason) and treats both the defence and offence parts of the game equally. That second part is a preference but preferring offence over defence undervalues an important part of the game.

No it isn't. You're stating that it values offence and defence equally, but the current system does just as much. A team playing in perfect conditions may score higher, but so will their opposition.

Taking it to the extreme, a game played in the worst conditions ever, with a final score of 8-3 (both teams with 3 scoring shots, and a very closely fought game) would be given the same as a 160-60 belting. I don't think you can extrapolate scores from games in poor conditions very easily... and that's ignoring the fact that most teams will only play a couple of games in "bad" conditions anyway - certainly not enough to have a big impact on overall percentage.

I'm also not quite sure why you claim the current system favours offence? An excellent offensive team with a poor defence will not end up with a terrific percentage, as they will concede too many points. Similarly, an excellent defensive team with a poor offence will not likely end up with a great percentage.
However, of the two, it is actually more likely that the defensive team will end up with a greater percentage, as a small margin in a low-scoring game has a greater impact on percentage than a small margin in a high-scoring one.

I'm not saying your system is bad, but is not objectively any "fairer" than the current system.

 

[tazaa]

A lot of basic maths fails in this thread

The scary thing is I dont know who is being serious or not

 

[tazaa]

How did this thread reach four pages?

 

[The Slitherin' Snake]

Oh so wise one, tell me why we calculate percentage as we currently do as opposed to out of 100% as the word percentage means?

 

[shiraz]

Oh so wise one, tell me why we calculate percentage as we currently do as opposed to out of 100% as the word percentage means?

Just a terrible troll (I hope)

No it isn't. You're stating that it values offence and defence equally, but the current system does just as much.

Well, he's right, and you're wrong, but I suppose your math error isn't as bad as most of the others.

In order to see why he is right, you need to consider more than one game. To work through it for yourself, create an example where two teams have exactly the same FOR/AGAINST for the first 21 rounds, and then use the data that you provided above for the final round. Can you see? The two winning teams will not have the same season percentage, even though they will have the same game percentage.

The system the earlier poster proposed does not suffer from this bias.

 

[The Slitherin' Snake]

Just a terrible troll (I hope)

So why has the AFL chosen to calculate a team's percentage as Points For / Points Against as opposed to Points For / Total Game Game?

 

[gothecrows]

Just a terrible troll (I hope)



Well, he's right, and you're wrong, but I suppose your math error isn't as bad as most of the others.

In order to see why he is right, you need to consider more than one game. To work through it for yourself, create an example where two teams have exactly the same FOR/AGAINST for the first 21 rounds, and then use the data that you provided above for the final round. Can you see? The two winning teams will not have the same season percentage, even though they will have the same game percentage.

The system the earlier poster proposed does not suffer from this bias.

I'm well aware of what his system proposes, and what the result in your example is.
What I'm saying is that his method suffers from the exact same bias, in the other way.

Consider your example of two teams with same for and against through 21 rounds. Now in the final round, one team wins 100-20, while one wins 10-2.
Can you really say these two performances are "equal"?

My point the entire time was that you can't just say one system is fairer than the other - both suffer from perceived bias depending on your personal preference.