Points Difference v Percentage ( a little, ladder matter )

[yebiga]

Most sports use goal or point difference to determine ladder position between teams on an equal number of wins

A points difference method marginally favours higher scoring teams but that is not why I am raising this marginal matter

Points difference is just easier to calculate on the run - particular live during games and more meaningful:

So for example, today, Richmond and North are on the same amount points 48

The percentages are Rich 114.52 & North 110.79 = 3.73%

The points difference Rich +203 & North +178 = 25 points

Would knowing North needed to catch 25 points make this weekend more interesting – or are we happy for everyone to have their calculator out to work-out the 3.73% as each score changes

is it more meaningful knowing that WB and Sydney are separated by WB + 338 & Syd + 178 = 160 points or by 10.65%

Or Ade + 181 & Geel + 29 = 152 or 9.?? %

It’s is a marginal matter, I would not lose any sleep over it but why do we persist with this archaic and more obscure method
It would make our ladder more useful, interesting and meaningful if the AFL officially changed to a points difference method

Comments…

 

[chunkylover]

% can potentially reward both a great defensive and attacking teams. Point differential gives a slight advantage to dome teams where shit teams can really be thumped. Sure pd would make it easier for the muppets in the commentary box but they dumb everything down enough for the average bogan viewer this doesnt need to change

 

[kickazz]

It may not be as relevant today but percentage was probably also fairer when some teams played on boggy grounds more than others, where you were never going to win by more than 4 or so goals no matter how good.

 

[yebiga]

% can potentially reward both a great defensive and attacking teams. Point differential gives a slight advantage to dome teams where shit teams can really be thumped. Sure pd would make it easier for the muppets in the commentary box but they dumb everything down enough for the average bogan viewer this doesnt need to change

Aside from those in the elite maths department at melbourne uni - I don't know of anyone who routinely can absorb the changing scores of two games and convert them into exact percentages instantly without taking out a calculator

There is a lot of dumbing down but I don't know if the average football supporter should be tasked with the responsibility of maintaining a higher numerical standard.

Aside from tradition this has no justification

 

[chunkylover]

Im sure channel 7 will provide live ladders to keep us all updated. Like christmas decorations in shops they go it earlier and earlier ( round 5 this year i think ). Being a bulldog supporter that plays a fast high scoring game under a roof away from rain wind etc most of the year and i can see how you would push for this but its not a fair system

 

[BF Tiger]

Your point would be more valid if relevant games were being played at the same time. Now with games spread across about five timeslots you can see how an opponents % varies before your game has even started, and from there work out if a big/little win/loss is enough to hold/climb/drop down the ladder.

 

[Wallaby]

I still think %age should be changed to 'Quarters won'. I haven't studied it mathematically enough to work out if it's 'fairer' or not, but it would be far more entertaining for the spectators.

 

[1892]

Can see what your getting at, but unless you're listening into a game via radio a live ladder can be readily shown by TV broadcasters or on the big screen at the ground and both happen already. What a live ladder doesn't really help with though is what is required to make up the deficient, but if 2 matches are played simultaneously that difference ebbs and flows anyway.

 

[peatease]

I like % in the fact that it promotes high scoring and better defending. A team is rewarded more for scoring high against an opponent and being stingy on the defensive end.

Losing teams are better off trying to attack instead of trying to park the bus.

 

[D-N-R]

It may not be as relevant today but percentage was probably also fairer when some teams played on boggy grounds more than others, where you were never going to win by more than 4 or so goals no matter how good.

But if you only win by 4 goals because you are playing on a wet ground, then you are only going to increase your percentage marginally. I'm not really sure there is an advantage of percentage over points difference. Certainly, playing on a dry surface with no wind can help increase scoring potential (for both teams), but I can't see where percentage helps keep it even. If you win by a lot you get a percentage boost or a points boost.

I like % in the fact that it promotes high scoring and better defending. A team is rewarded more for scoring high against an opponent and being stingy on the defensive end.

Losing teams are better off trying to attack instead of trying to park the bus.

How does percentage promote higher scoring and better defending any more than points difference would? If you want to increase either you score more and defend better, regardless of the method involved.

The closer your points difference is to zero, the closer you are to 100%. The higher you are, the more your percentage / points difference goes above 100%. Parking the bus doesn't help percentage any more than points difference.

As of round 20;
Geelong have PF 1672 PA 1643 (diff 29) Percentage 101.8
Port Ad have PF 1792 PA 1770 (diff 22) Percentage 101.2

The Points difference and Percentage are relative to their attack vs. defence. Their ability to score more (in Port's case) makes zero difference if they defend badly.

I think the OP has a point.