We need to change the way we calculate percentage.

[Seeds]

The current way overweights percentage of games on dry decks with high scoring.

if you win 60 to 20 you should get a far greater percentage boost then a game where you win 130 to 80. Yet at the end of the season it’s the later game that provides the biggest percentage boost.

this is stupid.

we should calculate percentage on a per game basis and weight every game equally. I.e. take an average of all games percentages to derive the final percentage of your team.

this values defensive games and wet weather games the same as dry and attacking games.

it’s such a simple thing to implement.

why haven’t we done it?


edit - there is a flaw in the above approach. instead each game should only have 200 percent given out to the winners and losers. That way a team that wins 90 to 10 doesnt doesn’t get 900 percent. Instead they get 190 and the loser gets 10 percent. The overall percentage at the end of the season is the average of each teams game result percentages as suggested above.


edit - no need to scale to 200 percent. Here is a simpler formula for a seasons percentage that achieves the same outcome

season has n games
i denotes a specific game


season percentage = 100*
[For/(For+Against) i=1 + For/(For+Against) i=2 ... + For/(For+Against) i=n]/n

see not convoluted. Quite simple. Beautiful in fact.

 

[parano1a]

if you win 60 to 20 you should get a far greater percentage boost then a game where you win 130 to 80.

You do. Not sure you understand the concept of percentage?

 

[thedreamisreal]

this is stupid.

Indeed.

 

[Shane Sheridan]

What am I missing and/or how do you think percentage is calculated?
Win 60 to 20 you get 300%
Win 130 to 80 you get 160ish%

 

[Vikingnz]

You do. Not sure you understand the concept of percentage?

OPs concept is dumb, but this isn't true.

If I had 1000 points for and against for a percentage of 100 and I won a game 60-20, my % increases to 103.9%. If I won a game 130-80, my % increases to 104.6%.

 

[Cleavy]

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Forget the rest: Why would they want to encourage defensive football?

 

[Sky]

+/- like rugby please

 

[Vikingnz]

+/- like rugby please

This would actually overweight games on dry decks.

 

[Sky]

This would actually overweight games on dry decks.

If you win enough games to make top four then it shouldn’t be an issue. Anyone who complains about missing top four on +/- didn’t deserve to be there anyway.

 

[Shane Sheridan]

Well, there you go. **** maths.

 

[situationz]

this values defensive games and wet weather games the same as dry and attacking games.

It's good to reward attacking over defensive football. If anything the current system doesn't do that enough
We need to reward attack more, not less.

 

[Vaccination]

Going to attempt to try OP's example using Eagles games this year.

After 10 games this year the Eagles percentage is 109.0 (921-845).

Going with OP's idea, here's what the Eagles percentage would be.
Round 1: 83-58 Win (143.1%)
Round 2: 100-93 Loss (93%)
Round 3: 108-71 Win (152.1%)
Round 4: 82-102 Loss (80.4%)
Round 5: 103-76 Win (135.5%)
Round 6: 136-39 Loss (28.7%)
Round 7: 132-73 Win (180.8%)
Round 8: 98-60 Win (163.3%)
Round 9: 106-76 Win (139.5%)
Round 10: 93-77 Loss (82.8%)
Adding all of these up and dividing gives us a % of 119.92%

Pretty much all totals would be higher under this method, however it is definitely impractical. If a team were to win a game say 100 to 10, their percentage from that game would be 1000%, meaning they are pretty much going to be ahead of everyone else for the year.

 

[Power Raid]

You do. Not sure you understand the concept of percentage?

It would be more fair if we used fractions rather than percentages though

I feel we can all agree on this

 

[Power Raid]

What am I missing and/or how do you think percentage is calculated?
Win 60 to 20 you get 300%
Win 130 to 80 you get 160ish%

true but only if you calculate it right. what about the other times?

 

[Seeds]

You do. Not sure you understand the concept of percentage?

no you don’t. Percentage is calculated as season points for divided by season points Against. Not an average of each games percentages.

 

[Seeds]

Going to attempt to try OP's example using Eagles games this year.

After 10 games this year the Eagles percentage is 109.0 (921-845).

Going with OP's idea, here's what the Eagles percentage would be.
Round 1: 83-58 Win (143.1%)
Round 2: 100-93 Loss (93%)
Round 3: 108-71 Win (152.1%)
Round 4: 82-102 Loss (80.4%)
Round 5: 103-76 Win (135.5%)
Round 6: 136-39 Loss (28.7%)
Round 7: 132-73 Win (180.8%)
Round 8: 98-60 Win (163.3%)
Round 9: 106-76 Win (139.5%)
Round 10: 93-77 Loss (82.8%)
Adding all of these up and dividing gives us a % of 119.92%

Pretty much all totals would be higher under this method, however it is definitely impractical. If a team were to win a game say 100 to 10, their percentage from that game would be 1000%, meaning they are pretty much going to be ahead of everyone else for the year.

you raise a good point. You could invert winning percentages. So a team that wins 100 to 50 only gets a percentage of 150 rather then 200 whilst the loser gets 50. This keeps the advantages of equally weighting games percentages whilst not overstating the winners percentages. If a team wins 100 to 10 they would get 190 percent and the loser 10 percent. Basically there is 200 percent up for grabs each game and the winners and losers share it.

 

[DirtySandman]

games on dry decks with high scoring.

Stick a roof on gmhba.

 

[Seeds]

It's good to reward attacking over defensive football. If anything the current system doesn't do that enough
We need to reward attack more, not less.

Why?

high scoring games aren’t just determined by the winners attacking plan. They are also determined by your opponents strategy (which you have no say over) and the weather.

 

[Seeds]

OPs concept is dumb, but this isn't true.

If I had 1000 points for and against for a percentage of 100 and I won a game 60-20, my % increases to 103.9%. If I won a game 130-80, my % increases to 104.6%.

So why is it dumb?

 

[Bluelegs]

The current way overweights percentage of games on dry decks with high scoring.

if you win 60 to 20 you should get a far greater percentage boost then a game where you win 130 to 80. Yet at the end of the season it’s the later game that provides the biggest percentage boost.

this is stupid.

we should calculate percentage on a per game basis and weight every game equally. I.e. take an average of all games percentages to derive the final percentage of your team.

this values defensive games and wet weather games the same as dry and attacking games.

it’s such a simple thing to implement.

why haven’t we done it?


edit - there is a flaw in the above approach. instead each game should only have 200 percent given out to the winners and losers. That way a team that wins 90 to 10 doesnt doesn’t get 900 percent. Instead they get 190 and the loser gets 10 percent. The overall percentage at the end of the season is the average of each teams percentage as suggested above.

I agree we need to change percentage but we should actually be rewarding higher scoring more. Would prefer pure points differential.

 

[Vaccination]

you raise a good point. You could invert winning percentages. So a team that wins 100 to 50 only gets a percentage of 150 rather then 200 whilst the loser gets 50. This keeps the advantages of equally weighting games percentages whilst not overstating the winners percentages. If a team wins 100 to 10 they would get 190 percent and the loser 10 percent. Basically there is 200 percent up for grabs each game and the winners and losers share it.

I don't know how you've calculated those percentages there, seemed like you just went off convenient numbers.

The way to enforce the 200% per game strategy would be to do a division based on total points. Taking the round 9 game between Eagles Adelaide as an example, the score was 106-76, meaning a total of 182 points were scored. The eagles % would be ((106/182) x 2) = 116.5% while Adelaide's would be ((76/182) x 2) = 83.5%.

Personally I have no issue with percentage at the moment. The only thing I would change is to make it so that if two teams are on the same number of points they are ranked based on head to head record rather than percentage, that way it's a better measure of who is better between the individual teams. However that has it's own issues given you only play most teams once and it's too hard after factoring home ground advantage and more.

 

[Senor M]

If you win enough games to make top four then it shouldn’t be an issue. Anyone who complains about missing top four on +/- didn’t deserve to be there anyway.

Wouldn’t the same comment apply to anyone who complains about the current percentage formula as well in the hours after your team lost percentage because they couldn’t put Collingwood away convincingly?

 

[BF Tiger]

Would it actually change the order of the ladder though?

 

[BF Tiger]

Do funny shaped grounds affect % more or less than dry decks?