We need to change the way we calculate percentage.

[Vaccination]

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.

*cough*eagles the last two seasons*cough*

 

[M Malice]

Percentage is maths, it's like complaining that 2 + 2 = 4 and not 6.

I'm also flabbergasted and surprised that this thread was started by a Cats supporter, I wonder what happened today to prompt it?

 

[jackess]

 

[projectv]

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.

This is why maths should be compulsory in schools.

 

[Mr Ripper]

high scoring.

lol

 

[Seeds]

This is why maths should be compulsory in schools.

And your point is?

 

[ForzaRoma]

Geelong shouldn't be rewarded for playing such a shit brand of football.

 

[Seeds]

Geelong shouldn't be rewarded for playing such a sh*t brand of football.

We wouldnt be because we only won by 14 percent or so.


Note if collingwood lost 60 to 20 they would be penalised far more under my system then they would be under the current system. Its not just about rewarding the teams with good defence but also properly penalising the teams with bad offence. The current system does not do that properly.

 

[JHF1870]

You've gotta realize that this game has a lot of variables.

If you want to win the championship, you have to be the best.

It might be a little bit unfair to those in the 6-12 bracket where round 23 this season could see:

Both on the same day pouring down with 100ml of rain

Both teams have 104%

GWS and Hawthorn aren't heavily invested in the game.

Carlton wins by 40 points
Richmond win a sloppy game by 5 points

Carlton make the finals on the back of luck

Carlton vs GWS at Marvel
Richmond vs Hawthorn at the MCG

Having said that, there are many variables in the game that don't always make it seem fair.

Imagine getting double ups against the bottom 5 teams. That's 10 wins straight up. 40% of the rest is about 5 games. Can potentially make the finals with 2/12 games. There is no reason why the best team in the competition couldn't end up with a dream fixture like this.

 

[Seeds]

Percentage is maths, it's like complaining that 2 + 2 = 4 and not 6.

I'm also flabbergasted and surprised that this thread was started by a Cats supporter, I wonder what happened today to prompt it?

The point being made went straight over your head didnt it. Within a game you are correct. But between games you are not. there are different ways to weight percentage across a season. The afl adopts the simplest and dumbest approach.

 

[Ati Tude]

I can't believe I bothered to read all this. Killed 5 minutes of the half time break I guess. If you want higher scoring games, lets just make goals worth 10 points and behinds worth 2 points. Easy.

 

[Blue1980]

This is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

Also [emoji23]

 

[deck]

Percentage is maths, it's like complaining that 2 + 2 = 4 and not 6.

I'm also flabbergasted and surprised that this thread was started by a Cats supporter, I wonder what happened today to prompt it?

Sums it up really. The people who generally complain about percentage usually don't understand it and are poor at maths.

 

[Lsta062]

The only change to the current percentage method I wouldn’t mind is going by a points differential. That would be easy to implement and would also favour scoring as beating a team 200-101 would give a higher differential than beating a side 100-50.

As it stands, a team with a 200-101 scoreline in Round 1 would be lower on the ladder than a team with 100-50 so this method at least gives an incentive to the higher-scoring team.

Having said that, I still think percentage is the better one in our game. Different grounds have different dimensions and weather conditions (some favour scoring and some favour restricting) so at least it removes those type of variables as much as possible.

 

[Billy ray]

I think we should have a wildcard game for the two teams with best percentage from 8-18 for the last spot in the final 8. Could be 8v9. Could be 11v 13.
Encourages team to not give up in a game and get blown away

 

[Jordie_tackles]

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%

Now do it if both teams play a 100-100 draw the next week?

becomes about 135% vs 125%

 

[Stabby McGee]

Or... crazy thought here... we could leave the game alone

 

[Seeds]

Would it actually change the order of the ladder though?

Yes

 

[Seeds]

Or... crazy thought here... we could leave the game alone

Catch phrase of the idiot. We assess each aspect on merit. Not some call to tradition for tradition sake.

if that was the case we would still be stuck with the McIntyre finals system.

 

[Seeds]

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

You play at the funny shaped mcg which is far too circular. You tell me.

 

[queensberryrules]

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%.

Because a greater winning margin. What's the prob.

 

[Seeds]

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

It doesn’t. It just evenly balances defensive games with offensive games.

a side with a bad offence that loses 60 to 30 gets a greater percentage penalty from a result in my system compared to the current system.

 

[Seeds]

Because a greater winning margin. What's the prob.

Cos it’s not the margin that matters. It’s the proportional size of the win that matters. Games are played in different conditions and against opponents who have different strategies that can make scoring more difficult.

why should wet weather games be given much less importance when they simply don’t have to by making a simple adjustment to the percentage calculation.

 

[CrowInFiji]

Let's be clear, you've told us all that percentage is rooted and then used an example where you've complained that a 50 pt winning margin gives you a higher percentage boost than a 40 pt win.

Well of course it should.

Adjusting the margin to be equal the lower scoring game gets a very slight advantage in percentage so what the hell are you on about?

The ethos of teams should always be to try and create the greatest distance between them and the oppo. Not worrying about doing maths to see what gives the bigger boost to percentage.

No, the system is fine. The only complaint might be that teams with a softer draw get a bit of an advantage but that's a fixturing issue.

 

[HairyO]

Percentage is maths, it's like complaining that 2 + 2 = 4 and not 6.

I'm also flabbergasted and surprised that this thread was started by a Cats supporter, I wonder what happened today to prompt it?

They were only 20 or 30 behinds away from a good score.