We need to change the way we calculate percentage.

[Seeds]

% is a variable affected by a lot of things. The ultimate tie-breaker should be head-to-head, i.e., if say Richmond and Essendon are equal on points at 8th and 9th, the winner of their home and away match(es) gets the 8th position. If teams can't be separated by this, i.e., teams play twice home and away for 1-1 split, then go to %.

You are double counting a result based on randomness. That’s utterly stupid.

if sport wasnt solely about entertainment and was about truly seeing who was the best side then the ladder would be solely determined by percentage and not wins and loses.

 

[Seeds]

Wet weather grounds cause a disadvantage to teams that are tall heavy, or rely on pure execution

We must find a way to help these teams

We already do. It’s called our stupid current percentage system which gives the wet weather game less importance in the final ladder position than dry weather games.

 

[Seeds]

Current system everyone knows how it works and have done for 125 years.
Even those like me who are crap at maths.

This thread shows people don’t know how it works. They actually think it works the way I propose it should work.

 

[Seeds]

I’m understanding what you’re saying but you have not convinced me. Show me a real-life example where your method has promoted a more deserving side.

why do you need a real life example? You can’t abstract and imagine thé example we have just discussed could happen in round 21 with both teams tied on percentage and wins/losses In 8th and 9th position. The first team plays on a dry deck at the mcg and wins 130 to 90. Then that night it starts pissing down for the next 24 hours and the other side plays on that same ground in a giant puddle. they win 60 -20. they miss out on finals despite having the better win.

now sure you can argue that change is only worth implementing if there is lots of examples it would fix. And that is true of most change as change usually involves effort and time and their are uncertainties with change. But this change takes 30 seconds to implement and there is no uncertainties as it’s a mathematical proof. the only cost of change is the 30 seconds of time it takes to rewrite thé new percentage formula into the afls ladder calculator. Thats it. It doesn’t change the way the game is played. It just fixes a bug with the ladder calculator. No cost to implementing.

afl fans don’t want an incorrect goal umpiring decision to determine thé result of the grand final in the last 5 mins of play. We have no such example in real life but we know it could happen. There is no difference here except the cost of my change is smaller then the cost of introducing a video referee slowing the game down. But we did that.

 

[Seeds]

Haha, and another one. It's like moths to the flame.

Can you take your geelong richmond sh*t fight to the bay thanks.

 

[CrowInFiji]

No it doesn’t work that way. That’s the problem.

if you are at round 21 and you have 1000 points for and 1000 points against then the 130-80 win adds more to your percentage then the 60-20 win.

Because one is a 50pt win and the other is 40pt win.

If both are 40pt then the 60-20 gets a slightly bigger boost.

Beyond embarrassing

 

[LightTower4]

This thread shows people don’t know how it works. They actually think it works the way I propose it should work.

Just because I can't do long divisions in my head does not mean I don't know how it works.

 

[mcgarnacle]

But if Adelaide and Geelong are tied at the end of the year, why should Adelaide be higher by virtue of getting the home game?

I'm all for h2h if we play each other twice. But if not, dont bother.

give me pd instead.

On that basis, the single ladder is crock as well.

 

[mcgarnacle]

You are double counting a result based on randomness. That’s utterly stupid.

if sport wasnt solely about entertainment and was about truly seeing who was the best side then the ladder would be solely determined by percentage and not wins and loses.

Winning matches is the determinant to qualify for finals and ultimately win a premiership. Wins-Losses (hence competition points) is tabled in a ladder and compared to all teams in the competition to provide a ranking.

A head-to head tiebreaker considers the performance between the two or more teams tied on said competition points. When teams are tied, competition-wide metrics highly based on variability should be relegated in priority. All that matters is the performance between those tied teams.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

afl fans don’t want an incorrect goal umpiring decision to determine thé result of the grand final in the last 5 mins of play. We have no such example in real life but we know it could happen. There is no difference here except the cost of my change is smaller then the cost of introducing a video referee slowing the game down. But we did that.

Not at all comparable, and I assume you are baiting saints supporters.
One is using technology to ensure existing rules are enacted correctly. You want to change the rules to supposedly privilege low-scoring encounters where you win by a bigger multiple rather than margin.
But to make matters worse, you're fixing a problem that isn't even there. To take your example let's say going in to round 22 Richmond and Geelong are tied in 8th-9th with 1800 points for and against. In an eye-catching spectacle at Sleepy Hollow, the Cats beat North 7.18.60 to 2.8.20. Meanwhile in a yawnfest of downhill skiing the Tigs beat the Crows at AO 20.10.130 to 15.0.90. Who do ya reckon finishes 8th?

 

[BF Tiger]

why do you need a real life example? You can’t abstract and imagine thé example we have just discussed could happen in round 21 with both teams tied on percentage and wins/losses In 8th and 9th position. The first team plays on a dry deck at the mcg and wins 130 to 90. Then that night it starts pissing down for the next 24 hours and the other side plays on that same ground in a giant puddle. they win 60 -20. they miss out on finals despite having the better win.

now sure you can argue that change is only worth implementing if there is lots of examples it would fix. And that is true of most change as change usually involves effort and time and their are uncertainties with change. But this change takes 30 seconds to implement and there is no uncertainties as it’s a mathematical proof. the only cost of change is the 30 seconds of time it takes to rewrite thé new percentage formula into the afls ladder calculator. Thats it. It doesn’t change the way the game is played. It just fixes a bug with the ladder calculator. No cost to implementing.

afl fans don’t want an incorrect goal umpiring decision to determine thé result of the grand final in the last 5 mins of play. We have no such example in real life but we know it could happen. There is no difference here except the cost of my change is smaller then the cost of introducing a video referee slowing the game down. But we did that.

What we have is confirmation from a Geelong fan that Richmond's 114-25 (89 points, 456%) 2019 grand final win is better than Geelong's 2007 163-44 (119 points, 370%) 2007 grand final win.

All you're doing is using a different metric to say it's better. You can argue either case - some will say the greater margin is more impressive while others will argue that the greater % is better.

I'm asking you to demonstrate with a real life example because it is too abstract. It's easy to say imagine two teams who have both kicked 1000 points and had 1000 points kicked against them.

What if team A is offensive and, in an imaginary season, has gone 16-4 and kicked 2000 for/1500 against, while the team B has also gone 16-4 but is defensive and kicked 1400 and had 1050 kicked against them? All games are played indoors. How have the results in that season already impacted their %? I'm sure that using your method will result in team B having a significantly greater % than team A.

 

[Toump Ass]

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.

Personally i don’t need a goal every minute to make the game interesting.

 

[Seeds]

Not at all comparable, and I assume you are baiting saints supporters.
One is using technology to ensure existing rules are enacted correctly. You want to change the rules to supposedly privilege low-scoring encounters where you win by a bigger multiple rather than margin.
But to make matters worse, you're fixing a problem that isn't even there. To take your example let's say going in to round 22 Richmond and Geelong are tied in 8th-9th with 1800 points for and against. In an eye-catching spectacle at Sleepy Hollow, the Cats beat North 7.18.60 to 2.8.20. Meanwhile in a yawnfest of downhill skiing the Tigs beat the Crows at AO 20.10.130 to 15.0.90. Who do ya reckon finishes 8th?

It’s not privileging low scoring games. It’s just giving them equal weight as high scoring. It’s all in the maths. The current system privileges high scoring games.

in That example geelong should finish eighth. not richmond.


let’s reverse the scénario and say Geelong and Richmond were both the losing teams in that equation. I,e. Geelong lost 20-60 and Richmond lost 90-130.


which of Geelong or Richmond plays finals?

under the current system Geelong is the one that makes finals despite only kicking 20 points. Richmond is the team that makes finals in my system.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

It’s not privileging low scoring games. It’s just giving them equal weight as high scoring. It’s all in the maths. The current system privileges high scoring games.

in That example geelong should finish eighth. not richmond.


let’s reverse the scénario and say Geelong and Richmond were both the losing teams in that equation. I,e. Geelong lost 20-60 and Richmond lost 90-130.


which of Geelong or Richmond plays finals?

under the current system Geelong is the one that makes finals despite only kicking 20 points. Richmond is the team that makes finals in my system.

What are you talking about? 1820/1860 = 97.8%
1890/1930 = 97.9%
Richmond makes finals not Geelong.

 

[Some Idiot]

Why overcomplicate one of the simplest tiebreaker systems in existence? Leave as is.

 

[Wojcinski]

OP does not represent Geelong on this topic so please leave us out of this ridiculously stupid discussion

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

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.

Geelong basically get 4 free points every year from percentage at Kardinia Park, a boutique unusual 'oval' which oppo clubs aren't familiar with.
I'm amazed by this tone deaf post.

 

[Seeds]

Why overcomplicate one of the simplest tiebreaker systems in existence? Leave as is.

It’s not complicated at all. It’s very simple.

 

[Taylor]

You'd prefer like a differential rate aggregate?

Game 1 - Win 60 - 20 = 300% [+200]
Game 2 - Win 120 - 80 = 150% [+50] (= 250)
Game 3 - Loss 78 - 85 = 91.8% [-8.2] (= 241.8)

 

[Seeds]

Geelong basically get 4 free points every year from percentage at Kardinia Park, a boutique unusual 'oval' which oppo clubs aren't familiar with.
I'm amazed by this tone deaf post.

So wouldn’t that mean I’m suggesting a way to rectify this. To take away this so called advantage? And you call that tone deaf?

 

[Seeds]

What are you talking about? 1820/1860 = 97.8%
1890/1930 = 97.9%
Richmond makes finals not Geelong.

Fine bump geelongs score up to 22 points then instead of 20.

geelong loses 22-60. Richmond loses 90-130.

under thé current system Geelong plays finals. Under my system Richmond does.

 

[Vikingnz]

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

The fact this comment is the highest rated in this thread says a lot about where the country is at.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Fine bump geelongs score up to 22 points then instead of 20.

geelong loses 22-60. Richmond loses 90-130.

under thé current system Geelong plays finals. Under my system Richmond does.

Then there is a perfectly valid argument that says Geelong deserve to make it because they lost by 38, while Richmond lost by 40.
But this is just faffing about the edges in unlikely hypotheticals. At the end of the day we have a system that says your ratio of points for to points against over the course of the season will be the tiebreaker if games are equal. The outcome of the rd23 game is no more or less important than the outcome in rd1. And over the course of a whole season anomalies like weather and quirky grounds should even out somewhat.
Ultimately there is no fundamental issue with the way it currently works that would motivate anyone to change it.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

So wouldn’t that mean I’m suggesting a way to rectify this. To take away this so called advantage? And you call that tone deaf?

It's too complicated to change it now plus it's a tradition of over 100 years.
Percentage is overrated anyway.It is irrelevant for most teams. It's not even worth 1/100,000,000 of a premiership point.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Fine bump geelongs score up to 22 points then instead of 20.

geelong loses 22-60. Richmond loses 90-130.

under thé current system Geelong plays finals. Under my system Richmond does.

Even though in this hypothetical Geelong scored 22, they still ultimately lost by a lesser margin (38 instead of 40), and still managed to keep the opposition to a lower score of 60 - it goes both ways - both scores are in relation to each other in accordance to the tons of variables that effect them both for that singular match (weather being just one of them - all of which we accepted in the creation of the sport). One team could play slow or be impacted by wet weather - but both have a choice to kick away. In this scenario, Richmond didn't kick away, regardless of whether it was due to wet weather, skills or pressure from Geelong - it is still a factor in Geelong's answer to the play and keeping within touch to restrict the margin from being bigger. I see no issue with allowing them to be the beneficieries under the current system. You play with what you get and you get with what you play.

/thread.