We need to change the way we calculate percentage.

[Seeds]

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.

it’s clearly not tradition given 56 posters have liked a post that indicates posters don’t actually know how percentage work.

if we changed it almost no one would notice except the people who agree that the change is good.

it may be a very minor thing but it costs nothing to fix it.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

it’s clearly not tradition given 56 posters have liked a post that indicates posters don’t actually know how percentage work.

if we changed it almost no one would notice except the people who agree that the change is good.

it may be a very minor thing but it costs nothing to fix it.

I'm not sure they misunderstood percentage. They either:
a) considered it in isolation in which case 60-20 gives a better percentage than 130-80; or
b) skimmed the mental arithmetic and assumed the margin was the same in both scores. If the margin is equal and your percentage>=100, a lower scoring game will always give you a bigger percentage boost. If your percentage <100 it's the reverse (except where that game increases it above 100).

 

[FlyHigh18]

A 60-20 win is a better win then 130-80.

...ummm

you've decided to define (in your own terms) what a "better" win is and then proceeded to butcher a simple percentage system to suit said own definition.

i really don't think you understand how percentages work, both in the short term and over the course of a season.

 

[HTT]

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.

Let’s put some more detail into this scenario.
Geelong loses to first placed Melbourne 22-60
Richmond loses to 17th placed Hawthorn 90-130
Who deserves finals?

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

it’s clearly not tradition given 56 posters have liked a post that indicates posters don’t actually know how percentage work.

if we changed it almost no one would notice except the people who agree that the change is good.

it may be a very minor thing but it costs nothing to fix it.

The rules are clear, if you want a bigger percentage then play more attacking football and win by more.
Percentage is vastly overrated like I said.

 

[BF Tiger]

Unnecessarily convoluted is the way I’d describe it.

 

[CaptchaProofBot]

it’s clearly not tradition given 56 posters have liked a post that indicates posters don’t actually know how percentage work.

if we changed it almost no one would notice except the people who agree that the change is good.

it may be a very minor thing but it costs nothing to fix it.

yeah nah....don't insult ppl's intelligence...even BF posters.

 

[Seeds]

yeah nah....don't insult ppl's intelligence...even BF posters.

I think bf posters insulted their own intelligence on the first page of this thread.

 

[Seeds]

Unnecessarily convoluted is the way I’d describe it.

If scaled weighted averages are convoluted then you all need to go back and do maths at school again. They are very simplistic formulas.

 

[Seeds]

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.

the individual percentages from those games would of been Geelong 33.3 percent and richmonds 69.2 percent.

most people would look at those individual percentages and go ok richmond plays final. but nope. not in our system. The teams percentage who would fall the least is the one that only got 33.3 percent. The teams whose percentage falls more is the one who got more than double the percentage of 69.2.

now that is ridiculous.

 

[Seeds]

Let’s put some more detail into this scenario.
Geelong loses to first placed Melbourne 22-60
Richmond loses to 17th placed Hawthorn 90-130
Who deserves finals?

Thé uneveness of the fixture is a different problem which should also be rectified.

i could also turn that on its head and say Geelong loses to 17th placed hawthorn and Richmond loses to first place melbourne. Thé opponent played doesnt change the outcome for percentages.

 

[BF Tiger]

If scaled weighted averages are convoluted then you all need to go back and do maths at school again. They are very simplistic formulas.

I can do the maths, yes it’s pretty simple. You just haven’t justified doing it.

 

[Seeds]

The rules are clear, if you want a bigger percentage then play more attacking football and win by more.
Percentage is vastly overrated like I said.

only teams that win in low scoring games get penalised by the current system. Teams that lose in low scoring games unjustly benefit in terms of percentage.

Likewise losers of high scoring games are penalised in the current system Whilst winners benefit.

In other words there is no strategy you can implement to maximise your percentage with the current biases in the system. You can try and be attacking in some games but if you lose them you are worse off then if you lost playing a defensive low scoring game. the outcomes are simply pot luck.


how about we just not unfairly penalise teams and give everyone the percentage they deserve? I can write the percentage equation to fix all this randomness in 30 seconds.

 

[Seeds]

I can do the maths, yes it’s pretty simple. You just haven’t justified doing it.

Yes I have in numerous examples. If you don’t get the justification then you havnt understood the implications of the maths.

 

[BF Tiger]

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%.

This is just a paradox.

If two teams have 1000 for and against and team A then wins 10 games 60-20 they then have 1600 for and 1200 against, and a % of 133%.

If team B then wins 10 games 130-80 they then have 2300 for and 1800 against and a % of 127%.

 

[BF Tiger]

Yes I have in numerous examples. If you don’t get the justification then you havnt understood the implications of the maths.

A different metric isn’t justification. It’s just a different metric.

 

[Seeds]

A different metric isn’t justification. It’s just a different metric.

It’s a metric that treats each game equally.

a team that is good at winning low scoring wet weather games is treated the same in percentage terms as a team that is good at winning dry high scoring games.

we treat them the same in terms of wins and loses. Why not percentage? Or do we truly believe that wining in wet weather games isn’t as good as winning in dry? Losing in wet weather games isn’t as bad as losing in dry games.


and you can apply the same reasoning in regards to beating teams with highly defensive game plans vs beating teams that employ highl’y attacking game plans.

 

[BF Tiger]

It’s a metric that treats each game equally.

a team that is good at winning low scoring wet weather games is treated the same in percentage terms as a team that is good at winning dry high scoring games.

we treat them the same in terms of wins and loses. Why not percentage? Or do we truly believe that wining in wet weather games isn’t as good as winning in dry? Losing in wet weather games isn’t as bad as losing in dry games.


and you can apply the same reasoning in regards to beating teams with highly defensive game plans vs beating teams that employ highl’y attacking game plans.

The metric that treats each game equally is the W-L column.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

the individual percentages from those games would of been Geelong 33.3 percent and richmonds 69.2 percent.

most people would look at those individual percentages and go ok richmond plays final. but nope. not in our system. The teams percentage who would fall the least is the one that only got 33.3 percent. The teams whose percentage falls more is the one who got more than double the percentage of 69.2.

now that is ridiculous.

Yeah, but why does it matter what the percentage is from one individual game? You haven't even shown that the outcome would be any different in your system (bearing in mind it would have been applied to all previous 21 games).

And look, I'm not having a go here, but you've made some pretty wild claims about the state of mathematics education in Australia. So could you please explain on what basis if Geelong beats North 90-10, Geelong gets 190% and North gets 10%.

I honestly cannot understand a logical, fair mathematically valid reason that should be the case.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

only teams that win in low scoring games get penalised by the current system. Teams that lose in low scoring games unjustly benefit in terms of percentage.

Likewise losers of high scoring games are penalised in the current system Whilst winners benefit.

In other words there is no strategy you can implement to maximise your percentage with the current biases in the system. You can try and be attacking in some games but if you lose them you are worse off then if you lost playing a defensive low scoring game. the outcomes are simply pot luck.


how about we just not unfairly penalise teams and give everyone the percentage they deserve? I can write the percentage equation to fix all this randomness in 30 seconds.

Your talking about marginal differences in percentage that will probably be irrelevant anyway.
With your formula it would still be improbable that any team would change position at the end of 22 rounds.
There are not many wet games with low scores that affect any particular teams.
Geelong always has a good % due to home ground advantage not for any other reason.
I see your point but a formula would open up a can of worms.
Teams play for 4 points, percentage is not that relevant imo.

 

[KingJim]

87.4 % of statistics are made up on the spot.

When I studied it we called it Sadistics. Yea because it's so much fun.

 

[Billy ray]

YoU nEeD tHe oThER tEAm tO ScORe tO gEt aNy PeRceNtagE

 

[Seeds]

Your talking about marginal differences in percentage that will probably be irrelevant anyway.
With your formula it would still be improbable that any team would change position at the end of 22 rounds.
There are not many wet games with low scores that affect any particular teams.
Geelong always has a good % due to home ground advantage not for any other reason.
I see your point but a formula would open up a can of worms.
Teams play for 4 points, percentage is not that relevant imo.

Percentage can be very relevant at seasons end though. it doesn’t matter every year but it does matter sometimes though.

if there was a lot of effort involved i would get not making the change. But there really isn’t any effort involved. This isn’t introducing a third umpire and goal square cameras to maybe one day save a grand final result from a bad umpiring decision. There really is no cost To this. It’s just reaping small low hanging fruit.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Percentage can be very relevant at seasons end though. it doesn’t matter every year but it does matter sometimes though.

if there was a lot of effort involved i would get not making the change. But there really isn’t any effort involved. This isn’t introducing a third umpire and goal square cameras to maybe one day save a grand final result from a bad umpiring decision. There really is no cost To this. It’s just reaping small low hanging fruit.

Ok what's your formula

 

[yodellinhank]

Let’s put some more detail into this scenario.
Geelong loses to first placed Melbourne 22-60
Richmond loses to 17th placed Hawthorn 90-130
Who deserves finals?

Probably Melbourne