AFL Ladder - should percentage trump Wins as first tie-breaker?

[Hahndozer]

Someone pointed out to me that GWS and Richmond could end on the same points, but Richmond would finish below us due to percentage even though they have won more games. (We have 2 draws)

If this were to happen I don't really care who we play in finals or where, in fact rather play in front of 80,000+ Richmond fans at the 'G' than 20,000 Richmond fans at Spotless to be honest.

So thinking about this, historically (100 years +) percentage has always been used as first tie-breaker when the points are the same, because back in the day every team played every other team twice, so percentage was a fair indication of "consistency".

But we dont play every other team twice anymore, lets face it, would Port's percentage be what it is if that were the case?

So I actually agree that in this unusual (unprecedented?) situation where a team has 2 draws, that WINS should be the first tie-breaker. It's the case (or winning %) in most pro-sports.

The AFL should make a statement about it regardless, feels like a debacle otherwise.

Thoughts?

Why on earth would the AFL need to make a statement about it? I would assume 99.99% of people know what the go is.

 

[hilly]

Soccer is three points for a win and a point for a draw to encourage teams to attack and not settle for a draw (i.e. risk a point to gain another two). Not required in AFL.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Fine with the current system. For those arguing for points difference this works ok for low scoring sports, but not so great where the weather can have a big difference in how many points are scored in a high scoring sport. So if one team didn't play in the rain all year, while another did you would get a big % difference without it actually being a fair reflection of each teams quality / effort.

Learn to adapt
Crows are 3-0 and 281% in the rain this year.

 

[Sherrinator]

Yeah but percentage comes down to who gets the easier draw...

So does W-L

 

[Wallaby]

To answer the OP - no, 2 draws is as good as one win in our game, so points, then percentage. As someone pointed out, the 3 points for a win in soccer was brought in to discourage teams from deliberately playing not to lose, or win ie, park the bus and aim for nil-all.

As regards percentage vs points difference as the tie-breaker, I really don't see a great deal of difference - yes, if two sides are very close there may be some shuffling, depending on which model is used. We've used %age forever (although the SANFL model is slightly different - makes bugger all difference overall), so unless there is a compelling reason to change, I don't see a need to.

The only alternative tie-breaker I would consider is Quarters Won - it doesn't make a significant difference to %age order, but it is easier for the crowd to work out and watch, and leads to 4x as many 'After the Siren kicks' (actually, probably a lot more). There are pros and cons.

 

[Scanlens Man]

No it doesn't. It comes down to who can beat up on lower teams while not getting beaten up by higher teams.

Not quite, because the draw isnt even, we only play 5 teams out of 17 twice.

 

[Hobbes]

What about 'least losses'?

There's no need to change it. Changing the rules would unnecessarily complicate things, there is nothing to suggest that 1 win and 1 loss is a better result overall than 2 draws.

It's the same as how the old countback system for the Brownlow was abolished - one 3 vote game is equal to 3 1 vote games.

Did you mean "least losses" or "fewest losses"?

 

[Hobbes]

Get rid of percentage
Go to point difference.

I hate how a 100-60 win is better than a 120-80 game.

Encourage scoring more than being restrictive,

Not entirely true. If your percentage is below 100%, a 120-80 game will help you more.

 

[Damon_3388]

Also rather than % we should go on point difference (points scored - points conceded, rather than, points scored/points conceded), which would actually reward attacking teams. But maybe the maths is too hard for some to get their head around.

Wouldn't it just be a different way of showing the same thing?

 

[Nightrain]

Wouldn't it just be a different way of showing the same thing?

Team A defeats Team B 60 points to 40;
Team C defeats Team D 115 points to 80.

Under Current System, Team A with a % of 150% is on top of Team C with a % of 144%
Under Point Difference System, Team C with a points difference of 35 is on top of Team A with a points difference of 20.

Perhaps assume Team A is a Ross Lyon coached team if it helps to get my point across.

 

[HairyO]

Someone pointed out to me that GWS and Richmond could end on the same points, but Richmond would finish below us due to percentage even though they have won more games. (We have 2 draws)

If this were to happen I don't really care who we play in finals or where, in fact rather play in front of 80,000+ Richmond fans at the 'G' than 20,000 Richmond fans at Spotless to be honest.

So thinking about this, historically (100 years +) percentage has always been used as first tie-breaker when the points are the same, because back in the day every team played every other team twice, so percentage was a fair indication of "consistency".

But we dont play every other team twice anymore, lets face it, would Port's percentage be what it is if that were the case?

So I actually agree that in this unusual (unprecedented?) situation where a team has 2 draws, that WINS should be the first tie-breaker. It's the case (or winning %) in most pro-sports.

The AFL should make a statement about it regardless, feels like a debacle otherwise.

Thoughts?

Tell Gil to stop ruining our game and tell the AFL Commission to stop paying the execs bonuses based on how many rules they screw up.

 

[sparklig]

Decide it by fairest team? Lowest total tribunal points.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Ummm... no. Wins are still the bottom line... % is a great tie breaker though, more sports around the world should be using it, especially high scoring leagues like NFL and NBA

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Keep As Is

 

[Damon_3388]

Team A defeats Team B 60 points to 40;
Team C defeats Team D 115 points to 80.

Under Current System, Team A with a % of 150% is on top of Team C with a % of 144%
Under Point Difference System, Team C with a points difference of 35 is on top of Team A with a points difference of 20.

Perhaps assume Team A is a Ross Lyon coached team if it helps to get my point across.

I think percentage still rewards good football, both attacking and defensive. It's probably a more accurate measure of overall "dominance" than point differential, for footy anyway.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

Someone pointed out to me that GWS and Richmond could end on the same points, but Richmond would finish below us due to percentage even though they have won more games.

Yeah, but they've also lost more games than us.

Which means that more teams have beaten them than have managed to beat us.

Swings and roundabouts.

 

[kickazz]

Soccer is three points for a win and a point for a draw to encourage teams to attack and not settle for a draw (i.e. risk a point to gain another two). Not required in AFL.

Except that once they get a goal in front it encourages them to defend.

3 for a win vs 2 in soccer rarely has a significant impact on final positions anyway.

I've always found out a bit dodgy, you could get teams colluding to let each other win a game each with minimal effort, gaining 3 points each; rather than just your chips in two games to potentially end up with 2 points each.

The total number of premiership points given, including bonuses, should always be the same in every game.

 

[Macca81]

not often a team has 2 draws in a season and finishes inside the top 8. Probably too much hassle changing a rule for a one in 100 event

 

[Wallaby]

Something I posted last time we had this conversation:

########################################

A bit of (related) history.

Scottish Football used Goal average (same formula as our percentage) as their 'tiebreaker) up until 1971-72. In all those seasons, there was only one time when the champion would have been different had they used Goal Difference. In 1965, Kilmarnock defeated Hearts on Goal Average. If It had been Goal Difference, Hearts would have been champions.

In 1971-72, they changed to Goal Difference. Since then, in all those seasons, there was only one time when the champion would have been different had they used Goal Average. In 1986, Celtic won the Championship on Goal Difference. If they had used Goal Average, the Champions would have been....................Hearts.

Hearts last won the Championship in 1960. If you ever want to get beaten to death in an Edinburgh pub, you know what conversation to start.

 

[HTT]

Two draws probably has a worse percentage than a win and a loss

Only if the loss is by a margin less than the win

 

[HTT]

Learn to adapt
Crows are 3-0 and 281% in the rain this year.

But were their scores the same as in the dry? A lower scoring game has less of an impact on percentage by the end of the year.

 

[Bokonon_]

Decide it by fairest team? Lowest total tribunal points.

What ya got against Toby?

 

[Scanlens Man]

Yeah, but they've also lost more games than us.

Which means that more teams have beaten them than have managed to beat us.

Swings and roundabouts.

Thats not a bad comeback - I might use that.

 

[H E Pennypacker]

I found this a couple of years ago in the Laws of the Game I think, for when two teams have same number of points, and same percentages. As far as I know it hasn't changed.

Where two or more Clubs at the completion of the Home and Away Matches have accumulated the same Premiership Points and have the same percentage, the following procedure shall apply:
(A) the position of the tied Clubs shall be adjusted by accumulating the Premiership Points awarded to the relevant Clubs as a result of the Home and Away Matches played between them and placing the Club with the highest accumulated Premiership Points, first as between them;

(B) where the Premiership Points accumulated by the relevant Clubs remain equal, the position of the tied Clubs shall be adjusted by calculating each such Club’s percentage based on the proportion of points scored for and against each such Club from the Home and Away Matches between them and placing the Club with the highest percentage, first as between them;

(C) where two or more Clubs still remain tied, the position of the Clubs shall be adjusted by lot conducted and drawn by the General Manager - Football Operations so that any Club drawn ahead of any other Club shall be placed ahead of such other Club or Clubs.

Any games between the two clubs are used first, then if still tied, the %'s from these games, then in the extremely unlikely scenario of still being tied, they essentially draw it out of a hat. No use of alphabetical order.

 

[The Goon]

Learn to adapt
Crows are 3-0 and 281% in the rain this year.

That's actually my point, % is a better indicator of merit than points differentials in high scoring games. What were the points differentials in those three games?