% vs +/- : the final battle (the challenge accepted)

Remove this Banner Ad

starz said:
+/- is 1000 times easier to track and understand for everybody, that's why it should be changed.

You have a very simple view and its obvious that you cannot grasp the above example, therefore making it very difficult to argue the point with you. Most people past grade 3 or 4 can figure it out.
 
starz said:
statsman, can you take this question/theory.

Let's see if you've actually learnt anything...

starz

Good to see you're still hitching yourself to others that make a more reasoned argument. Before it was ecky, now Mike B. Remember last time this happened you agreed that I needed to put up or shut up - I put up, with proof, and here you are, still yapping.

But you've trapped yourself here.

Mike B is agreeing with me - that +/- doesnt accurately capture the difference between games with similar margins but different levels of scoring.
I agree - two 20 point victories arent necessarily the same, and thus % captures this difference where as +/- will not.

In addition, as a separate issue, I've proven over and over that % is unbiased and +/- is biased, and therefore, that is ANOTHER reason why % is better.
 
your 1998 example was good Statsman, but the difference between 6th and 7th in 1998 was either copping a 10 goal belting from the 2nd placed team or an 8 goal belting from the 3rd placed team. nowadays, it can be the difference between hosting a final at home or travelling interstate

look at it this way...

two teams finish incredibly close in 6th and 7th (for argument's sake, let's say Melbourne and Fremantle). to blatantly steal from Starz, the two teams finish with the following totals:

Melbourne

For: 2207
Against: 2050

+/- ratio: +157
Percentage: 107.66

Fremantle

For: 2048
Against: 1900

+/- ratio: +148
Percentage: 107.79


under the current system, Fremantle would finish above Melbourne and host a home final. under the proposed system, Fremantle would be travelling to Melbourne to play that final.

should Freo have to travel to Melbourne just so a few commentators can have an easier time plotting their hypotheticals at the end of round 21?

I understand the +/- system is much better for football fans, but the current system is so much fairer and when we're talking about the September campaigns and balance sheets of an AFL club, anything less than the fairest system possible simply isn't good enough


edit: maybe I'm being ambiguous. I agree with statsman! :thumbsu:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

TigerFan said:
your 1998 example was good Statsman, but the difference between 6th and 7th in 1998 was either copping a 10 goal belting from the 2nd placed team or an 8 goal belting from the 3rd placed team. nowadays, it can be the difference between hosting a final at home or travelling interstate

look at it this way...

two teams finish incredibly close in 6th and 7th (for argument's sake, let's say Melbourne and Fremantle). to blatantly steal from Starz, the two teams finish with the following totals:

Melbourne

For: 2207
Against: 2050

+/- ratio: +157
Percentage: 107.66

Fremantle

For: 2048
Against: 1900

+/- ratio: +148
Percentage: 107.79


under the current system, Fremantle would finish above Melbourne and host a home final. under the proposed system, Fremantle would be travelling to Melbourne to play that final.

should Freo have to travel to Melbourne just so a few commentators can have an easier time plotting their hypotheticals at the end of round 21?

I understand the +/- system is much better for football fans, but the current system is so much fairer and when we're talking about the September campaigns and balance sheets of an AFL club, anything less than the fairest system possible simply isn't good enough


edit: maybe I'm being ambiguous. I agree with statsman! :thumbsu:

You are spot on. (aside from the 1998 reference - it was 7th/8th, not 6th/7th)

As my original post in this thread says, there are lots of critical points on a ladder;

eg.

2nd vs 3rd - hosting games
4th vs 5th - double chance or not
8th vs 9th - make the 8 or not
15th vs 16th - spoon / 1st draft pick

And then you throw in the draft and it all matters. In the 98 draft I think Essendon took McVeigh and the Eagles got some no-name. Reverse the spots and who knows what other changes happen.

Simplicity is one thing, and yes, the people that dont have the ability to work out % would be thrilled. But it wouldnt be fair, and clubs are too important businesses nowadays to introduce more issues and biases to what is already there.
 
statsman74 said:
Mike B is agreeing with me - that +/- doesnt accurately capture the difference between games with similar margins but different levels of scoring.
two 20 point victories arent necessarily the same, and thus % captures this difference where as +/- will not.
What Mike B and you don't understand is that a 77-57 win is not weighted under percentage to rain, venue low scoring or anything.
Thus a 90-110 loss the week after more than cancels it out.

The percentage may look better in isolation but in the long run still equates to 20 points.
So for the millionth time.. you bring this up again, that's ok you just make yourself look even more ignorant and stupid.
 
The fact is, the biggest problem with the AFL is that they keep trying to fix what isn't broken, rather than correcting the biggest issues facing our game.

The Match Review panel has a lot of problems, and the tribunal itself is even worse.

There's no accountability for umpires, and too often they get away with making terrible mistakes and having a total lack of consistency at their jobs with few consequences.

So really, changing from a percentage system to a +/- system just for the sake of it is yet another chance for the AFL to change something unnecessarily, and leave possible problems to arise.

I don't think I've ever heard somebody complain about the percentage system in my entire life until starz made the comment about it, and I doubt I'll hear any more complaints about it for a long, long time.
 
vinnie_vegas69 said:
The fact is, the biggest problem with the AFL is that they keep trying to fix what isn't broken, rather than correcting the biggest issues facing our game.

The Match Review panel has a lot of problems, and the tribunal itself is even worse.

There's no accountability for umpires, and too often they get away with making terrible mistakes and having a total lack of consistency at their jobs with few consequences.

So really, changing from a percentage system to a +/- system just for the sake of it is yet another chance for the AFL to change something unnecessarily, and leave possible problems to arise.

I don't think I've ever heard somebody complain about the percentage system in my entire life until starz made the comment about it, and I doubt I'll hear any more complaints about it for a long, long time.

I was simply pointing out it was a much better system to use, I gave all the evidence - pro's cons for both and it's proven with the NRL having had such great success with it.

The ignorant and argumentative stasman and friends have kept this going on far too long with the same flawed theories. Only some of the 'switched on' forumites understand what i'm saying.
 
statsman74 said:
.

I have mathematically proven, based on current year and prior year data, that +/- is biased and % is not. I know you dont like this, as it proves your theory 100% wrong, but that is how it is.

I have also proven that margin (ie +/-) is tied to how high scoring a game is. This means that high scoring venues are likely to result in higher margins and therefore unfairly assists some teams over others. % does not have any such link.

You claim as a "Fact" that percentage rewards low scoring teams. This is 100% false, another fact dismissed. Percentage is kind to good defensive teams. But every club chooses its own style and can be as defensive as it likes.

not that i want to change the system. % is fine.
but both systems are flawed and biased in their own ways, statsman has summed up the % side of things well, but his love for the system has blinded him to a few basic facts

how can you say it is not biased when it clearly favours defensive teams

on the flipside to your argument, teams playing at lower scoring venues alot would be favoured, lower scoring venues would result in a lower total score against. % is kind to good defence you said.

a complete contradiction, if percentage is unbiased how can it be "kind" to anyone?
 
starz said:
I was simply pointing out it was a much better system to use, I gave all the evidence - pro's cons for both and it's proven with the NRL having had such great success with it.

yes, but we're talking about a sport in which the average scoreline is four times less than that of its AFL counterpart

I simply don't think we should be changing the system when the complications of the percentage system only become relevant on the last day of round 22
 
I suppose I don't really care... if you went back over the past 10 years you could probably find one 1 finals game that would have changed, and maybe 2 or 3 draft picks order changes.

So the effect is small. The tradition is large. So I'm not in a hurry to change it. But I was concerned and wanted to point out that the stats, as presented, seemed incorrect and based on baseless and confusing assumptions.

The bottom line is that % favours low scoring teams. A high scoring team has to win by a lot more (in terms of goals scored) than a low scoring team to match the %. Whether this comes into the minds of the coaches/tacticians when they devised the team strategies (ie the Eagles strong defence of the early 90s, Adelaide/Sydney's dour styles of today) or not... probably not. But it isn't doing anything to discourage it.

What would discourage it (and be probably too much of a change for even my liking) would be to use GOALS FOR alone to determine ladder position... but I admit that that would favour the indoor ground playing teams over those who hit a windy/squally Kardinya/AAMi/Subi/Tassie etc.
 
magilla said:
not that i want to change the system. % is fine.
but both systems are flawed and biased in their own ways, statsman has summed up the % side of things well, but his love for the system has blinded him to a few basic facts

how can you say it is not biased when it clearly favours defensive teams

on the flipside to your argument, teams playing at lower scoring venues alot would be favoured, lower scoring venues would result in a lower total score against. % is kind to good defence you said.

a complete contradiction, if percentage is unbiased how can it be "kind" to anyone?

I dont love the % system, I just loathe the idea of dumbing it down for people like starz and introducing more biases to an already over-biased ;) AFL.

By simple maths, % is kind to teams that are excellent defensively. But any team can control how attacking and how defensive it is - Sydney plays a style that is very defensive, does it well, and gets the results.

It is a team by team decision and the effectiveness of that depends on ability.

As for the venue comment, there is no correlation between venue and percentage. That is, doesnt matter how high or low scoring a venue is, percentage is unaffected. (because in low scoring games, the relativity of one score to another is still similar to that in a high scoring game...eg 50 to 30 or 100 to 60 - same result for %)

Therefore % is unaffected by venue, but is affected by choice of playing style and the ability of the teams to execute that style.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Statsman you appear to be going out of your way to prove yourself, I find it pretty funny that you would go to this much effort to fight the good fight for the keeping of the % system, an issue clearly worth investing alot of time to ensure our fellow internet football fans agree with!

"Well, I put up and was proven to be correct. It is now time for you to shut the F up."

"I had another 5 examples up my sleeve to use just in case."

Where?

"You dont win a debate by claiming your own victory."

"Percentage is kind to good defensive teams. But every club chooses its own style and can be as defensive as it likes."

This is hardly the point is it? Are you accepting that % rewards good defensive teams while +- would reward the better attacking teams, therefore surely the implementation of this system would help facilitate or more attacking style of game league wide?
 
ThePope said:
I agree that it is rarely an issue for final ladder position, but switching to a +- system would just send another indication that we want goals to be scored, not just defended.
When teams need percentage, they don't just play defensively. They aim to score goals, and plenty.

% is unique to our game, it's a very minor issue but it's best to see it stay.
 
CarterS said:
"Well, I put up and was proven to be correct. It is now time for you to shut the F up."

"I had another 5 examples up my sleeve to use just in case."

Where?

"You dont win a debate by claiming your own victory."

"Percentage is kind to good defensive teams. But every club chooses its own style and can be as defensive as it likes."

This is hardly the point is it? Are you accepting that % rewards good
defensive teams while +- would reward the better attacking teams, therefore surely the implementation of this system would help facilitate or more attacking style of game league wide?

- I only got involved midway thru the debate, when it was clear that the idea was flawed and no-one was really proving why. I love statistical analysis, so my only fear was that my research wouldnt give me the result I hoped. That was the risk I took.

- I didnt need to use the other examples as the most recent example is (a) most relevant and (b) worked fine. For the record there was another in the 90's, 2 in the 60's, another in the 50's, the 40's....quite a few actually. It takes a lot of work and I wasnt going to analyse any more than I needed to!

- I didnt claim victory, I let others draw that conclusion. It was starz who on no less than at least 3 occasions said he won the argument, which was amazing as he took an absolute hiding from everyone here and failed to make any coherent argument that was based in fact. I look proudly at the 50-20 for/against as enough for me. Including the rest of my quote would give some context there - I said you win by making a view, backing it up, testing it without predjudice, and defending it fairly. I was challenged to put up or shut up, and I did that. Still waiting on starz to fulfil his part of the deal.

- My analysis wasnt on the philosophy of football styles. I just wanted to prove that +/- is inherently unfair, and that is what I achieved. My personal view is that it is unclear whether or +/- favours more attacking or more defensive teams, only that the latter favours teams playing at high scoring venues. I'm betting you'd be annoyed if your club missed out on a double chance or final or whatever because it lost +/- to a team playing most games at a high scoring venue.
 
No i wouldn't and i think you'll find if that did happen not many would even be aware of the descrepancy as they aren't now under a more complex system. Even more so under +- as it would require people to get out and do some calculations before they had their flawed whinges.
Just a few points i'd like to make:
The arguments of "under +- we would be disadvantaged because of rain or venue, whereas under % we would not" are invalid because:
1. It works both ways, you might get thrashed under those conditions and the margin might not reflect it. The same as you might thrash a side but not get as much reward if it, it cuts both ways and this element evens out.

2. The same margins apply to percentage under for and against.

3. Rain and venues are unbiased and you can't say which teams will be disadvantaged next year by rain or venue. In any event, the average game score is around 188 points, even rain effected games usually score 130+. Grounds like the MCG, GABBA and most AFL venues have excellent drainage and don't hold a lot of water. The same prnciple for point 1. applies to this.

4. Look at results: The ladder indicates the Total for's and against's are all within a few hundred of 4000. The low scoring teams like Sydney are lower scoring because that's the way they play at the SCG, look at last years Grand final 55 to 53 on a perfect day, they block it up.

5. Percentage does favour lower scoring teams at the end of the season. +- would favour higher but to the point where in the end it's very rare it would effect the positions and if it did, the grounds of complaint are invalid.

6. The season is 22 rounds long, it evens out under both systems and neither side could really complain. You can't say ie: "My team will play in the rain in round 14 next season, so we're disadvantaged"

7. Percentage does not take into account conditions or venue in the same way +- doesn't, it's not weighted, as has been suggested many times. Neither are.

Now, back to the original post. It’s of a good standard but you’ve let yourself down since then.
Credit where credit’s due, you found an example

2250 2071 (4321) +179
1940 1773 (3713) +167
BUT...the conditions were "Beyond doubt has disadvantaged a team" this is not beyond doubt, read on below.
I am a little surprised with the scoring discrepancies here. Total 3700 v total 4300 with similar percentages and both teams on equal points is about as extreme as you’ll find and to find an example where that is applied to is even more so.
But again, one could easily argue +179 should get the nod in favour of +167. There’s not a lot of difference either way is there. I don’t think either supporters would kick up a fuss under either system. That said, one could equally find a situation where a higher scoring team has been ‘disadvantaged’ as you would put it, under percentage.

In the end, for such a rare occurance it made no real difference, both had to face elimination finals. this would be an unlikely occurance.
Conversely going off the percentage system, how many Essendon and West Coast fans would have been acutely aware down to the very point required of the situation, not just in round 22 but rd 21, rd 20 and all throughout the year. I would be surprised if many apart from those really into it, would know.

This is where +- gains the enormous advantage which outweighs any arguments for % for mine.
Anyone, even kids will at all times be aware of the exact situation regards to +-.
And yes, NRL does have lower game scores and rain etc does effect scores, the more rain the lower the score. But this just emphasises the fact that it does not effect anything to the point where people are kicking up a fuss and they don't.
Put simply, it’s just a good system and nobody can complain about it.

Also, it would, if anything, reward the higher scoring team. But this is not something I would specifically say is reason enough to change, sure some would agree the better brand of football should get the nod in such an unlikely scenario, I agree.
Let’s be realistic, no coach ie Paul Roos (a low scoring team coach) addresses his team at the start of the season and says ‘let’s make sure our for and against combined don’t get over 3800, so that we finish above a higher scoring team with a similar percentage and same points in the case that our percentages are very similar we'll edge above them by literally (1 goal in effect) by way of lower scores %.

Unlike %, +- is not easily manipulated early in the season to the point where, percentage, for those of us good with numbers know it's irrelevant until it settles down whereas +- instantly tells you where exactly you are at to the point in relation to every other team. Also, although I don’t necessarily agree this it would encourage more free flowing football whereas +- encourages favours low scoring games.
The fact is, people do look at the ladder all throughout the season and it is good to have a clear indicator in this area, particularly at the end of the season. But at any time really, for everyone..
 
whats that saying about arguing with idiots? They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

statsman74, most neutral observers (maybe not THE neutral observer) would agree with you even without the arguement. ignore the ramblings or someone who doesn't understand the concept of division.
 
The point that % favours teams that are traditionally lower scoring while +/- would favour a more high scoring style of game is a valid one.

Yet look at the Premiers from the past 10 years and their defensive ranking at the end of each season:

Code:
[U]Year[/U]     [U]Team[/U]            [U]Defensive Ranking[/U]
2005     Sydney          2nd
2004     Port Adelaide   4th
2003     Brisbane        5th
2002     Brisbane        2nd 
2001     Brisbane        6th
2000     Essendon        1st
1999     Kangaroos       10th
1998     Adelaide        1st
1997     Adelaide        1st
1996     Kangaroos       7th

Traditionally the teams with the better defenses have been the most successful teams in the competition.

IMO this is another advantage of the percentage system in that it helps to distinguish the better teams by rewarding a part of the game that has traditionally translated into success for those that can best master it.
 
Sanguinarius said:
whats that saying about arguing with idiots? They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

statsman74, most neutral observers (maybe not THE neutral observer) would agree with you even without the arguement. ignore the ramblings or someone who doesn't understand the concept of division.
It's not about 'understanding the concept of division'.
Now go back to school and learn how to spell and use appropriate grammar kid, you've only made yourself look foolish here.
 
Hadders said:
The point that % favours teams that are traditionally lower scoring while +/- would favour a more high scoring style of game is a valid one.

Yet look at the Premiers from the past 10 years and their defensive ranking at the end of each season:

Code:
[U]Year[/U]     [U]Team[/U]            [U]Defensive Ranking[/U]
2005     Sydney          2nd
2004     Port Adelaide   4th
2003     Brisbane        5th
2002     Brisbane        2nd 
2001     Brisbane        6th
2000     Essendon        1st
1999     Kangaroos       10th
1998     Adelaide        1st
1997     Adelaide        1st
1996     Kangaroos       7th

Traditionally the teams with the better defenses have been the most successful teams in the competition.

IMO this is another advantage of the percentage system in that it helps to distinguish the better teams by rewarding a part of the game that has traditionally translated into success for those that can best master it.
Equally, i'm sure this would be true.
Traditionally the teams with the better attacks have been the most successful teams in the competition.

So, it's sort of a nothing stat that goes without saying when you think about it.

Let's face it, teams that have won the premiership would be high up in the rankings for both attack and defence.
 
starz said:
Equally, i'm sure this would be true.
Traditionally the teams with the better attacks have been the most successful teams in the competition.

So, it's sort of a nothing stat that goes without saying when you think about it.

Let's face it, teams that have won the premiership would be high up in the rankings for both attack and defence.

You see starz the underlined points are your problem.

I went out and did the research to support my argument. It took me 5 minutes. I didn't say that defense is 'maybe the reason why teams have won the premiership' I proved it. Now if you can provide evidence to counter my point I will be happy to acknowledge that. If not will you acknowledge my point?

Going on the previous threads I highly doubt it. Right throughout you've fallen back on you own bloated opinion. If you had ever used any shred of evidence to back up any of your arguments your credibility would be a lot higher than it's current resting place in the gutter.
 
starz said:
I have proven beyond doubt the +- system would be infinitely better from an understanding and relevant perspective

I'm quite interested in your "understanding" point.

Have you EVER in your football following career been provided with for and against totals for teams WITHOUT having had the percentage calculated for you as well?

Where are these newspapers who are providing you with the raw ingredients of the ladder, but not doing the calculations themselves.

Now if you don't understand the system, that's all well and good. But don't change a fairer system just because it's complicated. It's not even complicated anyway!

POINTS FOR/POINTS AGAINST * 100

Does your brain hurt?

In order:
1 - Fairness
2 - Simplicity
 
Hadders said:
You see starz the underlined points are your problem.

I went out and did the research to support my argument. It took me 5 minutes. I didn't say that defense is 'maybe the reason why teams have won the premiership' I proved it. Now if you can provide evidence to counter my point I will be happy to acknowledge that. If not will you acknowledge my point?

Going on the previous threads I highly doubt it. Right throughout you've fallen back on you own bloated opinion. If you had ever used any shred of evidence to back up any of your arguments your credibility would be a lot higher than it's current resting place in the gutter.
Well if you don't believe that would apply to attacks, you're a pretty naive person.
We don't need to check ladders, it just requires a bit of common sense, but if you can prove it categorically wrong by all means...

One more thing, talking down someones credibility when you've just been owned is a big call.
 
Yianni said:
I'm quite interested in your "understanding" point.

Have you EVER in your football following career been provided with for and against totals for teams WITHOUT having had the percentage calculated for you as well?

Where are these newspapers who are providing you with the raw ingredients of the ladder, but not doing the calculations themselves.

Now if you don't understand the system, that's all well and good. But don't change a fairer system just because it's complicated. It's not even complicated anyway!

POINTS FOR/POINTS AGAINST * 100

Does your brain hurt?

In order:
1 - Fairness
2 - Simplicity
Obviously you haven't read all content nor do you understand all content. Yet, you feel the need to intervene, whilst missing the point entirely.
I revert you to my quote directed at the last poster chiming in.
It's not about 'understanding the concept of division'.

This is just going to go around and around in circles.

For the facts on this discussion read the following posts.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5789816&postcount=13
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5790041&postcount=17
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5790767&postcount=30
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5793967&postcount=42
 

Remove this Banner Ad

% vs +/- : the final battle (the challenge accepted)

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top