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

[statsman74]

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.

Yep, I'm done with this kid.

I've learnt a good lesson in the last week - when you get someone that defends themselves by blocking their ears and going "la la la" there isnt much that can be done - even an avalanche of stats and proof wont allow them to see the light.

I think the mistake I made was assuming they were of equal intelligence, and once I started using bigger words and maths terminology, rather than try and understand what they meant, he decided the "la la la" defense was the best approach.

 

[statsman74]

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.

Careful, I tried facts and proof and he just denied its value. You're better off leaving this well alone, you cant debate with a moron.

 

[cat in sydney]

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.


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

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5793967&postcount=42

The reason it is going to keep going around in circles is because you won't concede you've lost the debate. Not only have you lost the debate, you've come across as being less intelligent than you probably are, because you're ONLY real case for +- over % is because it is simpler and more understandable. EVEN IF IT WAS NO LESS FAIR (which is your argument), WHY CHANGE IT FOR ONE OR TWO DOPES WHO CAN'T GET THE CONCEPT?!
imo, +- is no easier to understand than %. In fact, when I look at the NRL ladder, I find it more difficult to work out predictions for ladder positions with the +- system than with the AFL % system.

As someone mentioned before, there are bigger things to worry about in the AFL than overhauling the system for a couple of people who find it slightly inconvenient.

 

[balthaz]

"%" is superior to "+/-" the same way that "%" is superior to "Points For" as a means to split teams on equal premiership points.
Rating teams by either "+/-" or "Points For" does not take into account all the conditions in which teams achieve that rating.

If you do not care about the superiority of "%" as a method to rank teams and only wish to make the system simpler as well as give incentive to attacking teams then "Points For" is a better way to go than "+/-", as it is even simpler (no maths at all) and rewards all-out attacking.

Other sports use "+/-" because A) they always have done before and B) because there is less difference between "+/-" and "%" than in Aussie rules. They score less often so there would be even less instances of difference between "+/-" and "%".

If you were going to reform the system (and why bother anyway) then you could also consider scoring shots "+/-" or "%", interstate win %, head-to-head record or even have a three-legged egg-and-spoon sack race as valid and fair ways to split teams, as long as you say what it's going to be up front. Or we could just stick with what we've got which has been good enough til now.

EDIT: On further consideration, why don't we just abandon statistical methods altogether and at the end of the season any teams on equal points decide for themselves what the decider is going to be. Just think, a race around the world, a pie eating contest, boat races (the fun kind). Would make for some interesting Mad Mondays for teams on equal points who miss the eight.

 

[Father Jack]

now that we have that sorted out, how about 2 points for a win instead of 4. that way carlton wouldnt have looked as bad, and they would sell more tickets. and it would be easier to add up. and a draw would only be worth one less instead of two. lots of reasons to do it.

 

[eorl]

Lets face it the +/- system is a soccer based system. This works for soccer as soccer is a low scoring (boring) game with a high probability of a draw. If the percentage system was used inn soccer it would create the possibility of teams having rediculously high/lows percentages. So to prevent this they use a +/- system.

Our marvelous game is not low scoring and the odds of having a draw are so small that this year only 2 occured in 176 games. The percentage system works perfectly for our game, so lets just leave it that way.

My suggestion for you Starz is if you want a simple game that uses the +/- system, support a soccer club and not the Western Bulldogs (whose defence is pretty poor).

 

[konstas_87]

if the only argument u can make about the afl is run is the fairness of %age, then the game is in pretty good state and you are just clutching for something to change.
what's next? the shape of the ball should be square?