| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Duff Soviet Union
Joined: 16 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Skids wrote: | | Duff Soviet Union wrote: |
Spot on. The best example of this would be 1992. That was the year we finished equal first on points but a distant third on the ladder, due to a % which was actually worse than anyone in the top six. People say that year we had bad luck facing a team that "had our number" in St Kilda. Wrong. That year we won an inordinate and unsustainable number of close games because we weren't good enough to actually smash anyone. And sure enough, in the first final we lost a very close game of the sort we'd won all year (proving that you can't win every close game you're in and that a lot of close games basically come down to luck) to a team with less wins but a better point differential. That year was not a missed opportunity because we never had a snowballs chance in hell of winning the whole thing.
So ultimately, in the end winning games is much more important than percentage, but percentage is often a better indicator of how good a team actually is. |
You use the most bizzare example 
1992, top 6 = 1 v 2 in a QF, the other 2 finals are EFs.
You say we didn't have a snowflakes chance in hell of winning the flag that year yet, in round 10 we beat Geelong, round 13 we beat WCE at Subi and round 14 we beat the Dogs (the other 3 teams in the top 4)
Maybe you weren't born in '92  |
Why is that the most bizarre example? We finished equal first on points. If we had a better percentage, we would have finished first on the ladder(or at least second) and got a double chance. Instead, our inablity to dominate teams made us play an elimination final, where we lost to a team that had a better percentage than we did. The point Tannin was making and that I agree with was that percentage is often a better indicator of team quality than wins and losses, and that our inablity to prove we were much better than bad teams that year (we beat them close when actual Premiership caliber teams would have smashed them) was a pretty good sign that we weren't actually a great team that year.
And yes, I'm aware we beat good teams that year. The West Coast win is just about my favourite win ever (regular season anyway). Doesn't change my opinion one bit. We weren't Premiership material that season.
_________________
"We ain't gotta dream no more" |
|
|
|
 |
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
 4 weeks before the finals.... Collingwood beat both the teams that played off in the GF, including the eventual premiers, on their home ground and somehow (I don't think I will ever be able to work out how) you come to the conclusion that we weren't in the mix?
Did you cosider the draw, the teams with better % may have had 2 games against easy beats instead of our 1.
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
Duff Soviet Union
Joined: 16 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
First of all, it wasn't "4 weeks". We beat Geelong in Round 10 and West Coast in round 13. So it was more like "11 to 14weeks" (season was 24 rounds that year). And no, I didn't consider the draw. And now that I look at it, that strengthens my case further. We only played one top 6 team twice (Hawthorn) and they finished fifth. We had a piss easy draw.
_________________
"We ain't gotta dream no more" |
|
|
|
|
bwphantom 
It's Better to Burn Out Than to Fade Away
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Location: Brisbane QLD
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well ATM we are equal 4th on points, but 7th because of %.
Now I am not saying that in the end it makes a difference. If we keep winning games then points will make all the difference.
% Does not make a difference concerning a Top 4 finish as proven in 2002 & 2003.
However can make or break a top 8. But the trick is to win enough games to not have % factor in where a team finishes.
Go back over the seasons and have a look at how well teams faired in Finals by slipping into the 8 by %???
_________________
All this may be summed up in one word - CHARACTER - and if that is not worth developing, nothing is.
Jock McHale |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Duff Soviet Union wrote: |
That year was not a missed opportunity because we never had a snowballs chance in hell of winning the whole thing.
So ultimately, in the end winning games is much more important than percentage, but percentage is often a better indicator of how good a team actually is. |
This is the bit I don't get.... "not a snowballs chance in hell"
WC only played 2 of the top 6 twice in '92 Dogs & Saints.
We had 5 close wins, Ess 9 pts, NM 6 pts, Crows 5 pts + 4 pts, WC 1 pt.
Our biggest losses of the year were Carl 33 points, Hawks 24 pts + 13 pts & 3 by under 10 to Melb, Fitz & SK
A better % (which is what this topic is about) and '92 could have been so much different.
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
Beast
Joined: 26 Oct 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| As long as we keep on winning the percentage will look after itself. |
|
|
|
|
uuuuu..... The LoneSTAR
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Location: Under negotiation
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| It is possible that at some point in the season percentage could be of the utmost importance. It's irrelevant right now. |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Percentage will most likely be very important by season's end. If we can start winning comfortably, we should see our percentage gradually improve. However, it's obviously much more important to first get the wins on the board. |
|
|
|
|
3rd degree 
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Location: John Wren's tote
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What about the great percentage Mammoth ?? Where does it live??
_________________
" Ohhh Banksy and out comes the Note Book".
www.facebook/the hybernators |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| great percentage Mammoth? Where does it live? |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Beast wrote: | | As long as we keep on winning the percentage will look after itself. |
I wish it did, but read the previous posts. '92, sure, we kept on winning, 8 out of our last 10. We finished on 16 - 6, same as WB & G, half a game clear of 4th.
Our % determined that we finished, not first, not second (Double chance gone) but third.
If % 'looked after itself'
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Percentage, like wins, can separate teams on the ladder. This is not a myth!  There are times where a loss does not change your position on the ladder, this does not mean wins are inconsequential, and neither is percentage.
But, what I guess the OP is getting at, is that you don't play for percentage, you play for wins. You aim to play well, if you do play well you might win by a big margin and increase your percentage. That's it. We could even say the same about wins I guess, but it's even moreso for percentage.
We've started slowly this season and play less crap teams than any other club, this means it's unlikely we'll end up with the highest percentage in the comp. It also means we might end up on the same number of wins as teams that are not as good as we are. In that case having a higher percentage could be useful, especially if it means the difference between 4th and 5th. So yeah, a higher percentage is better than a lower one, but it's not something we play for or set an aim in.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Cuthbert Collingwood 
Once was on fire, now all at sea
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Location: The BBC (Brunswick Bowling Club)
|
| Post subject: | |
|
hmmm... this reminds me of something... Premier League this year was decided on "goal difference", just another name for percentage
_________________
McRae for Governor-General! |
|
|
|
|
AnthonyC
Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'm actually a numbers person, no seriously, but putting it really simply, of course % makes a fricken difference why would it be considered at all otherwise.
Yeah I know you win 22 games and you finish on top even if your % is 100.1, but it potentially can be a big factor when all's said and done.
Actually who can forget the last game of 2009 when the doggies had to beat us by 20 odd points to get above us and play the cats in the first week, thinking that they were ripe for the picking. So funny how happy their supporters were at the end of the game thinking they were all set.
_________________
Go Pies! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| the ru is on fire wrote: | | hmmm... this reminds me of something... Premier League this year was decided on "goal difference", just another name for percentage |
Yessiree, and being a Man City supporter since 1978 (that's a long time in footy) .
Of course percentage matters it's self evident. Of course winning matters but that will not necessarily take care of everything else (will take care of a hell of a lot of other things though).
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
