Post match. Pies blitz Bombers - all comments

[magpiemike]

[ANNODAM]

^ Nah not that lucky, our weather sucks!

[35forever]

Re the 'Sidebar' 35Forever... you do realise that if you win by just 25 pts for the first game of the year ... e.g. 50 v 25 you get a % of 200! But it is volatile and can be more easily reversed compared to a percentage of 200 in round 20!

So if our games against the Dons were reversed and we won the first game by 79 and they won the recent game by 46 our percentage would of course be exactly what it is right now - there is no overall difference to winning earlier or later in the final wash-up...

Percentage is points For divided by Points against and by the end of the season the wins or losses are not able to make as big a difference to the percentages because there are more points accumulated... clearly relative to the total points for and against.

Now whether percentage matters... that is a debate worthy of its own thread! !

Thanks YY, but I assure you I fully understand how percentage works, and while you are right about how reversing the two games would provide an identical outcome, that wasn't what I was referring to. My point was about the fact that early big wins are far more valuable than later ones, in terms of WHO you play in the early and late part of the year, and how high scores are a detriment.
Y'see it's more than simple mathematics. A couple of big wins against low scorers in the opening rounds makes a huge difference to ladder possie, gives a side confidence, brings the fans out, etc etc. Look at Sydneys bogus draw this year (The single best draw handed a premiership side in 250,000 years!). This was intended to give them top spot with a huge % after a few rounds to keep the momentum going, along with the unfurling of the flag etc. Sydney is a key market and Pigboy only cares about getting more money, justifying his 2 mil +++ per year (2 million just for saying 'no comment' 10,000 times!? Good deal!) and making himself look clever. Of course Sydney failed to take full advantage, preferring to use the armchair ride to take it easy and coast for a few rounds to keep injuries down. Same thing happened with us after starting 7-0 in 2011, this time with sod-all help from pigboy, We were just awesome!). And of course if the season continues along reasonably well a late season thumping won't take too much toll on your percentage. It's just one of the many tools in the AFL's kitbag for engineering the results they want, which are usually covered by words like 'player safety' and 'equalisation'.
In the end it isn't that the system itself is inherently unfair to one side or another, but in conjunction with a carefully managed 'draw' it can make a huge difference.

As to the umpiring situation mentioned by Precarious, he is spot on. It seems to be something else used to engineer results, and one which doesn't need to look obvious. A side can have double the free kicks of the opposition and still have been well and truly screwed by the umpire. Like precarious I tend to notice it more when other sides are playing as I'm less invested in the match, and if any side copped it this week it was the doggies. I have no doubt it was used it against us in that second, but we were too good. Footscray however were heading for a big upset against the Swans after 'Gia's near-goal-of-the-year out of mid-air put the Doggies within 8 points late in the third. They had all the momentum until the GRS screw up stopped them in their tracks, allowing the Swans to pile on the goals and bring up an almost instantaneous 35 point lead.

I'm fully aware I'll be bashed as a lunatic for suggesting such an outlandish conspiracy theory, and by all means go nuts, but unlike Precarious I have started looking into the numbers, and they just don't add up. Let us remember that it's only in fairly recent times that we've started to notice the mental side of the game, and the part played by things like momentum, and we really don't know that much about it still, there is a great deal of work which still needs doing before we fully understand the many subtleties of the mental game.

If you are of an open-minded bent and want to look further into this phenomenon, just watch games and look for big scoring runs, then look at how many times such a run is immediately preceded by an anomalous event such as a stunningly bad decision by the maggots. Let's be clear though, the aforesaid anomaly is just as likely to be an incredible goal, a huge hanger, a goal-saving tackle, or some other extraneous occurrence such as a streaker, an injury, or a seagull getting kafoopped by an errant ball. It can even occur after a completely unintentional umpire involvement such as occurred in the game of the season where Brisbane pipped Geelong 'oop north. The Brisbane run on that occasion was initiated after Stevie J kicked the ball into the ump resulting in a ricochet to a Lions player resulting in a Brisbane goal.

And no, I'm not suggesting that the AFL are manufacturing dead seagulls...

yet!

[Tannin]

And no, I'm not suggesting that the AFL are manufacturing dead seagulls...

Quite correct. That would be Four'N Twenty.

[yin-YANG]

Re the 'Sidebar' 35Forever... you do realise that if you win by just 25 pts for the first game of the year ... e.g. 50 v 25 you get a % of 200! But it is volatile and can be more easily reversed compared to a percentage of 200 in round 20!

So if our games against the Dons were reversed and we won the first game by 79 and they won the recent game by 46 our percentage would of course be exactly what it is right now - there is no overall difference to winning earlier or later in the final wash-up...

Percentage is points For divided by Points against and by the end of the season the wins or losses are not able to make as big a difference to the percentages because there are more points accumulated... clearly relative to the total points for and against.


Now whether percentage matters... that is a debate worthy of its own thread! !

Thanks YY, but I assure you I fully understand how percentage works, and while you are right about how reversing the two games would provide an identical outcome, that wasn't what I was referring to. My point was about the fact that early big wins are far more valuable than later ones, in terms of WHO you play in the early and late part of the year, and how high scores are a detriment.
Y'see it's more than simple mathematics. A couple of big wins against low scorers in the opening rounds makes a huge difference to ladder possie, gives a side confidence, brings the fans out, etc etc. Look at Sydneys bogus draw this year (The single best draw handed a premiership side in 250,000 years!). This was intended to give them top spot with a huge % after a few rounds to keep the momentum going, along with the unfurling of the flag etc. Sydney is a key market and Pigboy only cares about getting more money, justifying his 2 mil +++ per year (2 million just for saying 'no comment' 10,000 times!? Good deal!) and making himself look clever. Of course Sydney failed to take full advantage, preferring to use the armchair ride to take it easy and coast for a few rounds to keep injuries down. Same thing happened with us after starting 7-0 in 2011, this time with sod-all help from pigboy, We were just awesome!). And of course if the season continues along reasonably well a late season thumping won't take too much toll on your percentage. It's just one of the many tools in the AFL's kitbag for engineering the results they want, which are usually covered by words like 'player safety' and 'equalisation'.
In the end it isn't that the system itself is inherently unfair to one side or another, but in conjunction with a carefully managed 'draw' it can make a huge difference.

As to the umpiring situation mentioned by Precarious, he is spot on. It seems to be something else used to engineer results, and one which doesn't need to look obvious. A side can have double the free kicks of the opposition and still have been well and truly screwed by the umpire. Like precarious I tend to notice it more when other sides are playing as I'm less invested in the match, and if any side copped it this week it was the doggies. I have no doubt it was used it against us in that second, but we were too good. Footscray however were heading for a big upset against the Swans after 'Gia's near-goal-of-the-year out of mid-air put the Doggies within 8 points late in the third. They had all the momentum until the GRS screw up stopped them in their tracks, allowing the Swans to pile on the goals and bring up an almost instantaneous 35 point lead.

I'm fully aware I'll be bashed as a lunatic for suggesting such an outlandish conspiracy theory, and by all means go nuts, but unlike Precarious I have started looking into the numbers, and they just don't add up. Let us remember that it's only in fairly recent times that we've started to notice the mental side of the game, and the part played by things like momentum, and we really don't know that much about it still, there is a great deal of work which still needs doing before we fully understand the many subtleties of the mental game.

If you are of an open-minded bent and want to look further into this phenomenon, just watch games and look for big scoring runs, then look at how many times such a run is immediately preceded by an anomalous event such as a stunningly bad decision by the maggots. Let's be clear though, the aforesaid anomaly is just as likely to be an incredible goal, a huge hanger, a goal-saving tackle, or some other extraneous occurrence such as a streaker, an injury, or a seagull getting kafoopped by an errant ball. It can even occur after a completely unintentional umpire involvement such as occurred in the game of the season where Brisbane pipped Geelong 'oop north. The Brisbane run on that occasion was initiated after Stevie J kicked the ball into the ump resulting in a ricochet to a Lions player resulting in a Brisbane goal.

And no, I'm not suggesting that the AFL are manufacturing dead seagulls...

yet!

I agree with your comments re an easy early draw leading to momentum and greater confidence - although it is no guarantee for success - have a look at the Bummers over the last 2 years...

[yin-YANG]

Re the 'Sidebar' 35Forever... you do realise that if you win by just 25 pts for the first game of the year ... e.g. 50 v 25 you get a % of 200! But it is volatile and can be more easily reversed compared to a percentage of 200 in round 20!

So if our games against the Dons were reversed and we won the first game by 79 and they won the recent game by 46 our percentage would of course be exactly what it is right now - there is no overall difference to winning earlier or later in the final wash-up...

Percentage is points For divided by Points against and by the end of the season the wins or losses are not able to make as big a difference to the percentages because there are more points accumulated... clearly relative to the total points for and against.

Now whether percentage matters... that is a debate worthy of its own thread! !

Agree it's worth of it's own thread.... but since I'm thinking about it right now having read your post, here's my two cents. While I love tradition I think there is a lot to be said of the NRL's system of points differential. I guess to some degree in those final few rounds the percentage system does create some tension and excitement I still think a points differential is a far more accurate system.

Under the current system a team gets effectively penalised the higher the scores are. For instance if you had two teams that both won five matches by 25 points, one who had a scoreline of 100-75 in each match and then the other scoring 65-40, despite winning by an identical amount in an identical number of matches the relative percentages would be 133% to 163%. That's a pretty massive difference. Oh it's in isolation and technically everything balances out but... IMO points differential is more accurate - and a hell of a lot easier to understand and explain in those closing rounds!

I prefer the current method of calculating percentage because it has the differential built into it as well as a relative factor... surely beating a team 50-25 is a bigger win than say 150-125... I mean in one game you doubled their score!

I like the slog games and don't mind if the tougher defensive footy is rewarded through our percentage system favouring strong defensive teams - surely the game has been too fast and basketball like enough!

[Tannin]

Under the current system a team gets effectively penalised the higher the scores are. For instance if you had two teams that both won five matches by 25 points, one who had a scoreline of 100-75 in each match and then the other scoring 65-40, despite winning by an identical amount in an identical number of matches the relative percentages would be 133% to 163%.

^ Go direct to the bottom of the class.

Do not pass Go.

Do not collect $200.

I was going to write that you need to study basic statistics, but that's not right. You actually need to learn about things called fractions. Most children learn about fractions in about grade 2. Twice as many is 2/1. Half as many is 1/2.

It's quite easy once you get your mind around the basics: if you double your opponent's score, you have twice as many. That's why we have percentage.

Now if you actually want to improve the system, then you need to be talking about introducing corrective weighting such that the effect of every match on percentage is equal relative to proportional score difference of that match - or, to put it another way, you need to be talking about a fairer system which rewards doubling your opponent's score equally no matter whether that was by 200 points to 100 or by 38 points to 19. Both were meritorious wins, there is no reason whatever to penalise the second one, which is what the current system does.

The formula is so simple that even a 3rd grader could understand : (for/against) + (for/against) + (for/against) and so on for all 23 rounds. The consequence of doing it this way is that the system becomes more fair, and quite possibly easier to calculate (you only ever have to work out the effect of a single match at a time, where with the current system you need to recalculate from the start of the season every week).

Would it make any practical difference? Probably not. But then, percentage rarely makes much difference anyway. Err ... wasn't there a thread about that once?

[jack_spain]

Under the current system a team gets effectively penalised the higher the scores are. For instance if you had two teams that both won five matches by 25 points, one who had a scoreline of 100-75 in each match and then the other scoring 65-40, despite winning by an identical amount in an identical number of matches the relative percentages would be 133% to 163%.

^ Go direct to the bottom of the class.

Do not pass Go.

Do not collect $200.

I was going to write that you need to study basic statistics, but that's not right. You actually need to learn about things called fractions. Most children learn about fractions in about grade 2. Twice as many is 2/1. Half as many is 1/2.

It's quite easy once you get your mind around the basics: if you double your opponent's score, you have twice as many. That's why we have percentage.

Now if you actually want to improve the system, then you need to be talking about introducing corrective weighting such that the effect of every match on percentage is equal relative to proportional score difference of that match - or, to put it another way, you need to be talking about a fairer system which rewards doubling your opponent's score equally no matter whether that was by 200 points to 100 or by 38 points to 19. Both were meritorious wins, there is no reason whatever to penalise the second one, which is what the current system does.

The formula is so simple that even a 3rd grader could understand : (for/against) + (for/against) + (for/against) and so on for all 23 rounds. The consequence of doing it this way is that the system becomes more fair, and quite possibly easier to calculate (you only ever have to work out the effect of a single match at a time, where with the current system you need to recalculate from the start of the season every week).

Would it make any practical difference? Probably not. But then, percentage rarely makes much difference anyway. Err ... wasn't there a thread about that once?

Can't fault you again Tannin.

You would not believe the number of times I have had to help out the young shop assistants with what change is owed to me. I usually come out a dollar ahead. Funny that.

Blame the education system that is built on the lowest teacher training entry standards in the Western World. Hell, no wonder the Chinese will be masters of all of us within our lifetimes.

[AN_Inkling]

The formula is so simple that even a 3rd grader could understand : (for/against) + (for/against) + (for/against) and so on for all 23 rounds. The consequence of doing it this way is that the system becomes more fair, and quite possibly easier to calculate (you only ever have to work out the effect of a single match at a time, where with the current system you need to recalculate from the start of the season every week).

If the opposition did not score would it crash the system?

[Stupied]

The formula is so simple that even a 3rd grader could understand : (for/against) + (for/against) + (for/against) and so on for all 23 rounds. The consequence of doing it this way is that the system becomes more fair, and quite possibly easier to calculate (you only ever have to work out the effect of a single match at a time, where with the current system you need to recalculate from the start of the season every week).

If the opposition did not score would it crash the system?

It would cause the apocalypse.

[What'sinaname]

doh