The Ladder.
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 1 Guest
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RockabyDaisy
RockabyDaisy
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne, VIC
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| E wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | ^ I agree with a lot of your posts, E, but I think you are taking too little account of how equal the competition now is. Top 4 could easily be decided by percentage and a rising team can now win from 5-8. Percentage is more important than ever, in that context. |
huh? let's unpack that. Top 4 could be decided on percentage AND a rising team can now win from 5-8.
So let's say top 4 is decided by percentage. So what. First 4 spots are exactly the same. win, you get a bye to the prelim. Lose and you have to win the next 3. percentage will obviously determine your opponent, but how do you know which spot you'd rather have? It wont always be the highest percentage that gets you the best match-up.
Now let's say percentage means you finish 5th instead of fourth. If you are a rising team, even you just admitted, "a rising team can now win from 5-8". So if you finish 5th instead of fourth and you are good enough, it wont hurt you.
My own belief is that if you are relying on percentage to make the top 4, you arent good enough, unless you are a rising team in which case, by your own admission, it doesnt matter where you finish in the 8.
The only time percentage can make an actual difference is if you make or miss the finals because of it. I contend that if you are in either of those positions, you have no shot at a flag (history supports this contention). and so it really doesn't matter whether you make the finals or not!
Finally, for the record, the reason percentage doesnt matter is because of the current final 8 system and because the only thing that matters is winning flags!!
So no-one give me an example from the final 4 or final 5 or final 6 days (or even the early final 8 rules that have since been changed). Back then, percentage could prove critical (see 1992 for example). |
Geez we get a win and you're carrying on like we lost and is angry because someone mentioned we are higher on the ladder because of percentage. What a rant about nothing.
_________________
Collingwood FOREVER.
There is more to Football than life. |
|
|
|
 |
broomsackbottom
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Sorry E, I appreciate a great deal of what you post but as a matter of logic it’s truly impossible to say that percentage does not matter.
The reason why we cannot point to a year in which the premier has clearly relied on percentage is not because it is unimportant in their journey to the flag, but rather because it cannot be disaggregated from the outcome. For example, if the team that comes third on percentage wins the prelim, is unscathed by injuries, and wins a tough grand final the following week against a team that came first but were (for example) more worn down by the finals process, then our team that came third was by definition ‘good enough’ (and we can never know if they would have beaten the ladder leaders had they come fourth and played them a week earlier and away from home).
What we know for sure is that in elite sport as in life, the difference between winning and losing is made up of an infinite number of possible factors. Every team is looking for an edge, whether through training or recovery or game plan or home ground advantage, or the double chance etc. Against such a background, it is illogical to attempt to disaggregate percentage from the otherwise unknowable set of factors that create a potion for finals success for one team each year. Your logic is circular - ie if a team is good enough, they don’t need to rely on percentage. The truth is more complex - we cannot simply find out who the winner is each year and then use retrospective reasoning to say ‘well, they must have been good enough when controlling for all other factors’.
The only logical thing to do is control the controllables. With a tough mindset, we can keep pushing even when a game is won. By doing so, we make it more likely that we will end up in a favourable ladder position, which in turn makes it statistically more likely that we will have a real shot at a flag. And if we win it, we can never know how great a part our ladder position played because we cannot know the alternate universes in which other permutations eventuated.
Thanks |
|
|
|
|
BazBoy
Joined: 11 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
This is where Sunday win is imperative as sides winning today have slipped us to 8 but we have reasonable %
Win tomorrow an absolute must🥇
_________________
I'm not arguing--just explaining why i am right |
|
|
|
|
Cam 
Nick's BB Member #166
Joined: 10 May 2002
Location: Springvale
|
| Post subject: | |
|
ninthwood at the moment...
_________________
Get back on top. |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If we beat the Tigers today, we could be 4th.  |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| broomsackbottom wrote: | Sorry E, I appreciate a great deal of what you post but as a matter of logic it’s truly impossible to say that percentage does not matter.
The reason why we cannot point to a year in which the premier has clearly relied on percentage is not because it is unimportant in their journey to the flag, but rather because it cannot be disaggregated from the outcome. For example, if the team that comes third on percentage wins the prelim, is unscathed by injuries, and wins a tough grand final the following week against a team that came first but were (for example) more worn down by the finals process, then our team that came third was by definition ‘good enough’ (and we can never know if they would have beaten the ladder leaders had they come fourth and played them a week earlier and away from home).
What we know for sure is that in elite sport as in life, the difference between winning and losing is made up of an infinite number of possible factors. Every team is looking for an edge, whether through training or recovery or game plan or home ground advantage, or the double chance etc. Against such a background, it is illogical to attempt to disaggregate percentage from the otherwise unknowable set of factors that create a potion for finals success for one team each year. Your logic is circular - ie if a team is good enough, they don’t need to rely on percentage. The truth is more complex - we cannot simply find out who the winner is each year and then use retrospective reasoning to say ‘well, they must have been good enough when controlling for all other factors’.
The only logical thing to do is control the controllables. With a tough mindset, we can keep pushing even when a game is won. By doing so, we make it more likely that we will end up in a favourable ladder position, which in turn makes it statistically more likely that we will have a real shot at a flag. And if we win it, we can never know how great a part our ladder position played because we cannot know the alternate universes in which other permutations eventuated.
Thanks |
Sorry mate, you missed the point i'm making.
You make good points, all of them. And i agree with all of them. I dont mean that the actual percentage you end up with doesnt have an impact in the outcome. Obviously, in most cases, it has a hand in determining your opponent. But you would agree that its possible that a lower percentage in certain circs might get you a favorable match up that leads to a flag just as much as a low percentage.
My point is that worrying about getting percentage high for the sake of it is a complete waste of time, and more importantly, thinking we are better than teams below us because we have a 5% point advantage over them is a sad joke.
my point is that having a higher vs lower percentage has no more an impact on a teams chances of winning a flag as having a lower percentage vs a higher percentage. It just doesnt matter. The randomness that percentage causes in finals works both ways, rendering focusing on how high your percentage is a silly exercise (because percentage doesn't matter).
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RockabyDaisy wrote: | | E wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | ^ I agree with a lot of your posts, E, but I think you are taking too little account of how equal the competition now is. Top 4 could easily be decided by percentage and a rising team can now win from 5-8. Percentage is more important than ever, in that context. |
huh? let's unpack that. Top 4 could be decided on percentage AND a rising team can now win from 5-8.
So let's say top 4 is decided by percentage. So what. First 4 spots are exactly the same. win, you get a bye to the prelim. Lose and you have to win the next 3. percentage will obviously determine your opponent, but how do you know which spot you'd rather have? It wont always be the highest percentage that gets you the best match-up.
Now let's say percentage means you finish 5th instead of fourth. If you are a rising team, even you just admitted, "a rising team can now win from 5-8". So if you finish 5th instead of fourth and you are good enough, it wont hurt you.
My own belief is that if you are relying on percentage to make the top 4, you arent good enough, unless you are a rising team in which case, by your own admission, it doesnt matter where you finish in the 8.
The only time percentage can make an actual difference is if you make or miss the finals because of it. I contend that if you are in either of those positions, you have no shot at a flag (history supports this contention). and so it really doesn't matter whether you make the finals or not!
Finally, for the record, the reason percentage doesnt matter is because of the current final 8 system and because the only thing that matters is winning flags!!
So no-one give me an example from the final 4 or final 5 or final 6 days (or even the early final 8 rules that have since been changed). Back then, percentage could prove critical (see 1992 for example). |
Geez we get a win and you're carrying on like we lost and is angry because someone mentioned we are higher on the ladder because of percentage. What a rant about nothing. |
seriously?? that's how you interpreted my post?? oh boy......
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
piedys 
Heeeeeeere's Dyso!!!
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Resident Forum Psychopath since 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well that f%cked the percentage! Thanks Bucks!
_________________
M I L L A N E 4 2 forever |
|
|
|
|
broomsackbottom
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
E, let's not waste any more time than we already have.
Here are the two statements which are logically incorrect:
(1) "But you would agree that its possible that a lower percentage in certain circs might get you a favorable match up that leads to a flag just as much as a low percentage."
(2) "my point is that having a higher vs lower percentage has no more an impact on a teams chances of winning a flag as having a lower percentage vs a higher percentage."
My response is that the fact that you can win a flag from seventh does not mean that it is "just as (possible)" to do so from seventh as from first. Where you finish does not have "no...impact". Since the year 2000, 17 out of the 18 premiers have finished in the top 3 - the bulldogs being the anomaly. As per my previous post, we cannot disaggregate these results to find out the exact role that percentage played. However, only a fool would say conclusively that it had zero impact.
On its face, there is a logical benefit in having a home ground advantage. There is a logical benefit in having a double chance. There is a logical benefit in playing what should be, in the long run, an easier opponent. In a game of inches, any competitive advantage can make the difference.
Further, as noted above, the stats around who has won a premiership since 2000 suggest a clear benefit to finals teams who finish higher.
Therefore. It is incorrect to say that a lower percentage might get you a favourable match up "just as much" as a higher percentage. I agree that in unlikely cases you might get a great matchup with a poor percentage. But, in the long run, controlling for anomalies, it's always better to try to be as high up as possible on the ladder. Your assertion that percentage "makes no difference" because you are just as likely to get a good finals matchup with bad percentage relies on a false equivalency. It is logically and statistically wrong.
I agree that sometimes we place too much value on percentage. If that was what you were asserting - that and that alone - then I would agree with you. Unfortunately that is not what you were asserting, so I felt compelled to correct the misinformation.
_________________
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
