So we now have equal points with the storm and equal differential for for and against however we have more points for than the storm and they have less points against. Why is it that we are listed second on the ladder yet we have not only more points in favour and we have now beaten them? I would have thought that’s how they calculate positions.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Being On Top
Collapse
X
-
i dont really care! only worried about certain games in the season, souffs, Anzac day, Melbourne then grand final! in between times i don't care whos listed the top of the comp, it's going to change a lot during the year, just good to stay in top 3 if possible?
Comment
-
i would think questions are promoted on here? yes both st george and souths have confirmed as the raiders will do too there is no prize for an april premiership? i can only conclude that the listing comes from a newspaper of dubious quality or professional integrity?
Comment
-
Originally posted by ROC181 View PostSo we now have equal points with the storm and equal differential for for and against however we have more points for than the storm and they have less points against. Why is it that we are listed second on the ladder yet we have not only more points in favour and we have now beaten them? I would have thought that’s how they calculate positions.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mickie Lane View Post
I think it must be because Melbourne have a better against 73 comparred to the Chooks 102.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ROC181 View Post
Apologies for asking A question cause it's obvious I wanted to know...I hope I didn't offend you.
E.g. our % is 157.8%.
---> 100 ÷ 102 (points against) x 161 (points for) = 157.8
The Storm's % is 180.8%
---> 100 ÷ 73 (points against) x 132 (points for) = 180.8
*edit* I believe this mathematically always favours fewer points conceded. So you are right in that it essentially rewards defence over attack.Last edited by Tommy Smith; 04-22-2019, 02:08 PM.
- 1 like
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ROC181 View PostPlus the raiders and rabbids have less points than us so it can't be that...The only logic to me is that whoever gets there first stays, which is dumb...Cheers!
We're + 59. The Raiders and Rabbits are + 57 and + 45 respectively.
Only when the F&A is equal is % used to separate the two teams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tommy Smith View PostIt's determined by %.
E.g. our % is 157.8%.
---> 100 ÷ 102 (points against) x 161 (points for) = 157.8
The Storm's % is 180.8%
---> 100 ÷ 73 (points against) x 132 (points for) = 180.8
*edit* I believe this mathematically always favours fewer points conceded. So you are right in that it essentially rewards defence over attack.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tommy Smith View PostIt's determined by %.
E.g. our % is 157.8%.
---> 100 ÷ 102 (points against) x 161 (points for) = 157.8
The Storm's % is 180.8%
---> 100 ÷ 73 (points against) x 132 (points for) = 180.8
*edit* I believe this mathematically always favours fewer points conceded. So you are right in that it essentially rewards defence over attack.
The % is a good stat for seeing where you're at as a team - if you're scoring 20 points a game and keeping your opponents to 0, that's different from scoring 40 points a game and keeping your opponents to 20.
That said, as far as who should be on top of the ladder in the event of equal F&A you either favour attack or defence. There's nothing wrong with a beautiful mathematical equation, but in this instance it is superfluous. Given 'defence wins comps' perhaps it's better that the ladder reflects that - albeit it we don't need a BS equation to mystify things.
Comment
Comment