Championship league positions.

[Stotty]

21 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

What anomalies are created by a percentage system as compared with averages as described?

Anomalies like Newcastle being above Widnes despite having what under normal circumstances would be an inferior record. This would be avoided using averages.

[Griff]

14 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

What anomalies are created by a percentage system as compared with averages as described?

I don't think it's so much about anomalies, Johnny.

We're on points average as it was quite rightly pointed out that folk with less games might not be expected to rack up such high points differences.  (I temper this with the suggestion that that might only be true at either end of the table but I suppose they're the important bits anyway.)

Given that premise, it's not unreasonable, that it should be points difference which is averaged on the basis of games scored, effectively scaling down points difference to one game apiece.

As an aside, I've often wondered why Victorians, without the use of calculators, would go for points average rather than points difference.  Presumably everyone was an expert in long division in the late 19th century.

[Blind side johnny]

2 hours ago, Griff said:

I don't think it's so much about anomalies, Johnny.

We're on points average as it was quite rightly pointed out that folk with less games might not be expected to rack up such high points differences.  (I temper this with the suggestion that that might only be true at either end of the table but I suppose they're the important bits anyway.)

Given that premise, it's not unreasonable, that it should be points difference which is averaged on the basis of games scored, effectively scaling down points difference to one game apiece.

As an aside, I've often wondered why Victorians, without the use of calculators, would go for points average rather than points difference.  Presumably everyone was an expert in long division in the late 19th century.

My point is simply a mathematical one Griff: how do averages differ from percentages when applied to the league table?

I will answer - they don't.

 

[marklaspalmas]

18 hours ago, Stotty said:

Anomalies like Newcastle being above Widnes despite having what under normal circumstances would be an inferior record. This would be avoided using averages.

You have to get a stronger grip on maths to keep up with the changes.

[Stotty]

1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said:

My point is simply a mathematical one Griff: how do averages differ from percentages when applied to the league table?

I will answer - they don't.

 

In a normal season, the top four of Super League would look like this:

St Helens | 6 pts | 76 pts diff
Castleford | 6 pts | 53 pts diff
Catalans | 6 pts | 47 pts diff
Wigan | 6 pts | 43 pts diff

 

But this season, with percentages, it looks like this:

St Helens | WP 100% | diff 733.33
Wigan | WP 100% | diff 243.33
Castleford | WP 100% | diff 239.47
Catalans | WP 100% | diff 206.82

 

However, if we used averages instead of percentages it would look like this:

St Helens | 2 pts | 25.33 pts diff
Castleford | 2 pts | 17.67 pts diff
Catalans | 2 pts | 15.67 pts diff
Wigan | 2 pts | 14.33 pts diff

 

Percentages put Wigan above Castleford and Catalans, despite them having an inferior record. Averages wouldn't do that.

[Spidey]

While everybody has played the same number of games it may look a little weird.   The whole % thing assumes different number of games played, once there are a few PP games (like teams not travelling to Toulouse) I think it'll make much more sense

[marklaspalmas]

8 minutes ago, Spidey said:

While everybody has played the same number of games it may look a little weird.   The whole % thing assumes different number of games played, once there are a few PP games (like teams not travelling to Toulouse) I think it'll make much more sense

This

[Blind side johnny]

Wrong thread.

My mistake.