1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Total wins

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Fluffy, Apr 5, 2007.

  1. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,418
    Ratings:
    +3,625 / 132
    With the roosters looking like getting their 1000th win in 08 i thought id see where the other teams rank.

    Roosters 999/1898
    Souths 946/1831
    St George 910/1545
    Balmain 871/1705
    Canterbury 790/1522
    Wests 734/1691
    Manly 731/1280
    Norths 687/1665
    Parra 619/1340
    Newtown 583/1305
    Cronulla 461/950
    Penriff 387/935
    Canberra 333/625
    Brisbane 309/478
    Newcastle 244/465
    melbourne 140/240
    Warriors 135/291
    St George/Illawarra 112/213
    Cowboys 101/291
    Wests Tigers 72/179
    Titans 1/3

    Incedently the title for most losses goes to the bears with 916
     
  2. Crushercleal

    Crushercleal Active Member

    1,065
    1
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0
    How good are we - we only came into the Comp in 1947, and we already have 3/4 of the Rooters wins, and they were there 40 yrs before us.
     
  3. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,418
    Ratings:
    +3,625 / 132
    we are 4th behind brisbane, stgeorge and melbourne
     
  4. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,370
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,463 / 74
    you should exclude any team that has played less than 1000 games to make a satisfactory sample
     
  5. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,418
    Ratings:
    +3,625 / 132
    it will not change the total wins.

    To start excluding for % wins you are better off just grouping teams who started at the same time.

    ie manly vs Parra
     
  6. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,370
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,463 / 74
    nah I am talking of a correct sample group

    a team that has played only 200 games ahs not had the opportunity to win or lose as many times. As time goes on that margin will increase or decrease.

    This is why a sample gorup has to be a minimum of 1000 games!

    TO be even more correct you should really say then base it on the first 1000 games only.

    But the basic point is if you take the same sample size for each team you WILL get different resutls
     
  7. fLIP

    fLIP UFO Hunter

    6,779
    351
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +790 / 15
    Take percentages.
     
  8. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    The parra/manly comparison is priceless. Tools.
     
  9. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,370
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,463 / 74
    still doesnt give you an accurate picture.
     
  10. fLIP

    fLIP UFO Hunter

    6,779
    351
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +790 / 15
    Your never going to get an accurate comparison. Even by taking just the 1000 games played teams.

    There are so many variables throughout a teams history.
     
  11. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,370
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,463 / 74
    but as it stands the stats are completely useless. At least with the same sample size you will get a more accurate result. statistics will never ever be 100% accurate but as they stand in this example its not even worth reading
     
  12. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,418
    Ratings:
    +3,625 / 132
    very true Flip,

    Teams who played in the early days had far different rules, ie local players only etc compared with today. The saints of the 50's and 60's didnt have the salary cap.

    and of coarse as Dan says many teams havnt played enough games to get a good sample size. In pure mathamatics its generally a minimum of 2000 for something to be considered statistically true.

    Hence why i feel comparing like with like is the closest you can get. All the foundation teams played 80% (newtown) or more of the time together under the same rules etc, manly and parra both started in 47, dogs and saints were a little earler but all of simlilar eras.
     
  13. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,418
    Ratings:
    +3,625 / 132
    Dan they are worth reading for 3 reasons:

    1 Manly's total wins for those who would like to know
    2 Manly Vs Parra win ratio difference
    3 Norths have the most losses
     
  14. fLIP

    fLIP UFO Hunter

    6,779
    351
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +790 / 15
    The point dan is trying to make is that the longer a team playes the more stable their stats will be.

    Take the titans. they currently sit on winning 33.3% of their games. But if they win on the weekend it will change to 50%.

    what he's saying is its unfair to judge two teams together when ones stats are not as indicative as a team with more games under their belt.
     
  15. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,370
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,463 / 74
    but meaningless fluffy
     
  16. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,418
    Ratings:
    +3,625 / 132
    you said worth reading

    and meaningless could be said for many things posted on here.

    Flip i agreed with Dans reasoning hence why i said only teams with similar years can be compared to each other.
     
  17. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    Teams that have a city of 3 million to themselves should be excluded.
     

Share This Page