Reality Ladder. Round 4 2010.

After a 3 year absence,  we have finally managed to get all the relevant permutations and combinations into play in order to bring you our Reality Ladder – the ladder that tells you how your side is fairing in the Key Competitive Criteria as opposed to  the opposition, and where they really should be on the ladder instead of the current biased ladder.

We have had hundreds of emails over the past 3 years wondering where the Reality Ladder was, and whether it would be coming back again.  The absence has been due to finding the best organisation available to make the relevant changes that we found to be important so that the Reality Ladder would be meaningful and relevant.

We contacted Ken McIntyre who was responsible for bringing us the ‘Final 5, Final 6 and two Final 8 finals systems.  Unfortunately it seems that Ken was not available for the pittance we were able to afford.

We contacted Duckworth and Lewis who formed the system of identifying how many runs a cricket team would need in a rain-affected 50/50 match, but their submission was completely out of this world, and even in our 1-1 meeting to explain their system to us, both Duckworth and Lewis were left dazed and confused over their own explanations.   Back to the drawing board.

During my Explosive Travels 2 years ago, we even contracted some aboriginal elders at Ayers Rock who brought with them some cave paintings and an abacus made of ochre rocks.    Whilst they came close to giving us what we wanted.

In a recent act of desperation, we have contracted the brainstrust behind the Supercoach 3300 rule and have come up with a new Reality Ladder that shows us exactly what we want you to know.

The question we often used to get was what does the Reality Ladder measure?

It is a measure of competitiveness, efficiency, effectiveness, prowess and score.  The Key Competitive Criteria we measure are the effectiveness of possession and tackling, the contested ability of possessions and marking, the 1%’s, the number of clearances, inside 50’s, the goal kicking efficiency and the number of disposals per goal.

These KCC have been chosen to calculate your teams effectiveness and efficiency with the ball, their contested abilities and competitiveness and their ability to beat their opponent in a one-one situation.

We have already presented the basics of the first three rounds but had to wait until we had the final submissions of the algebraic formula from the 3300 club before we could bring you more and now that we finally have that, we are pleased to present to you the new and improved Reality Ladder.

Here is the RL for Round 4.

You will see some of the anomalies that has Carlton up in 3rd spot and Collingwood down in 9th. This can only be explained by the fact that Carlton has played reasonably ‘poor’ sides so far and has scored a lot more in the KCC’s than Collingwood has, given that Collingwood has yet to play those weaker sides.  As the season progresses, the scores for each side should ‘even themselves out’

The ‘points for’ column shows a raw number which is a ratio of your clubs raw ability in the KCC’s against their direct opponents they have played to that point in time.  The ‘points against’ column therefore is a ratio of the data that their opponents have scored against them to that point in time.

The Reality Score itself is a calculation of how your team would have performed against the other clubs in the competition to that point in time, given all the other results that have occured.  Every game will therefore have an effect on every other game throughout the season.

You will also notice that doing a basic division of the Points For agains the Points against does not give you the total Reality Score.  This is because, in order to account for the other games played to that point in time, another calculation has to occur.  This is our trademarked ‘x calculation’ which for legal reasons we are unable to divulge.

At the instruction of Francios Lavoisier at the International Bureau of Weights and Measurements (he is the great-great grandson of the father of the metric system) we decided against including each teams % as a calculable entity on the RL because, as Francios stated, it makes the RL look pretty much like the AFL Ladder, so what would be the point?  Thank you Francios

Your opinion and comments are welcome.

Reality Ladder

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Comments are closed.