League Averages
I spoke a while back about how the committee decide which teams go up or down a section. It got me thinking, particularly after I overheard someone say that they believed the standard of Aunt Sally to have been better in years before.
It’s always difficult to quantify when or if a certain era was better or for scores in any competitive game. Sure some teams can dominate for long periods and anecdotal evidence always proves the point. Everyone looks back on their careers as perhaps being the best for scores and the breaking of records.
These days because the reporting and results are widely published it’s easy to see what the state of the leagues is.
This post is going to be broken down into two because post 2006 all the results, teams and top dolls are in the digital domain for anyone to look at. After that it becomes more difficult. I’ve got hold of quite a few results sheets from way back when, but it will take me a while to sift through and collate.
For the purposes of this post I’m referring to years 2007 to 2011 summer season only.
What does a team’s leg average need to be consistently to be in the premier or A section?
|
P |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
|
|
2007 |
21.33 |
18.35 |
14.41 |
12.95 |
12.28 |
9.83 |
6.24 |
8.62 |
5.33 |
|
2008 |
21.85 |
17.26 |
12.64 |
12.71 |
10.67 |
10.78 |
7.69 |
8.16 |
6.63 |
|
2009 |
21.98 |
16.71 |
14.40 |
12.91 |
12.42 |
9.93 |
9.40 |
8.64 |
6.41 |
|
2010 |
21.76 |
17.33 |
14.98 |
13.03 |
11.26 |
10.31 |
8.53 |
8.56 |
8.17 |
|
2011 |
21.69 |
17.86 |
14.84 |
13.17 |
12.12 |
11.52 |
9.99 |
8.63 |
7.17 |
I took the total number of dolls for every team in each league. And divided by 18 games and then divided it by 3 for the legs.
As you can see the totals remain pretty static for the 5 years that we have data for. If as a team you can average 22 dolls a leg then you will easily make the Premier section. It’s also interesting to note the difference between team averages roughly 2 or 3 dolls per league.
What about the hallowed end of year top ten dolls. How many would you think you would need to get to get into the top 10 of your section?
|
Top Dolls |
P |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
|
2007 |
154 |
131 |
117 |
118 |
115 |
88 |
63 |
76 |
52 |
|
2008 |
161 |
131 |
113 |
111 |
88 |
98 |
65 |
72 |
62 |
|
2009 |
161 |
129 |
122 |
106 |
109 |
84 |
82 |
72 |
52 |
|
2010 |
162 |
126 |
144 |
110 |
97 |
88 |
75 |
86 |
72 |
|
2011 |
161 |
137 |
129 |
110 |
110 |
94 |
93 |
77 |
66 |
I got the above table by taking the top 10 dolls from the last 5 years. Again the numbers appear fairly static. 110 dolls would see you at the top of the C and D section this year.
Perhaps a more accurate comparison of team dolls can be shown below
|
Team Average |
P |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
|
2007 |
1152 |
991 |
778.4 |
699.4 |
663.3 |
530.7 |
336.7 |
465.7 |
287.9 |
|
2008 |
1180 |
932.2 |
682.6 |
686.6 |
576.1 |
582.2 |
415.4 |
440.9 |
358 |
|
2009 |
1187 |
902.2 |
777.6 |
696.9 |
670.9 |
536.2 |
507.6 |
466.4 |
346.3 |
|
2010 |
1175 |
935.8 |
809 |
703.5 |
608.2 |
556.8 |
460.4 |
462.4 |
441.3 |
|
2011 |
1171 |
964.4 |
801.2 |
711 |
654.7 |
622.3 |
539.7 |
466.2 |
387.3 |
These numbers are the total number of dolls for the section divided by the number of teams. It gives a better indication as to whether or not the standard of play is better or worse. I think you’ll agree there isn’t much movement here, apart from section H where the standard has got better.
Finally to give some perspective, its all very well averaging out all the scores to give a nice linear pattern. But what are the differences between the top and the bottom.
It’s quite obvious that there is a marked difference between those in the top half and those in the bottom.
As I’ve said before this only really goes back as far as 2007. It’s going to take me some time to go thru the paper copies of years gone by, but it’s something I will do.
What do you think?
No comments yet.