Different ways to look at premiership tallies

[rabbitohs]

Updating my original post for 2014, the premiership tally is:

1. Souths - 21
2. St George - 15
3. Roosters - 13
4. Balmain - 11
5. Bulldogs - 8
5. Manly - 8
7. Brisbane - 6
8. Eels - 4
8. Magpies - 4
10. Raiders - 3
10. Newtown - 3
12. Melbourne - 2
12. Newcastle - 2
12. Norths - 2
12. Penrith - 2
16. St George Illawarra - 1
16. Wests Tigers - 1

But how can you compare team like Souths or the Roosters with over 100 seasons to teams like Brisbane or Melbourne with only a fraction of this? How do you compare years where there were only 8 teams competing with years where there were 16 or more?

So if you assumed each team has an equal chance of winning the comp in any year they competed, how many premierships would you expect them to have won? And therefore, how many are punching above their weight?

(A = Actual, E = Expected, % = A/E)
1. Brisbane - 348% (A = 6, E = 1.72)
2. Souths - 211% (A = 21, E = 9.94)
3. St George - 201% (A = 15, E = 7.45)
4. Melbourne - 184% (A = 2, E = 1.09)
5. Manly - 154% (A = 8, E = 5.20)
6. Raiders - 138% (A = 3, E = 2.17)
7. Roosters - 129% (A = 13, E = 10.09)
8. Balmain - 121% (A = 11, E = 9.11)
9. Newcastle - 117% (A = 2, E = 1.71)
10. Bulldogs - 116% (A = 8, E = 6.88)
11. Wests Tigers - 102% (A = 1, E = 0.98)
12. St George Illawarra - 97% (A = 1, E = 1.04)
13. Eels - 74% (A = 4, E = 5.41)
14. Penrith - 58% (A = 2, E = 3.42)
15. Magpies - 44% (A = 4, E = 9.11)
16. Newtown - 37% (A = 3, E = 8.07)
17. Norths - 22% (A = 2, E = 9.11)

And, of course, there are the teams that have never won a premiership. Of the ones still existing:
1. Cronulla - E = 3.42
2. Cowboys - E = 1.29
2. Warriors - E = 1.29
4. Titans - E = 0.50

Of the ones now deceased:
1. Glebe - E = 2.60
2. University - E = 2.07
3. Annandale - E = 1.36
4. Illawarra - E = 1.12
5. Gold Coast - E = 0.67
and then the others who only lasted a couple years...

Here is a chart of the movement in the A/E ratio over the years:

Gleaning from the chart:

• Souths got off to a flying start, winning the first 2 premierships in years with 9 and 8 teams competing. Since then, the lowest ratio they have ever reached was 196% in 1924. The last time they were at their current ratio of 211% was in 2006. Souths have been ranked 1st in 73 seasons. Their worst rank was 5th, in 2001. The last time they were 1st was in 1989.
• Brisbane are currently ranked 1st in ratio, on 348%. However, this is their lowest ratio since winning their first premiership in 1992. They have been ranked 1st in 23 seasons of their 28 seasons.
• Melbourne have had the highest ratio, 919% in 1999. If Melbourne had not had their 2 premierships stripped, they would be in 1st place on 369%.
• St George's ratio will not change from 201% ever again (assuming they don't re-enter the competition). They have been ranked 1st in 2 seasons (1966 and 1967).
• The Roosters have only ever been in front of Souths in 1913. They have been equal in 7 seasons up to 1924.
• Canberra have been ranked 1st in 2 seasons (1990 and 1991).
• Balmain have been ranked 1st in 9 seasons up to 1926.

This assumes that the newer club would always be as successful as they have over the period they have existed, which they wouldn't be of course as all the other data would then make no sense as the past success of the other clubs wouldn't have happened..

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

St.George Illawarra - 16 instant jimmy rustler

15 mate, St George aren't around anymore.

1 for St George-Illawarra.

Or do 15 bananas and 1 apple = 16 bananas?

 

[juro]

Interesting analysis. Question have Souths numbers been adjusted for the 2 years they were kicked out of the comp? thanks.

Souths' expected premierships in 2000-01 was 0. That is why you see their E is 9.94 compared to the Roosters with 10.09.

 

[juro]

This assumes that the newer club would always be as successful as they have over the period they have existed, which they wouldn't be of course as all the other data would then make no sense as the past success of the other clubs wouldn't have happened..

All it is showing is that Souths have been well above average for all the seasons they have been competing (even if this is predominantly due to success up to 1971). Likewise, Brisbane have been even more above average for all the seasons they have been competing.

What I am trying to do is compare how Souths' 21 premierships in 105 seasons compares with Brisbane's 6 premierships in 27 seasons.

 

[eozsmiles]

15 mate, St George aren't around anymore.

1 for St George-Illawarra.

Or do 15 bananas and 1 apple = 16 bananas?

apples = premierships
bananas = premierships
apples = bananas

 

[eozsmiles]

All it is showing is that Souths have been well above average for all the seasons they have been competing (even if this is predominantly due to success up to 1971). Likewise, Brisbane have been even more above average for all the seasons they have been competing.

What I am trying to do is compare how Souths' 21 premierships in 105 seasons compares with Brisbane's 6 premierships in 27 seasons.

interesting stats, good off-season read. cheers.

 

[Starkers]

This is a great topic in my opinion. it's similar in the AFL whereby all the VFL teams have carried their premierships over to the AFL, but a club like port adelaide isn't allowed to do so from the SANFL.

In my view, current premierships should only be since 1998. Individual clubs can certainly claim merit in the NSWRL, but it's essentially a different comp involving different teams and in some cases very different rules.

 

[rabbitohs]

All it is showing is that Souths have been well above average for all the seasons they have been competing (even if this is predominantly due to success up to 1971). Likewise, Brisbane have been even more above average for all the seasons they have been competing.

What I am trying to do is compare how Souths' 21 premierships in 105 seasons compares with Brisbane's 6 premierships in 27 seasons.

I know, and it's fun and interesting. Maybe there is a way of allowing for or extrapolating (or condensing) the timelines. For example a problem with the comparison is that Souths successful years do not have a negative effect on Brisbane, but Brisbanes successful years DO have a negative effect on Souths. How can that be factored in?

 

[juro]

I know, and it's fun and interesting. Maybe there is a way of allowing for or extrapolating (or condensing) the timelines. For example a problem with the comparison is that Souths successful years do not have a negative effect on Brisbane, but Brisbanes successful years DO have a negative effect on Souths. How can that be factored in?

It is impossible to say how good Brisbane might have been from 1908 to 1987. They could have been better than Souths and be sitting on 30 premierships and Souths on 10. Or they could have been average and not won a premiership at all, leaving them with an A/E of < 1. If you want a straight comparison, you'd need to disregard all the years before 1988.

My method gives a single figure for all teams at any point in time, regardless of the length of their history. This single figure can be used to compare different teams, but it is still not an apples and apples comparison. It is just another way to break down the base data.

 

[rabbitohs]

It is impossible to say how good Brisbane might have been from 1908 to 1987. They could have been better than Souths and be sitting on 30 premierships and Souths on 10. Or they could have been average and not won a premiership at all, leaving them with an A/E of < 1. If you want a straight comparison, you'd need to disregard all the years before 1988.

My method gives a single figure for all teams at any point in time, regardless of the length of their history. This single figure can be used to compare different teams, but it is still not an apples and apples comparison. It is just another way to break down the base data.

Some figure that 'punishes' new teams for being unsuccessful but also not failing in the years they weren't in perhaps. Maybe the mid point score or a high average score for each year or decade that is connected and dependant on their actual performance since being admitted.

 

[rabbitohs95]

I tend to split it into two groups, 1908-present and 1998-present.

Also St George 15, St George Illawarra 1

Don't see any Tigers supporters claiming they have 16 premierships between Wests, Balmain and Wests Tigers...

 

[siv]

Or you say after 27 years in the competition

Brisbane had won 6

Souths had won 11 titles

 

[_snafu_]

St George aren't around anymore.

What?

It's clear you do not understand what a "joint venture" is.

 

[muzby]

I tend to split it into two groups, 1908-present and 1998-present.

Also St George 15, St George Illawarra 1

Don't see any Tigers supporters claiming they have 16 premierships between Wests, Balmain and Wests Tigers...

agree.. same with the rabbitohs.. i view 1908-1999, and 2002-present..

after the first club died off, the second one just doesn't have the same lustre...

so..

south sydney rugby league football club - 20

souffs - 1

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Take 1 premiership off Brisbane. You can't create your own comp, stack your side with the best players and expect to call winning a rogue unsanctioned (at the time) competition with only half the teams a premiership.

Newcastle can count theirs because it was the official comp.

 

[siv]

agree.. same with the rabbitohs.. i view 1908-1999, and 2002-present..

after the first club died off, the second one just doesn't have the same lustre...

so..

south sydney rugby league football club - 20

souffs - 1

So how do you rate Manly before after their Beagles quest

 

[_snafu_]

Yes. Eastern Suburbs lost all of their premierships when they became Sydney City Roosters.

 

[muzby]

So how do you rate Manly before after their Beagles quest

they were, and still are, jerks..

 

[kdalymc]

...

 

[alien]

But then you have the arguments. Souths haven't won since 1971, Brisbane have only been in the comp since 1988, there were only 8 teams in the early years, etc etc etc.

So if you assumed each team has an equal chance of winning the comp in any year they competed, how many premierships would you expect them to have won? And therefore, how many are punching above their weight?

why would you assume that??? that will never be the case, even with the salary cap. you could say that for most of the years broncos have existed, they have had the biggest chance of winning because they have the whole of brisbane to themselves (except for the years the crushers existed). it doesnt matter which clubs have been around longer. all that matters is the runs (premierships) on the board. those years that didnt have grandfinals, who ever finished on top of the league those seasons were the premiers, so i dont know how some people can say those premierships dont count, because they do.