Heres the linky

NBL Ladder

At this point, obviously by percentage won. It's just odd for now as not all teams have played the same number of games. At the end of the season, that won't be an issue.

The stupid thing is that if two teams are tied on the same win-loss percentage then the ladder position is sorted by the points for and against. But if those two teams are tied at the end of the season, they are placed by their record against each other. Dont maka no sense!
Considering the schedule for the past few seasons has been shithouse in parts, like when teams have completed their seasons series against each other by week 3, then the head to head records can be influenced by an injury to a key player. For and against should be the decider - reward the teams that win by bigger margins.

Why not a simple points system?

There is: wins divided by games played. ;)

the ladder sorting is by win % as isaac said, and then by points for and against during the season if there is a tie. at the end of the season it goes on head to head, which is a system AFAIK that it unique to FIBA, and which more sports should use.

So....If Adelaide play Perth 4 times, and Perth win 3 odf those four, and they are tied on wins at the season end, then Perth finish ahead of Adelaide.

You cannot apply this system during the season, but at the end of the year, it makes sense - its a tie breaker.

I wish the AFL used head to head, it would be a vastly superior system than for and against percentage, especially considering that teams like St Kilda and Essendon play almost all their home ganmes on guaranteed perfect conditions.

The example given by HO re Adelaide playing Perth demonstrates a stupid system. The competition is against all teams and how they go against each other overall. If Perth won 3 out of 4 games against Adelaide, it does not necessarily mean their overall record over the season is better than Adelaide's. Where more than 1 team end the season on the same number of wins/losses, the positions should be determined by the winning points margin. It should not be about 1 team being better than the other but 1 team being better overall.

It's been head-to-head for years. The competition is against all teams, but to separate a tie, I think head-to-head is fine.

Its been around for years but I personally don't like it. It really doesn't reward the team with the best overall result.

EC I understand but it does take into account different game styles.

If a team is a front running bully and wins by consistently big margins against lower ranked teams, but loses 3 of 4 games to a team that plays a more dour, beat em up style half court slugfest, then the offensive juggernaut does not deserve to take that teams place in the finals - potentially on something as slim as .1 of a percent.

Head to head is a great system. You know you have to beat your closest opoponents (ladder wise) to make finals, not rely on running up cricket scores.

To further analyse your suggestion...you get to the tied position on the ladder by you go against all teams - so in a tie for third or whatever... but at that point you need to break the tie - normally against one other team, and at that point head to head is a great method (IMO) for doing that.

EC, if you wanted to reward the team with strictly the best overall result, you wouldn't play any finals at all.

That's not really true Isaac, I am only talking about making it to the playoff positions. Off course the finals are essential. Its the culmination of everything achieved in the regular season. What I also meant about rewarding the team with the best overall result was only between the teams that tied on the win/loss numbers and you then had to use a formula to decide their positions come playoff.

Well, that's sounds awfully convenient with regard to your argument. If the finals are the culmination, then surely it's A-OK to similarly adjust the deciding factor on the cusp of the play-offs.

I really can't comprehend opposition to the deciding method. Head to head and then differential. It works fine.

Isaac, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that yours is different to mine. Its not a right or wrong argument, it is only an opinion.

The head-to-head system doesn't work if you play the same team in consecutive or near consecutive weeks. As mentioned you have a couple of players out or both games are away games (of the 3). In these cases the odds are stacked against you and this is simply not fair.

I understand the position of others to use head to head. However, this simply doesn't take into account uneven circumstances / home court advantages / key player(s) sickness / flights / club turmoil and a myriad of other factors that make this unfair.

The fairest method is to look at the overall for/against to see who should should be further up the ladder. That is how the mid-season ladder is done and that is how it should end up.