426 Memorial in 2011

[Bartram_Class]

After a couple of complaints in 2010 about the state of the voting system, I think its probably time for a change. I think what we need to overcome is a good game or two rocketing players halfway up the leaderboard ala Gysberts.

Now, this is the way the club manages the Bluey:

Matt says: After each round, the four members of the match committee rate the best players with a score out of four. There is no limit to the number of players who can receive votes. The maximum amount of votes a player can receive per round is 16.

Be difficult to implement that in here IMO.

Ideas?

 

[demonfan9]

I reckon the old 5-4-3-2-1 is still the best system.

 

[Headless]

I shall (hopefully) be doing my own count, whereby I rank each of the 22 players out of 10 each week. This not only makes it more in-depth (ruling out the Gysberts fiasco of 2010), but should hopefully provide good analysis for my Brownlow count later on in the year.

Obviously it would be a bit much to ask for such a system. I'm not a massive fan of the 5-4-3-2-1 system but the one from last year probably has more flaws.

Why not have a voting system where you award 1-5 (or 1-3, whatever suits) votes for as many players as you feel necessary? There could be set criteria as to what kind of game deems how many votes.

 

[Bartram_Class]

The reason we went 10-9-8-7-6 as opposed to 5-1 was that two good games beat one BOG, rather than needing six good games to do so which was ridiculous.

Surely we could figure out a formula whereby both more players get votes each week and the votes were weighted somehow depending on the relative performance as compared to any other week (a BOG on QB should probably be worth more than being the best player in a 100 point loss).

 

[melbournemartin]

Duckworth-Lewis system?

 

[Demon 16]

3-2-1 is the best way to find the top end for the year imo.

Once you start trying to decide the 4th, 5th, 6th etc best players you start splitting hairs.

 

[Captain Jack]

Surely we could figure out a formula whereby both more players get votes each week and the votes were weighted somehow depending on the relative performance as compared to any other week (a BOG on QB should probably be worth more than being the best player in a 100 point loss).

The problem I see with a system like that is that it will tend to favour the front-runners of the team, as opposed to those who are consistently leading the way no matter the outcome.
I don't mean to cast doubts on any of our players, but if we give more weighting to games where the entire team plays well, the system could start to favour, for example, forward line players who rely on the good work of those up the field to have a dominant game. Also in that category could be outside players (wingmen and flankers) who will have better games when the inside mids are on top and providing lots of possession to those on the outside.

 

[RandB]

If we're after something completely arbitrary and tedious how about the Formula 1 points system.

The winner receives 25 points, the second place finisher 18 points, with 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2 and 1 points for positions 3 through 10.

 

[bloodpumpsRnB]

I probably should know this seeing as I've been around here since 2005 but what does 426 mean? Is it something to do with being out for 4-6 weeks?

 

[cannons]

3-2-1 is the best way to find the top end for the year imo.

Once you start trying to decide the 4th, 5th, 6th etc best players you start splitting hairs.

I tend to agree.

I think most of us can, after watching a match, come up with our top three performers with relative ease, as they are at the forefront of one's mind. Once you get beyond that point, though, it becomes more difficult to differentiate between the performances of players, and as a result, you get people manufacturing votes when they aren't merited.

Perhaps you could go as far as the 5-4-3-2-1 system, but definitely no further than that.

 

[Bartram_Class]

3-2-1 is the best way to find the top end for the year imo.

Once you start trying to decide the 4th, 5th, 6th etc best players you start splitting hairs.

Nothing stops you from doing that currently though.

The current system is there to allow those who want to pick just three (or one) players the chance to do so, whilst allowing those who would rather reward a handful the opportunity to do that too.

Re. splitting games, in decent victories, if you were to do 3-2-1, you'd be splitting hairs for that last vote, whilst I know I'd prefer to hand out a handful of ones.

 

[Demon 16]

Nothing stops you from doing that currently though.

The current system is there to allow those who want to pick just three (or one) players the chance to do so, whilst allowing those who would rather reward a handful the opportunity to do that too.

Re. splitting games, in decent victories, if you were to do 3-2-1, you'd be splitting hairs for that last vote, whilst I know I'd prefer to hand out a handful of ones.

Good points - I get where youre coming from BC.

That system does mean some voters could weight their opinions more heavily than others though - ie someone who likes Sylvia offers him all the points when he is BOG one week, but spreads the votes accross 5 players the following week when Sylvia is quiet. Green is clearly first and second best on ground 2 weeks in a row yet only accumulates 20% of Sylvias score.

 

[Headless]

I probably should know this seeing as I've been around here since 2005 but what does 426 mean? Is it something to do with being out for 4-6 weeks?

Named after Nick Smith. Was always out for 4-6 weeks, yes.

 

[melbournemartin]

We'll never be able to develop a system that overcomes silly voting.

Green could get 25 possessions and kick 4 goals but if Lucas Cook on debut gets 12 touches, 6 marks and 2 goals he'll get more votes than Green.

 

[Bartram_Class]

That system does mean some voters could weight their opinions more heavily than others though - ie someone who likes Sylvia offers him all the points when he is BOG one week, but spreads the votes accross 5 players the following week when Sylvia is quiet. Green is clearly first and second best on ground 2 weeks in a row yet only accumulates 20% of Sylvias score.

Yeh, fair point. Only hope is that others even it out (as has tended to happen).

I will say, in its favour, since going to the 10-6 we've had the right winner both years, and the advantage of keeping the current system is being able to compare to previous years.

 

[Bartram_Class]

We'll never be able to develop a system that overcomes silly voting.

Green could get 25 possessions and kick 4 goals but if Lucas Cook on debut gets 12 touches, 6 marks and 2 goals he'll get more votes than Green.

Too true.

The real losers in that are your solid best-22 players, the Bartrams and Garlands, who never seem to poll well due to everyone giving their smaller votes to the younger players who play better than we expect them to. Hence Gysberts and Bail end the year well up the board.

Our bad there.

 

[Demon 16]

Yeh, fair point. Only hope is that others even it out (as has tended to happen).

I will say, in its favour, since going to the 10-6 we've had the right winner both years, and the advantage of keeping the current system is being able to compare to previous years.

Yeh I was just going to say - I found last years thread where previous winners are listed, and we've been getting them pretty right.

 

[Djcjdees]

Duckworth-Lewis system?

lol +1

 

[whysmell]

Poll attatched to match discussion thread following the game each week. After 3 days, points are allocated based on percentages on poll.