Bfblpoty 08

[LuckyLuke]

In case you didn't know, it's time to start organising the Big Footy Brisbane Lions Player of the Year again. I'm more happy to do it again this year unless someone else is wanting to step up and take the job of collating all the votes every week and posting the results in a coherent manner (word of warning, one slip up and Grim will be all over you like a cat pic on a BF forum).

Last year we did it in a 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 system with the top 5 Lions players in each game, the best player getting 5 votes obviously. This year we could do it a little differently if anyone can come up with a better system. Personally i'd prefer doing it the same way as last year.

If anyone has any suggestions on making it better than last year or if anyone would like to take the wheel, speak up and lets start organising it. It would be great if we could also present the winner with a little prize from us all.

 

[Kochie 16]

Maybe we could do it in a 3-2-1 vote like the brownlow!

 

[Grimreepah]

(word of warning, one slip up and Grim will be all over you like a cat pic on a BF forum).

Damn straight!

Nah, you did a great job and I think the system works well. Happy for you to do it again, and if you need me to fill in for a week or two let me know.

 

[lionbear]

After the job you did last year, more then happy for you to look after it again in 08

If you are away for a week and need someone to fill in for you I am happy to be the backup vote counter.

 

[BigCat2]

Great to see this is happening again Luke

Would like to continue with the 5-4-3-2-1 system, as this will give us the chance to acknowledge players who do their bit but aren't in the top couple of performers consistently.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Luke, you're a prince among... well, other princes I guess. I was getting a bit worried when I hadn't seen you post much over the break.

If it ain't broke I say... The system seems a good, no-fuss way of doing it. And I like to think we get it right too.

Thanks for volunteering to yet again take on what can be a thankless task at times.

 

[LuckyLuke]

No problemo. I just havent been posting mainly for the same reasons others haven't (didn't wish to speculate, got heavily into COD4 after the season finished), but i enjoyed reading the posts all the same.

I'm happy to continue then. If anyone has any other ideas on format change please let me know. And thanks guys for volunteering to help out, i'll keep it in mind.

 

[POBT]

I think a 5 to 1 voting scheme works well. It is simple enough but is also flexible to allow some variety in voting. In a sport with 22 players contributing, you need to recognise at least 5 players more often than not.

I would make one suggestion - posters should be able to forego giving certain votes. I mean, if the team gets absolutely thrashed, the opportunity should be there to vote "5 votes Browny, 2 votes Blacky, 1 vote Merrett" if that reflects the poster's view of the game. It is one of my contentions with the Allan Border Medal is that the "least worst" player in a disgraceful team performance gets 3 votes. The potential in that system is that a scorecard of Australia 50 and 65 beaten by India 1/600 will result in a player taking 1/200 getting 3 votes and the player top scoring with 10 runs getting 2 votes. The opportunity should be there for less than maximum votes to be awarded if that's a fair reflection of the game.

 

[LuckyLuke]

I think a 5 to 1 voting scheme works well. It is simple enough but is also flexible to allow some variety in voting. In a sport with 22 players contributing, you need to recognise at least 5 players more often than not.

I would make one suggestion - posters should be able to forego giving certain votes. I mean, if the team gets absolutely thrashed, the opportunity should be there to vote "5 votes Browny, 2 votes Blacky, 1 vote Merrett" if that reflects the poster's view of the game. It is one of my contentions with the Allan Border Medal is that the "least worst" player in a disgraceful team performance gets 3 votes. The potential in that system is that a scorecard of Australia 50 and 65 beaten by India 1/600 will result in a player taking 1/200 getting 3 votes and the player top scoring with 10 runs getting 2 votes. The opportunity should be there for less than maximum votes to be awarded if that's a fair reflection of the game.

Good point. I agree that on a few occasions last year it was really tough giving out votes to 5 players. However, it might make it a little difficult to new posters to get involved if they cant figure out how the voting works.... but that could be solved with just a quick blurb on the voting rules at the start of each weeks voting thread.

I would say that rule only would apply if the team gets beaten by 50 points or more? Maybe we would only give a 3, 2, 1, on those occasions?

 

[lionbear]

I would say that rule only would apply if the team gets beaten by 50 points or more? Maybe we would only give a 3, 2, 1, on those occasions?

Think that will work well and if someone accidentally still gives five votes after a 50 point loss you just count there top 3 players as the 3,2,1.

Hopefully we wont have to worry about any 50 point losses in 2008

 

[LuckyLuke]

Hehe, lets hope not.

 

[LuckyLuke]

Adding to that rule, how about if we could give 2 sets of 1 point (5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1) if we end up winning by more than 50. For example, when we beat the Pies last year it was tough leaving out some players and not giving them points.

 

[Grimreepah]

Adding to that rule, how about if we could give 2 sets of 1 point (5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1) if we end up winning by more than 50.

That's not a bad idea. I'm regularly at a quandry trying to decide who should get my last vote.

Although in saying that the simpler the voting system the better.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

I think a 5 to 1 voting scheme works well. It is simple enough but is also flexible to allow some variety in voting. In a sport with 22 players contributing, you need to recognise at least 5 players more often than not.

I would make one suggestion - posters should be able to forego giving certain votes. I mean, if the team gets absolutely thrashed, the opportunity should be there to vote "5 votes Browny, 2 votes Blacky, 1 vote Merrett" if that reflects the poster's view of the game. It is one of my contentions with the Allan Border Medal is that the "least worst" player in a disgraceful team performance gets 3 votes. The potential in that system is that a scorecard of Australia 50 and 65 beaten by India 1/600 will result in a player taking 1/200 getting 3 votes and the player top scoring with 10 runs getting 2 votes. The opportunity should be there for less than maximum votes to be awarded if that's a fair reflection of the game.

I was never a fan of going down that road, but if you're going to say that why be limited to giving votes to only five players if we played really well? Also, an outstanding performance by one player that clearly outshines all others should in theory be be more than "one point" better than the next player.

The system we've had for the past few years isn't perfect, but it is usually a good reflection of a player's performance and generally gets it right. Too many caveats isn't going to encourage people to vote IMO.

I can see the merit in these proposals though. I also suggested one year that you could assign a given numbers of points in a round to however many players you wanted - at the moment it's 15 in total. In a new system you could technically gives votes like this: Brown 7, Black 4, Power 2, Brennan 1, Charman 1. But it gets a bit messy and I'm not sure how you'd go tallying up points at the end.

My vote is to keep it simple.

 

[Lady Lawrence]

keep it simple, stick with the 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 system.

 

[POBT]

Yep TFB, agree with what you say. My actual preference is the one you said you suggested - with a certain number of points to be allocated as the poster sees fit. But I totally understand that simplicity is important.

I guess I am just suggesting a fairly simple improvement - it won't perfect the system by any means - like the Brownlow, the system is arbitrary due to the need to retain simplicity. I probably wouldn't advocate for a system such as the 50 point win or loss changing the voting system either. I would just like the ability to reflect poor team performance when appropriate. When, at the end of a game you say "Jed was the only bloke to put in today", it would be nice to reflect that in the votes. It probably wouldn't make a difference, I suppose, as the votes all get tallied so one person's view is probably not going to change the final result.

I'll be honest, in one or two games last year I didn't bother to vote because I couldn't find 5 players who I thought deserved to be singled out.

 

[LuckyLuke]

I'm starting to agree too. KISS it is. (Keep It Simple Stupid for those that arent familiar with that TLA )

Unless someone has another idea, let me know. Otherwise we will stick to the same format.