Opinion Cam Guthrie - out of form? (and tangential Supercoach as guide to form discussion)

[Partridge]

Agree with this.
And its nothing against the players themselves, Guthrie,Blicsavs etc.
Or the coaches who are voting with the framework in place.
As ive said in the Carji thread,its the system that could do with some tweaking when it throws up scenarios such as Guthrie leading Dangerfield after 12 rounds of our B and F count.

The tweaks to it to make it fairer should be shelved.

Simple solution - keep the voting per game exactly the same, and the player with the most votes wins. Whether you play 10 games or 22. If you play 19 games and lose by 1 vote - here's an idea - tough. Ablett lost narrowly in 2008 to Joel Corey. Ablett missed 4 games, Corey missed none. I've got no doubt Ablett was the best player at Geelong that year, but that's how it works sometimes.

 

[Vdubs]

Obviously can't just dismiss it, but no, I don't hold it in the same stead as many on here seem to; the two examples I gave, plus Blicavs winning it last year don't sit well with me.

FWIW, I agree. Has always seemed too complex. The coaches x2 54321 system seems the fairest, but even then there can be some favourite votes.
Jimmy has never won a B&F, maybe not deserving.
Guthrie seemed like our 3rd best mid this year, which is not saying much as the other 2 were so far ahead, but non Cat fans that I discuss footy with seem to think of him as easily our 3rd best.
Last year, I did think Blic would win it, given his participation in every game, and was pretty consistent, and mainly any other contender had off seasons (Selwood, Taylor, even Boris was average)

 

[CatFan79]

Obviously can't just dismiss it, but no, I don't hold it in the same stead as many on here seem to; the two examples I gave, plus Blicavs winning it last year don't sit well with me.

They probably agree with us but they need to feed their Guthrie love given he's only an average player.

 

[Cattery]

FWIW, I agree. Has always seemed too complex. The coaches x2 54321 system seems the fairest, but even then there can be some favourite votes.
Jimmy has never won a B&F, maybe not deserving.
Guthrie seemed like our 3rd best mid this year, which is not saying much as the other 2 were so far ahead, but non Cat fans that I discuss footy with seem to think of him as easily our 3rd best.
Last year, I did think Blic would win it, given his participation in every game, and was pretty consistent, and mainly any other contender had off seasons (Selwood, Taylor, even Boris was average)

Not sure how they arrive at their votes to be honest, but round twenty for example twenty nine disposals, one goal and one assist, nine inside fifties and seven clearances wasn't enough to earn PD a single vote, yet six disposals (no marks) and twenty two hitouts earned Zac Smith votes, just doesn't compute with me.

 

[Lana]

The issue of the current bnf rules is it doesn't achieve what it sets out to do which is to limit the advantage of players who play most games over a play who misses a few games
.
Lets say you have two players one plays 21 games the other 24. Both score 157.5 points under the current system.

If I was to make a simple change I'd just use just use:

Score = an average of players weekly score X minimum of (threshold number of games , games played)

under the current system
Player 1 played 24 games averaging 7 votes per game but his three worst games where he averaged 3.5 votes per game are excluded. Of his other 21 games he average 7.5 votes per game
Player plays 21 games averaging 7.5 votes per game


Under my proposed system
player 1 would now score 147 points ((157.5+10.5)/24 *21)
player 2 would still score 157.5

But if was going to make a system needlessly complicated

I'd calculate the winner under each threshold. The player that wins the most of these gets the BnF.

 

[Vdubs]

The issue of the current bnf rules is it doesn't achieve what it sets out to do which is to limit the advantage of players who play most games over a play who misses a few games
.
Lets say you have two players one plays 21 games the other 24. Both score 157.5 points under the current system.

If I was to make a simple change I'd just use just use:

Score = an average of players weekly score X minimum of (threshold number of games , games played)

under the current system
Player 1 played 24 games averaging 7 votes per game but his three worst games where he averaged 3.5 votes per game are excluded. Of his other 21 games he average 7.5 votes per game
Player plays 21 games averaging 7.5 votes per game


Under my proposed system
player 1 would now score 147 points ((157.5+10.5)/24 *21)
player 2 would still score 157.5

But if was going to make a system needlessly complicated

I'd calculate the winner under each threshold. The player that wins the most of these gets the BnF.

I have this quaint notion that a player who has missed games and therefore potential votes is just stiff. Tim Watson did not get credit votes in 89 Brownlow when many thought he was clearly the best player that year- just as well for Couchy.
And almost certainly, the current 18 teams will all have their own unique systems of apportioning votes, and as an example the Carlton system I heard about today is as equally and unnecessarily complex as ours, albeit different.
Your system is certainly worthy of being adopted.