Competitions The Pieman 2021 - with a difference!

[dogwatch]

Ahem...DW...looks likje you forgot my change within my post that you allowed - Wallis to McNeil

I’m out and about right now so will check later but that sounds right. If so I’ll fix.

Ahem ... gm75 ...that’s another reason for insisting on a separate post if you want to make a change. It makes it so much harder to track.

No more Mr Nice Guy in future!

 

[dogwatch]

Thanks for doing this dogwatch - Can I asked to be included as a round one random please? I don't think I will be doing it every week but happy to be whipped by all and sundry here.

Good luck all!

Will do. If no major objections to doing it for josh the gent I’ll also do it for you.

Welcome aboard.

 

[grassman75]

I’m out and about right now so will check later but that sounds right. If so I’ll fix.

Ahem ... gm75 ...that’s another reason for insisting on a separate post if you want to make a change. It makes it so much harder to track.

No more Mr Nice Guy in future!

I was thinking exactly that when i saw it - you know i just did it as part of your pre season training to sharpen you up....

 

[dogwatch]

I’m out and about right now so will check later but that sounds right. If so I’ll fix.

Ahem ... gm75 ...that’s another reason for insisting on a separate post if you want to make a change. It makes it so much harder to track.

No more Mr Nice Guy in future!

Have adjusted the score for grassman75 as discussed above. He moves from eq7th to 4th with 92 points.
I'll publish the updated Pieman points table when we've settled the issue of random teams for josh the gent and VL30J later in the week.

 

[ossie_21]

Have adjusted the score for grassman75 as discussed above. He moves from eq7th to 4th with 92 points.
I'll publish the updated Pieman points table when we've settled the issue of random teams for josh the gent and VL30J later in the week.

My suggestion would be to allow the late entries to match the lowest scoring score of 14, whilst also allowing the unlucky ones who got donuts to have the same score of 14. Then after, no more Mr nice guy!

I think it would be a bit harsh for a potential random team to score better than a lot of people who had a crack and entered within time, but feel everyone would be happy with that outcome?

 

[dogwatch]

HANDICAPS ROUND 2 v WEST COAST EAGLES

Here are the provisional handicaps for Round 2. They may still change after team selection, if for instance there are some surprises (such as Naughton to CHB). I'm assuming Richards is now on the injured list.

 

[dogwatch]

Just a reminder that there's no need to post a team if you are happy to retain your team from Round 1.
You'll automatically get the same players for Rd 2 (and you'll get a sub for any of your Rd 1 players not selected for Rd 2).

 

[grassman75]

Vandermeer x 2, B. Smith, English, Bont

 

[josh the gent]

Bruce
Naughton
McNeil
Vandermeer
Wallis

 

[dogwatch]

...

Also can’t believe I didn’t get tagged in the reminder. My heart hurts.

Just realised I overlooked Next Waiting too for the same reason (it's complicated ... let's just call it a technical error ).
Apologies NW.

My head hurts.

 

[dogwatch]

OK, nobody has voiced any concern about a random team being allocated to josh the gent and VL3OJ (and to anyone else who wants to join before Rd 2) so I've allocated random teams to each of them. I did consider the suggestion of @ossie_21 but it would be messy to code and administer. As it turns out neither of the late entrants has gained a massive advantage on those who did put a team in for Rd 1 so we'll run with it.

Here are the teams they got:




So Josh ended up scoring zero (even though he had a decent looking team) and VL30J scored 42 which places him equal 16th .
I'll post an updated Kelvin table for Rd 1.


Geeks-only segment:
I was intrigued by this idea of a random team so I generated 1000 of them and then refreshed about 10 times which effectively gave me 10,000 random teams with their total scores. (Don't worry it only took a few minutes to code!) As you'd appreciate that's a pretty decent sample size.

Nearly every time I refreshed the list the average (and median) for the 1000 teams was in the range of about 41 to 47. Interestingly the carefully constructed teams from BF entrants scored about the same as these random teams in Rd 1, or maybe even slightly worse: BF average was 43.39, median 40.

So VL30J's score was about average, while Josh's team was ... well it was just bad luck, I guess.

The intriguing thing was that the maximum score from these 1000 random teams was usually around 170-210 which would have easily been enough to win the Kelvin this week. One of them was 248, just short of the maximum possible for Rd 1!

I then put in a counter to see how many of them were 135 or more (in other words enough points to win the Kelvin in Rd 1). It turned out to be around 1.4% which is not that much lower than the statistical likelihood of any given BF entry winning each week (2.6%)


So I thought it might be a hoot to add a RandomDog team to the comp, backdated to Rd 1 like Josh and VL30J. The only difference is RandomDog will have a randomly selected team each week while the rest of us will be trying to beat the odds by detailed reading of the form, statistical analysis, reading the tea leaves, throwing darts at a board or whatever we think works best.

Here's the team that RandomDog was allocated for Round 1. It only scored 11 points (which won't embarrass too many of us).

 

[weltschmerz]

I love the idea of RandomDog.

I'll stay with the same team this week (after a miserable failure week 1!) unless I make another post saying otherwise.

 

[dogwatch]

Here's the updated Kelvin table for Rd 1. The changes are:

• correction to grassman75 's score (moves up to 4th)
• inclusion of random Rd 1 teams for josh the gent (0 pts, eq 35th) and VL3OJ (42 pts, eq 16th)
• inclusion of RandomDog (11 pts, 34th)

 

[josh the gent]

Thanks dogwatch (albeit my score sucked)! Perhaps my karma for being tardy.

Sincerely, I appreciate you adding a rd 1 for me. Legend.

Now to claw back that deficit...

 

[Sharkey66]

OK, nobody has voiced any concern about a random team being allocated to josh the gent and VL3OJ (and to anyone else who wants to join before Rd 2) so I've allocated random teams to each of them. I did consider the suggestion of @ossie_21 but it would be messy to code and administer. As it turns out neither of the late entrants has gained a massive advantage on those who did put a team in for Rd 1 so we'll run with it.

Here are the teams they got:
View attachment 1085121

View attachment 1085123

So Josh ended up scoring zero (even though he had a decent looking team) and VL30J scored 42 which places him equal 16th .
I'll post an updated Kelvin table for Rd 1.


Geeks-only segment:
I was intrigued by this idea of a random team so I generated 1000 of them and then refreshed about 10 times which effectively gave me 10,000 random teams with their total scores. (Don't worry it only took a few minutes to code!) As you'd appreciate that's a pretty decent sample size.

Nearly every time I refreshed the list the average (and median) for the 1000 teams was in the range of about 41 to 47. Interestingly the carefully constructed teams from BF entrants scored about the same as these random teams in Rd 1, or maybe even slightly worse: BF average was 43.39, median 40.

So VL30J's score was about average, while Josh's team was ... well it was just bad luck, I guess.

The intriguing thing was that the maximum score from these 1000 random teams was usually around 170-210 which would have easily been enough to win the Kelvin this week. One of them was 248, just short of the maximum possible for Rd 1!

I then put in a counter to see how many of them were 135 or more (in other words enough points to win the Kelvin in Rd 1). It turned out to be around 1.4% which is not that much lower than the statistical likelihood of any given BF entry winning each week (2.6%)


So I thought it might be a hoot to add a RandomDog team to the comp, backdated to Rd 1 like Josh and VL30J. The only difference is RandomDog will have a randomly selected team each week while the rest of us will be trying to beat the odds by detailed reading of the form, statistical analysis, reading the tea leaves, throwing darts at a board or whatever we think works best.

Here's the team that RandomDog was allocated for Round 1. It only scored 11 points (which won't embarrass too many of us).

View attachment 1085156

Not that I think it's necessary, but if you still feel strongly about a conflict of interest, assigning yourself a random team would avoid that wouldn't it.
Once again i dont see it as an issue, more how you yourself feel about it.

 

[dogwatch]

Not that I think it's necessary, but if you still feel strongly about a conflict of interest, assigning yourself a random team would avoid that wouldn't it.
Once again i dont see it as an issue, more how you yourself feel about it.

Thanks, but it's probably no longer an issue. I'm happy to withdraw at any time though if it ever became one.

 

[josh the gent]

Thanks, but it's probably no longer an issue. I'm happy to withdraw at any time though if it ever became one.

You gotta stay in the comp dogwatch - it’s a race to the second premiership

 

[VL3OJ]

Thank you for your clear explanations and analysis of the random samples. Clearly you have a deep love of stats. Were all your random teams completely random as with some would have all fwds, others all bench type players? Interesting that BF was slightly below random mean but it is round 1 and the BF cohort should, learn, refine and improve.

 

[dogwatch]

Thank you for your clear explanations and analysis of the random samples. Clearly you have a deep love of stats. Were all your random teams completely random as with some would have all fwds, others all bench type players? Interesting that BF was slightly below random mean but it is round 1 and the BF cohort should, learn, refine and improve.

Yes, all completely random from the 22, no weighting or selecting according to role. The handicap system already deals with the fact that defenders don't kick many goals (but they DO kick goals occasionally). As for bench players I'm not even sure if we have such a category. Do we? I'd have thought that high-octane midfielders were the ones most in need of bench time. And they kick goals fairly regularly. Others need a break but not as often. (Except Ryan Gardner who plays 100% ToG!)

Yours and josh the gent's were the first two random teams that came out.
That's what gave me the idea to look at a much larger sample of randomness.

Yes, I expect BF teams will improve as the weeks pass. I'll do another comparison soon to see.

 

[dogwatch]

PIEMAN RULES - dealing with the medical sub

The 2021 rules were written on the basis of the senior side having only 22 players. However the last minute rule change by the AFL allowing a "medical substitute" (a 23rd player) requires some interpretation. Here's how I propose to work it:

A medical sub who doesn't register any game time will be deemed not to have played.
A medical sub who does comes onto the ground as a substitute during play will be regarded as a legitimate player, no matter how little time he played.

So if you select someone who turns out to be medical sub and he gets no playing time you will be given a substitute player in your Pieman team. However if he gets any game time at all, even if it's only the last minute of play, he will be a legitimate member of your team.

This also applies if you get a sub/default player for some other reason and that player ends up being the medical sub. That is, if he gets NO game time you are entitled to a further sub.

I hope that's clear enough and covers all the contingencies.

 

[Struggle]

Hunter x2 Wallis English Bont

 

[VL3OJ]

B Smith *2, English, Dunkley, Naughton

 

[Northern Dogs]

Same team for me this week pls DW

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

English
Treloar
Dunkley
B Smith
Libba

 

[ScottyDogg]

I’ll take Lipinski, McNeil x2, Vandermeer, and English