Competitions The Pieman 2022

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

ossie_21

Brownlow Medallist
May 28, 2010
13,557
18,552
Melbourne (ex-Perth)
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Everton
West has burnt me every other time, now I haven’t picked him he’ll be good for at least 2

Jim Carrey Attorney GIF
 

dogwatch

Premium Platinum
Jun 17, 2009
25,044
40,135
Canberra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal
PIEMAN RESULTS ROUND 14 v GWS

A shootout! That's what we love at Pie central. A few big scores and a few "if only" tales out of tonight.

Pieman subs and carryover teams

Only 18 carryover teams this week. All ten Pieman subs were in those teams. Sadly for most, the first sub was Libba and only one team - Kermit - was able to get the second choice sub, Weightman, because Libba was already in her team. That meant a handy 55 point collect for Kermit but zero for everyone else.

No doubt somebody will ask so I'll explain what happened with McNeil. Many of the Pieman subs were for McNeil who was dropped and wasn't in the starting 22. However he was the WB medi-sub so he came on early to replace Duryea and went on to kick a goal while the Pieman sub most people got (Libba) didn't kick any goals at all. At first glance that seems a bit unfair doesn't it?

Well in most games we play the medi-sub either won't play at all (like last round) or he'll come on later in the match and play very limited game time. This makes it very problematical to include the medi-sub in any Pieman team. Usually it works against you. There are too many possible scenarios to cater for, so the simplest solution is to say you can't select the medi-sub in your Pieman team. Nor can he become a Pieman substitute in your team. Tonight, unfortunately, was just a rare anomaly where the medi-sub played almost the whole game and kicked a goal. And to make matters worse he would have been in the carryover team of quite a few if he had been picked in the starting 22. It's just stiff bickies, I'm afraid.

So here are the Pieman substitutions for this week.
Fossie 32 and TedDougChris got Liberatore as sub for Khamis.​
Kermit got Weightman (55 pts) as sub for McNeil.​
The following got Liberatore as sub for McNeil: cecil, cleveland, Jeff 1975, Mike_, Mofra and scarrgo.​

The KELVIN

We have another tie this week. It's between Shacf501 who was also a tied winner of the Kelvin in our last game and Wocka who lodged his entry confessing he had NFI. Doesn't say much for the rest of us then! They both ended up with 178 points but got there with different combinations. Sharkey66 (171) was third just ahead of LordC who had his 165 points by the half time break then took the rest of the evening off. Snarls Barkley (160) needed Schache to nail that poster which would have given him a 20-point bonus and in all probability the Kelvin.

Nobody got the five-goalkicker bonus this week despite there being 10 different goalkickers on the night. Nevertheless 14 teams cracked the 100 points.

1655561950013.png


The PIEMAN

The big story of the night is that the season leader TiAn_ bombed out with a zero. Would have been different if Schache's shot had gone through of course. So all of a sudden it has become a very close contest again. TiAn_ still holds the lead but it's been cut back by 124 points with Foxman98 now only 16 points behind. Sharkey66 has made up a massive 171 points on the leader and is now only 71 points of the lead. Shacf501 and LordC have moved into the top 10.

1655562503403.png


Pieman Player of the Week

The two who set the game alight in the first quarter ended up leading the player points this week. Weightman (55) gets PPotW by one point from West (54). Best possible score would have been 273 for anyone taking 3x Weightman and 2x West.

1655562880575.png



Pieman Player of the Year

Cody takes over the lead for PPotY and Naughton is back up to second.

1655563184360.png


The Payout

FYI, just to complete the picture on my earlier post, here is the actual payout on players this week, once all teams were in, including the carryover teams:

1655563594688.png
 
Last edited:

dogwatch

Premium Platinum
Jun 17, 2009
25,044
40,135
Canberra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal
I've been thinking about how to make the Five-Goalkicker bonus more attractive next year. Here's what I have in mind.

==========================================================================================

There would be two components to the bonus:

[A] EITHER

Have a fixed bonus value of say 25 points (compared to 20 points this year)
OR
Calculate the bonus as a percentage (say 30%) of your total player score. So say you have five different goalkickers and your five players give you 94 points you would get a bonus of 28 points (30% rounded down) for a total of 122 points. The benefit of the percentage approach is that you get a commensurate reward for taking players with higher handicap values. For example, if you chose lower handicap players and they only gave you 71 points your bonus would only be 21 for a total score of 92.

AND

In addition to whatever we do above we would operate a jackpot. It starts at 0 points. If nobody gets five goalkickers in any given week it goes up by 5 points and continues to do so each week until one or more people get five different goalkickers. They all get the full jackpot value - it's not a prize pool that is divided equally among them. So in the above example if there hadn't been a jackpot winner for three weeks you would get a further 15 points on top of your 122 points, for a total score of 137 points.

==========================================================================================

Rationale
:
The jackpot component might make people re-evaluate their selection strategy at different points of the year, especially if the jackpot got up to say 30 points or more. This year the bonus points have only gone off in Rounds 2 and 11. So if we had been using the proposed system the jackpot would have been 5 points in Rd 2 (total bonus points 25+5=30) and after going back to zero it would have risen to 40 points by Round 11 for a total bonus score of 65 points. Next week (Rd 15) it would be back up to 10 points. Of course the higher the jackpot gets the more people are going to alter their selection strategy to try for it ... so perhaps it wouldn't normally last 9 rounds before going off.

A couple of weeks ago Wocka (currently lying 31st on the leaderboard, I should add ;) ) claimed that "5x1 is for chumps". Maybe this would have him re-considering that thought?


Feedback on this idea welcome. I'm pretty keen on it at this stage.

Also can we have a short nifty name for picking five separate goalkickers? "Five separate goalkickers" is too much of a mouthful. Maybe just FSG? Or something like a "Full Monty" perhaps ... which would also be a nod to the mercurial Brett Montgomery.
Any better suggestions?
 

grassman75

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 16, 2008
5,275
6,795
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I've been thinking about how to make the Five-Goalkicker bonus more attractive next year. Here's what I have in mind.

==========================================================================================

There would be two components to the bonus:

[A] EITHER

Have a fixed bonus value of say 25 points (compared to 20 points this year)
OR
Calculate the bonus as a percentage (say 30%) of your total player score. So say you have five different goalkickers and your five players give you 94 points you would get a bonus of 28 points (30% rounded down) for a total of 122 points. The benefit of the percentage approach is that you get a commensurate reward for taking players with higher handicap values. For example, if you chose lower handicap players and they only gave you 71 points your bonus would only be 21 for a total score of 92.

AND

In addition to whatever we do above we would operate a jackpot. It starts at 0 points. If nobody gets five goalkickers in any given week it goes up by 5 points and continues to do so each week until one or more people get five different goalkickers. They all get the full jackpot value - it's not a prize pool that is divided equally among them. So in the above example if there hadn't been a jackpot winner for three weeks you would get a further 15 points on top of your 122 points, for a total score of 137 points.

==========================================================================================

Rationale
:
The jackpot component might make people re-evaluate their selection strategy at different points of the year, especially if the jackpot got up to say 30 points or more. This year the bonus points have only gone off in Rounds 2 and 11. So if we had been using the proposed system the jackpot would have been 5 points in Rd 2 (total bonus points 25+5=30) and after going back to zero it would have risen to 40 points by Round 11 for a total bonus score of 65 points. Next week (Rd 15) it would be back up to 10 points. Of course the higher the jackpot gets the more people are going to alter their selection strategy to try for it ... so perhaps it wouldn't normally last 9 rounds before going off.

A couple of weeks ago Wocka (currently lying 31st on the leaderboard, I should add ;) ) claimed that "5x1 is for chumps". Maybe this would have him re-considering that thought?


Feedback on this idea welcome. I'm pretty keen on it at this stage.

Also can we have a short nifty name for picking five separate goalkickers? "Five separate goalkickers" is too much of a mouthful. Maybe just FSG? Or something like a "Full Monty" perhaps ... which would also be a nod to the mercurial Brett Montgomery.
Any better suggestions?
Like the bonus idea using % - go with it.
Not as sure about the jackpot pool, maybe you could do something in relation to the Player of the week? If you have him, you get a bonus or its a last man standing - start with a pool of say 50 pts, or go up by 5prs each week. if you don't have him you are eliminated and so it goes until 1 person is left and gets the jackpot. If it happens quickly, just reset and go again.

My nominations for a name for 5 X 1 are:

A Full House

A Bubba (Rohan Smith No. 5)

A Freddo (the above eating 5 🍓 Freddo's before each game)

Keep up the good work DW.

P.S - I chose Dale over Weightman this week to try and go for the bigger HCP. Dale kicked a point and Weightman got 5. Coulda, shoulda, woulda had the bonus
 

dogwatch

Premium Platinum
Jun 17, 2009
25,044
40,135
Canberra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal
Like the bonus idea using % - go with it.
Not as sure about the jackpot pool, maybe you could do something in relation to the Player of the week? If you have him, you get a bonus or its a last man standing - start with a pool of say 50 pts, or go up by 5prs each week. if you don't have him you are eliminated and so it goes until 1 person is left and gets the jackpot. If it happens quickly, just reset and go again.

My nominations for a name for 5 X 1 are:

A Full House

A Bubba (Rohan Smith No. 5)

A Freddo (the above eating 5 🍓 Freddo's before each game)

Keep up the good work DW.

P.S - I chose Dale over Weightman this week to try and go for the bigger HCP. Dale kicked a point and Weightman got 5. Coulda, shoulda, woulda had the bonus
I like the idea of a "Bubba" but it got me thinking about other number 5s. Maybe a Slam Dunk would be more descriptive? (But only if he re-signs!)
 

grassman75

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 16, 2008
5,275
6,795
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I like the idea of a "Bubba" but it got me thinking about other number 5s. Maybe a Slam Dunk would be more descriptive? (But only if he re-signs!)
Just had a look at all our number 5s

Some wouldn't remember him but since the Pieman is a tribute to Beasley, maybe you could reference a bloke who had a huge future, but died tragically Ron James or a Ronnie.

Other option comes down to a Brownlow medallist and kinda fits - Peter Box, A Box 5 sounds good too
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

dogwatch

Premium Platinum
Jun 17, 2009
25,044
40,135
Canberra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal
Handicaps Rd 15 v Hawthorn
51A17379-FBA7-4ED8-94B9-F59091B6086D.png


Apologies for the handicaps (a) being late and (b) containing Hunter instead of McComb.

Some tech difficulties- long story not worth going into. Suffice to say I ended up guessing what the team was going to be and had to prepare the above handicap list before the official team announcement. Won’t be home to fix it until just before the game starts.

So just accept thatHunter is out and McComb is in with a handicap of 28. (Also Bedendo and Garcia are emergencies along with Khamis and McNeil, not Wallis).

Carry on …
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad