BigFooty Lions Player of the Year - Round 3

[Monkey Daniel]

5. Patfull
4. Selwood
3. Adcock
2. Drummond
1. Sherman

 

[Kochie 16]

5.) Adcock
4.) Drummond
3.) Selwood
2.) Patfull
1.) Sherman

 

[Last of the Roys]

5. Drummond
4. Patfull
3. Selwood
2. Dalziell
1. Rich

 

[aza03]

1) Drummond
2) Adcock
3) Sherman
4) Patfull
5) Rich

Rookie: Mitch Clark

The fact that Brown, Bradshaw, Power and Black are in hardly anyone's top five is great news for the team. We are slowly becoming less one-dimensional, and it's great to see the same old stars like Black and Brown aren't guarantees to be in the Lion's best.

This year I reckon our second and third-tier players will take that next step. It's early I know, but Sherman, Selwood, Adcock and even Stiller are attacking the football like they actually want the football, and that is a massive plus for our side.

And how good is Rich!!!!!!

 

[Ceebee]

1 Patfull
2 Adcock
3 Drummond.
4 Selwood.
5 Sherman and Brown both deserved a vote ,as did lots of others in a great team performance..
Rookie ,Rich
Top marks to the coaching panel, and Vossy is certainly getting the best out of his boys.
Hope we keep that toughness all year.it is great to see

 

[Lionfan17]

Hmmmm its tough this week

5. Selwood
4. Johnstone
3. Rich
2. Brown
1. the whole team...

 

[ms86]

5. Joel Patful
4. Jed Adcock
3. Josh Drummond
2. Cheynee Stiller
1. Daniel Bradshaw

Great team effort!!

 

[Gibbo_88]

5. Drummond
4. Adcock
3. Selwood
2. Patful
1. Bradshaw

Found it very hard to choose this week

 

[Lehmo87]

5/ Travis Johnstone
4/ Josh Drummond
3/ Justin Sherman
2/ Joel Patful
1/ Daniel Bradshaw

 

[luthor]

Hmmmm its tough this week


1. the whole team...

Is that allowed?

Good luck trying to sort that one out LL

 

[whatboutbob]

5. Patful
4. Drummond
3. Selwood
2. Adcock
1. Brown

Rookie: Mitch

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

1) Drummond
2) Adcock
3) Sherman
4) Patfull
5) Rich

Rookie: Mitch Clark

Didn't take long for my point to show up. How can you rate Rich in the best 5 afield, then say the best Rookie performance was Mitchs? If he was shouldn't he be above Rich in your BoG voting? They both qualify.

What gets me is the amount of people still voting for Rich with 3's & as best rookie in this game when his disposal clearly let him down numerous times, in what I would say was his least impressive outing thus far. People are so far ahead of themselves with the poor kid. He wasn't crap or anything but either rucks game was better and yet many ignore them to name their new favourite.

Yeah, I don't like bandwagons, and this has all the signs of being one. Rich is a golden pickup but ffs let the lad prove himself and grow into the player we all wanna see him become on the merits of each game, not the hype surrounding the drafting or his 2 Subi premiership medallions.

 

[chopperduck]

people get to vote based on the way they see the game, and many hold Rich in top 5 for good reason. thats their opinion and they are entitled to it, and to vote by it.

I can see your point with the rookie vote system, and yes, it doesn't really make sense. But it gives a chance to share some votes to the rookies who wouldn't normal make the top 5 voting.

Rookie vote doesn't have to be the best rookie on the ground. Just a performance that deserves a vote. Yes, Rich was in top 5 for many and clark was not, but for many clark gets the rookie vote because he had a better than normal game. Rich did his usual thing, which is good enough for top 5 vote. Its a win/win.

I think of it as Player of the year = Brownlow voting, Rookie of the Year - norm-smith type voting. Not connected and one doesn't affect voting on the other

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

people get to vote based on the way they see the game, and many hold Rich in top 5 for good reason. thats their opinion and they are entitled to it, and to vote by it.

I can see your point with the rookie vote system, and yes, it doesn't really make sense. But it gives a chance to share some votes to the rookies who wouldn't normal make the top 5 voting.

Rookie vote doesn't have to be the best rookie on the ground. Just a performance that deserves a vote. Yes, Rich was in top 5 for many and clark was not, but for many clark gets the rookie vote because he had a better than normal game. Rich did his usual thing, which is good enough for top 5 vote. Its a win/win.

I think of it as Player of the year = Brownlow voting, Rookie of the Year - norm-smith type voting. Not connected and one doesn't affect voting on the other

I'm not saying people aren't entitled to their opinion or the right to voice it. Just that over-complicating a system or starting out with a flawed one renders the ultimate award meaningless. It defeats the entire purpose of doing it. As I suggested in the thread for the voting system, I think a rookie vote should only be made when an eligible rookie doesn't factor in a persons top 5 and it should count for 1pt. Otherwise you're saying in the example of this post, Clark was the best rookie, even though overall his votes would suggest he believes Rich was. I don't want to sound like a broken record but we'd all give heaps of players we can't points, if there were more than 5 spots open. If Rich is top 5 surely an honourable mention to a stiff Clark would be right. Not a consolation point that negates the 1 Rich gets for coming in 5th.

 

[LuckyLuke]

Is that allowed?

Good luck trying to sort that one out LL

It's the Florida debacle all over again!

If you goof your votes, they wont count.

 

[LuckyLuke]

I'm not saying people aren't entitled to their opinion or the right to voice it. Just that over-complicating a system or starting out with a flawed one renders the ultimate award meaningless. It defeats the entire purpose of doing it. As I suggested in the thread for the voting system, I think a rookie vote should only be made when an eligible rookie doesn't factor in a persons top 5 and it should count for 1pt. Otherwise you're saying in the example of this post, Clark was the best rookie, even though overall his votes would suggest he believes Rich was. I don't want to sound like a broken record but we'd all give heaps of players we can't points, if there were more than 5 spots open. If Rich is top 5 surely an honourable mention to a stiff Clark would be right. Not a consolation point that negates the 1 Rich gets for coming in 5th.

Totally valid point, but so is this

I think of it as Player of the year = Brownlow voting, Rookie of the Year - norm-smith type voting. Not connected and one doesn't affect voting on the other

The only way i can see it to be totally independent is to take these only as nominations and vote for rookie of the year at the end of 22 rounds. Is that the kind of solution you see Haggis? So for example, it looks likely that from the first 3 rounds, Rich (rounds 1 & 2) and Clark (round 3) are so far the only nominees for the award and we would give them votes based on what we can remember. Unlike the Rising star award, you can get nominated more than once but it counts for nothing other than keeping score of the amount of nominations. In the end, votes decide the winner.

Any other ideas for the rookie vote?

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

The only way i can see it to be totally independent is to take these only as nominations and vote for rookie of the year at the end of 22 rounds. Is that the kind of solution you see Haggis? So for example, it looks likely that from the first 3 rounds, Rich (rounds 1 & 2) and Clark (round 3) are so far the only nominees for the award and we would give them votes based on what we can remember. Unlike the Rising star award, you can get nominated more than once but it counts for nothing other than keeping score of the amount of nominations. In the end, votes decide the winner.

Any other ideas for the rookie vote?

That'd be easy but a copout. Given we're 3 rounds in though and the formula wasn't set from the beginning it might be the best way to go this season. My real concern is for the concept becoming nothing more than a we love Rich award, which a public vote would be likely to deliver as a good swag of fans see him as the second coming and, even if over 22 rounds another youngster polled better in regular mvp voting, Rich would win a popular vote by people voting on manlove rather than performance over the season.

I see no problem using regular voting to achieve a truly fair outcome with, as discussed, a rookie vote where a rookie does not feature in that voters top 5. I think it broke down this week because we've never done it that way before and the rookie slots purpose wasn't clearly understood.

If a rookie polls as best afield they take the 5pts for the rookie of the year comp as well which is a huge advantage, but deserved given they've been THAT good. i.e. Rich getting many votes in his games thus far would put him well in the lead and Hoopers outstanding game in round 1 would have him in second with all the votes he polled. When no rookies make the mark of our best group on the night though, then we nominate one as best rookie which equates to 1 point. It gives us the chance to note a good kid if all the seniors outshine him but acknowledges the greater value of the top5 performances of youngsters in being at the core of the teams best on a given night.

When you do the tallies at the end of the round you could tally up easily and separate both awards while extracting the numbers from one thread of voting rather than two, and not have to resort to the popular one off vote method.

e.g.
A- 5. Brown 4. Black 3. Rich 2. Riska 1. Patfull
B- 5. Brown 4. Black 3. Patfull 2. Sherman 1. Drummond Rookie: Rich
C- 5. Black 4. Brown 3. Drummond 2. Patfull 1. Sherman Rookie: Clark
D- 5. Brown 4. Drummond 3. Black 2. Leuenberger 1. Rich

=

MVP
Brown 19, Black 16, Drummond 8, Patfull 6, Rich 4, Sherman 3, Riska & Leuy 2
Rookie
Rich 5, Leuenberger 2, Clark 1

 

[The Flying Belgian]

5 Patfull
4 Adcock
3 Macdonald
2 Selwood
1 Sherman

 

[chopperduck]

i know what your saying McHaggis, and i do agree with what you say, but i still think it can be done. The rookie award doesn't have to linked to being in the best 5 players on the ground. As i pointed out, you could easily give Rich points for being top 5 BOG, but give clark the rookie point because he did go above and beyond himself. He had a stand out game, and whilst in the overall team performance, he didn't crack the top 5, he can still get a point for the rookie award for having a great game, and playing beyond his normal form. He showed improvement and he stood up.

I guess what im trying to say is, a rookie should be able to win the rookie award without having to be in the entire teams best 5 most weeks. with the current system, players that have a standout game (even if its not top 5 for the team) can still earn a vote. So far this year for the rookie award we could have Hooper, Rich, Clark all pretty even. If we go off BOG votes Rich is probably much further ahead.

Having the Rookie vote separate gives the voter to chance to reward a rookie who has improved or had a good game, even if they aren't in our teams top 5, which with brown, bradshaw, black, power, trapper, razzle, adcock, brennan, etc it isn't easy for new players to do this.

Its the Rookie award, not the Player of the Year award for under 50 games. There should be more to the Rookie award than just which rookie playing on the weekend was the best. If Clark or Hooper had great seasons, and improve on last year, get some games together and play well, they should be able to win the award, even if Rich is voted to have played better. Rich can win it next year if he lifts a level in his 2nd season.

The criteria for voting for the Rookie award shouldn't be the same as the player of the year award.

 

[Paul D]

5. J. Drummond
4. J. Adcock
3. J. Patful
2. T. Selwood
1. J. Brown

Rookie: D. Rich

 

[DeMerrett]

5: Drummond
4: Adcock
3: Sherman
2: Selwood
1: Rich

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

Fair call chop, I see where you're coming from. On the basis of what you're saying maybe the separate model would be the best to avoid confusion. If the best rookie award is going to run on different criteria the model Grim proposed would seem the soundest.

 

[chopperduck]

Fair call chop, I see where you're coming from. On the basis of what you're saying maybe the separate model would be the best to avoid confusion. If the best rookie award is going to run on different criteria the model Grim proposed would seem the soundest.

no probs i think i managed to explain it better 2nd time around. posting early in the morning usually makes me ramble off the tracks and sometimes i dont even understand what i posted

I think we just need to make it clear that the rookie vote doesn't have to be the BOG rookie, but just the rookie that people feel showed something in the game. There will still be plenty of man love Rich votes, but it there is a rookie out there that has a vastly improved game like clark did, they will get my vote. Rich is a sound fall back vote if no one else stands out

 

[sideshowbob]

5.Drummond
4.Adcock
3.Brown
2.Rich
1.Shermen

Terrific win,