New Award for 2011 / 12?

[Drew-Sta]

Hi lads

I can't post in the management forum as I'm technically not a captain but I figured it was worth discussion.

One of the things I wanted to see is if there was the capacity to have a new award for 'most points in a season'. In essence, each player has their marks added up and the winner(s) are presented with an award at the end of the year.

This rewards consistent posting and also those players who are the Nathan Hindmarshes of our game i.e. Put out week in week out with high 80's articles but might not snag POM's all that often.

In any case, I welcome discussion and hope to get positive feedback

Drew

 

[Willow]

Players with the most games over the season seems to cover it. The Iron Forummers is a good name for it imo. Plus of course there's the BP Player of the Year.

But I like your idea Drew. Can't have too many awards. ;-)

 

[madunit]

hows about to make it work, avg pts per game? and have a minimum number of games they must play to qualify.

 

[muzby]

i think the simple "total points" aspect could work..

it encourages repeat playing, rewards repeat performers and also helps provide something for those who do score consistently, but never high enough to always score backpacker points..

maybe to see if it can work is there an easy way to do a scan over the last two seasons or so to see who would have won?

 

[griffo346]

im with muzby i really think the total amount of points over the whole season would work

 

[byrne_rovelli_fan82]

...like the idea and think its got a good base. But, sadly I think there are far more important issues the whole forums 7 should be looking at currently. It's all I'm going to say.

 

[Drew-Sta]

It should only be the reg season I reckon, so as not to disadvantage those not playing in the finals.

Byrne, rather than saying little, why not start a thread?

 

[madunit]

i think the simple "total points" aspect could work..

it encourages repeat playing, rewards repeat performers and also helps provide something for those who do score consistently, but never high enough to always score backpacker points..

maybe to see if it can work is there an easy way to do a scan over the last two seasons or so to see who would have won?

I reckon over the last 3 years it'd be a close battle between Willow and Titanic.

 

[madunit]

ok, most points accrued (does not include Willow Cup, or finals)

2009
dubopov (Dragons) - 704 pts (8 games)
Titanic (Titans) - 701 (8)
tits&tans (Titans) - 699 (8)
madunit (Panthers) - 699 (8)
Amadean (Titans) - 696 (8)
Non Terminator (Roosters) - 695 (8)
miccle (Souths) - 695 (8)
Jesbass (Warriors) - 691 (8)
rayroxon (Warriors) - 689 (8)
adamkungl (Roosters) - 680 (8)
LeagueNut (Panthers) - 621 (7)
Willow (Bluebags) - 613 (7)

2010
Titanic (Titans) - 540 (6)
madunit (Panthers) - 535 (6)
dubopov (Dragons) - 532 (6)
Willow (Bluebags) - 527 (6)
azkatro (Panthers) - 525 (6)
murphyscreek (Dragons) - 519 (6)
tits&tans (Titans) - 516 (6)

in 2009 - if you average it out League Nut and Willow are the better performances, because they played just one game less than everyone else. Thats why I think averaging is much fairer, then you are truly rewarding those who consistently score highly.

Just have a minimum number of articles to qualify, such as half the available games or some such thing.

 

[griffo346]

Sorry MU i dont agree with averaging but again thats my opinion

 

[griffo346]

...like the idea and think its got a good base. But, sadly I think there are far more important issues the whole forums 7 should be looking at currently. It's all I'm going to say.

mmmm what di you mean ???

 

[Titanic]

Good idea but don't know which alternative works better so I'll sit on the fence.

 

[Jesbass]

I like the idea. While Titanic is getting the splinters pulled out of his butt, (;-)), I'm leaning more towards the total marks earned, as opposed to an average.

We're not looking for players with the highest average - the POMs already take care of that - but for the toilers who dig in every week for their team. (In some cases, they may be the same person.)

It's a great way to reward consistency, and may give players added motivation to put in one more solid effort, even if their team is struggling as a whole.

 

[Jesbass]

...like the idea and think its got a good base. But, sadly I think there are far more important issues the whole forums 7 should be looking at currently. It's all I'm going to say.

Help us to create solutions by sharing your views. Being coy about it won't fix anything.

You're more than welcome to PM me if you would prefer to not bring it up in the open forum.

 

[madunit]

Sorry MU i dont agree with averaging but again thats my opinion

well essentially if its taken on aggregate, you are essentially doubling up on awards handed out to those who played every game, because they will have highest aggregate.

Whereas in 2009 as a prime example, LeagueNut and Willow, who posted just one article less than the maximum, averaged more per article than nearly everyone on the list.

Thats why I suggest a cut off number of games to qualify and an average taken, you are then rewarding the consistently highest scoring players.

 

[Drew-Sta]

Averaging makes sense in the argument you've put forward MU.

I also think it's good to reward those who consistently perform and play year round, though. So I'm torn between our idea's as they both have merit.

Gah, why did you have to suggest something as good as you did hahahaha

 

[Titanic]

Ok, just to avoid Jesbass getting any ideas about his ability with a pair of a tweezers, I think that the debate should also include "why not include rep games and the Willow Cup?"

Frankly, if the community is going to reward players then I'm all for consistency being recognised but now that we have SoO, Anzac, Willow Cup and 4 Nations, there are nearly as many games at rep level as there are domestics, however rep games are largely not recognised in the stats stakes.

Should we then be looking at the rep awards more closely?

 

[griffo346]

well why cant we reduce the players to 3v3 in soo and make it a 3 game series? and therefore have a man of the series

 

[madunit]

I think if anything, the idea is to not to have a huge number of games as it could lead to a lack of interest.

 

[madunit]

Averaging makes sense in the argument you've put forward MU.

I also think it's good to reward those who consistently perform and play year round, though. So I'm torn between our idea's as they both have merit.

Gah, why did you have to suggest something as good as you did hahahaha

I was trying to come up with a compromised version of aggrgeate and average.

Hows about an average for players who played at least 75% of the possible games for the year?

you're singling out the players who have highest aggregates and play the majority of the games.

Would that work?