2020 Season discussion

[SilverLion]

Happy to do:

Round 14 = Round 14 of AFL scores + Adelaidem Brisbane scores from AFL Round 15
Round 15 = Round 15 of AFL scores + Geelong, Gold Coast, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs from AFL Round 16

I disagree should use the Round 16 Ess/Melb Scores for the Round 4 games, since the Essendon and Melbourne games in that round have no real relevance to Round 4. I think some sort of average score calculation would be fairer.

Average for Ess/Melb first 5 or 6 weeks or so I think would be the "fairest" solution, as over a season form fluctuates a lot, and the form at and around the round in question is likely to give the most reasonable score that could be expected at the time.

[Ringo]

So here a few things for discussion and putting out there.

1) Have written to UF to see if we can have a bye in rd 15 allowing completion of Home and away agmes to be completed as Rd 6,

If this is permitted then this will be the plan:

Rd 13 Normal Rd all  AFL Teams playing.
Rd 14 All teams plus Brisbane and Adelaide scores from Rd 15 AFL
Rd 15 Rd 16 AFL scores plus Collingwood and Richmond scores from Rd 15.
Semifinals Rd 17 AFL
Final AFL Rd 18/

Regarding the Melbourne Essendon game from Rd 3 and happy to have further discussion if required but with the introduction of byes and we are taking next game scores for consistency think we should use Rd 4 scores of Essendon and Melbourne players. Do we need a vote or can we have concensus.

Not everything is perfect and in my opinion best we can do in this current situation with reliance on UF.

[SilverLion]

Whilst it's not a perfect solution, it's consistent with what we've done for the other rounds. So I'm fine with it.

[fanTCfool]

Manchester Votes: Melbourne & Essendon players should receive their* BXV H&A average score for Round 3

[GoLions]

Manchester Votes: Melbourne & Essendon players should receive the BXV H&A average score for Round 3

Same (keeping in mind we'll need to remove projected rd3 scores from averages)

[Ringo]

Question for you though is what average rds 1 - 4 or whole season.  think it is a tad unfair with fluctauating form if using whole season.  Hence my reasoning for following what we have been doiing fir byes as Rd 3 was effectively the bye for Essendon and Melbourne. 

[fanTCfool]

Manchester Votes: Melbourne & Essendon players should receive their BXV H&A average score for Round 3

[GoLions]

Question for you though is what average rds 1 - 4 or whole season.  think it is a tad unfair with fluctauating form if using whole season.  Hence my reasoning for following what we have been doiing fir byes as Rd 3 was effectively the bye for Essendon and Melbourne.

Form is likely to fluctuate more week to week than when taking a season average. Using Redman as an example as he's in the matchup between SL and I, he went 112 rd1 and then 67 rd2. So avg for rd3 would be about 90. The next 3 weeks he continued scoring under 70, so taking that 90avg would be ridiculous. Season avg of 77ish though? That's much better imo.

[JBs-Hawks]

I vote we take the average of all of the odd numbered rounds.

[SilverLion]

If we are gunna use season averages, why haven't we done that for every other bye though? Doesn't make sense to pick and choose when to use it.

Just use the week after's scores for them like we have for the other byes.

[SilverLion]

Question for you though is what average rds 1 - 4 or whole season.  think it is a tad unfair with fluctauating form if using whole season.  Hence my reasoning for following what we have been doiing fir byes as Rd 3 was effectively the bye for Essendon and Melbourne.

Form is likely to fluctuate more week to week than when taking a season average. Using Redman as an example as he's in the matchup between SL and I, he went 112 rd1 and then 67 rd2. So avg for rd3 would be about 90. The next 3 weeks he continued scoring under 70, so taking that 90avg would be ridiculous. Season avg of 77ish though? That's much better imo.

Exactly, form fluctuates so if using averages, you'd surely use the average of the form they are in around the time of the game, as its likely to be closer to their output.

I wouldn't use the first 2 games only as its not a big enough sample, 5 rounds or so would be enough.

But again, we haven't done this for the other byes so dunno why we would for this one.

[fanTCfool]

Using one score would be a horrible mistake. Averages for the season take the largest sample possible. For what it's worth, whatever decision we reach has no impact on my matchup.

[SilverLion]

Using one score would be a horrible mistake. Averages for the season take the largest sample possible. For what it's worth, whatever decision we reach has no impact on my matchup.

We've used one score, and will be using one score for the rest of the byes, why should this be an exception?

[fanTCfool]

Using one score would be a horrible mistake. Averages for the season take the largest sample possible. For what it's worth, whatever decision we reach has no impact on my matchup.

We've used one score, and will be using one score for the rest of the byes, why should this be an exception?

I don't agree with that either.

[SilverLion]

Using one score would be a horrible mistake. Averages for the season take the largest sample possible. For what it's worth, whatever decision we reach has no impact on my matchup.

We've used one score, and will be using one score for the rest of the byes, why should this be an exception?

I don't agree with that either.

In hindsight, I would say using some sort of average score for the bye players would've made more sense than how we've done it, but since the precedent has been set I don't see how we can do anything different now.