Can someone please explain the logic behind the rule that you MUST vote for three players? Why can you not vote for less than three? I get that you can't vote for more than three but less than? Why not because take this past weekend, For myself and quite a few other folk Nani was the only player worthy of even getting a mention. So why can't I just have Nani? I'm now being told that if I can't think of three players then I must not vote at all. Howcome? I mean, what if I want ensure that the only player(s) who are/worthy got the credit they deserve? It makes no sense to me whatsoever tbh.
MoTM
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
- Status
Because we add up the points over the course of a season.
Scuse me ignorance a bit
but care to explain how that is done and why it is this affects it in anyway?everything going towards player of the month and season works on the assumption of 3 players in order, so those with 3 players are counted and the rest are just clutter making it awkward to count, the rules state 3 so posting either 3 or 0 is reasonable to ask.
Yes but how does voting with less than 3 affect the results in anyway negatively?
Please excuse my persistence and ignorance but I don't get it tbh.
in the exact same way voting for more does (probably more so as the extras can be ignored) the calculations are designed to reward players who are consistently outperformed others on the pitch by being in the top x performers, in this case 3, you cant find accurate top 3s if a large number only voted 1/2.
So it's better to vote for a player who was clearly not MotM, ie someone who didn't play or played for 2 minutes than not voting for a 3rd choice at all? Seems a bit strange but I'll do that if it's better as I only voted for 1st and 2nd against Wolves, and 2nd was the keeper...
I see but it is not often that you get a match where we'd only have 1 or 2 performers. For example, I can recall only 3 times that I've done this and all three those games we were piss poor. But I guess if that's how you want it then cheers.
I agree with Stretch on this.
Last game there was only Nani who really deserved a mention.
I found I was sticking in names for the sake of it, like Evra who decided it was best not to mark anyone for their first goal. Surely not the best way of accurately compiling data.
I have no problem following the rules and will continue to do so and I appreciate the work that goes into compiling the data but surely that data will be skewed if people are putting in names just to make up the numbers.
Last game there was only Nani who really deserved a mention.
I found I was sticking in names for the sake of it, like Evra who decided it was best not to mark anyone for their first goal. Surely not the best way of accurately compiling data.
I have no problem following the rules and will continue to do so and I appreciate the work that goes into compiling the data but surely that data will be skewed if people are putting in names just to make up the numbers.
Also, that's when you start getting silly suggestions like
1. The referee
or
2. Opposition goalkeeper
or
3. Gibson
1. The referee
or
2. Opposition goalkeeper
or
3. Gibson
But if you're including people just to bring the numbers up then that might skew the results come the end of the season. They'll have a bunch of second and third places despite playing like shite, whereas someone who might have come fourth on other days but just doesn't get a mention owing to three better performers will therefore miss out.
I suppose it depends on whether you rank it by the performance of the individual player relative to their own season-long performances, or the performance of the individual player relative to their team-mates.
I suppose it depends on whether you rank it by the performance of the individual player relative to their own season-long performances, or the performance of the individual player relative to their team-mates.
Glad to see this is sparking debate because as soon phelans pointed it out (not having ago at you phelans) to me, it made little sense to me whatsoever. I just didn't see how that is fair reflection of what happened it a particular match, let alone the season.
A lively debate!
But I can see it ending badly...
this thread will be locked sooner or later...
this thread will be locked sooner or later...
I'm afraid so
Must admit I'm kind of with Stretch on this one.
I can only see pros for not just putting players in there for the sake of it, but I'm probably seeing it from the wrong angle.
I can only see pros for not just putting players in there for the sake of it, but I'm probably seeing it from the wrong angle.
As I say the main problem is that all of the calculations are done using 3's, say we go through a thread with everyone voting the same 2 players, how do we find who gets the other match point?
Things would rapidly descend into a farce if that was the case, suggestions for improvements are welcome but this will remain the case for the rest of the season at least.
Things would rapidly descend into a farce if that was the case, suggestions for improvements are welcome but this will remain the case for the rest of the season at least.
It's a thankless task totting them up, so I'm not in favour of any changes which make the "totter uppers" life more difficult.
I also think it should be possible to come up with three names, no matter how poorly the team plays. Even when the whole team is shit, is it really any harder to identify the three least shit players than it is to identify the three best players in a good team performance?
As has already been discussed, the MOTM data tells us nothing about the absolute quality of any player's performance. All it can do is tell us how well they perform relative to their peers. This should hold true in a poor team performance, as much as a good one.
I also think it should be possible to come up with three names, no matter how poorly the team plays. Even when the whole team is shit, is it really any harder to identify the three least shit players than it is to identify the three best players in a good team performance?
As has already been discussed, the MOTM data tells us nothing about the absolute quality of any player's performance. All it can do is tell us how well they perform relative to their peers. This should hold true in a poor team performance, as much as a good one.
What about "No one"? I'm serious, if it's completeness that is wanted, just require that three names are listed. If someone lists 1 or 2 you can still ignore them for not sticking to the rules/skewing results.
But then Stretch can choose to list "Nani - No one - No one" which means Nani gets 3 and the rest get nowt. Being the only one to show up should count for something.
I very rarely, if ever, vote on these but I distinctly remember watching the game and thinking only Nani and -at a stretch- Fletcher deserved anything.
So how does "no one" do when it comes to adding up player of the month/season, it's the exact same issue, say 3rd highest votes go to "no one", they would get 1 point for the match, putting them into the player of the month/season lists, totally distorting it.
This becomes especially an issue should they put 1 player, "no one" ends up with as many votes off said person as the sinle voted for, where is the line drawn as to who didn't enter votes going to "no one" as they clearly thought no players were worthy of the votes.
if you want to vote in MOTM threads try watching the match with an eye to who might get your votes. simples.
Yeah I guess I just assumed there would always be at least 3 players with votes.
I'm not bothered either way, the current data is very good.
Pogue is spot on.
You get that ad in Canada too?
The point is that the system is set up to record the MotM in a certain way and is has to be that way at least until the end of the season.
Unless a way can be figured out to do it in a different way, then that's the way it has to stay.
At the end of the day, you can't criticise people who give their time freely unless they are patently doing a bad job, which Phelan isn't doing and if people keep criticising then he might just say 'feck if your'e so clever do it yourself' and then we'd have nothing.
Keep up the good work and maybe look at possible tweaks for next season to make it easier to compile the data.
I was arguing in favour of the status quo.
three votes, it isn't hard to come up with; if you can't, then don't vote.
I was arguing in favour of the status quo.
three votes, it isn't hard to come up with; if you can't, then don't vote.
I meant the 'simples' thing...
These annoying lot...
This has nothing to do with this thread btw...
Phelans mate, I'm not having a go at you. Let that be clear. Like Colins368429 said, its tireless job. I was thinking of opening this up to debate to see if we can come up with something better and also for the rest of us to have a better appreciation of why it is done that way.
I think Pogue has best explained it and I'm well satisfied with that answer but I don't think it would hurt to revisit this topic before next season kicks off. Lets see if we can improve the system but not give PS and GD extra work.
Thanks for the discussion boys and thanks phelans for explaining the system to me.
Next modmin to roll through this here valley can lock the thread
I think Pogue has best explained it and I'm well satisfied with that answer but I don't think it would hurt to revisit this topic before next season kicks off. Lets see if we can improve the system but not give PS and GD extra work.
Thanks for the discussion boys and thanks phelans for explaining the system to me.
Next modmin to roll through this here valley can lock the thread
- Status