Competitions Lock and Load Comp - III (2020)

Joined
8 Oct 2018
Messages
10,255
Likes
36,913
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Was trying to work out the adjusted "total" scores for each team this morning ... will give it another shot next week ...

- a touch more complicated than initially thought ... need a very "clear" head and a few more complicated formulae .. might not be worth the effort !!
 

Diabolical

Leadership Group
Joined
17 Jun 2014
Messages
9,617
Likes
37,713
AFL Club
Essendon
I’m not liking the look of the weekly ladder so far!
@Tails I am not sure if adding in Melbourne & Essendon averages is the way to go given some of those players may not play when the game actually happens? Particularly if it is a lot of effort. A simpler solution might be to just add a column that says how many players from those two teams each person has - that could give an idea of which teams might have more points coming.
 
Joined
30 Jun 2012
Messages
4,731
Likes
9,085
AFL Club
Brisbane
Was just wondering if you could add another column or two with the ESS / MEL player averages that still have an extra game to play ... totally understand the effort etc this requires but might provide a "more accurate" synopsis of ladder positions ... just a thought ...
Yeah - ok - I have plonked a separate grey table in back at the update that would indicate what this table would look like if Mel v Ess had average player scores allocated. Is this what you're after?

IDIG and Beijing_Sting would seemingly benefit the most.
 
Joined
30 Jun 2012
Messages
4,731
Likes
9,085
AFL Club
Brisbane
Here is round 5's Table!

Subject to checking of course.


1593946040580.png
And if you want, here's what the table might look like if Melbourne and Essendon Round 3 missing scores were replaced with average scores from the players concerned. Zagbag pushed out of the 5 and Herbie a loooong way back.

1593946071070.png
 
Joined
22 Oct 2014
Messages
7,882
Likes
41,731
AFL Club
North Melb.
Joined
25 Jul 2012
Messages
47,728
Likes
107,810
AFL Club
Collingwood
Here is round 5's Table!

Subject to checking of course.


View attachment 18519
And if you want, here's what the table might look like if Melbourne and Essendon Round 3 missing scores were replaced with average scores from the players concerned. Zagbag pushed out of the 5 and Herbie a loooong way back.

View attachment 18520
They might not even play when the game is on so why use averages ?

Nah just joking it's your comp do what you have to do , I think my team peaked too early.
 
Joined
22 Oct 2014
Messages
7,882
Likes
41,731
AFL Club
North Melb.
Here is round 5's Table!

Subject to checking of course.


View attachment 18519
And if you want, here's what the table might look like if Melbourne and Essendon Round 3 missing scores were replaced with average scores from the players concerned. Zagbag pushed out of the 5 and Herbie a loooong way back.

View attachment 18520
Scores checked and confirmed (but then of course I would say that this week wouldn't I;)). Note I haven't checked the grey table.
 
Joined
22 Oct 2014
Messages
7,882
Likes
41,731
AFL Club
North Melb.
Maximum score achievable so far is 6857 which compares to the current leading score of 5865.

View attachment 18594

Apologies but I have realised I made an error in this calculation. I had inadvertently included the constraint that limited the number of scores that can count from each position to the conventional 6, 8 2 and 6; however that does not apply in this comp. I don't believe I had made that error in the earlier runs.

The adjusted perfect team for this format is as follows. Interesting that it still includes no less than 7 non-playing cheapies who's scores are yet to be required. This is not that different to the round 4 team however they have all now become the $102.4k cheapies which suggests they will probably start to reduce in the coming weeks.

1594274897985.png
 
Last edited:
Joined
30 Jun 2012
Messages
4,731
Likes
9,085
AFL Club
Brisbane
Apologies but I have realised I made an error in this calculation. I had inadvertently included the constraint that limited the number of scores that can count from each position to the conventional 6, 8 2 and 6; however that does not apply in this comp. I don't believe I had made that error in the earlier runs.

The adjusted perfect team for this format is as follows. Interesting that it still includes no less than 7 non-playing cheapies who's scores are yet to be required. This is not that different to the round 4 team however they have all now become the $102.4k cheapies which suggests they will probably start to reduce in the coming weeks.

View attachment 18624
I think I have five of these players.
Docherty
Neale
Ridley
Taylor
Rowell
 
Top