2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

[crashlander]

I give more 0.5 votes and combos than anyone else. It is the way I can mix around the votes and still mention those who deserve mentioning.
Similarly, I tend to give a lot of guys votes: I am trying to reward players who deserve a mention but who miss out because they don't get 40 possessions each week. Especially our defenders who may not get much of the ball at all, but who dominate their opponents. And when we lose there are often a number of players who deserve something.

[kruddler]

I don't think i voted at all last year, but have voted heavily previously.

I like the system, including the 1/2 votes.

As crash says, it allows you to spread the votes around to more players when it is deserving.

[maxm68]

I voted in all but 2 or 3 games last year and will try and do the same again.  I voted 54321 each time..

just my opinion but I think it would make more sense if everyone voted the same way ?  ie 321 or 54321 or whatever the majority thinks

[Amers]

I don't think i voted at all last year, but have voted heavily previously.

I like the system, including the 1/2 votes.

As crash says, it allows you to spread the votes around to more players when it is deserving.

Split 15 votes in half and you could have a maximum of 30 half votes. There are only 22 players on the team, that (in my humble opinion) is simply ridiculous.

It's a competition, only 1 person will win in the end (although it is interesting and entertaining to see who places in the top 10), not every player needs or deserves a participation ribbon for every game played. 

Across all voters any players that deserves a vote will normally get a mention.

[kruddler]

Split 15 votes in half and you could have a maximum of 30 half votes. There are only 22 players on the team, that (in my humble opinion) is simply ridiculous.

It's a competition, only 1 person will win in the end (although it is interesting and entertaining to see who places in the top 10), not every player needs or deserves a participation ribbon for every game played. 

Across all voters any players that deserves a vote will normally get a mention.

What would you do under this scenario.

Casboult kicks 12 goals.
Murphy and Cripps both have 30 touches and kick 2 goals.
Nobody else really stands out.

10 Casboult
2.5 Murphy
2.5 Cripps

You could argue
9 Casboult
3 Murphy
3 Cripps

...but Casboult had a 'perfect' game, so why rob him of a vote? It'd be unfair to split Cripps and Murphy as their output is identical.


Of course there is a million permutations that could go on, this is just a simplistic example to prove a point.

[Amers]

No one ever has identical games, even if the stats do say so, I would find a way to split them some how...

Chances are someone else would split them the other way and they come out even anyway!!

Or what if you were employed by someone to vote in a 5,4,3,2,1 format on the game scenario you provided? Do you quit the job or do you find a way to vote the in way you are required?

[Amers]

Edit.

[kruddler]

No one ever has identical games, even if the stats do say so, I would find a way to split them some how...

Chances are someone else would split them the other way and they come out even anyway!!

Or what if you were employed by someone to vote in a 5,4,3,2,1 format on the game scenario you provided? Do you quit the job or do you find a way to vote the in way you are required?

Well if they're split one way by you, and another way by someone else, i have no choice but to give them the same.

Personally what i do is i work out who i want to give votes too first, then i work out how had the better games...and how much better they were than someone else. I adjust the votes to fit all the players i want in there. Sometimes 3, sometimes 10.

[Thryleon]

It was easier when Judd was in full flight.  I found myself writing Judd and giving him most of the votes he was that good and that much better than the next guy.

[crashlander]

OK, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to look at Round #1!

Carlton vs Richmond at the MCG on a Thursday night.

Votes:
Cripps, Patrick 382
Curnow, Charles 245
Simpson, Kade 238
Marchbank, Caleb 151
Wright, Matthew 139
Fisher, Zac 34
Thomas, Dale 22
Curnow, Edward 21
Kreuzer, Matthew 19
Murphy, Marc 14
Garlett, Jarrod 5
Petrevski - Seton, Sam 5

That is 12 players who deserved a mention for creditable performances in a loss. We shoud and must see positive things in this result.

Progressive Votes:
382 - Cripps, Patrick (0)
245 - Curnow, Charles (0)
238 - Simpson, Kade (0)
151 - Marchbank, Caleb (0)
149 - Wright, Matthew (0)
35 - Fisher, Zac (0)
23 - Thomas, Dale (0)
21 - Curnow, Edward (0)
19 - Kreuzer, Matthew (0)
14 - Murphy, Marc (0)
5 - Garlett, Jarrod (0)
5 - Petrevski - Seton, Sam (0)

25 voters this time, up from 24 this time last year.
Cripps was easy rated as our best.
Simpson's game in this round was one of his best: his judgement was excellent and he turned it over rarely. That compares poorly to his Round #2 effort, where his judgement was ordinary and his turnovers were numerous.
Kreuzer probably didn't get the votes he could have got, as his injury had a considerable influence on the game. From that point on Nankervis got into the game and Richmond's midfield started getting clearances.
The rating for this game 8.56, which is between a C+ and B-, a rare event indeed for a game we did not win.