-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Leigh Matthews Trophy: the respect or the disrespect of your peers?
- Thread starter Chewy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Calm down Kojak, I'll explain it to you.
Mr Lizard said:
That's no point at all, you're ignoring the fact that more than 200 players didn't vote (including 12 Hawks players). My figures examine the trend and as such we're only considering the votes that were recorded. They're not misleading at all once you understand them, see?
My figures assume that there isn't some malicious conspiracy and that the 200+ players that didn't vote didn't vote for some more plausible reason then intentionally disrespecting the nominated players. You're not really interested in what my figures show though, you'd rather highlight that there were Cats players that didn't vote amongst the over 200 players from different clubs that, also, didn't vote, without having any idea why they didn't vote.
Selwood got a lot of votes from Brisbane and West Coast too 
- Mar 15, 2006
- 8,419
- 6,557
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I'm calm, and I have a full head of hair.
Your 'figures' said 58.5% of Geelong players voted for Harvey and Franklin, which is clearly not the case.
And you said I was trying to mislead people.
Comprehension not your strong suit, Jim Boy?
14 players on Geelongs list did not play in the AFL this year. Are they they best people to be offering their opinion on who is the leagues MVP? Maybe they don't even watch many games and their votes would be going on reputation rather than personal opinion.
Is it possible that becuase he is the brother of one of their team mates they pay closer attention to him and his form?
Selwood got a lot of votes from Brisbane and West Coast too
Is it possible that becuase he is the brother of one of their team mates they pay closer attention to him and his form?
I think we all agree the system is flawed - for many, this has been the "real" award and it has come as a shock to find these flaws shown up so publicly.
Based on a normal distribution accross all clubs, you had Ablett winning by about 60-80 votes. (4-5 votes per team), rather than the 300 he did win by - is he Ponting to Franklin's Tendulkar, or is he Bradman? I'd certainly lean towards the former.
Instead there were 3 'unusual' voting structures. Although I still haven't seen it, some posters are talking about the number of Cats (and AFL) players who didn't vote, so those numbers must be somewhere.
Whilst my previous comments and statistical interpretations were based on the assumption of 100% voting (as indicated in the first press release and comments on presentation broadcast) - if next year was to be the same issue (Franklin v Ablett) - what's to stop Hawthorn virtually 'abstaining' from the vote?
I think the disappointment that this award has been 'devalued' so much will result in the Coaches Award being pumped up more in future - apparently this has allready been awarded - but I completely missed that one.
How could this be fixed? What I'd like to see is a 'drop-off' voting system. All (600+) players can be voted for, all players MUST vote. The top 50 stay, the rest drop off. Everyone votes again. Top 2 stay. Everyone (except those of competing players' clubs) vote again. Winner announced. What do others think?
Based on a normal distribution accross all clubs, you had Ablett winning by about 60-80 votes. (4-5 votes per team), rather than the 300 he did win by - is he Ponting to Franklin's Tendulkar, or is he Bradman? I'd certainly lean towards the former.
Instead there were 3 'unusual' voting structures. Although I still haven't seen it, some posters are talking about the number of Cats (and AFL) players who didn't vote, so those numbers must be somewhere.
Whilst my previous comments and statistical interpretations were based on the assumption of 100% voting (as indicated in the first press release and comments on presentation broadcast) - if next year was to be the same issue (Franklin v Ablett) - what's to stop Hawthorn virtually 'abstaining' from the vote?
I think the disappointment that this award has been 'devalued' so much will result in the Coaches Award being pumped up more in future - apparently this has allready been awarded - but I completely missed that one.
How could this be fixed? What I'd like to see is a 'drop-off' voting system. All (600+) players can be voted for, all players MUST vote. The top 50 stay, the rest drop off. Everyone votes again. Top 2 stay. Everyone (except those of competing players' clubs) vote again. Winner announced. What do others think?
Ablett won the coaches award this year as well. Can't wait to see all the Hawthorn supporters bitch about that award now.
http://afl.mollyzine.com/2008/09/02/breaking-news-afl-coaches-association-player-of-the-year-is/
BN, I don't recall ANY Hawthorn supporters complaining about Ablett winning, in fact many have explicitly stated the correct man won.
Is there anywhere with the full results?
Is there anywhere with the full results?
I put them in above.
Molly also posted the results last year, and is a regular on FootyHeads, which is Craig Hutchisons website.
Exactly what I was about to post.
Perhaps the GFC players 'value' different things?
As for the rest, it's hardly surprising that a thread like this originates from the Hawks side of the fence. They certainly know how to whip themselves up in a frenzy... Next week, it'll be about the AA squad. Hold on to your hats.
Is that value to do with coming from a small town or collusion in an attempt to alter an outcome?
- Jun 4, 2007
- 951
- 77
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
LOL, we're all assuming they're smart enough to know how to vote. "Oooh Buddy's number 1, so I'll vote 1"
Like leadership, performances on the big stage, bringing the most value to their team, being a team player, hard worker etc.
So, nah, probably none of your reasons.
BTW, I assume you live in Hawthorn and all your players are from there as well? Otherwise, the 'small town' thing kind've doesn't work.
- Mar 15, 2006
- 8,419
- 6,557
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Comprehension not your strong suit either?
Have a look at the results and you will see Geelong players voted for Franklin more than anyone else.
That's only the top 5 (unless I'm missing something, that's a terrible layout on that website.
I'm calm, and I have a full head of hair.
Your 'figures' said 58.5% of Geelong players voted for Harvey and Franklin, which is clearly not the case.
And you said I was trying to mislead people.
Oh dear. Either that or you were being misled by your own analysis.
Rockford said:
Soooo... to break it down for you.
69 votes for Harvey and Franklin / 118 votes from Cats players = 58.5%
128 votes for Ablett and Harvey / 193 votes from Hawks players = 66.3%
Your continuing to try and smear the Cats' players and Leigh Matthews' award after it's been made clear that the Cats' votes that were recorded were inline with how the rest of the competition voted and having no knowledge whatsoever of why more than 200 players didn't votes smacks of your being a sore loser.
Yep, I don't have the full results but they are the ones that matter.
On the site lay out, I understand what your saying over summer might try to re-do it again. Design isn't my thing and time has been short.
- Apr 3, 2006
- 34,616
- 13,357
- AFL Club
- Geelong
And Rockford drives it home
catempire
Premium Platinum
I've heard worse ideas.
For starters you could just make it compulsory and see what happens.
You'll probably find that players vote in a pretty predictable way but the compulsory aspect makes sure that there's no 'opt-out' effect.
- Mar 15, 2006
- 8,419
- 6,557
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I think you must be a little stupid or something, Rockford. It doesn't matter about the percentages you are posting, what has been discussed in this thread is the lack of Geelong votes.
Your 'careful analysis' is largely redundant, as a cursory glance at the top five for each club (and allowing for the no-Ablett factor) shows that Geelong is the same as the rest of the comp in having Franklin and Harvey 1 and 2. But, as I've said repeatedly (which you seem to be not grasping for some reason), the point being discussed is the lack of Geelong votes. This was not "inline with how the rest of the competition voted" at all. I'm not sure where you get your figure of "more than 200 players didn't vote" (perhaps you could put up a link to this site?) but this figure is the one you want to use in any percentage you are calculating.
Of all the players who didn't vote in the AFLPA MVP award (or voted informally), what percentage of these were Geelong players?
It's no smear campaign either, I'm just looking at the results and trying to work them out. You are very defensive and tell me "it has been made clear, blah blah 60% bling bling blah" but you have failed to adequately address the issue.
And Rockford drives it home
Heath Shaw tried to do that too.
So now we're agreeing that the Cats players that did vote, did so in line with the rest of the competition. Accusing people of being stupid is often done when you don't understand what's going on, don't worry, I won't take it personally, let me explain why I presented the percentages. I broke down the figures in response to your listing the total number of votes received for the two available nominees from each of involved clubs:
Mr Lizard said:
and implying that those totals were indicative of the Cats not voting as per the rest of the competition. So as you've now stated the only issue is that there were Cats players that didn't vote.
The suggestion made by Hawthorn supporters was that Cats players didn't vote out of some malicious intent to stop Buddy getting votes. I'd like to see the evidence of this, given that you've stated it isn't just a smear campaign. I'd like to see more "evidence" presented too then the argument, look at the numbers, the fact that they didn't vote shows you. It shows nothing other than, for reasons unknown to you or to anyone else, that Cats players along with over 200 other players didn't vote.
Mr Lizard said:
I've used the total number of votes on the first page to determine that there were more than 200 players that didn't vote. Add them up, let me know if you come to a different conclusion.
- Mar 15, 2006
- 8,419
- 6,557
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
They are. They indicate that (quite probably) the Cats voted approximately half as much as the rest of the competition. More accurate would be to compare the total number of votes from each club, but I don't have those figures and I'm not sure anyone in the public ever will. Maybe ask Brendan Gale, he would know.
Carlton and Collingwood, for some reason, were out of line with how the rest of the competition gave their votes to the top three. Geelong, for some reason, were out of line with the rest of the competition with how many votes they had in total in their top five. I've never suggested differently, and I don't recall making any grand or emotive statements as to what those reasons might be.
All I've said is that the lack of votes in Geelong's top five indicates either an orchestrated spreading of votes to other players outside the top five (unlikely) or a far greater lack of Geelong player's recording votes than from other clubs (very likely). And that by doing so (whichever it was and for whatever reasons), they have devalued Ablett's win somewhat.
I'm 98% confident an impartial, objective observer would come to very similar conclusions to mine, it isn't exactly hadron collisions we are analysing here.
And all I've been trying to get at is that it doesn't indicate this at all. This is an assumption you've made.
The votes displayed weren't just for the top 5, they were the votes recorded. If you look at the votes on the front page you'll see there's a top 6 for the Cats, top 7 for the Hawks, some teams have 8 players listed. Your conclusion that it is "very likely" that there were Geelong players that didn't vote because there were less votes recorded by Geelong is pure genius.
Mr Lizard said:
Nope. I'd agree with you if you could provide some evidence as to why the Cats players didn't vote, or any of the other 200 players that also didn't vote. Until you do, there could have been a multitude of reasons as to why players didn't or weren't able to vote.
Mr Lizard said:
Not sure I can agree with you on that one either. Analysis is generally done by analysing the data presented and forming a conclusion (or not forming one depending on what information is available), not by establishing your agenda and then finding ways that the numbers support it. An impartial, objective observer would tell you that they can't magically deduce why players didn't vote based on the number of players that did vote.
Similar threads
