Jim Park Medal 2016 March 22, 2016, 01:09:17 pm With Round 1 just a few days away, I commend you to this thread. The Jim Park Medal is our humble best and fairest award, given to the player who polls the most over the 2016 season.Each week any member can vote once (nobody has tried to vote twice during my tenure as administrator of this award).Each person voting has 15 votes to award, as ever he or she sees fit. Many people use a 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 system, which is easy on the administrator (Me! ). However, you can assign votes pretty much as you wish. I often use half votes.As long as the votes add up to 15, there are few worries.There are 2 small restrictions: no player may be awarded more than 10 votes in any one game. There must be at least 3 players mentioned. That is not usually an effort.Each game is also given a rating, A+ to F-. This allows me to take the team's performance into account and not penalize players. This is because it is usual to have more players deserve votes when we play well. If you do not rate the team, a default value of 'B' will be awarded.Please consider voting if you see the game, either in TV or live. The more voters we have, the more representative the award really is. Look for the voting threads; they will appear either shortly before or shortly after the game. This thread will be where I summarize the week's results and keep you abreast of how things are going.If we had more people being able to see VFL games I would like to run a similar award for the NB's. However, that is not looking viable. Not enough people getting to the game regularly enough. If there is enough interest, I can do this. But at present it is merely a nice idea.
Re: Jim Park Medal 2016 Reply #1 – March 22, 2016, 03:36:44 pm Crash, you do a great job with this, however, I have never understood how you can really split a vote in half? It doesn't make any sense. If 15 votes isn't enough, then give everybody 20 or 30 votes, but 1/2 votes?
Re: Jim Park Medal 2016 Reply #2 – March 22, 2016, 08:35:44 pm I guess it comes from being a Maths teacher: if the number is real I'm willing to use. I haven't managed imaginary votes yet, but there were times last year when I was tempted.I guess other things is that I do try to mention most guys who are worth a consideration. A bad habit, but one I'm stuck with.PS: 'i' is an imaginary number = square root of -1. It doesn't exist, as such, but it can have some surprising real world applications in quantum theory and electronics.Yes, I am weird.
Re: Jim Park Medal 2016 Reply #3 – March 22, 2016, 11:20:42 pm Last year, there were plenty of imaginary performances worthy of imaginary votes
Re: Jim Park Medal 2016 Reply #4 – March 23, 2016, 01:12:14 pm Indeed. Especially before the change of coach.
Re: Jim Park Medal 2016 Reply #5 – March 28, 2016, 02:07:31 pm Yes, it is only Monday, but voters out there have been up and at it since Thursday evening. And there have been plenty of votes so far.As I am a bit early, vote if you haven't. I will adjust things as necessary. (It is a school holiday and I can afford to be generous this time.)At this point, there have been 26 voters: the most we have had for some time. The voters were also quite happy about the performance, although there was considerable discussion about how high to rate a loss. In the end the rating was 8.6: better than a C+, but not quite a B-.That suggests the voters felt positively towards a team that put a new game plan into action pretty well, but not quite well enough to win the points.I look forward to beating the Tiggers on our next meeting.Updated on Friday 1st April:Thank you to all of you who voted. We ended up with 29 voters, the most we've had in a couple of years.The rating ended up at 8.55, minimally down on Monday's effort. Still, it was between a C+ and a B-, which suggests that we were reasonably happy in most respects, except that we lost. It would have been nice to win. The Votes:365 - Murphy, Marc 263 - Cripps, Patrick 224 - Gibbs, Bryce 102 - Docherty, Sam 72 - Simpson, Kade 70 - Wright, Matthew59 - Weitering, Jacob 31 - Graham, Nick 30 - Kreuzer, Matthew22 - Kerrdige, Sam 19 - Phillips, Andrew 9 - Curnow, Edward 6 - Boekhorst, Blaine 6 - Casboult, Levi 3 - Walker, Andrew 2 - Rowe, Sam 2 - Tuohy, Zach The voting public appear pleased with Weitering, and I am not surprised. he managed 17 possessions and consistently out-marked his opponents.Gibbs, Murphy and Cripps grabbed most of the votes, as they had most of the possessions. Wright's 3 goals managed to get him a fair bit of notice, but Kerridge's votes probably show that he did tire late in the game. Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 01:05:22 pm by crashlander
Re: Jim Park Medal 2016 Reply #6 – April 08, 2016, 08:24:30 am Round 2: Carlton vs. SydneyNot quite the result we were looking for. Nichevo: we played a good team at the top of their game.Naturally, with a disappointing loss there were less voters and they were a lot less happy. However, we did rate the effort considerably better than we did this time last year.The rating value was 6.79, a clear D-. There were 22 voters this week, also up from this time last year. Thank you to all who voted.The voting patterns this week were interesting, and showed considerable difference in opinion about a number of players. Fair enough. That is why we have the system we have: a simple 3-2-1 system does not allow us to adequately reward players who made a reasonable contribution.Alas, I didn't see a single moment of the game, either live or on TV. I hate that.The Votes:Thomas, Dale 234Curnow, Edward 154Docherty, Sam 130Kerrdige, Sam 111Wright, Matthew 108Weitering, Jacob 83Simpson, Kade 40Cripps, Patrick 34Jamison, Michael 28Gibbs, Bryce 22Murphy, Marc 19Graham, Nick 19Kreuzer, Matthew 12Boekhorst, Blaine 12Tuohy, Zach 6Casboult, Levi 3Curnow, Charles 3Charlie Curnow managed his first votes, a minor contribution, but everyone has to start somewhere and the voting public were impressed enough to recognize his effort.A number of our prime movers, Gibbs, Murphy, Graham, Kreuzer and Cripps, were down considerably this week.On the other hand, Daisy Thomas managed his best effort in our colours this round. Considering that I thought he should start in the NBs, results have demonstrated that I am a true Jon Snow; I know nothing.Sam Kerridge and Matthew Wright continue to justify their recruitment with solid performances, while Jacob Weitering showed for a 2nd time that we made an excellent choice.Overall:383 - Murphy, Marc (0)297 - Cripps, Patrick (0)246 - Gibbs, Bryce (0)235 - Thomas, Dale (0)232 - Docherty, Sam (0)178 - Wright, Matthew (0)163 - Curnow, Edward (0)142 - Weitering, Jacob (0)133 - Kerrdige, Sam (0)112 - Simpson, Kade (0)49 - Graham, Nick (0)42 - Kreuzer, Matthew (0)28 - Jamison, Michael (0)19 - Boekhorst, Blaine (0)19 - Phillips, Andrew (0)9 - Casboult, Levi (0)8 - Tuohy, Zach (0)8 - Rowe, Sam (0)3 - Curnow, Charles (0)3 - Walker, Andrew (0)Murphy still leads after his performance in Round 1, with Cripps following closely behind. Unlike last year, we have 10 players who have made the 100 mark, with 3 of them being recruits to the club.
Re: Jim Park Medal 2016 Reply #7 – April 08, 2016, 11:14:42 am Quote from: crashlander on April 08, 2016, 08:24:30 amThe Votes:Thomas, Dale 234Curnow, Edward 154Docherty, Sam 130Kerrdige, Sam 111Wright, Matthew 108Weitering, Jacob 83Simpson, Kade 40Cripps, Patrick 34Jamison, Michael 28Gibbs, Bryce 22Murphy, Marc 19Graham, Nick 19Kreuzer, Matthew 12Boekhorst, Blaine 12Tuohy, Zach 6Casboult, Levi 3Curnow, Charles 3The Jim Park medal just took a major credibility hit.
Re: Jim Park Medal 2016 Reply #8 – April 08, 2016, 09:22:33 pm Quote from: madbluboy on April 08, 2016, 11:14:42 amThe Jim Park medal just took a major credibility hit.You mean the folk who post here don't know everything there is to know about footy There are always anomalies with Jim Park voting but, at the end of the season, the tallies will be pretty close to other awards - except the Brownlow!
Re: Jim Park Medal 2016 Reply #9 – April 09, 2016, 11:41:36 am Quote from: DJC on April 08, 2016, 09:22:33 pmYou mean the folk who post here don't know everything there is to know about footy There are always anomalies with Jim Park voting but, at the end of the season, the tallies will be pretty close to other awards - except the Brownlow! Indeed. With many people with considerably different views as to how things may go, a considerable variability in the voting is not just an effect, but quite a positive. We usually mention all of the players who deserve to be mentioned. Sometimes that isn't a lot of guys, sometimes it can be a significant portion of the team.In the end, we usually have a pretty good guide to how players have performed. There is considerable correspondence between our votes and Carlton's B&F.Compared to the Brownlow, we don't do that well, as Brownlow voting is extremely limited in the number of players who can get a mention each week (only 3). As a result, players from losing teams generally get poor representation, no matter how well they have played. The other thing is that Brownlow voting is done by the umpires. From their position in the game, they cannot but bias their views towards midfielders: these are the guys they see most and who often get the ball more.I wouldn't change the Brownlow - it has its strengths and weaknesses, but it is a very individual award. But I do consider our sort of voting to be a very good way of determining the best players at our club.
Re: Jim Park Medal 2016 Reply #10 – April 09, 2016, 03:09:09 pm We lost by 10 goals, how is it a positive that most of our side got votes? The sysem should work in theory but it completely failed this week.
Re: Jim Park Medal 2016 Reply #11 – April 09, 2016, 06:14:41 pm Quote from: madbluboy on April 09, 2016, 03:09:09 pmWe lost by 10 goals, how is it a positive that most of our side got votes? The sysem should work in theory but it completely failed this week.Yes, some folk will never give Gibbs a vote and some folk will give votes to their favourite players no matter how poorly they play. Watching the game on TV shows some players in a better light too. People have different voting systems too - I always have five players but some like to spread their votes around. In a shellacking like we suffered, voting for lots of players will inevitably mean that players who had little impact, C Curnow, Casboult, etc, will get votes.It's what happens in a 'free market' voting system but it doesn't mean that the final tally isn't a good measure of our best players.
Re: Jim Park Medal 2016 Reply #12 – April 15, 2016, 11:59:15 am Round 3: Carlton vs Gold Coast in QueenslandIn many ways this was our most disappointing performance for 2016 so far: we expected Sydney to be good and we really were better than Richmond, although we didn't eventually prevail. As a result, the natives were more restless; a totally expected response.As the number of votes demonstrates, many of our better players underachieved. Hence they got few, if any, mentions.The rating for this game was 6.43, the lowest for the year, closest to an E+ ranking.The votes:Weitering, Jacob 367Curnow, Edward 228Docherty, Sam 158Cripps, Patrick 56Wright, Matthew 51Simpson, Kade 32Curnow, Charles 21Gibbs, Bryce 13Byrne, Ciaran 9Kerrdige, Sam 7Graham, Nick 5Buckley, Dylan 5Whiley, Mark 3Murphy, Marc 1Jacob Weitering announced himself with his 3rd vote-worthy performance in 3 weeks. He was clearly our best player and fitted into our style of play, with his skill, decision making and endeavour extremely well.Ed Curnow, not in a negative role, was clearly 2nd. Docherty also managed his 3rd vote - worthy game in a row.That Charlie Curnow managed more votes than Murphy, Gibbs, and most of our other experienced players was telling.Overall voting so far:509 - Weitering, Jacob (0)391 - Curnow, Edward (0)390 - Docherty, Sam (0)385 - Murphy, Marc (0)353 - Cripps, Patrick (0)259 - Gibbs, Bryce (0)235 - Thomas, Dale (0)229 - Wright, Matthew (0)144 - Simpson, Kade (0)140 - Kerrdige, Sam (0)55 - Graham, Nick (0)42 - Kreuzer, Matthew (0)28 - Jamison, Michael (0)25 - Curnow, Charles (0)19 - Boekhorst, Blaine (0)19 - Phillips, Andrew (0)10 - Byrne, Ciaran (0)9 - Casboult, Levi (0)8 - Tuohy, Zach (0)8 - Rowe, Sam (0)6 - Buckley, Dylan (0)3 - Whiley, Mark (0)3 - Walker, Andrew (0)Weitering is a clear leader at this point. There is little difference in the next 4 placings.
Re: Jim Park Medal 2016 Reply #13 – April 21, 2016, 09:44:21 pm I won't close off the voting thread until tomorrow; someone might have some late thoughts. However, I will do this now while I have the time.Round 4: Carlton vs Western Bulldogs at EtihadA very patchy performance from the Blues, with one disastrous term and the others being spoilt only by our inability to kick goals. I guess we expected The Dogs to win, but there were some promising signs.We had considerably more people vote this round than at the same time last year. Last year we were in despair, with Malthouse unable to manage to get to be competitive. This year we may not be happy (after all, we are still losing), but we look like we have a future (which hopefully will not disappear as we look for it). Anyway, voter number are up about 40%.Looking at the numbers, we still haven't had many players really dominate a game. In the coaches voting only one of our guys got a mention. However, first gamers (for us) in Plowman and Sumner both managed to get votes. Our experienced campaigners, on the other hand, continued NOT to get votes. The rating for this game came out at 7.16, between a D and a D+. Probably a reasonable result, considering our 2nd term.The Votes:Docherty, Sam 303Simpson, Kade 218Cripps, Patrick 148Weitering, Jacob 84Plowman, Lachlan 77Kerrdige, Sam 51Curnow, Edward 48Curnow, Charles 32Sumner, Liam 32Wright, Matthew 27Phillips, Andrew 22Rowe, Sam 10Thomas, Dale 7Byrne, Ciaran 7Casboult, Levi 3Lamb, Jed 3Our BOG was Sam Docherty, who has been consistent this season. He has managed votes in all 4 games so far. However, his 303 votes is not especially high for a guy who was clearly our best player. It suggests, quite reasonably, that we didn't have anyone who dominated the game.Simmo and Cripps were clearly in 2nd and 3rd spots respectively.Weitering also continues to poll very well for such a young player.Of this week's vote getters, 8 of them (50%) are new to the club this year and another, Byrne, was playing only his 3rd ever game. That says a few things:[1] Our experienced players are not going so well at this time. A worry, as we need these guys if we are going to make any inroads on 18th place.[2] Our recruiting appears, at this early stage, to have been effective. A large number of new players are regularly getting games and making worthwhile contributions. Kudos to Stephen Silvagni and his team.Overall:693 - Docherty, Sam (0)592 - Weitering, Jacob (0)502 - Cripps, Patrick (0)439 - Curnow, Edward (0)385 - Murphy, Marc (0)362 - Simpson, Kade (0)259 - Gibbs, Bryce (0)256 - Wright, Matthew (0)242 - Thomas, Dale (0)191 - Kerrdige, Sam (0)77 - Plowman, Lachlan (0)57 - Curnow, Charles (0)55 - Graham, Nick (0)42 - Phillips, Andrew (0)42 - Kreuzer, Matthew (0)33 - Sumner, Liam (0)28 - Jamison, Michael (0)19 - Boekhorst, Blaine (0)18 - Rowe, Sam (0)17 - Byrne, Ciaran (0)15 - Tuohy, Zach (0)13 - Casboult, Levi (0)6 - Buckley, Dylan (0)4 - Lamb, Jed (0)3 - Whiley, Mark (0)3 - Walker, Andrew (0)Things are pretty close at the top, with a lot of guys getting reasonable vote numbers. Weitering fell to 2nd spot this week, behind another extremely consistent player in Docherty, with Cripps and Curnow not far behind.
Re: Jim Park Medal 2016 Reply #14 – April 29, 2016, 10:16:45 am I don't know about the rest of you, but a win does marvellous things to my Brain Chemistry. Dopamine flows nicely between my neurons and the weight of the world lifts from my shoulders. Even though I could only follow on the 'net, instead of experiencing the high first hand, it was worth it.Mind you, we still need to learn to kick goals. But a win is a win is a WIN!To be honest, the win didn't bring out as many voters as I expected. I guess with the game on in Perth and not being on free to air TV, it meant that a minimum of Carlton supporters could actually watch and enjoy it. So be it. There were more voters this round than last round and they were happier: 23 voters this week compared to 20 last week and 15 this round last year.The ranking this week was 8.72, the best for the year. That relates to an average B-. Considering how many goals we missed, that was probably pretty accurate. The votes were also well spread around this week, suggesting we didn't have one dominant player, but a lot of players who played well. We actually had as many guys get named this week as we did last time, quite a surprise when they results were so different.The Votes:Murphy, Marc 283Cripps, Patrick 262Simpson, Kade 165Byrne, Ciaran 121Gibbs, Bryce 89Rowe, Sam 87Thomas, Dale 82Curnow, Edward 70Wright, Matthew 68Kerridge, Sam 46Docherty, Sam 15Casboult, Levi 11Lamb, Jed 4Jones, Liam 4Kreuzer, Matthew 2Nice to see Rowe in the voting this week. Aso Daisy Thomas. Wright, Kerridge and Docherty continued their consistent form. Weitering missed out this week, for the first time. He didn't play badly and he did his job: he just didn't get huge numbers.Overall:763 - Cripps, Patrick (0)708 - Docherty, Sam (0)667 - Murphy, Marc (0)592 - Weitering, Jacob (0)527 - Simpson, Kade (0)509 - Curnow, Edward (0)348 - Gibbs, Bryce (0)325 - Wright, Matthew (0)323 - Thomas, Dale (0)237 - Kerridge, Sam (0)138 - Byrne, Ciaran (0)105 - Rowe, Sam (0)77 - Plowman, Lachlan (0)57 - Curnow, Charles (0)55 - Graham, Nick (0)44 - Kreuzer, Matthew (0)42 - Phillips, Andrew (0)33 - Sumner, Liam (0)28 - Jamison, Michael (0)24 - Casboult, Levi (0)19 - Boekhorst, Blaine (0)15 - Tuohy, Zach (0)8 - Lamb, Jed (0)6 - Buckley, Dylan (0)4 - Jones, Liam (0)3 - Whiley, Mark (0)3 - Walker, Andrew (0)We have a new leader, but it is very close up at the top end.
Topic: Jim Park Medal 2016 (Read 20144 times)
previous topic - next topic
Topic: Jim Park Medal 2016 (Read 20144 times)
previous topic - next topic