Princes Park => Robert Heatley Stand => Topic started by: crashlander on February 13, 2026, 01:27:21 pm
Title: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: crashlander on February 13, 2026, 01:27:21 pm
With the season coming ever closer, it is time mull over what we want to do with our B&F award. I expect to have the time to deal with it again this year, so that isn't a problem. But I do wish to consider what we do with it, considering that we appear to be having fewer and fewer voters: [1] Do we want the same format that we've had? Personally, I like it, as it gives me an opportunity to award everyone who needs a mention, that just the best one of two. However, it is complicated (for some). [2] If we don't want to continue as it has been, what changes should we make?
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: PaulP on February 13, 2026, 01:51:36 pm
[1] 15 votes in total, no more, no less. [2] No more than 10 votes for any one player (even Sam Walsh or Patrick Cripps) [3] Three players at least must get a mention.
I find the format above, which has been in place for a while, to be somewhat restrictive. I'd like to be able to vote for an unlimited number of players for starters. We can see that this is a felt issue from a number of voters, because they often give HM or honorable mentions to players they can't fit into the format, which IMO is a backdoor way of giving them votes.
I'd also like restriction number 3 removed.
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: DJC on February 13, 2026, 03:07:57 pm
I have stuck with a 5,4,3,2,1 voting system for a few years now but I often find that I have two or three players vying for the last vote.
I'm happy to keep going as is but, if a change is needed, how about adopting the John Nicholls Medal voting system or similar. That is: A maximum of 20 votes per game. The votes awarded are shared among a maximum of eight players. Voters don't have to award all of their votes. The maximum votes any one player may receive is 10.
That system would put the kybosh on your preference to award votes to lots of players Crash but perhaps we could go to voting for a maximum of 10 players.
The extremes would be one or two players with 10 votes, 10 players with two votes each, one player with one vote, or no votes at all for a shocking loss.
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: LP on February 13, 2026, 03:28:11 pm
I can't see any reason to change, every system has a strength and weakness, and the grass is not always greener on the other side.
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: rocky on February 13, 2026, 03:32:09 pm
I'll do whatever you want Crash. Probably the one thread I enjoy the most
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: Gointocarlton on February 13, 2026, 06:41:48 pm
I'll do whatever you want Crash. Probably the one thread I enjoy the most
x 2 Crash
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: percy on February 18, 2026, 06:05:09 pm
I am happy with it as is Crash. No need to change unless you want to.
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: Blue Moon on February 19, 2026, 05:12:03 am
Very appreciative of your efforts.
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: Baggers on February 19, 2026, 07:53:29 am
I wouldn't change the format, Capt Crash. It's a format unique to this forum and is working well.
Huge appreciation to you for your efforts.
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: crashlander on February 19, 2026, 10:15:06 am
It looks like most people would prefer to keep things as they are. Fair enough. I can do that.
Voting will appear as normal.
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: crashlander on March 11, 2026, 11:35:58 am
AFL 2026 Rd 0: Carlton vs Sydney The first 2.4 quarters were good, but after that, it wasn't fun. :(
Trends: [1] There were 16 voters this round, which is the best we've had in over a year. A sign of things to come? Hopefully, we can keep these numbers up! Please do voteplease do vote, win, lose or draw: it is something we appreciate and it makes our statistics a lot more reliable. And our statistics hold up pretty well when it comes to John Nicholls Medal night!
[2] The rating was a 6.40, which represents a E+, shows how disappointed the voters were. Not the way we wanted to start the season.
[3]15 players managed a mention this week, which isn't that bad. These days, we often get 16+ for a decent win, but it does show that we were more than competitive for much of the game.
[4] The average vote this week was 21, which again shows the dissatisfaction with the result and the effort in the 3rd term.
[5]3 players managed 100 votes or more this week.
[6] Sam Walsh was BOG this round with 292 votes, followed by Marc Pittonet with 214 and Jagga Smith with 106. Considering the Pitto was actually beaten in the ruck, it sort of tells the tale. Excellent to see Jagga make an impression in his debut.
[7]Two player managed votes from everyone this week, Walsh and Pittonet. Jagga Smith missed from 1 voter.
[8] It was our youngsters who made probably the most important contribution this week, as our midfield mainstays generally had a poor game. Jagga came in 3rd, while Harry Dean came in 7th. Cooper Lord also made a contribution. Our experienced mids, like Cripps and Hewett, didn't have great games, and we missed their drive.
[9] This was a round where only Sam Walsh really stood out for 4 quarters. Others were good for periods, but no one aspect of our team could be considered clear winners.
Votes: Walsh, Sam 292 Pittonet, Marc 214 Smith, Jagga 106 Lord, Cooper 90 Weitering, Jacob 56 William, Zac 52 Dean, Harry 38 Ainsworth, Ben 34 Florent, Oliver 22 Hollands, Oliver 22 Hollands, Elijah 10 Kemp, Brodie 10 Hewett, George 8 Cripps, Patrick 4 Young, Lewis 2
Progressive Voting: Walsh, Sam 292 Pittonet, Marc 214 Smith, Jagga 106 Lord, Cooper 90 Weitering, Jacob 56 William, Zac 52 Dean, Harry 38 Ainsworth, Ben 34 Florent, Oliver 22 Hollands, Oliver 22 Hollands, Elijah 10 Kemp, Brodie 10 Hewett, George 8 Cripps, Patrick 4 Young, Lewis 2
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: Baggers on March 11, 2026, 12:25:50 pm
AFL 2026 Rd 0: Carlton vs Sydney The first 2.4 quarters were good, but after that, it wasn't fun. :(
Trends: [1] There were 16 voters this round, which is the best we've had in over a year. A sign of things to come? Hopefully, we can keep these numbers up! Please do voteplease do vote, win, lose or draw: it is something we appreciate and it makes our statistics a lot more reliable. And our statistics hold up pretty well when it comes to John Nicholls Medal night!
[2] The rating was a 6.40, which represents a E+, shows how disappointed the voters were. Not the way we wanted to start the season.
[3]15 players managed a mention this week, which isn't that bad. These days, we often get 16+ for a decent win, but it does show that we were more than competitive for much of the game.
[4] The average vote this week was 21, which again shows the dissatisfaction with the result and the effort in the 3rd term.
[5]3 players managed 100 votes or more this week.
[6] Sam Walsh was BOG this round with 292 votes, followed by Marc Pittonet with 214 and Jagga Smith with 106. Considering the Pitto was actually beaten in the ruck, it sort of tells the tale. Excellent to see Jagga make an impression in his debut.
[7]Two player managed votes from everyone this week, Walsh and Pittonet. Jagga Smith missed from 1 voter.
[8] It was our youngsters who made probably the most important contribution this week, as our midfield mainstays generally had a poor game. Jagga came in 3rd, while Harry Dean came in 7th. Cooper Lord also made a contribution. Our experienced mids, like Cripps and Hewett, didn't have great games, and we missed their drive.
[9] This was a round where only Sam Walsh really stood out for 4 quarters. Others were good for periods, but no one aspect of our team could be considered clear winners.
Votes: Walsh, Sam 292 Pittonet, Marc 214 Smith, Jagga 106 Lord, Cooper 90 Weitering, Jacob 56 William, Zac 52 Dean, Harry 38 Ainsworth, Ben 34 Florent, Oliver 22 Hollands, Oliver 22 Hollands, Elijah 10 Kemp, Brodie 10 Hewett, George 8 Cripps, Patrick 4 Young, Lewis 2
Progressive Voting: Walsh, Sam 292 Pittonet, Marc 214 Smith, Jagga 106 Lord, Cooper 90 Weitering, Jacob 56 William, Zac 52 Dean, Harry 38 Ainsworth, Ben 34 Florent, Oliver 22 Hollands, Oliver 22 Hollands, Elijah 10 Kemp, Brodie 10 Hewett, George 8 Cripps, Patrick 4 Young, Lewis 2
Mucho Apreciados for your work, Capt Crash.
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: crashlander on March 11, 2026, 02:09:57 pm
AFL 2026 Rd 0: Carlton vs Sydney The first 2.4 quarters were good, but after that, it wasn't fun. :(
Trends: [1] There were 16 voters this round, which is the best we've had in over a year. A sign of things to come? Hopefully, we can keep these numbers up! Please do voteplease do vote, win, lose or draw: it is something we appreciate and it makes our statistics a lot more reliable. And our statistics hold up pretty well when it comes to John Nicholls Medal night!
[2] The rating was a 6.40, which represents a E+, shows how disappointed the voters were. Not the way we wanted to start the season.
[3]15 players managed a mention this week, which isn't that bad. These days, we often get 16+ for a decent win, but it does show that we were more than competitive for much of the game.
[4] The average vote this week was 21, which again shows the dissatisfaction with the result and the effort in the 3rd term.
[5]3 players managed 100 votes or more this week.
[6] Sam Walsh was BOG this round with 292 votes, followed by Marc Pittonet with 214 and Jagga Smith with 106. Considering the Pitto was actually beaten in the ruck, it sort of tells the tale. Excellent to see Jagga make an impression in his debut.
[7]Two player managed votes from everyone this week, Walsh and Pittonet. Jagga Smith missed from 1 voter.
[8] It was our youngsters who made probably the most important contribution this week, as our midfield mainstays generally had a poor game. Jagga came in 3rd, while Harry Dean came in 7th. Cooper Lord also made a contribution. Our experienced mids, like Cripps and Hewett, didn't have great games, and we missed their drive.
[9] This was a round where only Sam Walsh really stood out for 4 quarters. Others were good for periods, but no one aspect of our team could be considered clear winners.
Votes: Walsh, Sam 292 Pittonet, Marc 214 Smith, Jagga 106 Lord, Cooper 90 Weitering, Jacob 56 William, Zac 52 Dean, Harry 38 Ainsworth, Ben 34 Florent, Oliver 22 Hollands, Oliver 22 Hollands, Elijah 10 Kemp, Brodie 10 Hewett, George 8 Cripps, Patrick 4 Young, Lewis 2
Progressive Voting: Walsh, Sam 292 Pittonet, Marc 214 Smith, Jagga 106 Lord, Cooper 90 Weitering, Jacob 56 William, Zac 52 Dean, Harry 38 Ainsworth, Ben 34 Florent, Oliver 22 Hollands, Oliver 22 Hollands, Elijah 10 Kemp, Brodie 10 Hewett, George 8 Cripps, Patrick 4 Young, Lewis 2
Mucho Apreciados for your work, Capt Crash.
No worries. But it was nice having more voters. So, please, keep voting! Hopefully the senior will make voting more of a pleasure than a pain!
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: crashlander on March 23, 2026, 10:42:54 am
AFL 2026 Rd 1: Carlton vs Richmond We won, but we kicking 1 goal after half time was problematic.
Trends: [1] There were 15 voters this round, after a similar showing in the previous round. This is much better than we managed last year. Please do voteplease do vote, win, lose or draw: it is something we appreciate and it makes our statistics a lot more reliable. And our statistics hold up pretty well when it comes to John Nicholls Medal night!
[2] The rating was a 7.69, which represents a C-, is a considerable improvement after last week, but still something that needs improving.
[3]13 players managed a mention this week, two less than last week. These days, we often get 16+ for a decent win, but this wasn't a decent win.
[4] The average vote this week was 25, which again shows significant dissatisfaction with the result and the effort after half time.
[5]3 players managed 100 votes or more this week. This is the same as last week, but the totals suggest our better players were more effective.
[6]Jagga Smith was BOG this round with 254 votes; congratulations, youngster! He was followed by Sam Walsh with 233 and Patrick Cripps with 187.
[7]One player managed votes from everyone this week, Jagga Smith. Walsh missed from 1 voter, while Cripps missed from 2.
[8] The distribution of votes this week suggested that we had a more rounded performance across the board, rather than only getting something from the youngsters. Our mids were particularly strong, with 3 of them being the best 3 players on the ground.
[9] Looking at the youngsters, Jagga Smith stood out. Matt Carroll was also significant.
Votes: Smith, Jagga 254 Walsh, Sam 233 Cripps, Patrick 187 Pittonet, Marc 92 Weitering, Jacob 77 Carroll, Matthew 69 William, Zac 56 Lord, Cooper 54 Hewett, George 44 McGovern, Mitchell 36 Florent, Oliver 31 McKay, Harrison 13 Hayward, Will 8
Progressive Voting: Walsh, Sam 526 Smith, Jagga 360 Pittonet, Marc 307 Patrick Cripps 192 Lord, Cooper 144 Weitering, Jacob 133 William, Zac 109 Matthew Carroll 70 Florent, Oliver 53 Hewett, George 52 Dean, Harry 38 Mitch McGovern 36 Ainsworth, Ben 34 Hollands, Oliver 22 Harry McKay 13 Hollands, Elijah 10 Kemp, Brodie 10 Will Hayward 8 Young, Lewis 2
Sam Walsh is the early leader, ahead of Jagga Smith. Pitto in 3rd says something.
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: kruddler on March 23, 2026, 01:42:58 pm
I wonder if TDK is 3rd in the saints count at this stage? Or even in the top 10!
:-[ :D
He probably will be, will get a pass because the rest of the team is more why they lost than him. Gawn did play better than him, but he put in a shift at least, just not one worth 1.8 million worth.
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: Lods on March 23, 2026, 04:08:02 pm
I had a look at the Saintsational voting for the games so far. Tom had the second most votes in the Collingwood game-45 under their system Nothing against Melbourne and only a handful against GWS to this stage, but they haven't finished voting yet.
But that first game gained him enough that he's probably in the top 4-5 at the moment on their voting. Hall, Sinclair and Wilkie are ahead of him, Windhager and NWM around the same
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: kruddler on March 23, 2026, 04:27:13 pm
I had a look at the Saintsational voting for the games so far. Tom had the second most votes in the Collingwood game-45 under their system Nothing against Melbourne and only a handful against GWS to this stage, but they haven't finished voting yet.
But that first game gained him enough that he's probably in the top 4-5 at the moment on their voting. Hall, Sinclair and Wilkie are ahead of him, Windhager and NWM around the same
So, basically 1 game gets you top 4-5 after 3 games?? Wow, they are worse than i thought.
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: Lods on March 23, 2026, 05:09:26 pm
I had a look at the Saintsational voting for the games so far. Tom had the second most votes in the Collingwood game-45 under their system Nothing against Melbourne and only a handful against GWS to this stage, but they haven't finished voting yet.
But that first game gained him enough that he's probably in the top 4-5 at the moment on their voting. Hall, Sinclair and Wilkie are ahead of him, Windhager and NWM around the same
So, basically 1 game gets you top 4-5 after 3 games?? Wow, they are worse than i thought.
It's a bit like percentage A big win in the first three rounds and a couple of close results, gives you an unrealistic percentage. As the year goes on and more games are played it evens itself out and it's the consistent performers who end up at the top.
Title: Re: Jim Park Award 2026
Post by: crashlander on April 02, 2026, 10:14:46 pm
AFL 2026 Rd 2: Carlton vs Melbourne I've left the voting thread open, as this is a short week. I'd rather not have to change things, but I will if necessary. I want more people voting, even in disasters like this one.
Trends: [1] There were 10 voters this round, which isn't too bad considering how poor we were after half time. Please do voteplease do vote, win, lose or draw: it is something we appreciate and it makes our statistics a lot more reliable. And our statistics hold up pretty well when it comes to John Nicholls Medal night!
[2] The rating was a 6.13, which represents a E+, shows juts how frustrated our voters are this week.
[3]15 players managed a mention this week, which is better than last week. But the size of the vote shows how few played 4 quarters.
[4] The average vote this week was 20, which again shows significant dissatisfaction with the result and the effort after half time.
[5]4 players managed 100 votes or more this week. This is the best for the year, but the size shows that our players weren't dominant for 4 quarters.
[6]Sam Walsh and Jacob Weitering were both BOG's this round with 175 votes. They were followed by Mitch McGovern with 163 and Elijah Hollands with 113.
[7]Three player managed votes from everyone this week, Walsh, McGovern and Weitering. Elijah Hollands missed from 1.
[8] The distribution of votes this week suggested that we had a rounded performance across the board; everyone fell off after half time.
[9] If there was a positive from this disaster, it was the significant contribution from our youngsters. Smith, Dean, Byrne and the Hollands brothers made contributions.
Votes: Walsh, Sam 175 Weitering, Jacob 175 McGovern, Mitchell 163 Hollands, Elijah 113 Young, Lewis 52 Hollands, Oliver 40 Cripps, Patrick 37 Smith, Jagga 34 Byrne, Talor 34 Ainsworth, Ben 31 Carroll, Matthew 28 Dean, Harry 12 Pittonet, Marc 9 William, Zac 9 McKay, Harrison 9
Progressive Voting: Walsh, Sam 700 Smith, Jagga 394 Pittonet, Marc 316 Weitering, Jacob 308 Patrick Cripps 228 Mitch McGovern 199 Lord, Cooper 144 Hollands, Elijah 124 William, Zac 118 Matthew Carroll 97 Ainsworth, Ben 65 Hollands. Ollie 62 Young, Lewis 55 Florent, Oliver 53 Hewett, George 52 Dean, Harry 51 Byrne, Talor 34 Harry McKay 23 Kemp, Brodie 10 Will Hayward 8
Sam Walsh is the early leader, ahead of Jagga Smith. Pitto in 3rd says something.