Jimmy Bartel

[MC Extra Dollop]

You're just playing with numbers now, for example even when Bartel was equal 10th, he was only 2 games off the leader.
When he was equal 9th, he was one game off the leader.

These are not substantial games played deficits.

WTF??

When he was equal 10th, nine players played more games than him (and had more opportunities to get B&F votes). Pretty easy concept, I would have thought.

 

[boncer34]

2006: Bartel equal 9th most games
2007: Bartel equal 10th most games
2012: Bartel equal 13th most games

2007-2012

Geelong played 147 games. Bartel played 140.

7 games in 6 years is hardly missing large portions. Which was what Hodgepodge was getting at.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Using that logic a champion player who finished 2nd or 3rd in the Brownlow many times should have won one as well. Fact is that doesn't always happen.

It doesn't happen in the Brownlow because that's the kind of award it is.

Was 2 until 2009. Geelong has so many they can chose from due to the evenness. Its funny how the players at the club joked about it even in 2007 when they were dominant. Shows you how seriously they took it as do other players like Jack Riewoldt who went off what the media said as their guide . Again Hodge was never goof enough to win one yet.

Jokes about the MVP and other anecdotes don't detract much from the awards accuracy in any given year.

Hodge hasn't won one but he came in 2nd in the MVP and also in the coaches' award, and there probably have been other placings but 2nd is his highest so far. Judd has won a couple and placed in others.

I guess using the All Australian Argument we can safely say that Matthews was inferior to Bartel as he has less Brownlows and less AAs.

The AA argument refers to the current system and the players who played under it. This isn't the Bay.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

2007-2012

Geelong played 147 games. Bartel played 140.

7 games in 6 years is hardly missing large portions. Which was what Hodgepodge was getting at.

Which would be a fantastic point if they awarded a single B&F for that entire period (and which Bartel would probably be the favourite to win).

 

[boncer34]

Which would be a fantastic point if they awarded a single B&F for that entire period (and which Bartel would probably be the favoured to win).

So only averaging a game a season out has handicapped Bartel's ability to win a B&F?

 

[Hodgepodge]

WTF??
When he was equal 10th, nine players played more games than him (and had more opportunities to get B&F votes). Pretty easy concept, I would have thought.

The point is that these are completely insignificant margins, and thus the total number of players within these margins is completely irrelevant.

1 game less is no excuse. Luke Hodge won the 2005 and 2010 BnFs playing one game less than the club's total games leader.
Chris Judd did it with a 3 game deficit in 2010 and a 1 game deficit in 2008.

The fact that Bartel hasn't won one with according to you, leading the games played in four of the last 8 years . . . is, I hate to have to say, an indictment on the bloke.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

So only averaging a game a season out has handicapped Bartel's ability to win a B&F?

Well, first of all, your numbers are wrong. Secondly, yes...it is more difficult to win a b&f award that is based on a pure aggregate of votes (as Geelong's was until 2011), when you play less games than the bloke who won it. Which part is confusing you?

 

[Hodgepodge]

Secondly, yes...it is more difficult to win a b&f award that is based on a pure aggregate of votes (as Geelong's was until 2011), when you play less games than the bloke who won it. Which part is confusing you?

In which case you claimed earlier that Bartel had an advantage in more than half your sample years since apprently the BnF is no longer a sample of aggregate votes.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

The fact that Bartel hasn't won one with according to you, leading the games played in four of the last 8 years . . . is, I hate to have to say, an indictment on the bloke.

You'll be glad to find that you're wrong again then, Podge.

 

[boncer34]

Well, first of all, your numbers are wrong. Secondly, yes...it is more difficult to win a b&f award that is based on a pure aggregate of votes (as Geelong's was until 2011), when you play less games than the bloke who won it. Which part is confusing you?

How am I wrong out of interest?

And I'm not knocking Bartel. I rate him as a player. But missing 1 or 2 games a season doesn't impact so greatly on a B&F to make it mission impossible. Quiet simply there have been better players then Jimmy win it. Which I have no idea why you consider that a knock on him.

 

[Hodgepodge]

You'll be glad to find that you're wrong again then, Podge.

I'm going by your numbers that Bartel played fewer games than the BnF winner in four of the 8 years in which case he has an advantage over the winner in half of those years.

 

[krisholio14]

Still with the B&F argument?

He never responded to my reply when I pointed this out on his Bartel is overrated thread on the bay, so let me go though it again.

Here are four HOF players who without any shadow of a doubt in my mind are champions of the game and among the finest I've seen pull on a boot.

Michael Tuck - 426 games - 0 B&F's.

Wayne Schimmelbusch - 306 games - 0 B&F's

And they were in successful teams.

A couple more....

Robbie Flower - 1 B&F - despite being clearly Melbourne's best player for over a decade. In the same period at Melbourne - Laurie Fowler - 3 B&F's.

Doug Hawkins - 1 B&F - again despite being clearly Footscray's best player for roughly the same Amount of time. In the same period at Footscray - Ian Dunstan 3 B&F's.

That's just off the top of my head too.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

In which case you claimed earlier that Bartel had an advantage in more than half your sample years since apprently the BnF is no longer a sample of aggregate votes.

Once, in 2009. The other time that he played more than the winner, the B&F took the best 21 games from each player, out of the possible 25 that the club played that year. Bartel played 24 (including one where he was stretchered off inside ten minutes), Enright played 23 and therefore wasn't as significantly affected by missing an extra game with the new system.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I'm going by your numbers that Bartel played fewer games than the BnF winner in four of the 8 years in which case he has an advantage over the winner in half of those years.

Unless, of course, he played the same number of games as the winner.

 

[romeoh]

HP if Bartel had been playing for Hawthorn in the 2011 prelim against the Pies, you would have made it to the GF.( where admittedly Geelong would have flogged you because he would have lined up with us again.)
Bartel would have performed in the big match and used his skills and smarts and work ethic and physical and mental strength to get a win. Hawks (and most other clubs) don't have anyone of his particular calibre and it has cost you.
Geelong has reaped the benefits of Jimmy's class = 3 flags in 5 years. Jealous or what hodgey podgey?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

How am I wrong out of interest?

Geelong didn't play 147 games between 2007-12. 25 each year from 2007-11 and 23 in 2012.

And I'm not knocking Bartel. I rate him as a player. But missing 1 or 2 games a season doesn't impact so greatly on a B&F to make it mission impossible. Quiet simply there have been better players then Jimmy win it. Which I have no idea why you consider that a knock on him.

It certainly doesn't help when you're talking about a team as dominant as Geelong was between 2007-10. It's just a worthless contribution by a Geelong hater/Bartel hater/attention seeker.

 

[krisholio14]

Geelong didn't play 147 games between 2007-12. 25 each year from 2007-11 and 23 in 2012.



It certainly doesn't help when you're talking about a team as dominant as Geelong was between 2007-10. It's just a worthless contribution by a Geelong hater/Bartel hater/attention seeker.

By my check that adds up to 148? (25 x 5) + (1 x 23)

 

[Hodgepodge]

Here are four HOF players who without any shadow of a doubt in my mind are champions of the game and among the finest I've seen pull on a boot.

Michael Tuck - 426 games - 0 B&F's.

Wayne Schimmelbusch - 306 games - 0 B&F's
.

No issue with Hawkins and Flower, they did win a BnF, so they don't fit this argument.

Schimmelbusch and Tuck both have outs, with Schimma having missed several games during his prime years and Tuck finishing 2nd in the BnF on 6 occasions playing alongside Leigh matthews who won the award 8 times.

Bartel really has no such excuse on either front. He has played 140 of the last 147 games and he has lost out to his club's current best player in the BnF only once.

Also remember that the criticism of Bartel isn't confined only to BnFs but the main reliable awards of player performance of the day. Which include BnFs, AA, MVPs and AFLCA awards, all of which Bartel has done poorly in.

Once, in 2009. The other time that he played more than the winner, the B&F took the best 21 games from each player, out of the possible 25 that the club played that year. Bartel played 24 (including one where he was stretchered off inside ten minutes), Enright played 23 and therefore wasn't as significantly affected by missing an extra game with the new system.

Right, he lead outright or shared the lead in four of those years. Where's the difficulty? Thats a very good record, and as mentioned earlier, since we're talking about the top 10 in 2001, Judd won with a 3 game deficit and Hodge won twice with a 1 game deficit. Bartel's record doesn't compare to that at all, since he's had an advantage in half the years you mentioned and still hasn't won one.

 

[krisholio14]

No issue with Hawkins and Flower, they did win a BnF, so they don't fit this argument.

Schimmelbusch and Tuck both have outs, with Schimma having missed several games during his prime years and Tuck finishing 2nd in the BnF on 6 occasions playing alongside Leigh matthews who won the award 8 times.

Bartel really has no such excuse on either front. He has played 140 of the last 147 games and he has lost out to his club's current best player in the BnF only once.

Also remember that the criticism of Bartel isn't confined only to BnFs but the main reliable awards of player performance of the day. Which include BnFs, AA, MVPs and AFLCA awards, all of which Bartel has done poorly in.

Flower and Hawkins do fit the argument, because while they won one, you would assume by their reputations that they would have won it nearly every year. And they didn't. And as I added, other lesser known players won multiple B&F's at both their clubs during the same period.

So going by the premise of you contention here that Bartel is overrated because he's never won a B&F, are Hawkins and Flower overrated because they only won one, while other players won several?

And what you're saying about Michael Tuck could be applied just as easily to Jimmy. He's finished in the B&F placegetters on multiple occasions in dominant teams behind players who will eventually end up alongside him in the Hall Of Fame.

 

[boncer34]

Geelong didn't play 147 games between 2007-12. 25 each year from 2007-11 and 23 in 2012.



It certainly doesn't help when you're talking about a team as dominant as Geelong was between 2007-10. It's just a worthless contribution by a Geelong hater/Bartel hater/attention seeker.

Ok 140 out of 148.

Takes his average from 1.16 games to 1.33 games per season he misses. My bad.

And I'm not a Geelong Hater/Bartel hater/attention seeker and I agree with his point on the topic.

 

[romeoh]

HP -why do we follow football?
Because it is the best game in the world.
We follow our team through thick and thin. But we all want to win the premiership. That is the thing we yearn for, the thing that makes all those hard years worthwhile ultimately. The flags bring the joy that stays with us forever.
So it follows that players who perform well in GF's. who are instrumental in their team winning premierships, define the true worth of a player. Bartel's worth can be measured by his contribution to the matches that count. All your other stuff - matters not really.
Why is this so hard for you to get?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Thats a very good record, and as mentioned earlier, since we're talking about the top 10 in 2001, Judd won with a 3 game deficit and Hodge won twice with a 1 game deficit.

The other thing they have in common is they were part of teams that were knocked out in the elimination final in those years (at best). The best players in mediocre teams.

This thread is about Jimmy Bartel, the only player to finish in the top six of Geelong's B&F for the past seven years (or even six of the seven).

 

[Scotland]

How am I wrong out of interest?

And I'm not knocking Bartel. I rate him as a player. But missing 1 or 2 games a season doesn't impact so greatly on a B&F to make it mission impossible. Quiet simply there have been better players then Jimmy win it. Which I have no idea why you consider that a knock on him.

I'm not really interested in the Bartel love/hate, but Nic Naitanui & Beau Waters played 22 & 20 games in 2012 respectively and made the All Australian team. Neither made the top 10 of the WC B&F.

The year prior LeCras, Darling & Kennedy all missed the top 10 playing 22, 23 & 23 games each.

It's very easy to finish outside the top few in certain club B&Fs by virtue of not playing every game.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Flower and Hawkins do fit the argument, because while they won one, you would assume by their reputations that they would have won it nearly every year.

It doesn't fit at all, there are plenty of champion players who don't win many BnFs, so they fit the mould regardless of errant assumptions.

So going by the premise of you contention here that Bartel is overrated because he's never won a B&F, are Hawkins and Flower overrated because they only won one, while other players won several?

No, because they have won BnFs and as such they completely fit the pattern that champion players will at least win one, all things being equal of course.

And what you're saying about Michael Tuck could be applied just as easily to Jimmy. .

Oh wow, no no no . . hehe, Jimmy Bartel's situation probably mirrors that of a Brisbane player in the late 90s/early 2000s who played in champion teams for a while.

Tuck's situation was entirely different, as he played his entire 20 year career in a dominant team that played in a Grand Final every 1.8 years in that time. He also played with Leigh Matthews who won the award 8 times. So Bartel hasn't been in that situation at all, with all due respect to Geelong's current dynasty.

 

[Hodgepodge]

I'm not really interested in the Bartel love/hate, but Nic Naitanui & Beau Waters played 22 & 20 games in 2012 respectively and made the All Australian team. Neither made the top 10 of the WC B&F.

That's nothing surprising, certain specialist positions such as 2nd ruckman or forward pocket don't do particularly well in BnF voting but are given a place in the AA side simply because they are the best in the league at that particular position.