Prediction Michael Barlow

[DD#23]

3 is not setting the bar low. 3 means that the majority of the coaches thought that the player "played his role, beat his man". In other words, they were happy with the job the player did. In terms of school grades, it's a C. Anything less than 3 votes is a fail.

we're going to have to seek clarification on the voting scheme, but four or five coaches rate a players game from 0-5 I believe and those numbers added together become the votes. So three is not a pass. When Mackay polls 3 the BOG is getting 15+ more often than not. Three probably means at least one coach thinks he would have been better off staying at home.

http://www.afc.com.au/news/2016-09-23/club-champion-every-vote-

 

[mattymac]

They're in Albuquerque, New Mexico (where Bugs Bunny should have taken a left turn) and with an elevation of 4954 feet it is one of the top 10 cities in the US for high altitude training according to this link.

https://www.outsideonline.com/1926461/top-10-towns-high-altitude-running

CEY latched on to Kerridge or VB or one of those fanatics last preseason didn't he? Love his hunger. He was easily AFL standard when rewarded under Walsh. I just don't understand the stupid games this club lets be played sometimes

 

[MRB37]

CEY latched on to Kerridge or VB or one of those fanatics last preseason didn't he? Love his hunger. He was easily AFL standard when rewarded under Walsh. I just don't understand the stupid games this club lets be played sometimes

Kerridge in the 2015 pre-season I believe. Not sure about last pre-season though.

 

[mattymac]

Far out we need a decent football boss stopping all the bullshit nepotism and just making sure we are focused on being the most competitive football team we can be.

 

[Vader]

Not sure that a 3 means the coaches were 'happy'. Maybe a satisfactory?

It means that 3 of 5 (i.e. a majority) thought that the player "played his role, beat his man".

 

[Vader]

we're going to have to seek clarification on the voting scheme, but four or five coaches rate a players game from 0-5 I believe and those numbers added together become the votes. So three is not a pass. When Mackay polls 3 the BOG is getting 15+ more often than not. Three probably means at least one coach thinks he would have been better off staying at home.

http://www.afc.com.au/news/2016-09-23/club-champion-every-vote-

You don't understand how it works.

If a coach isn't satisfied with a player's performance they give them 0. Giving them any votes at all means that they think the player "played his role, beat his man". If a majority of the coaches (i.e. 3 out of 5) think that a player has met that criteria, then that's a pass.

If you want to put it in terms of school grades:
0 = Fail
1 = C
2 = B-
3 = B+
4 = A-
5 = A+

There are definitely degrees of excellence, but a (collective) "3" is definitely a pass.

 

[fabs33]

No I have learn't with this site keep it simple.
You constantly look for answers that are not there, You like a few others are quick to Blame everyone else at the club but the player, Some even harp on how good he was in 2015 which to be Honest he was not that good, And even his stat highlight his weakness,
If I am parrot so be it but sometime it takes a repeated answer to get a message across, He was not good enough to get a spot in the team early 2016. He may not even be good enough to earn a place best 22 in 2017. That up to him.

Campo has been with us since 2010 and Clarke since 2008, and you think I'm being quick to judge them? If you're going to accuse me of that then perhaps I should accuse you of being one of those supporters who will always have faith in the coaching staff's methods regardless of the amount of times they've been proven inadequate. It would certainly explain your fondness for repetition.

 

[Vader]

CEY latched on to Kerridge or VB or one of those fanatics last preseason didn't he? Love his hunger. He was easily AFL standard when rewarded under Walsh. I just don't understand the stupid games this club lets be played sometimes

You don't understand the concept of selecting the best available players? I would have thought that it was a fairly simple concept to grasp.

You might not agree with the selectors when it comes to deciding who the best players are. That's understandable - the coaches/selectors clearly use different criteria to the average mug punter in the stands.

They don't play "stupid games", they just don't agree with you as to who the best players are.

 

[Huntercrow]

Lyons proved that he was good enough to be a fringe player, just like Wright & co before him. He didn't prove that we'd been leaving a gun player in the sheds.. just that he was capable of stepping up to the plate when we needed to replace one fringe player with another.

Let's face it, there are good reasons why Adelaide were happy to trade him (and actively encouraged it), receiving fairly limited picks in return (#43 & #67). If they thought he was a gun player, not just a fringe dwellar, then they would have retained him or pushed for a lot more in the trade.

Vader did you tip last year that he would improve if given a chance?
Could it be you are wrong again about him?....So far he is one up on you.

 

[DD#23]

You don't understand how it works.

If a coach isn't satisfied with a player's performance they give them 0. Giving them any votes at all means that they think the player "played his role, beat his man". If a majority of the coaches (i.e. 3 out of 5) think that a player has met that criteria, then that's a pass.

If you want to put it in terms of school grades:
0 = Fail
1 = C
2 = B-
3 = B+
4 = A-
5 = A+

There are definitely degrees of excellence, but a (collective) "3" is definitely a pass.

this sounds just like school grading actually, you just lower the bar until an acceptable number of students are able to pass.

over 150 games to his name and he ranked 22nd at the club for votes per game. You really think that's acceptable? That he's really gone out and earnt 19 games this year?

 

[Vader]

Vader did you tip last year that he would improve if given a chance?
Could it be you are wrong again about him?....So far he is one up on you.

Lyons didn't show anything in 2016 that he hadn't shown before. He went into 2016 as a fringe player, and he finished 2016 the same way.

 

[Vader]

this sounds just like school grading actually, you just lower the bar until an acceptable number of students are able to pass.

over 150 games to his name and he ranked 22nd at the club for votes per game. You really think that's acceptable? That he's really gone out and earnt 19 games this year?

You're the one who is shifting the goal posts. I've used 3-votes as the "pass" mark for a long time.

Yes, I do think he was good enough to hold his position in the team for those 19 games - particularly given that the alternatives were Henderson, Grigg & CEY. Might have been different if Knight hadn't been MIA (injured) for most of the season.

 

[MRB37]

You don't understand how it works.

If a coach isn't satisfied with a player's performance they give them 0. Giving them any votes at all means that they think the player "played his role, beat his man". If a majority of the coaches (i.e. 3 out of 5) think that a player has met that criteria, then that's a pass.

If you want to put it in terms of school grades:
0 = Fail
1 = C
2 = B-
3 = B+
4 = A-
5 = A+

There are definitely degrees of excellence, but a (collective) "3" is definitely a pass.

The SANFL votiing at least had the following

State League Club Champion Voting Protocol
1 vote – Played his role. Solid game without significant influence on the game.
2 votes – Played his role well and influenced the game.
3 votes – Played his very well with significant influence on the game.
4 votes – Played his role outstandingly and dominated the game.

So I guess you could easily use that as a guide to guess the AFL votes.

 

[Drewie11]

Does anyone know where I can find the Barlow thread?

 

[1970crow]

I'd put money on it if he comes here it's on a 3 year deal with no conditions. Hopefully if that's the cost we walk away like we did Gibbs.

3 years even at $350k can be paid $600k, $300k & $150k. If he turns to shot at the end of year 2, we can just delist him and pay him out.

 

[mattymac]

You don't understand the concept of selecting the best available players? I would have thought that it was a fairly simple concept to grasp.

You might not agree with the selectors when it comes to deciding who the best players are. That's understandable - the coaches/selectors clearly use different criteria to the average mug punter in the stands.

They don't play "stupid games", they just don't agree with you as to who the best players are.

Vades mate defending our selectors makes you look silly. Taking walking frame Thommo and hobbling Jenkins into the business end of the season. ..they're a pack of idiots.

"Best available" as a rigid doctrine is a fool's game. There are times, like since 2 years ago when we said 2017 would be our window, that you need to stop playing for the day, stop eating hand to mouth, and plan for the future. Like someone with a plan who knows what they are doing.

 

[Vader]

The SANFL votiing at least had the following

State League Club Champion Voting Protocol
1 vote – Played his role. Solid game without significant influence on the game.
2 votes – Played his role well and influenced the game.
3 votes – Played his very well with significant influence on the game.
4 votes – Played his role outstandingly and dominated the game.

So I guess you could easily use that as a guide to guess the AFL votes.

There's no guessing. The protocol is as follows:

Club Champion Voting Protocol
1 vote – Played his role. Beat his man.
2 votes – Played his role. Beat his man – added to our team offence or defence.
3 votes – Played his role. Beat his man – added to both our team offence and defence.
4 votes – Major contributor. Dominated either offensively or defensively.
5 votes – Best on ground performance – elite impact on game.
http://www.afc.com.au/news/2015-09-26/dangerfield-wins-malcolm-blight-medal

Hence my quoting of "played his role, beat his man".

 

[Vader]

Vades mate defending our selectors makes you look silly. Taking walking frame Thommo and hobbling Jenkins into the business end of the season. ..they're a pack of idiots.

"Best available" as a rigid doctrine is a fool's game. There are times, like since 2 years ago when we said 2017 would be our window, that you need to stop playing for the day, stop eating hand to mouth, and plan for the future. Like someone with a plan who knows what they are doing.

Argue about their judgement all you like - I agree that JJ was a liability because of his injury. I have no problems with you disagreeing with the decisions they made.

But you can't argue that they were playing "stupid games", or that they have ever been inconsistent with the way they have executed the club's selection policy.

 

[mattymac]

Argue about their judgement all you like - I agree that JJ was a liability because of his injury. I have no problems with you disagreeing with the decisions they made.

But you can't argue that they were playing "stupid games", or that they have ever been inconsistent with the way they have executed the club's selection policy.

Speak to you when you're sober

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

You don't understand how it works.

If a coach isn't satisfied with a player's performance they give them 0. Giving them any votes at all means that they think the player "played his role, beat his man". If a majority of the coaches (i.e. 3 out of 5) think that a player has met that criteria, then that's a pass.

If you want to put it in terms of school grades:
0 = Fail
1 = C
2 = B-
3 = B+
4 = A-
5 = A+

There are definitely degrees of excellence, but a (collective) "3" is definitely a pass.

You're probably right that a 3 is technically pass mark, but for 150+ game player and one of our 'senior' midfielders, it's pretty low bar to set. Players of his experience should be getting 5+ votes a game as a minimum.

Btw they changed the number of votes to 4 from 5 this year.

 

[Thetrader15]

Does anyone know where I can find the Barlow thread?

There is a mistake in the thread title. it's the lowbar thread - how low is the b&f voting which justifies 400k's position in the team

 

[DD#23]

You're the one who is shifting the goal posts. I've used 3-votes as the "pass" mark for a long time.

Yes, I do think he was good enough to hold his position in the team for those 19 games - particularly given that the alternatives were Henderson, Grigg & CEY. Might have been different if Knight hadn't been MIA (injured) for most of the season.

3 votes is scraping in by the skin of your teeth, surely its not too much to ask for the equivalent of a unanimous decision from the coaches, 5 votes.

theoretically if every player "played his role, beat his man" the squad would poll at least 66 votes between them and we ought to win right? Everyone beats their man, you surely win the game right?

the coaches handed out 142 votes for the second showdown and we barely got a win out of it. They handed out 67 votes for the semi-final and we got absolutely smashed. They handed out 195 in our Round 4 win against the Swans.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions but in my eyes calling 3 votes a pass is a shockingly low standard.

 

[Vader]

You're probably right that a 3 is technically pass mark, but for 150+ game player and one of our 'senior' midfielders, it's pretty low bar to set. Players of his experience should be getting 5+ votes a game as a minimum.

Mackay averaged 6.2 per game

Not one player on our entire list - not even Sloane - got 5+ votes in every game they played.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

3 years even at $350k can be paid $600k, $300k & $150k. If he turns to shot at the end of year 2, we can just delist him and pay him out.

Or we put a trigger for a 3rd year.

Perform well & 3rd year is triggered.

 

[Vader]

3 votes is scraping in by the skin of your teeth, surely its not too much to ask for the equivalent of a unanimous decision from the coaches, 5 votes.

theoretically if every player "played his role, beat his man" the squad would poll at least 66 votes between them and we ought to win right? Everyone beats their man, you surely win the game right?

the coaches handed out 142 votes for the second showdown and we barely got a win out of it. They handed out 67 votes for the semi-final and we got absolutely smashed. They handed out 195 in our Round 4 win against the Swans.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions but in my eyes calling 3 votes a pass is a shockingly low standard.

Fine.. let's take 5 as the pass mark. I don't agree with it, but I'll work with it for now...

Mackay - R2 (13 votes), R3 (6), R4 (5), R6 (11), R12 (7), R14 (9), R19 (9), R20 (7), R21 (9), R22 (6), EF (11)
** Did not play R8-11 due to injury, R18 dropped

That's 11 of 19 games where he got 5+ votes. He averaged 6.2 votes per game - which is a pass by your criteria.