MVP Voting with a Twist !!

[David the Cat]

Greetings to Cat Board posters

After collating the MVP voting for the Pies game I breathed a sigh of relief realising I had a week off from publishing the votes!

I thought I would go back to Round 1 and applyi only 3, 2, 1 of the votes as per the Brownlow and see if it changed the voting horizon at the half way stage of the season.

So....at the halfway mark the following lead the votes when based on the 3,2,1 basis.

Guthrie 12.........BOG x 3
Selwood 11.......BOG x 3
Parfitt 8............BOG x 1
Stewart 8..........BOG x 1
Duncan 6..........BOG x 1
Hawkins 4.........BOG x 1
Tuohy 3
Henry 3
Henderson 3
Cameron 3.........BOG x 1
O'Connor 2
Rohan 2
Narkle 2
Stanley 1


So Guthrie leads in both at this stage, but I found the result under the different regime of 3,2,1 voting only, very interesting.

Perhaps you did too?


Then again, maybe I need to broaden my horizons.....

 

[catempire]

FWIW I think this way is better. We tend to get way more votes after a win and it skews things somewhat.

 

[Seeds]

interesting the parfitt is higher than Duncan. And Selwood nearly the leader.


Mark Blicavs 0 votes.

what’s going on there?

 

[cats_09]

interesting the parfitt is higher than Duncan. And Selwood nearly the leader.


Mark Blicavs 0 votes.

what’s going on there?

Not that surprised to see Selwood right up at the top - he's been really good this season, and a few steps above his last couple of years

As for Parfitt vs Duncan... Parfitt has played the 10 games so far versus Duncan with just 7.5, so more opportunities to accumulate votes

 

[David the Cat]

interesting the parfitt is higher than Duncan. And Selwood nearly the leader.


Mark Blicavs 0 votes.

what’s going on there?

He's got votes....just not top 3.....but I get your point.

No Menegola stood out for me.

 

[Seeds]

He's got votes....just not top 3.....but I get your point.

No Menegola stood out for me.

Yes that’s what I meant. No top 3 votes.

agree on menegola. Seems a bit like he got his big contract last year and has relaxed a bit on his laurels. Isnt the player he was last year and doesn’t seem to be suffering an injury either. Needs to lift.

 

[Seeds]

FWIW I think this way is better. We tend to get way more votes after a win and it skews things somewhat.

But isn’t that skewing a good thing because the players tend to play better in a win so we should weight those games more than loses?

 

[catempire]

But isn’t that skewing a good thing because the players tend to play better in a win so we should weight those games more than loses?

I don’t think the relativities are right. A player might get 10x the votes in a win than a loss and that’s not reflective of the discrepancy in performance or impact.

 

[Seeds]

I don’t think the relativities are right. A player might get 10x the votes in a win than a loss and that’s not reflective of the discrepancy in performance or impact.

Agree that sort of weight is over the top. Perhaps we need to develop some sort of scale to apply to the votes that still positively weights votes higher in good games but doesn’t result in silly weights like that one. We could even weight big wins more then small wins and small loses better then big loses. we could even weight based off the quality of opponent.

 

[Cursed Cat]

FWIW I think this way is better. We tend to get way more votes after a win and it skews things somewhat.

agree with that.

 

[David the Cat]

Agree that sort of weight is over the top. Perhaps we need to develop some sort of scale to apply to the votes that still positively weights votes higher in good games but doesn’t result in silly weights like that one. We could even weight big wins more then small wins and small loses better then big loses. we could even weight based off the quality of opponent.

Great...happy to hand over the recording of votes, collating the votes, applying the correct weighting, establishing big wins, little losses, big losses, little wins criteria.....and while we're at it, weight votes given so midfielders dont have an unfair advantage.

Yep...sounds like fun....let me know when you want to take over....

 

[Seeds]

Great...happy to hand over the recording of votes, collating the votes, applying the correct weighting, establishing big wins, little losses, big losses, little wins criteria.....and while we're at it, weight votes given so midfielders dont have an unfair advantage.

Yep...sounds like fun....let me know when you want to take over....

the 5 ordinal votes is also a bit constraining. Maybe we could also say voters have 15 votes to give out and they must choose atleast 3 players to give those votes to in order they want but could also choose up to 10 players to give those votes to. So in one week I might give narkle 10 votes and 4 to stewart and 1 to Blicavs (Narkles had 45 disposals and 3 goals in this example). Then the next week I might give 4 votes to narkle, 3 to stewart, 3 to Blicavs, 2 Stanley, 2 Henderson, 1 Cameron.

we could also do an ordinal top 10. Along with the ordinal top 3 and top 5.

then apply 4 different weighting systems to each voting system to come up with 16 outcomes. Then we take the average result of the 16 outcomes to determine the final overall winner.