News Questions over rising star voting

[threenewpadlocks]

I'm still adamant that Taylor wasn't a worthy winner.

Taylor might have played 6 more games but if you take his 6 worst games of the season they were so ineffectual that they were completely negligible.. Then compare the 16 games that Bonts played to Taylor and Bonts just absolutely dominates.

Although you can use a multitude of ways to quantify their games one way, Champion Data ranking points/SC points is just an example.

Bont/Taylor - SC points descending from best game to worst game.

139 120
129 101
111 83
105 80
97 78
91 74
91 71
85 70
68 70
63 68
59 66
58 64
58 60
47 57
42 55
14 55
55
47
45
43
37
6

As you can see Bont simply dominated more games (ie was in, say the best 20 or so players on the field) by having 8 games with 85+ points. Taylor only "dominated" 2 games with 85+ points, and the fact that he played 6 more games is pointless because half of those games he did practically nothing with point scores in the 40's (we're talking like 12 touch games and maybe a goal at best).

To look at it another way if you apply points per game at how they played and dominated games, you'll see Bont comes well on top.

100+ SC points ie dominated game = 1.3 total points
85-99 ie a very good contributor= 1 point
70-84 ie a good solid game = 0.7 points.
60-69 ie did a little = 0.4 points
45-59 ie minimal impact on the game = 0.2 points
0-45 ie played but had no impact = 0.1 points

Bont = 11.1 points
Taylor = 10.5 points.

And that's me looking at it unbiased, because I could have easily weighted a 100+ game more, or cut off a "good solid game" earlier than 70 points ( a 70-75 point supercoach game isn't great) of which Taylor has 4 of his 7 good solid games in that low 70-75 games. For example if you just simply look at 75+ point games, it's Bont 8 games vs 5 to Taylor, and that isn't an arbitrary cutoff because Bont has no games from 75-84. If you made the cutoff 85 Bont has 8 games to 2.

So in other words Bont was robbed and the voting is biased.

 

[Flags_In_The_Bag]

Doesn't really matter imo, liked him to win it before it was won, now I've def moved on as I know what player id rather have.

 

[Yojimbo]

I'm still adamant that Taylor wasn't a worthy winner.

Taylor might have played 6 more games but if you take his 6 worst games of the season they were so ineffectual that they were completely negligible.. Then compare the 16 games that Bonts played to Taylor and Bonts just absolutely dominates.

Although you can use a multitude of ways to quantify their games one way, Champion Data ranking points/SC points is just an example.

Bont/Taylor - SC points descending from best game to worst game.

139 120
129 101
111 83
105 80
97 78
91 74
91 71
85 70
68 70
63 68
59 66
58 64
58 60
47 57
42 55
14 55
55
47
45
43
37
6

As you can see Bont simply dominated more games (ie was in, say the best 20 or so players on the field) by having 8 games with 85+ points. Taylor only "dominated" 2 games with 85+ points, and the fact that he played 6 more games is pointless because half of those games he did practically nothing with point scores in the 40's (we're talking like 12 touch games and maybe a goal at best).

To look at it another way if you apply points per game at how they played and dominated games, you'll see Bont comes well on top.

100+ SC points ie dominated game = 1.3 total points
85-99 ie a very good contributor= 1 point
70-84 ie a good solid game = 0.7 points.
60-69 ie did a little = 0.4 points
45-59 ie minimal impact on the game = 0.2 points
0-45 ie played but had no impact = 0.1 points

Bont = 11.1 points
Taylor = 10.5 points.

And that's me looking at it unbiased, because I could have easily weighted a 100+ game more, or cut off a "good solid game" earlier than 70 points ( a 70-75 point supercoach game isn't great) of which Taylor has 4 of his 7 good solid games in that low 70-75 games. For example if you just simply look at 75+ point games, it's Bont 8 games vs 5 to Taylor, and that isn't an arbitrary cutoff because Bont has no games from 75-84. If you made the cutoff 85 Bont has 8 games to 2.

So in other words Bont was robbed and the voting is biased.

128, 118, 111, 90, 88, 82, 79, 75, 74, 66, 63, 60, 56, 56, 54, 53, 47,
37, 12. These are the supercoach scores of Tom Langdon from the
Magpies, poor Tom Langdon only received 5 votes yes 5 votes
despite taking the sixteenth most intercept marks in the AFL as a
first year player. What did Marcus or Lewis finish sixteenth in, well
Lewis was 6th in the Brisbane B&f (not strong though). So in
conclusion Tom Langdon was robbed.

 

[Bulldog1954]

Taylor won because there was a media build up about how it should be closer then the odds suggested. It was taken to far and the second best player won. But really who cares - not one genuine non lions fan with any real football knowledge would take Taylor over Bonts long term

 

[black pup]

I'm still adamant that Taylor wasn't a worthy winner.

Taylor might have played 6 more games but if you take his 6 worst games of the season they were so ineffectual that they were completely negligible.. Then compare the 16 games that Bonts played to Taylor and Bonts just absolutely dominates.

Although you can use a multitude of ways to quantify their games one way, Champion Data ranking points/SC points is just an example.

Bont/Taylor - SC points descending from best game to worst game.

139 120
129 101
111 83
105 80
97 78
91 74
91 71
85 70
68 70
63 68
59 66
58 64
58 60
47 57
42 55
14 55
55
47
45
43
37
6

As you can see Bont simply dominated more games (ie was in, say the best 20 or so players on the field) by having 8 games with 85+ points. Taylor only "dominated" 2 games with 85+ points, and the fact that he played 6 more games is pointless because half of those games he did practically nothing with point scores in the 40's (we're talking like 12 touch games and maybe a goal at best).

To look at it another way if you apply points per game at how they played and dominated games, you'll see Bont comes well on top.

100+ SC points ie dominated game = 1.3 total points
85-99 ie a very good contributor= 1 point
70-84 ie a good solid game = 0.7 points.
60-69 ie did a little = 0.4 points
45-59 ie minimal impact on the game = 0.2 points
0-45 ie played but had no impact = 0.1 points

Bont = 11.1 points
Taylor = 10.5 points.

And that's me looking at it unbiased, because I could have easily weighted a 100+ game more, or cut off a "good solid game" earlier than 70 points ( a 70-75 point supercoach game isn't great) of which Taylor has 4 of his 7 good solid games in that low 70-75 games. For example if you just simply look at 75+ point games, it's Bont 8 games vs 5 to Taylor, and that isn't an arbitrary cutoff because Bont has no games from 75-84. If you made the cutoff 85 Bont has 8 games to 2.

So in other words Bont was robbed and the voting is biased.

That is why the questions are being asked, to much money involved, Kingy in a very good position to gain information, as I said earlier must have been a decent payout $, bookies do not complain unless they are hurt financially.
Notice article in Age today questioning AFL ability to run licence gambling, concerning betting on raising star, could cost AFL millions. This is no joking matter, this is not about who anyone thinks should have one. This whole affair is a concern, has a very bad Odour to it.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

128, 118, 111, 90, 88, 82, 79, 75, 74, 66, 63, 60, 56, 56, 54, 53, 47,
37, 12. These are the supercoach scores of Tom Langdon from the
Magpies, poor Tom Langdon only received 5 votes yes 5 votes
despite taking the sixteenth most intercept marks in the AFL as a
first year player. What did Marcus or Lewis finish sixteenth in, well
Lewis was 6th in the Brisbane B&f (not strong though). So in
conclusion Tom Langdon was robbed.

I had Tom Langdon in my 5. Langdon's problem though was that his best games were right at the beginning of the year and the voters seem to have memory loss.

 

[Yojimbo]

I had Tom Langdon in my 5. Langdon's problem though was that his best games were right at the beginning of the year and the voters seem to have memory loss.

You should have had Tom Langdon in your top five because using your
scoring system Langdon scored 11.1 remarkably similar to the score for
Bontempelli 11.1, but lets go to the votes Langdon 5 up against young
Bontempelli 38. Tom Langdon was simply used to illustrate a system in
need of an overhaul.

 

[immortalmike]

You should have had Tom Langdon in your top five because using your
scoring system Langdon scored 11.1 remarkably similar to the score for
Bontempelli 11.1, but lets go to the votes Langdon 5 up against young
Bontempelli 38. Tom Langdon was simply used to illustrate a system in
need of an overhaul.

It's almost as if you're saying that football is about more than stats...

 

[Mattdougie]

I'm still adamant that Taylor wasn't a worthy winner.

Taylor might have played 6 more games but if you take his 6 worst games of the season they were so ineffectual that they were completely negligible.. Then compare the 16 games that Bonts played to Taylor and Bonts just absolutely dominates.

Although you can use a multitude of ways to quantify their games one way, Champion Data ranking points/SC points is just an example.

Bont/Taylor - SC points descending from best game to worst game.

139 120
129 101
111 83
105 80
97 78
91 74
91 71
85 70
68 70
63 68
59 66
58 64
58 60
47 57
42 55
14 55
55
47
45
43
37
6

As you can see Bont simply dominated more games (ie was in, say the best 20 or so players on the field) by having 8 games with 85+ points. Taylor only "dominated" 2 games with 85+ points, and the fact that he played 6 more games is pointless because half of those games he did practically nothing with point scores in the 40's (we're talking like 12 touch games and maybe a goal at best).

To look at it another way if you apply points per game at how they played and dominated games, you'll see Bont comes well on top.

100+ SC points ie dominated game = 1.3 total points
85-99 ie a very good contributor= 1 point
70-84 ie a good solid game = 0.7 points.
60-69 ie did a little = 0.4 points
45-59 ie minimal impact on the game = 0.2 points
0-45 ie played but had no impact = 0.1 points

Bont = 11.1 points
Taylor = 10.5 points.

And that's me looking at it unbiased, because I could have easily weighted a 100+ game more, or cut off a "good solid game" earlier than 70 points ( a 70-75 point supercoach game isn't great) of which Taylor has 4 of his 7 good solid games in that low 70-75 games. For example if you just simply look at 75+ point games, it's Bont 8 games vs 5 to Taylor, and that isn't an arbitrary cutoff because Bont has no games from 75-84. If you made the cutoff 85 Bont has 8 games to 2.

So in other words Bont was robbed and the voting is biased.

Ummmm Bont played midfield and Taulor played back pocket quite a lot so sorry these stats don't really mean much mate.

You can roll stats out for any award I'm sure there were at least 5 blokes with far superior stats to Libba and Cooney in their Brownlow years.

I also think the fact this was a media story for less than a day backs up that no one really cares.

 

[Tommycash]

The award is a bit silly anyway.

 

[_Mike_]

Its a mickey mouse award aimed at pleasing sponsors.. nothing more, nothing less. No point getting up tight over it.

 

[King Harold]

Ummmm Bont played midfield and Taulor played back pocket quite a lot so sorry these stats don't really mean much mate.

You can roll stats out for any award I'm sure there were at least 5 blokes with far superior stats to Libba and Cooney in their Brownlow years.

I also think the fact this was a media story for less than a day backs up that no one really cares.

Sorry MD , I might be wrong ,but never saw Taylor playing back pocket ?
but who cares !

 

[fargy]

Don't care about the award, all I care about is that we get Bonts for another 10+ years!!

 

[BEaston]

I know this will never happen but gambling adds nothing to society other than misery

News to me. I find it pretty fun.

 

[Butane]

Taylor won because there was a media build up about how it should be closer then the odds suggested. It was taken to far and the second best player won. But really who cares - not one genuine non lions fan with any real football knowledge would take Taylor over Bonts long term

Yes, this is my point too. The investigation has been going on since the rising star was handed out. If it was a clear cut case of 'when did King bet' then it'd be over quickly. The fact that nearly 5 months later they're still investigating says to me that there is something deeper going on.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Its a mickey mouse award aimed at pleasing sponsors.. nothing more, nothing less. No point getting up tight over it.

The only reason I care is because the media cares, and because the media has influence over the general footballing public ergo I care because I should care what the general footballing public cares about.

 

[murphy2bedabest]

Was talking to guys at work about this the issue I had with David king last year was how he just kept banging on about Lewis, how that might have influenced the votes.

What I mean is that the judges wouldn't watch every game every week, or even vote on the best 3-5 kids every week. It's something that they would think about with a couple of weeks to go.

So as I judge who may not have seen every game you may look to the media (king) and see who they are talking about, I would think this is how most of the judges would have voted.

So by talking about Lewis, putting his name up every time he was on SEN or on Fox Footy means that Lewis would have got a few extra votes just because he was being spoken about so much, so then at the time seeing him at $4/1 would have looked great value and worth a bet.

Not say that Lewis didn't deserve it, because he did have a good year, but that's how you can get a players name out there in front of the judges

 

[maddog37]

It seemed like an orchestrated media push leading up to it to me. It was quite strange.