Analysis (Un)conscious Bias and the Brownlow - What Changed in 2010?

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Massive umpire bias and vote giving should be taken away from them.

That’s the issue with unconscious bias though. We all have it and even if the award was removed from the umpires, it will never be without flaws in the voting system and will instead just be influenced by others bias.

 

[Duskfire]

The bias could be correct. However, players are getting more of the ball. Midfielders are also kicking more goals, and for the most part midfielders who win tend to be be good goal kickers. I just think it is easier to stand out.

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

Having a further look into how much harder it is for key forwards to gain votes, I've had a look at a couple comparisons between how many goals are required on average for a key forward to get a vote compared to a midfielder needs disposals.

Although this isn’t an overly comprehensive analysis but we can somewhat determine how many goals is roughly equivalent to how many disposals in the view of the umpires.

Too simplify this, I’m only looking at the key forwards, how many votes they received and how many goals they kicked (Stats are only from the H&A season).

Taylor Walker - 9 Votes - 48 goals / 17 games
- Averaged 5.3 goals per vote

Daniher - 4 Votes - 45 goals / 22 games
- Averaged 11.25 goals per vote

Hipwood - 1 Vote - 26 goals / 16 games
- Averaged 26 goals per vote

H McKay - 8 Votes - 58 goals / 19 games
- Averaged 7.25 goals per vote

Peter Wright - 5 Votes - 29 goals / 20 games
- Averaged 5.8 goals per vote

Hawkins - 6 Votes - 54 goals / 22 games
- Averaged 9 goals per vote

Cameron - 6 Votes - 34 goals / 12 games
- Averaged 5.66 goals per vote

B King - 3 Votes - 47 goals / 22 games
- Averaged 15.6 goals per vote

Tom McDonald - 8 Votes - 30 goals / 20 games -
- Averaged 3.75 goals per vote

Larkey - 3 Votes - 42 goals / 22
- Averaged 14 goals per vote

Dixon - 3 Votes - 46 goals / 22 games
- Averaged 15.3 goals per vote

J Riewoldt - 8 Votes - 51 goals / 22 games
- Averaged 6.375 goals per vote

Franklin - 8 Votes - 48 goals / 17 games
- Averaged 6 goals per vote

O Allen - 6 Votes - 28 goals / 21 games
- Averaged 4.66 goals per vote

Darling - 4 Votes - 42 goals / 22 games
- Averaged 10.5 goals per vote

J Bruce - 5 Votes - 48 goals / 20 games
- Averaged 9.6 goals per vote


Average goals per vote amongst key forwards = 9.75 goals per 1 vote.

I am genuinlly surprised that out of all those key forwards, Tom McDonald and Oscar Allen actually average the most votes per goal, while Hipwood, Dixon, Larkey and Ben King are by far the most harshly judged in their performances.

Now when we compared this with how many disposals are needed from midfielders per vote (Only a small sample size from the 4 leading mids in the Brownlow).

Wines - 706 Disposals for 36 votes, or a vote every 19.6 disposals.
Bont - 598 Disposals for 33 votes, or a vote every 18.1 disposals
Oliver - 696 Disposals for 31 votes, or a vote every 22.45 disposals
Walsh - 656 Disposals for 30 votes, or a vote every 21.86 disposals

The average between the top 4 mids is 2656 disposals for 130 votes, or a vote every 20.4 disposals.

So all a midfielder needs to do to get a vote on average is gather 20.4 disposals, while a key forward needs to kick 9.75 goals.

Based on this data, for Harry Mckay to have won the Brownlow he would have had to have kicked 351 goals to have got 36 votes and won the Brownlow.

Now obviously the above data is skewed by certain players (eg, Hipwood ave 26 goals per vote, Ben king ave 15.6 goals per vote and McDonald 3.75), however even if we base it off Mckay's stats alone in which he averaged 7.25 goals per vote as the Coleman Medalist, he would still have needed to kick 261 goals to get him 36 votes.

Too simplistic - there would be a threshold value whereby you are more likely to receive votes after x goals and more likely to receive 3 votes after y goals. This would not be a linear relationship.

 

[Dr Tigris]

The Brownlow, like all of these vote per game based medals, is 'biased' towards extreme performances. The more extreme performances the more votes you get. The Brownlow looks increasingly like extreme means possessions in the midfield, and not necessarily impact on the game.

There are defenders who shut down their opponents, get intercept marks and hit targets coming out of defence in dominant performances 18+ game per year. And they get almost no votes. SO it certainly isn't extreme performances in terms of increasing the chances of winning games.

Why are umpires so fixated on the mids? No idea. Back when there was one ump the range of roles winning Brownlows was greater. Now there are 3, and about 2008-2010 the focus on possessions increased. I wonder if there is an implicit focus in how the umpires are trained to look more at touches, than impact.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Too simplistic - there would be a threshold value whereby you are more likely to receive votes after x goals and more likely to receive 3 votes after y goals. This would not be a linear relationship.

I was going to dig through each vote and see if it correlates to a certain amount of goals but couldn’t be bothered going through that much detail.

Agree what’s there doesn’t give the full answer but it’s an indication to begin with.

 

[Bostonian]

That’s the issue with unconscious bias though. We all have it and even if the award was removed from the umpires, it will never be without flaws in the voting system and will instead just be influenced by others bias.

Not everyone will have that emotional bias like an umpire could in this context. It's better away from the umpires because it removes emotional bias formed through interactions with the players.

The umpires can be influenced by interactions on the field, others without that interaction can be more measured.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Too simplistic - there would be a threshold value whereby you are more likely to receive votes after x goals and more likely to receive 3 votes after y goals. This would not be a linear relationship.

Actually now it has got my interest and i will have a quick look at McKay as the Coleman medalist and Tex Walker as he too pulled a good amount of votes for a key forward.

McKay - 8 Votes
Rnd 3 Vs Freo - 3 Votes - 17 disposals, 10 marks, 7 goals, 5 behinds
Rnd 6 Vs Brisbane - 1 Vote - 15 disposals, 9 marks, 6 goals, 2 behinds
Rnd 8 Vs Dogs - 1 Vote - 7 disposals - 7 marks - 4 goals
Rnd 18 Vs Pies - 1 Vote - 10 disposals - 6 marks - 4 goals
Rnd 20 Vs Saints - 2 Votes - 11 disposals - 7 marks - 5 goals, 2 behinds.

The bottom line for Mckay seems to be 4 goals to get into the votes.
He had 4 games with 3 goals for 0 votes and 2 other games with 4 goals for 0 votes.

Tex Walker - 9 Votes
Rnd 1 Vs Geelong - 3 Votes - 18 disposals - 7 marks - 5 goals, 2 behinds
Rnd 2 Vs Syd - 1 Vote - 15 disposals - 6 marks - 6 goals, 3 behinds
Rnd 3 Vs GCS - 3 Votes - 23 disposals - 9 marks - 6 goals, 3 behinds
Rnd 11 Vs Rich - 16 disposals - 6 marks - 4 goals, 3 behinds

As it was with Mckay, is seems that 4 goals is the pass mark to move into the votes. Tex had 1 other game with 4 goals for 0 votes, 4 games with 3 goals for 0 votes and a game with 2 goals 6 behinds for 0 votes.

So short answer, 4 goals for a key forward is the threshold to receive a vote and essentially need a 100+ goal season to be competitive and win the Brownlow.

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

Actually now it has got my interest and i will have a quick look at McKay as the Coleman medalist and Tex Walker as he too pulled a good amount of votes for a key forward.

McKay - 8 Votes
Rnd 3 Vs Freo - 3 Votes - 17 disposals, 10 marks, 7 goals, 5 behinds
Rnd 6 Vs Brisbane - 1 Vote - 15 disposals, 9 marks, 6 goals, 2 behinds
Rnd 8 Vs Dogs - 1 Vote - 7 disposals - 7 marks - 4 goals
Rnd 18 Vs Pies - 1 Vote - 10 disposals - 6 marks - 4 goals
Rnd 20 Vs Saints - 2 Votes - 11 disposals - 7 marks - 5 goals, 2 behinds.

The bottom line for Mckay seems to be 4 goals to get into the votes.
He had 4 games with 3 goals for 0 votes and 2 other games with 4 goals for 0 votes.

Tex Walker - 9 Votes
Rnd 1 Vs Geelong - 3 Votes - 18 disposals - 7 marks - 5 goals, 2 behinds
Rnd 2 Vs Syd - 1 Vote - 15 disposals - 6 marks - 6 goals, 3 behinds
Rnd 3 Vs GCS - 3 Votes - 23 disposals - 9 marks - 6 goals, 3 behinds
Rnd 11 Vs Rich - 16 disposals - 6 marks - 4 goals, 3 behinds

As it was with Mckay, is seems that 4 goals is the pass mark to move into the votes. Tex had 1 other game with 4 goals for 0 votes, 4 games with 3 goals for 0 votes and a game with 2 goals 6 behinds for 0 votes.

So short answer, 4 goals for a key forward is the threshold to receive a vote and essentially need a 100+ goal season to be competitive and win the Brownlow.

And that seems about right - 100 goal forward in today’s game would be close to Brownlow worthy.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

And that seems about right - 100 goal forward in today’s game would be close to Brownlow worthy.

Absolutely if a forward ever kicks 100 goals again they should be the outright favourite if eligible.

Would take a 100 goal forward over a 30 disposal a game mid any day.

Given that 4 goals doesn’t even guarantee a vote on occasions and 3 goals is no votes either, I’d say they would have to kick 120+ in the current environment and how votes are given.

Heck the fact McKay kicks 6 goals in a game and still only gets 1 vote is a bit of a joke. You can be best on ground even if on the loosing side. Same for Walker, 6 goals 3, only worth 1 vote apparently.

 

[Kyptastic]

Inspired by this thread I took a look at the Top 10 in the Brownlow and the Top 10 in the Coleman from 1993 (a year of excellent goalkicking) and compared it with this year's results as a percentage of the total votes awarded.

In 1993, the Top 10 votegetters received 16.89% of the total available Brownlow Votes whilst the Top 10 in the Coleman received 8.67% of the total available votes. In 2021, the Top 10 got 23.4% of the total votes, whils the top 10 in the Coleman only received 4.55% of the total votes available.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Inspired by this thread I took a look at the Top 10 in the Brownlow and the Top 10 in the Coleman from 1993 (a year of excellent goalkicking) and compared it with this year's results as a percentage of the total votes awarded.

In 1993, the Top 10 votegetters received 16.89% of the total available Brownlow Votes whilst the Top 10 in the Coleman received 8.67% of the total available votes. In 2021, the Top 10 got 23.4% of the total votes, whils the top 10 in the Coleman only received 4.55% of the total votes available.

That is a great stat.

The fact the best goal kickers in the game can loose 50% of their votes is pathetic really. Will it ever rebound back to previous levels?

Just look at some of those names in the top 10 in 93 - Carey, Dunstan, Monkhurst, Stynes, Ablett Snr, Wynd. Fast forward to 2021 and all the top 10 are midfielders.

 

[Vikingnz]

Hey look we're famous!

Explaining the Brownlow’s great mystery: vote inflation

The major talking point at the Brownlow Medal on Sunday was the enormous vote tallies garnered by the top contenders, especially the first four.

www.theage.com.au

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Hey look we're famous!

Explaining the Brownlow’s great mystery: vote inflation

The major talking point at the Brownlow Medal on Sunday was the enormous vote tallies garnered by the top contenders, especially the first four.

www.theage.com.au

“Various theories were put forth by club and AFL people after the count ended.

One was that the umpires, no matter how hard they try, are influenced by media and react accordingly when a player - always a midfielder - has a hot period of form. The umps, according to this thesis, become more aware of the fashionably in-form player.

But, as former umpiring coach and leading umpire Hayden Kennedy noted, the umpires handed votes (2) to a Swans debutant, Errol Gulden, in round one - they can hardly have been swayed by publicity then. “Unless it’s at a subconscious level, that wouldn’t be the case.””

Where are you Jake lurking in this thread!

 

[sprockets]

Id say the opposite and that a goal is absolutely more valuable then an ordinary disposal when the whole point of the game is to outscore your opposition and to do that you need to kick goals.

Using McKay as the example again. He averaged a tick over 3 goals a game. Let’s say Carlton averaged 13 goals a game which I think would be close, that means McKay kicks 23% of their goals most weeks.

No midfielder is getting 23% of their teams disposals on their own. Most games are usually about the 350 disposals for a team, say Mitchell gets 35 disposals, that’s only 10% of the teams disposals.

If it was a choice between 23% of your teams score or 10% of their disposals, I think I’d rate the goal kicker as having the better game (unless the mid is also involved in a lot of goal assists or goals themselves as well).

Can’t really place a blanket statement on it either way but currently goal kickers are absolutely being ignored.

I'm talking about the act of getting the ball and kicking a goal, not the end result. It takes no more skill than someone somewhere else on the field getting the ball and kicking it to a teammate. There's a good reason midfielders are highly rated.

 

[FRUMPY]

Inspired by this thread I took a look at the Top 10 in the Brownlow and the Top 10 in the Coleman from 1993 (a year of excellent goalkicking) and compared it with this year's results as a percentage of the total votes awarded.

In 1993, the Top 10 votegetters received 16.89% of the total available Brownlow Votes whilst the Top 10 in the Coleman received 8.67% of the total available votes. In 2021, the Top 10 got 23.4% of the total votes, whils the top 10 in the Coleman only received 4.55% of the total votes available.

Now compare the number of goals of the leading goalkickers for both years....

Not many fwds are getting votes for their 2 or 3 goal games. Most key forwards average less than 3 a game....or 2

Sent from my CPH2005 using Tapatalk

 

[Do the Dew]

“Various theories were put forth by club and AFL people after the count ended.

One was that the umpires, no matter how hard they try, are influenced by media and react accordingly when a player - always a midfielder - has a hot period of form. The umps, according to this thesis, become more aware of the fashionably in-form player.

But, as former umpiring coach and leading umpire Hayden Kennedy noted, the umpires handed votes (2) to a Swans debutant, Errol Gulden, in round one - they can hardly have been swayed by publicity then. “Unless it’s at a subconscious level, that wouldn’t be the case.””

Where are you Jake lurking in this thread!

AFL people = bigfooty. You'd think he'd at least acknowledge the source.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Another interesting comparison which can be drawn is that the increased interchange numbers ultimately changed the outcome of the Brownlow voting almost instantly and increased interchanges, means increased votes for midfielders.

This theory, could explain the recent trend over the past decade. As we have previously seen, around the years 2009/10 there was a drastic change in the voting, how many players were receiving votes, the number of votes and the reduction in key position players receiving votes.

Graph 1: Average AFL interchange rotations per year. The data shows a clear trend around the time frame we see the voting become more midfielder focused. This may support the theory that the reason midfielders and receiving more votes is simply because they are spending more time around the ball.



Graph 2: As provided by Ron The Bear earlier, the % of players who receive a vote. The percentage of players who are receiving votes declines heavily in correlation with when the interchange numbers are increasing.



Graph 3: Again the graph from the OP on Key position players that are in the top 10 overall. There again is a correlation between the time frame when interchanges increased and when key position players dropped significantly and it is instantaneous.



So, does the simple theory that as players were spending more time around the ball actually have significance? Looking at this id have to say so. With the new interchange caps and possibility they could be further reduced in the future, it will be interesting to see if we have a reversal of the previous decade and back to the early 2000s type of results.

This also explains why the typical CHF type players are not receiving votes. The likes of Jonathan Brown, Nick Riewoldt, Pav, Richo etc who were regularly in the votes would also spend time getting up the wing and in open space. With the increased interchanges and general speed of the game which has resulted in a much more contested game, the space for the CHFs to work into up the ground no longer exists and therefor they are not as involved or play as a significant role as that position used to.

 

[FRUMPY]

apparently they get the stats these days, pretty sure this wasnt the case. when did this change occur?

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

apparently they get the stats these days, pretty sure this wasnt the case. when did this change occur?

Apparently they only get stats which are shown on the score board at the ground during breaks if they look?

Have they always displayed match stats on the scoreboards or is this a more recent trend too over the past 10-15 years?

 

[FRUMPY]

Apparently they only get stats which are shown on the score board at the ground during breaks if they look?

Have they always displayed match stats on the scoreboards or is this a more recent trend too over the past 10-15 years?

back in 'the day' they didnt even have team names next to the other game results - you had to have a record to know which game was which.

 

[RichLeMonde]

apparently they get the stats these days, pretty sure this wasnt the case. when did this change occur?

I think this is a big part of it.

it’s quite different when you judge players’ performance by the naked eye, rather than in combination with the stat sheet.

just look at Norm Smiths in recent years. Early in the 2017 GF Adelaide were up by 2 goals and were on top in general play. They had repeated forward forays, which could have put them up by 5 goals, but they were repelled repeatedly by Rance. In the 2nd half Richmond’s mosquito fleet got on top and relentless pressure broke the crows. IMO Rance made more of a difference to Richmond winning that day than any other single player because of that 1st quarter when the crows had chances to get on top on the scoreboard. He did little after half time, whereas Dusty built up a very solid 4 quarter performance, including in junk time in the 4th quarter. If you look at the stat sheet, Dusty is the Normie. If you watch the game and focus on the key moments when the game was in the balance and someone stepped up and made a difference, it was Rance (or Houli).

The Norm voting in that GF is a microcosm of the larger issue of Brownlow voting -umpires no longer back themselves to judge impact of players by more intangible measures, and turn to stat sheets.

Edit: obviously umps don’t vote on the Norm Smith but the point still stands

 

[FRUMPY]

I think this is a big part of it.

it’s quite different when you judge players’ performance by the naked eye, rather than in combination with the stat sheet.

just look at Norm Smiths in recent years. Early in the 2017 GF Adelaide were up by 2 goals and were on top in general play. They had repeated forward forays, which could have put them up by 5 goals, but they were repelled repeatedly by Rance. In the 2nd half Richmond’s mosquito fleet got on top and relentless pressure broke the crows. IMO Rance made more of a difference to Richmond winning that day than any other single player because of that 1st quarter when the crows had chances to get on top on the scoreboard. He did little after half time, whereas Dusty built up a very solid 4 quarter performance, including in junk time in the 4th quarter. If you look at the stat sheet, Dusty is the Normie. If you watch the game and focus on the key moments when the game was in the balance and someone stepped up and made a difference, it was Rance (or Houli).

The Norm voting in that GF is a microcosm of the larger issue of Brownlow voting -umpires no longer back themselves to judge impact of players by more intangible measures, and turn to stat sheets.

especially when the criticsm from any votes given by the umpires is based on disposals and not the actual impact of a game. 'Player A had 35 touches that game' - was he any good? 'i didnt watch the game, but he got 35 touches'

 

[RichLeMonde]

especially when the criticsm from any votes given by the umpires is based on disposals and not the actual impact of a game. 'Player A had 35 touches that game' - was he any good? 'i didnt watch the game, but he got 35 touches'

Exactly. I remember when people piled on Buckley for saying he didn’t tag Tom Mitchell (or was it Neale) because he hadn’t had much influence on the game despite getting 40+ touches.

Actually that’s just given me an idea. The OP keeps pointing to 2010. SuperCoach launched in 2006 and got big around 2010. Maybe the umps all got onto it, and started to unconsciously base their votes on SC points . Half kidding, half serious

 

[Rusty Brookes]

McKay winning the Coleman with 58 goals pretty much nails it for why we don't see forwards anywhere near Brownlow contention. Dunstall kicked 139 goals in the H&A in 1992 and managed 18 votes and still couldn't win it. This is his votes and goals kicked:

3 - 12 (Rd 1)
3 - 9 (Rd 6)
3 - 17 (Rd 7)
2 - 7 (Rd 13)
2 - 9 (Rd 16)
2 - 12 (Rd 20)
3 - 12 (Rd 22)

He also had kicked the following bags where he didn't score a vote: 7 (Rd 5), 6 (Rd 9), 7 (Rd 10), 7 (Rd 2), 6 (Rd 14) and 6 (Rd 24). I reckon Cats fans could do something similar with Ablett Snr in his top years. Point being the umps have always been stingy in giving key forwards votes and it had to be an absolutely outstanding game to get a look in.

Back in the 70s it was ruckmen that dominated and my very simple hypothesis is the umpires give more votes to those directly in front of them. Rucks used to get very little backup so most of the guys in the 70s did it all day - so they were front and centre in the umpires' view. Now it's midfielders doing the grunt work and it's reflected in the votes.

Really illustrated for me in the Hawthorn game against the Bulldogs where Daniel Howe

15

Daniel Howe

Age

28

Ht

193cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.2

4star

K

8.9

3star

HB

7.3

5star

M

4.3

4star

T

4.5

5star

CL

2.2

4star

No current season stats available

D

12.2

3star

K

6.6

3star

HB

5.6

4star

M

4.4

4star

T

3.2

5star

CL

1.0

3star

played a pretty much perfect game and couldn't score a vote. Because he played an outside role and the umpires probably didn't even realise he'd gotten close to 35 touches, didn't waste a possession and kicked a tremendous goal. I saw it as did all my mates - we vote on a best player on a Hawks only forum and we had him far and away the best player on the ground. But then again we're seeing more than the umpires.

 

[Belnakor]

The Norm voting in that GF is a microcosm of the larger issue of Brownlow voting -umpires no longer back themselves to judge impact of players by more intangible measures, and turn to stat sheets.

Edit: obviously umps don’t vote on the Norm Smith but the point still stands

norm smith voting is a great example why people saying the "umpires voting on the brownlow is flawed" is completely wrong. The norm smith gets it wrong more often than the brownlow !