Brownlow night is a premier social event for young wealthy entitled men and obviously for showing off their footy wives.

The actual award is boring made worse by bias umpires and drunk media 'hangers on'.

It'll get bigger. People love it.

1 hour ago, WheeloRatings said:

I'd also be reluctant with providing the stats to the umpires at the risk they simply defer to the stats.

Would they?

We're talking sbout a highly intelligent and well educated group of people (umpires)

Edited September 26, 20232 yr by Macca

1 hour ago, leave it to deever said:

Since you put it like this, I see your point.

I would leave it with the umpires

 

Better the devil you know

5 hours ago, tiers said:

The result of the Brownlow voting by the umpires might be anomalous compared with the other so called expert awards but, and this is a big but, they are only ones who can see how hard the players are working on the field. It is an award for fairest and best, not for accumulating possessions, and should rightly go to a player who strives the hardest for each possession.

Coaches award votes for the impact on the result which is why, for example, defenders can often win votes for a minimal possession defensive role. This sort of analysis is beyond the umpires on the field and it is no wonder that it throws up different results.

The so called expert awards in the media also appear to be slanted towards favourite or prominent players whose stats sheets are overflowing but who might not have worked as hard or made much of a difference. Think about the "ring-a-rosy" in the backlines that often can inflate stats that have no meaning.

For all the criticism of the umpires voting, there have been no undeserving players (duds) who have won and, in any given year, there are many players who would qualify. There is an element of luck in the result especially when a team has many potential vote winners every week eg Melbourne's Petracca, Oliver, Viney, Gawn.

My own preference would be for a system that selects which player had the most influence on a result (similar to the coaches award) but I acknowledge that this would be too hard to determine by a group of independent umpires in the short time frame after a match.

Leave it alone because there is no demonstratively better system

 

Since when does fairest (i hasten to add first mentioned) and best show the  current BL Medallist falling over in every game in an attempt to show how he was pushed. Looking , talking and pleading how badly he is being treated, back to get the umpire's attention, and finally holding opposition players quite often. A fine example of fair, Bah.....

1 hour ago, chook fowler said:

only thing decent about the production was the music and the Jim Stynes award. Resented Nathan Brown and his gambling ads, peddling greed and human misery. 

Not a big fan of the over-the-top hoo ha of the rest of the evening but i really enjoy seeing who gets Jimmy's award.

Growing into a substantial honour now.

1 hour ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Yep.

Needs to be three awards imv.

> Forwards

> Followers (ruck included of course)

> Defenders

The old Chas is just that.  Very old and dated now.

Need to bring it into the 21st century.

Agree DD but don't hold your breath.

I think that the 3-2-1 voting system unduly favours umpires' darlings, like Daicos.

By way of explanation, the 3 best players may have played similar standard matches, but the umpires' darling gets 3 times as many votes as the perceived 3rd best player.  Which is out of proportion.

To even it out, I suggest that the votes be allocated 6-5-4 to the 3 best players.

 

6 minutes ago, Winners at last said:

To even it out, I suggest that the votes be allocated 6-5-4 to the 3 best players.

 

Why not go the whole hog?

Give one vote to each of the three players considered to be the best. Then at the end of the year, the player(s) with the most votes for being in the best three the most number of games wins the medal. A reward for consistency, evenly spread amongst the players and less likely to be gamed or mixed up by the umpires. In the dees case, no more vote losses due to team mates spreading the votes.

To tighten it up, give each umpire on the ground three votes to allocate in private (ie. 12 votes) and only the top three players in this voting system as selected by the umpires get one vote each for the end of the year tally. Complex, complicated and possibly confusing but it should get a better result and might be worthwhile to avoid the annual heartbreak and heartache of the current system.

Why not?

 

With 4 field umpires now I think that the Brownlow Medal voting process needs to be overhauled.

I also think it has become a midfielder's award and this should be changed. Would definitely like to see a full forward or a full back or any other position win a Brownlow Medal.

 

Anyway, I hope Christian Petracca and the rest of the Melbourne players use this year's bitter disappointment as motivation for a determined effort to win next year's AFL Premiership in 2024.

Umpires should allocate votes as part of their post game review (after watching replay) - which includes the calls they made, right/wrong.

We should also consider either renaming it a midfielders award or thinking about how we bring other positions back into the running. Eg Steven May had a 15-20 vote season, not a 3 vote season.

On 9/23/2023 at 3:30 PM, WheeloRatings said:

I have produced a 99 page Brownlow Medal guide based on my model's predictions and 20,000 simulations of the model. You can download it from the following page:

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_brownlow.html

My model has Petracca 4th favourite to poll most votes at 17.0% (17.8% to win, ignoring ineligible players) and second favourite to poll in the most games.

I have Daicos favourite to poll most votes at 33.6% (35.6% to win) but unlikely to poll after round 18.

Here are my top 4:

Daicos 33.6% to poll most votes (35.6% to win)
Bontempelli 26.0% (27.5%)
Butters 21.6% (22.8%)
Petracca 17.0% (17.8%)

I plan on posting updated probabilities during the count under the following account on X/Twitter:

 

 

Well that went well!!

how do 4 different field  umpires arrive at 1 set of 3 votes?

would be better for each umpire to submit his own selection

this would avoid my pet gripe that only 3 players feature, whereas with coaches votes it's 5 players per coach meaning anywhere from  5 to 10 (unlikely) feature

I’d love for someone in the media, or stats industry, to create a full list of umpires that awarded each weeks votes.

I reckon it would make for very enlightening reading, and highlight some interesting biases. 

9 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

I’d love for someone in the media, or stats industry, to create a full list of umpires that awarded each weeks votes.

I reckon it would make for very enlightening reading, and highlight some interesting biases. 

Do we know which umpires awarded votes at all?   Is it a consensus, or maybe they decide that one will do the votes this week, another next week.  Maybe it is the senior one?

Sure as hell #22 wouldn’t offer any to a Demon.  

18 hours ago, Winners at last said:

I think that the 3-2-1 voting system unduly favours umpires' darlings, like Daicos.

By way of explanation, the 3 best players may have played similar standard matches, but the umpires' darling gets 3 times as many votes as the perceived 3rd best player.  Which is out of proportion.

To even it out, I suggest that the votes be allocated 6-5-4 to the 3 best players.

 

Under your proposed 6-5-4 system the top ten would have scored as follows,

Neale 73

Bontempelli 65

Gulden 63

Petracca 62

N Daicos 61

Butters 60

Serong 53

Viney 51

Cripps 49

Anderson 46

Edited September 27, 20232 yr by waynewussell

On 9/26/2023 at 4:52 PM, old dee said:

Agree DD but don't hold your breath.

Yes sadly the masters are quite content with the lay of the land OD

The show will go on regardless of any such inequities and the circus performers are happy to play their part and receive their substantial coin.

Including the media throng.

Even those who will probably never have any chance of donning a Chas, regarldess of how well they perform in the circus ring.

Edited September 28, 20232 yr by Demon Dynasty