Special Report: The Brownlow Medal 16 September 2014 Brownlow 2014: The two injured front-runners just hold on Our model is predicting a tied Brownlow, shared between Gary Ablett and Sydney’s Josh Kennedy. Both players reach 25 votes before getting injured. But we think they’ve done enough to hold-off the chasers. Selwood is once again lurking near the top, while both Jordan Lewis and Robbie Gray make a late charge. Figure 1: Can Kennedy catch Ablett? This year’s Brownlow Medal Model suggests a tie for the Brownlow between Gary Ablett and Sydney’s Josh Kennedy with both on 25 votes. The votes from the Round 12 game between Gold Coast and the Swans could prove pivotal. However, the race is very close and Joel Selwood, Jordan Lewis or Robbie Gray could also come out on top. It’s shaping to be a year where leading the Brownlow Medal is a curse. Not only was Ablett injured in Round 16, but Kennedy also was injured in Round 21 just as he drew level with Ablett. With the front-runners unable to add to their tally, the tension on the night will focus on the chasers, all of whom performed very well after Round 15. Joel Selwood will have a sentimental favouritism after last year’s achingly close result. In an eerie parallel this year once again sees Selwood playing well in Round 23 against Brisbane. Last year he failed Source: CBA, Sydney Swans to poll in the equivalent game despite 25 possessions and a goal – and then fell 1 vote short. The model says he wins 2 votes in the game this year but is 4 votes short. But the Brownlow has habit of rewarding players the season after they go very close and he can’t be discounted. Figure 2: 2014 top ten according to our Model Two other fast finishers are Jordan Lewis and Robbie Gray. Lewis played exceptional football in the last six rounds and wins 15 votes in Rank Name Votes our model. But he appears to have left his run a tiny bit too late. Gray 1 Gary Ablett 25 has a similar pattern and is modelled to finish equal 4th on 21 votes. But 1 Josh P. Kennedy 25 Gray also played a number of strong (but non-vote-winning) games early 3 Jordan Lewis 23 in the year. If Gray or Lewis can pick up a few extra votes early on, they 4 Joel Selwood 21 could come storming over the top in the final rounds. 4 Robbie Gray 21 Nat Fyfe * 19 Reverting to a simpler model Tom Rockliff * 19 6 Travis Boak 19 This year’s model has gone back to basics. Last year we experimented Steve Johnson * 19 with individual player attributes to see if we could improve the model’s 7 Trent Cotchin 18 fit. However, we found this tended to reward players the year after they 8 Michael Barlow 17 played well. 9 Scott Pendlebury 16 9 Dion Prestia 16 This year, we have reverted to the simpler model we used in 2012 where 9 Brandon Ellis 16 points are awarded for Kicks, Handballs, Goals and Hitouts. Players on Brent Harvey * 16 the winning team also gain an advantage that rises as the margin rises. 9 Dayne Beams 16 The final two variables are the score percentage and the difference between the Supercoach score and the Dream Team score. Source: CBA, Champion Data. * suspended, ineligible. Philip Brown Senior Fixed Income Strategist T. +613 9675 7522 E. [email protected] Important Disclosures and analyst certifications regarding subject companies are in the Disclosure and Disclaimer Appendix of this document and at www.research.commbank.com.au. This report is published, approved and distributed by Commonwealth Bank of Australia ABN 48 123 123 124 AFSL 234945. Global Markets Research Special Report: The Brownlow Medal The Score Percentage captures the notion that kicking 4 Figure 3: How our points are awarded goals when your team kicks 10 for the match is more important than kicking 4 when your team kicks 30 goals. Action Points Action Points The Supercoach less Dream Team score captures efficiency. Goals 44 SC-DT 0.6 The Supercoach scores are adjusted to reflect efficiency and Hitouts 4 Winning Team 52 when the game is still undecided while Dream Team votes Kicks 18 Margin 1.6 are not. A player with a small number of pivotal touches at Handballs 15 Score % of Team 16.5 clutch times will have a much higher Supercoach score than Dream Team score. They tend to win more Brownlow votes Source: CBA, Champion Data too. Figure 4: Distribution of our Ratings Points Ablett streaks to the front Times Achieved 1200 Our model (like everyone’s) has Ablett leading comfortably when he is injured in Round 16. He has six three-vote 1000 performances in the first eight games. He will take the lead early and he will open a wide gap. Then, after round 15, the 800 chase will begin. In total, Ablett is predicted to poll in 9 games. He is 600 expected to receive 3 votes 7 times and 2 votes twice. Most of those three-vote games appear locked in. In rounds 1, 3, 400 5, 9 and 15 Ablett has 32 or more possessions and two or more goals. 200 Although Gold Coast’s entire season was 10 wins and 12 0 losses, for the 15 games Ablett played they had 9 wins and 6 10 160 310 460 610 760 910 1060 losses. During Ablett’s season Gold Coast was about sixth on the ladder. Ablett’s votes should follow a more normal Source: CBA, Champion Data. Data is 2008-2103. pattern this year because of that. In fact, the model suggests Ablett can get to 25 votes by collecting 20 votes in wins and only 5 votes in losses. Figure 5: Ablett sets the early pace Gary Ablett GC Of Ablett’s votes, perhaps the most questionable are the 3 Round Goals Kicks H'Balls Votes Opp Result Rank votes the model suggests Ablett should win in Round 15 1 2 22 19 3 RI W (87-69) 1 when Gold Coast lost by 53 points to Hawthorn. That game 2 0 10 14 0 FR L (39-87) 13 was, statistically at least, superb. Ablett had 45 possessions 3 3 20 18 3 BL W (114-61) 1 and two goals. But his team lost by 9 goals, so it’s hard to 4 1 18 17 0 HW L (49-148) 13 know. He won 850 of our Ratings Points in that game – 5 2 21 11 3 ME W (86-78) 1 making it a very strong performance. (See Figure 4.) 6 2 13 17 3 WS W (134-94) 1 7 4 15 13 3 NM W (120-77) 1 This is a common problem with Ablett we have come across 8 ----Bye-- in previous years: blindingly good individual games in 9 4 16 21 3 SK W (125-87) 1 substantial losses. However, as last year’s Brownlow 10 0 9 15 0 WB W (119-74) 8 attests, Ablett can still win votes in losses. 11 2 12 13 0 AD L (77-109) 9 Our one concern about Ablett is there appears to be an 12 1 15 22 2 SY L (74-109) 2 13 0 20 13 0 WC L (100-103) 5 asymmetry of risk at play. A player expected to win 3 votes 14 1 20 13 2 GE W (118-78) 2 cannot outperform the model. For most players, this is 15 2 28 17 3 HW L (63-116) 1 balanced out by winning the occasional 1 or 2 votes for 16 0 15 4 0 CO W (80-75) 16 performances not rated as vote winning by our model, or by 17 - - - - WB L (66-94) - winning 3 votes in games when our model predicts fewer. 18 - - - - BL L (56-110) - For most players, the risk is, across a season, symmetric. 19 - - - - SK W (117-64) - 20 - - - - CA L (58-97) - For Ablett it is not. Ablett’s votes are so concentrated that 21 - - - - PA L (47-56) - this natural balance is broken. Ablett has 7 three-vote 22 - - - - ES L (89-108) - games which come with a risk of a lesser vote, but not many 23 - - - - WC L (99-151) - where he played well, but doesn’t earn a vote in our model. Totals 24 254 227 25 Games Our model mimics the Brownlow voting process by Averages 1.6 16.9 15.1 1.67 15 assigning points to each game action, then ranking the Votes: 321Strong 4th 5th-6th 7th-10th players. These ranks are shown in the player’s summary 720Ganes:01 2 tables at the far right. In line with Brownlow voting, the top Source: CBA, Champion Data three players receive the standard 3-2-1 votes. 2 Global Markets Research Special Report: The Brownlow Medal Performances which are very good, but don’t win votes will Figure 6: Josh Kennedy’s Season tend to show as games where the player was ranked highly, th but not in the top 3. As such, a player who ranks 4 in a Josh P. Kennedy SY game will receive no votes in our model, but can be Round Goals Kicks H'Balls Votes Opp Result Rank considered a moderate chance to win Brownlow votes. 1 0 12 10 0 WS L (67-99) 18 2 0 10 18 0 CO L (69-89) 6 Ablett all-or nothing pattern has him winning 3 votes 7 times, 3 0 8 20 1 AD W (134-71) 3 th th but coming 4 never and 5 only once.