Moved Thread maximum Discrepant Anomalies In Coach OpinionS Index(D.A.I.C.Os index)

[PhatBoy]

Had no idea deliberate OOBs in the last minute of a close game were worth coaches votes.

Here everyone was thinking that generally they award them for a player’s performance not for 2-3 seconds of play.

 

[ShereKhan]

AKA the max D.A.I.C.OS index. No idea how that happens to make an anagram exactly the same as last year's Coaches MVP, just one of life's weird coincidences I guess.

Thought it was time we had a thread about this simmering little talking point, as much to protect the reputations of the innocent as anything.

We can track this and discuss it here. To me the Coches MVP used to be about the most prestigious award, certainly the most credible. Now I am less sure.

Votes being given to N Daicos by C McRae in particular have raised a few eyebrows. Said player actually won the award last year. He was the only player in the top 6 in the award last year who was not also in the top 6 for average player ratings.

The truth is we don't know which coach gives which votes and we also often don't know how a players votes are comprised, like a 5 vote game could possibly be 5-0, or 3-2 when you consider all the other votes. So how can we make objective sense of this to help us understand what could be happening?

My suggestion here is a new index, the maximum discrepant anomalies in coach opinions when they issue their votes weekly in season.

How this works:

We simply work out the maximum possible discrepancy between the 2 coaches votes for the player we are interested in.

Eg

2025 Rd 2 Bulldogs v Magpies we get the following votes -

View attachment 2260096

We can see here 3 players have 8 votes. So 1 of the 3 must have got 4+4 and the other 2 got 5+3.

So for Daicos, the maximum dicrepancy possible is 5-3 = 2.

So how did 2024 look for the accidentally eponymous hero of the thread?

He received 117 votes overall. His maximum discrepancy was by my calculations, 23 votes. Ie, the maximum Mcrae could have given him is 70 votes. The minimum opposition clubs could have given him was 47 votes. It seems quite a discrepancy, but we are comparing the maximum possible with the minimum possible to derive that discrepancy, so how does it compare with others?

2024 Isaac Heeney had a maximum discrepancy of just 12 votes. The minimum possible he could have received from opposition coaches was 50 votes, 3 more thanDaicos's minimum.

2017 Dusty got 122 votes, the highest ever. His maximum discrepancy was 10 votes. 66-56 was his max possible discrepancy between one coach and the other.

The really interesting thing here so far is Daicos 2025. After just 3 rounds he already has a maximum possible discrepancy of 7 votes, on world record pace.

Feel free to request other players maximum discrepancies, or contribute yourselves by submitting some.

Great analysis! Fly is embarrassing himself already with his voting. It got him the award in 2024, and he’ll do what he can to get him over the line in 2025 as well. It’ll soon become a mockery if not addressed.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[ShereKhan]

Thanks for highlighting Voss' clear bias against Daicos.

Daicos received 2 x Brownlow votes in that game.

The things coaches do to skew the award in favour of their own player - in this case, Cripps.

You’re using Brownlow votes to back up your claims ?!? … they are shockingly biased towards specific players also.

Just accept Naicos is disproportionately rated higher than others when it comes to voting on individual awards - he’s not alone in that regard, but he is the leading beneficiary of that bias. Doesn’t mean he’s not a great player. Just means his individual awards need to be put into perspective.

Right now the unbiased player ratings that don’t look at a players name rank him 65th in the competition, so I don’t think it’s surprising eyebrows are raised when coaches votes currently rank him equal third.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[sabso]

Here everyone was thinking that generally they award them for a player’s performance not for 2-3 seconds of play.

At the risk of biting….
2-3 seconds of play can be definitive of a performance, especially incidents such as deliberately intending to injure an opponent or flagrantly breaking the laws of the game.

 

[Fadge]

Right now the unbiased player ratings that don’t look at a players name rank him 65th in the competition, so I don’t think it’s surprising eyebrows are raised when coaches votes currently rank him equal third.

Just a bit of critical thinking required here...

His first game this year netted him 0 coaches votes, but when looking at averages it obviously works against him for PlaYeR RaTingZ.

Is it better to be the 10th best player on the ground in all games so far this season, but do a few things that the PlaYeR RaTingZ algorithm likes, or have an injury affected first game followed by two games in which you are in the top few players on the ground, inclusive of a matchwinning performance?

I mean, the two players ranked immediately ahead of Daicos in the PlaYeR RaTingZ are Tom McDonald and Jackson Mead. Who WOULDN'T want those players ahead of Daicos of doing a redraft? And who WOULDN'T conclude they've been far better performed players so far this year?

LOLOL

 

[sabso]

Just a bit of critical thinking required here...

His first game this year netted him 0 coaches votes, but when looking at averages it obviously works against him for PlaYeR RaTingZ.

Is it better to be the 10th best player on the ground in all games so far this season, but do a few things that the PlaYeR RaTingZ algorithm likes, or have an injury affected first game followed by two games in which you are in the top few players on the ground, inclusive of a matchwinning performance?

I mean, the two players ranked immediately ahead of Daicos in the PlaYeR RaTingZ are Tom McDonald and Jackson Mead. Who WOULDN'T want those players ahead of Daicos of doing a redraft? And who WOULDN'T conclude they've been far better performed players so far this year?

LOLOL

 

[PhatBoy]

At the risk of biting….
2-3 seconds of play can be definitive of a performance, especially incidents such as deliberately intending to injure an opponent or flagrantly breaking the laws of the game.

Of course they can but few if any voting systems do or should award anything based on one play.

Can you imagine a cricket system where a player gets man of the match because he bowled the best ball and did nothing else.

 

[sabso]

Of course they can but few if any voting systems do or should award anything based on one play.

Can you imagine a cricket system where a player gets man of the match because he bowled the best ball and did nothing else.

Quite the contrary - awards are liable to be withheld based on one play.

The analogy works better with a batsman who would have been man of the match except he got himself out for 0 during the run chase.

 

[DaicosDisciple35]

this is mental illness

 

[PhatBoy]

Quite the contrary - awards are liable to be withheld based on one play.

The analogy works better with a batsman who would have been man of the match except he got himself out for 0 during the run chase.

In which case he’s more than likely a bowler who took 6 wickets and he’s not expected to do the job of a batsman.

 

[sabso]

In which case he’s more than likely a bowler who took 6 wickets and he’s not expected to do the job of a batsman.

best not turn this into a cricket geekery thread but Michael Clarke prob would have been motm in his 6/9 game had he not been out cheaply in a small run chase

IND vs AUS Cricket Scorecard, 4th Test at Mumbai, November 03 - 05, 2004

Get cricket scorecard of 4th Test, IND vs AUS, Australia tour of India 2004/05 at Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai dated November 03 - 05, 2004.

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[Fadge]

best not turn this into a cricket geekery thread but Michael Clarke prob would have been motm in his 6/9 game had he not been out cheaply in a small run chase

IND vs AUS Cricket Scorecard, 4th Test at Mumbai, November 03 - 05, 2004

Get cricket scorecard of 4th Test, IND vs AUS, Australia tour of India 2004/05 at Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai dated November 03 - 05, 2004.

www.espncricinfo.com

Oh.

So are you suggesting win/loss influences who should be seen as the better performed player?

 

[sabso]

Oh.

So are you suggesting win/loss influences who should be seen as the better performed player?

No.

 

[PhatBoy]

best not turn this into a cricket geekery thread but Michael Clarke prob would have been motm in his 6/9 game had he not been out cheaply in a small run chase

IND vs AUS Cricket Scorecard, 4th Test at Mumbai, November 03 - 05, 2004

Get cricket scorecard of 4th Test, IND vs AUS, Australia tour of India 2004/05 at Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai dated November 03 - 05, 2004.

www.espncricinfo.com

One suspects the century and a half long tradition of awarding man of the match to a player in the winning team in 95 per cent of cases may have played a part in this, rather than those giving the award going ‘ooh that dismissal looked a bit shaky.’

Had Australia’s tail crawled across the line there is every chance he would have gotten the award, isn’t there.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Ok, today I want to start by going back in time. One of the things I want to understand is if the discrepancies between the two coaches have grown over time, which might suggest the clubs are realising there is cachet for their players in coaches votes. So far of the older ones we have looked at only Dusty 2017. He has both the most coach votes in a season ever & the least max possible discrepancy of the 7 seasons from 5 players we have looked at.

I will kick off here with Dangerfield 2016. He had a big year with 121 votes(2nd most ever) & unified the 3 titles(Brownlow, Coach Votes, Player Ratings - all like Dusty with historically high end totals.) I am not expecting to find a high amout of discrepancy here.

Hmmm...I am surprised by the result here, but perhps I shouldn't be.

2016 Patrick Dangerfield 121 total votes. Max 72 from his own coach. Min 49 from the opposition. Max possible discrepancy = 23

So overall the table looks like this so far:

2023 Daicos 25 votes max possible discrepancy from 106 votes total(65 v 41)
2024 Daicos 23 votes from 117 total, (72 v 49 )
2023 Butters 23 votes from 109 total(66 v 43)
2016 Dangerfield 23 votes from 121 total(72 v 49)
2024 Cripps 19 votes from 113 votes total(66 v 47)
2024 Heeney 12 votes from 112 votes total(62 v 50)

2017 Dusty 10 votes from 122 vots total(66 v 56)

It's beginning to look like Dusty & Heeney were the only ones with honest coaches! But there is a long way to go with this.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

The only evidence you need to show what a farce this has become is last year Carlton vs Collingwood Rd 21.

Cripps was clearly the best player on the ground and was right given top votes by 1 coach. The media, commentators, umps and fans all pretty well said as much during and after the game.

Daicos, who played a good first half but was borderline invisible in the 2nd half was given 5 votes by one of the coaches.

If you go through and look at the votes there's no way the votes could have been split any other way other than Cripps with one of the 5s and Daicos with the other.

Which coach gave who the 5 you may ask? Well I think it's fairly obvious. Both teams selected a tagger for that match.

Ned Long was sent to Cripps in the 2nd half to try and quell his influence as he was getting out of hand and still got utterly flogged with Cripps almost dragging Carlton to a win by himself with some crucial clearances, breaking tackles and getting the ball moving forward in the 2nd half.

Meanwhile Cincotta, Carltons designated tagger in 2024 was left in the back line the whole game as Voss clearly didn't see a need to tag Daicos as his influence on the game wasn't too significant.

The question then becomes... would a coach who chose not to deploy his tagger on the oppositions 'star player' be more or less likely to have awarded that player the 5 votes than a coach who did deploy his tagger and watched them fight through it and still almost drag his team to victory?

To make things worse, Daicos won the award by 4 votes. That farcical five essentially won him the award, despite not being in the top 5 players that day by most fans accounts of it.

I'm glad David King has brought it up recently, Fly has a track record over the last couple of years of this.

 

[hdi]

McCrae's character further exposed

Opposition coaches should adjust their votes to balance out the obvious bias McRae

 

[Fadge]

The only evidence you need to show what a farce this has become is last year Carlton vs Collingwood Rd 21.

Cripps was clearly the best player on the ground and was right given top votes by 1 coach. The media, commentators, umps and fans all pretty well said as much during and after the game.

Daicos, who played a good first half but was borderline invisible in the 2nd half was given 5 votes by one of the coaches.

If you go through and look at the votes there's no way the votes could have been split any other way other than Cripps with one of the 5s and Daicos with the other.

Which coach gave who the 5 you may ask? Well I think it's fairly obvious. Both teams selected a tagger for that match.

Ned Long was sent to Cripps in the 2nd half to try and quell his influence as he was getting out of hand and still got utterly flogged with Cripps almost dragging Carlton to a win by himself with some crucial clearances, breaking tackles and getting the ball moving forward in the 2nd half.

Meanwhile Cincotta, Carltons designated tagger in 2024 was left in the back line the whole game as Voss clearly didn't see a need to tag Daicos as his influence on the game wasn't too significant.

The question then becomes... would a coach who chose not to deploy his tagger on the oppositions 'star player' be more or less likely to have awarded that player the 5 votes than a coach who did deploy his tagger and watched them fight through it and still almost drag his team to victory?

To make things worse, Daicos won the award by 4 votes. That farcical five essentially won him the award, despite not being in the top 5 players that day by most fans accounts of it.

I'm glad David King has brought it up recently, Fly has a track record over the last couple of years of this.

Daicos was deemed the second best player on the ground by the umpires, in the winning team.

Why would Voss exclude Daicos from his top 5 players on the ground?

If you're going to have a crack at a particular coach for a particular reason, make sure you check out the voting patterns of the other coach.

So 9 coaches votes and 3 Brownlow votes to Cripps in a losing team v. 5 coaches votes and 2 Brownlow votes to Daicos in the winning team.

Pathetic of Voss to exclude Daicos, so McRae therefore well within his right to compensate for Voss' behaviour.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Daicos was deemed the second best player on the ground by the umpires, in the winning team.

Why would Voss exclude Daicos from his top 5 players on the ground?

If you're going to have a crack at a particular coach for a particular reason, make sure you check out the voting patterns of the other coach.

So 9 coaches votes and 3 Brownlow votes to Cripps in a losing team v. 5 coaches votes and 2 Brownlow votes to Daicos in the winning team.

Pathetic of Voss to exclude Daicos, so McRae therefore well within his right to compensate for Voss' behaviour.

Brownlows a midfielders award. There were far better players that day than Daicos, most Pies fans at the time said as much on the day.

Either way, whether it's 1,2,3 or 4 votes, there is no way known McRae should have given Daicos 5. Just outright rigging from Fly.

 

[Fadge]

Brownlows a midfielders award. There were far better players that day than Daicos, most Pies fans at the time said as much on the day.

Either way, whether it's 1,2,3 or 4 votes, there is no way known McRae should have given Daicos 5. Just outright rigging from Fly.

Why not?

If he's knowingly compensating for Voss' voting.

It is far more biased of Voss to give Cripps 5 and Nick 0, than it is of McRae to give Nick 5 and Cripps 4.

If I were McRae, I would have gone the extra step and given Cripps 3 or even 2.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Why not?

If he's knowingly compensating for Voss' voting.

Giving a player an undeserving 5 votes is simply cheating the system. Its good to know David King and Cornes have began bringing these tactics to light.

Simple solution is the AFL releasing which coaches votes for who but I'm tipping that would cut about 20 votes off Daicos' tally each year.

 

[Fadge]

Giving a player an undeserving 5 votes is simply cheating the system. Its good to know David King and Cornes have began bringing these tactics to light.

Simple solution is the AFL releasing which coaches votes for who.

What about not giving votes to an opposition player who is contending for the medal against one of your team's players?

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

What about not giving votes to an opposition player who is contending for the medal against one of your team's players?

An argument could easily be made he wasn't in the top 5 players that game. But not once have I seen anyone dispute that Cripps wasn't the best player that game.

Completely different. Not the first time Fly has done it and won't be the last.

 

[Fadge]

An argument could easily be made he wasn't in the top 5 players that game. But not once have I seen anyone dispute that Cripps wasn't the best player that game.

Completely different. Not the first time Fly has done it and won't be the last.

As I said, I fully support McRae in evening up the votes if the opposition coach is going to lowball his player who is in contention for the award.

The umpires gave Daicos 2 votes; Daicos was named as Collingwood's best player on AFL.COM - in the winning team.

Voss knew exactly what he was doing by excluding Daicos from his votes.

 

[bzparkes]

Daicos was deemed the second best player on the ground by the umpires, in the winning team.

Why would Voss exclude Daicos from his top 5 players on the ground?

If you're going to have a crack at a particular coach for a particular reason, make sure you check out the voting patterns of the other coach.

So 9 coaches votes and 3 Brownlow votes to Cripps in a losing team v. 5 coaches votes and 2 Brownlow votes to Daicos in the winning team.

Pathetic of Voss to exclude Daicos, so McRae therefore well within his right to compensate for Voss' behaviour.

People notice star players more because they look for them, umpires are no exception.

For example, during the Carlton v Hawks game last week, I felt like I barely noticed Newcombe, despite him probably being BoG. I noticed Cripps and Walsh way more, because they just stand out more due to their reputation.

I was surprised at the end to see Newcombe got so much of it and it wasn't because he was ineffectual, far from it.

Same thing happens with Daicos.

McRae won't shut up about him, media won't shut up about him.