Mega Thread Nick Daicos - Can he be the GTWEB? Part 2

[Fadge]

Instead you get this absolute dog turd of a thread, surmised by Pies fans patting each other on the back (I had a post deleted for using a more colourful physical act as a metaphor, so I won't again) and laugh emojis and a failure to have curiosity into something that approximates the unknowing truth of "player greatness"(and how it leads to team success).

Question: If the PLaYeR RaTiNGZ algorithm 'approximates the unknowing truth of player greatness, and how it leads to team success', why then do we only have 2 players in the year's top 11 who played in a winning final? That winning final being an Elimination Final.

Answer: It doesn't.

Conversely, we have the Fadgelow, and amongst the top 8 we had:
1 player from the premier team;
3 players from the runner-up;
1 player from a Preliminary Finalist;
3 players from Semi-Finalists.

 

[sr36]

I'm well aware that you don't know how to use stats to support any ludicrous claim you make. I am just glad I was able to easily and objectively dismiss your claim that Daicos is the dominant midfielder for line breaking and creative/damaging ball use.

If you are using outcome stats to show causality without factoring in the multitude of potential variables, you're the one who doesn't know how to use data.

And you are doing that. You're assuming that a player having higher score involvements, goal assists, goals etc only comes down to the quality of that player's attacking play. You're not factoring in the ridiculously obvious variables that would produce different outcomes such as teammates and game plan.

Strangely though, you do know better as shown by your attempts to find other variables when it comes to Nick getting higher data for things like possessions and Brownlow and Coaches votes ...

 

[Fadge]

Cool. So Darcy Cameron was the best player in the AFL in 2025 among Collingwood players? His own club considered him to have been better performed than Daicos.

Nope. Just an interesting data point.

Most predicted All-Austrlian teams had Holmes in it. He was the unlucky omission in 2025.

 

[Fadge]

If you are using outcome stats to show causality without factoring in the multitude of potential variables, you're the one who doesn't know how to use data.

And you are doing that. You're assuming that a player having higher score involvements, goal assists, goals etc only comes down to the quality of that player's attacking play. You're not factoring in the ridiculously obvious variables that would produce different outcomes such as teammates and game plan.

Strangely though, you do know better as shown by your attempts to find other variables when it comes to Nick getting higher data for things like possessions and Brownlow and Coaches votes ...

It's called 'Creative Data Analysis to support a narrative'.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Question: If the PLaYeR RaTiNGZ algorithm 'approximates the unknowing truth of player greatness, and how it leads to team success', why then do we only have 2 players in the year's top 11 who played in a winning final? That winning final being an Elimination Final.

Answer: It doesn't.

Conversely, we have the Fadgelow, and amongst the top 8 we had:
1 player from the premier team;
3 players from the runner-up;
1 player from a Preliminary Finalist;
3 players from Semi-Finalists.

How can a person with almost 40,000 posts on a football forum be this dense?

• There are 18 players per team on a football field. One individual player has somewhat limited impact upon winning games, how good the 18 players are collectively more so. It is the team sport that has the greatest number of players on the field, more than any other.
• Teams can have better years than others despite progressing not as far in the finals, because they can be unlucky or the nature of elimination football leads to this. For instance, Melbourne had an excellent 2023 season, that nonetheless ended in a semi-final exit because they were unlucky in losing narrowly to Carlton in that semi final. But it's fair to say that they still had the better overall season than Carlton, by virtue of the fact that even after that finals game, Melbourne won more games than Carlton in the season overall.

Like I'm having to explain it to a five-year-old. I would have thought that those two dot points were obvious and self-evident to anyone who has watched so much football to be posting on a forum like this. Yet here I am.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

If you are using outcome stats to show causality without factoring in the multitude of potential variables, you're the one who doesn't know how to use data.

And you are doing that. You're assuming that a player having higher score involvements, goal assists, goals etc only comes down to the quality of that player's attacking play. You're not factoring in the ridiculously obvious variables that would produce different outcomes such as teammates and game plan.

Strangely though, you do know better as shown by your attempts to find other variables when it comes to Nick getting higher data for things like possessions and Brownlow and Coaches votes ...

And you're the fool for thinking that teammates and game plan can vary those statistics enough to make a difference.

As I've pointed out before, both Western Bulldogs (who played in the highest scoring matches) and Collingwood (who had some of the lowest) still had total match scores that were within around 10% of the league average. It's not as if a typical Collingwood game was points for/points against 50-40 and a typical Western Bulldogs game was 200-180 in 2025.

For instance, Collingwood as a team averaged 68 intercept possessions and Western Bulldogs 61 intercept possessions, compared to the league average of 64. Ergo, both within about 7.5%. Western Bulldogs games averaged 97.8 stoppages a game in 2025, compared to Collingwood's 96.2 - league average 97.8

There were incredibly similar opportunities for both Bontempelli and Daicos to generate scores in this algorithm on the basis of the team style that their team impacted upon.

Your're acting as if Daicos was playing soccer and Bontempelli was playing European Handball given the opportunity to score. You're completely wrong - both teams played styles that gave incredibly similar opportunities for their player to get involved in the play at an "from turnover" and "from stoppage" system, leading to incredibly similar match scores (both around 10% of the league average).

 

[Fadge]

How can a person with almost 40,000 posts on a football forum be this dense?

• There are 18 players per team on a football field. One individual player has somewhat limited impact upon winning games, how good the 18 players are collectively more so. It is the team sport that has the greatest number of players on the field, more than any other.
• Teams can have better years than others despite progressing not as far in the finals, because they can be unlucky or the nature of elimination football leads to this. For instance, Melbourne had an excellent 2023 season, that nonetheless ended in a semi-final exit because they were unlucky in losing narrowly to Carlton in that semi final. But it's fair to say that they still had the better overall season than Carlton, by virtue of the fact that even after that finals game, Melbourne won more games than Carlton in the season overall.

Like I'm having to explain it to a five-year-old. I would have thought that those two dot points were obvious and self-evident to anyone who has watched so much football to be posting on a forum like this. Yet here I am.

Yeah...

I guess it's just coincidence that none of the 11 'best' players in 2025 came from the 4 'best' teams...

Or maybe, the algorithm is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Cdog71]

LOLOLOL.

A player who polled coaches votes in 15 of his 20 home and away games was apparently 'highly inconsistent'....

Bailey Smith was in the top 2 Footballers last season?

 

[sr36]

And you're the fool for thinking that teammates and game plan can vary those statistics enough to make a difference.

As I've pointed out before, both Western Bulldogs (who played in the highest scoring matches) and Collingwood (who had some of the lowest) still had total match scores that were within around 10% of the league average. It's not as if a typical Collingwood game was points for/points against 50-40 and a typical Western Bulldogs game was 200-180 in 2025.

For instance, Collingwood as a team averaged 68 intercept possessions and Western Bulldogs 61 intercept possessions, compared to the league average of 64. Ergo, both within about 7.5%. Western Bulldogs games averaged 97.8 stoppages a game in 2025, compared to Collingwood's 96.2 - league average 97.8

There were incredibly similar opportunities for both Bontempelli and Daicos to generate scores in this algorithm on the basis of the team style that their team impacted upon.

Your're acting as if Daicos was playing soccer and Bontempelli was playing European Handball given the opportunity to score. You're completely wrong - both teams played styles that gave incredibly similar opportunities for their player to get involved in the play at an "from turnover" and "from stoppage" system, leading to incredibly similar match scores (both around 10% of the league average).

What are you talking about? We're talking about scoring and you're listing a whole heap of stats that aren't directly involved in scores.

Dogs scored approx 30% more than the Pies last year ... Bont got approx 15% more score involvements per game than Nick. They're the most relevant stats.

Pretty easy to see that better tall forwards, a stronger midfield group and a more attacking game plan probably makes it easier to get score involvement stats at the Dogs. Just as those things result in higher scores from the Dogs.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

What are you talking about? We're talking about scoring and you're listing a whole heap of stats that aren't directly involved in scores.

Dogs scored approx 30% more than the Pies last year ... Bont got approx 15% more score involvements per game than Nick. They're the most relevant stats.

Pretty easy to see that better tall forwards, a stronger midfield group and a more attacking game plan probably makes it easier to get score involvement stats at the Dogs. Just as those things result in higher scores from the Dogs.

Yes, Bulldogs scored more because Bontempelli himself kicked more goals and goal assists than Daicos, because he's the better player. Daicos has bad teammates that fail to score goals, but Collingwood get bailed out because they have an excellent defence. Glad we established that!

 

[Mr Meow]

If you are using outcome stats to show causality without factoring in the multitude of potential variables, you're the one who doesn't know how to use data.

And you are doing that. You're assuming that a player having higher score involvements, goal assists, goals etc only comes down to the quality of that player's attacking play. You're not factoring in the ridiculously obvious variables that would produce different outcomes such as teammates and game plan.

Strangely though, you do know better as shown by your attempts to find other variables when it comes to Nick getting higher data for things like possessions and Brownlow and Coaches votes ...

There are limitations and caveats to any system of assessing players. We've had this discussion 815 times before and it all applies to the game by game voting systems too. You only cry when something referenced doesn't acknowledge Daicos as the best, but let everything used by Pies supporters fly through without question. It's a very biased selection method you use for what to criticise and what you deem acceptable.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Yes, Bulldogs scored more because Bontempelli himself kicked more goals and goal assists than Daicos, because he's the better player. Daicos has bad teammates that fail to score goals, but Collingwood get bailed out because they have an excellent defence. Glad we established that!

A "virgin birth" sounds more plausible

 

[Fadge]

And you're the fool for thinking that teammates and game plan can vary those statistics enough to make a difference.

As I've pointed out before, both Western Bulldogs (who played in the highest scoring matches) and Collingwood (who had some of the lowest) still had total match scores that were within around 10% of the league average. It's not as if a typical Collingwood game was points for/points against 50-40 and a typical Western Bulldogs game was 200-180 in 2025.

For instance, Collingwood as a team averaged 68 intercept possessions and Western Bulldogs 61 intercept possessions, compared to the league average of 64. Ergo, both within about 7.5%. Western Bulldogs games averaged 97.8 stoppages a game in 2025, compared to Collingwood's 96.2 - league average 97.8

There were incredibly similar opportunities for both Bontempelli and Daicos to generate scores in this algorithm on the basis of the team style that their team impacted upon.

Your're acting as if Daicos was playing soccer and Bontempelli was playing European Handball given the opportunity to score. You're completely wrong - both teams played styles that gave incredibly similar opportunities for their player to get involved in the play at an "from turnover" and "from stoppage" system, leading to incredibly similar match scores (both around 10% of the league average).

Based on the above, every player in every team plays identical roles, and the algorithm ranks them based on like for like roles...

The algorithm is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Fadge]

Bailey Smith was in the top 2 Footballers last season?

He was the second best performed player across 2025, including finals.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Based on the above, every player in every team plays identical roles, and the algorithm ranks them based on like for like roles...

The algorithm is fundamentally flawed.

No, its just that team roles and tactics are similar enough that they realistically only vary statistical output by a few percentage points, maybe low double digits.

Footy across all teams is generally similar enough. Take centre bounces for example - by virtue of the ruleset, there are only 3 midfielders. How good you are at centre bounces is a large part of how good you are out of the midde.

In the role they were asked to do Bont and Daicos were one of those 3 for a majority of the season, and both coaches asked them to try and win the ball out of centre bounces and dispose of it well upon doing so. There's no "team role" element of being good enough to win and use the ball well out of the centre (or tackle or lay pressure when you don't).

It's just plain and simple that Bontempelli was better than Daicos at this virtually identical match situation across both teams.

 

[Fadge]

No, its just that team roles and tactics are similar enough that they realistically only vary statistical output by a few percentage points, maybe low double digits.

Footy across all teams is generally similar enough. Take centre bounces for example - by virtue of the ruleset, there are only 3 midfielders. How good you are at centre bounces is a large part of how good you are out of the midde.

In the role they were asked to do Bont and Daicos were one of those 3 for a majority of the season, and both coaches asked them to try and win the ball out of centre bounces and dispose of it well upon doing so. There's no "team role" element of being good enough to win and use the ball well out of the centre (or tackle or lay pressure when you don't).

It's just plain and simple that Bontempelli was better than Daicos at this virtually identical match situation across both teams.

So different players at a centre bounce don't have different roles?

OK then.

And then the centre bounce, which constitutes about 2% of the game duration, is done. What next?

Every midfielder then spends the same amount of time playing the same role in the same positions on the ground, based on the same game styles?

OK then.

You really are quite brilliant.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So different players at a centre bounce don't have different roles?

OK then.

And then the centre bounce, which constitutes about 2% of the game duration, is done. What next?

Every midfielder then spends the same amount of time playing the same role in the same positions on the ground, based on the same game styles?

OK then.

You really are quite brilliant.

I have no idea what you're on about. Daicos and Bontempelli play almost identical roles in the sense that the other two midfielders typically are happy to play more defensive roles or release roles to get the ball in the hands of their best ball using midfielder (Daicos or Bont). That is obviousl to anyone who watches games. Teams tag Bont and Daicos, but they don't tag the other 2 midfielders at centre bounces as often.

 

[Fadge]

I have no idea what you're on about. Daicos and Bontempelli play almost identical roles....

Oh boy.

And Centres bounces, which is 2% of the total game time...

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Oh boy.

And Centres bounces, which is 2% of the total game time...

Love how you spin it.

Possessions from within chains direct from team centre bounce clearance wins are 15-20%+ of a midfielder's total possession count full stop. (Note how I said the whole chain, not just the player that got the centre clearance themselves). Not 2%.

 

[sr36]

Yes, Bulldogs scored more because Bontempelli himself kicked more goals and goal assists than Daicos, because he's the better player. Daicos has bad teammates that fail to score goals, but Collingwood get bailed out because they have an excellent defence. Glad we established that!

Funny that you can see that having a star mid beside you can impact things like Brownlow votes. Strange that you can't see why it's easier to get score related stats in a team with better mids around you, and better forwards to kick to, rove from or draw defenders, as well as a more attacking game plan.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Funny that you can see that having a star mid beside you can impact things like Brownlow votes. Strange that you can't see why it's easier to get score related stats in a team with better mids around you, and better forwards to kick to, rove from or draw defenders, as well as a more attacking game plan.

Why doesn't Daicos get better defensive related stats with a good defence around him, then?

 

[sr36]

Why doesn't Daicos get better defensive related stats with a good defence around him, then?

We've got good defenders. Why would we use him for that.

Daicos does the harder thing, he helps a team with very ordinary tall forwards and ordinary or aging midfield partners kick a winning score.

Bont can play anywhere. Why doesn't he help out more where he's needed at the dogs - defence?

 

[Fadge]

Why doesn't Daicos get better defensive related stats with a good defence around him, then?

O.M.F.G.

 

[sr36]

Even if you don't look at game plans. These blokes seem to think a handball to Ed Richards

20

Ed Richards

Age

26

Ht

188cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.4

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

5.2

4star

M

2.5

3star

T

2.4

4star

CL

0.7

3star

D

11.3

3star

K

6.0

2star

HB

5.3

3star

M

1.5

2star

T

2.5

3star

CL

1.1

3star

D

14.6

4star

K

9.8

4star

HB

4.8

4star

M

4.8

5star

T

2.6

4star

CL

0.2

2star

is equally as likely to end in a score as one to Ned Long. Or a kick to Sam Darcy compared to one to Dan McStay.

But at the same time they say that excellence from Ed Richards

20

Ed Richards

Age

26

Ht

188cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.4

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

5.2

4star

M

2.5

3star

T

2.4

4star

CL

0.7

3star

D

11.3

3star

K

6.0

2star

HB

5.3

3star

M

1.5

2star

T

2.5

3star

CL

1.1

3star

D

14.6

4star

K

9.8

4star

HB

4.8

4star

M

4.8

5star

T

2.6

4star

CL

0.2

2star

will stop you from getting as many Brownlow votes as if you're playing beside Ned Long.

Just weird. It can't be the same people making both these claims, can it?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

We've got good defenders. Why would we use him for that.

Daicos does the harder thing, he helps a team with very ordinary tall forwards and ordinary or aging midfield partners kick a winning score.

Bont can play anywhere. Why doesn't he help out more where he's needed at the dogs - defence?

We've got good attackers. Why would we use Bontempelli for kicking goals?

Bont does the harder things. He helps a team with very ordinary tall defenders and ordinary or aging small defensive midfield/defender partners prevent the opposition from kicking a winning score.

Daicos can play anywhere. Why doesn't he help out where he's most needed at the Pies - attack?