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

[TiAn_]

But with regard to my personal player rankings, Daicos has gone 1, 4, 1 over the last 3 years.

 

[sr36]

But this is a genuine question - if you believe other players can back up their rating on a year-to-year basis, why don't you think this will happen for Smith? If you're rating 2023 form as being significant in how good a player is (and strangely, not 2022 form where Smith was elite), why don't you think Zak Butters will be a top 5 player because his 2023 year was his career best (if you're weighing 2023 so heavily, like you are for Daicos and Smith).

Players get studied and targeted. Rather than the silly argument about player ratings. The real argument for Bont over Nick is that he's been doing this shit for a decade. Everything has been thrown at him and he's adapted and always found a way to have a massive impact on a game of footy. He's a champion that everyone knows will star.

Bailey has been inconsistent.
**** knows what he'll dish up this year. How he'll cope with the extra attention an outstanding year will bring. His best is bloody good though.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Players get studied and targeted.

But what makes this more true for Smith than every player generally?

 

[sr36]

But what makes this more true for Smith than every player generally?

Did you read the rest. I thought I explained that. He's coming off an outstanding year and hasn't shown he can back it up consistently. So you'd obviously be more confident of the blokes coming off multiple outstanding years. May very well have another outstanding year, but surely you'd be more confident regarding Nick, Bont, Serong, Neale etc... and it's more that just being targeted, it's often an inner drive as well. Complacency sometimes sets in following success.

 

[Fadge]

But this is a genuine question - if you believe other players can back up their rating on a year-to-year basis, why don't you think this will happen for Smith? If you're rating 2023 form as being significant in how good a player is (and strangely, not 2022 form where Smith was elite), why don't you think Zak Butters will be a top 5 player because his 2023 year was his career best (if you're weighing 2023 so heavily, like you are for Daicos and Smith).

Did I need to list ALL the players I thought would be top 5 or 10?

I gave some examples, and it doesn't mean I necessarily predict Smith to be #5. FFS.

If a player has been in the top echelon for 3 years, in the way Daicos has, they are obviously more likely to continue to do it in subsequent years.

Smith 'elite' in 2022? Let me guess... PLaYeR RaTiNGZ?

He had an elite 2021 finals series, but i don't necessarily recall him backing it up in 2022 as one of the competition's very best.

 

[sr36]

Champion Data have actively told you that Collingwood won games because they had 8 defenders who were among the best 100 defenders in the league.

Champion Data have actively told you that Western Bulldogs won fewer games than the Dogs because they had only 2 defender that were among the best 100 players in the league.

Do you disagree with the above statement, or the generalised ranking of the depth of defenders in both teams?

No sarcastic comments about how the Dogs defenders are attacking or not attacking or whatever, just f you agree with the simple view of the rankings of each team's set of defenders of "I hold a view that the Dogs defenders are not good players in depth, and even their third or fourth best defender would not be in the best 5 or 6 at an average finals team, and yet, the Pies defender that starts on the bench could very well have been the fourth or fifth best defender at other finals teams".

No sarcastic comments about them as players, just their rankings.

Do you disagree with those rankings for the defensive groups, as individual players?

In June last year, champion data had Geelong rated the best team (fair enough) I'll give you 7 guesses for who they had second.

Spoiler

Melbourne

 

[Fadge]

In June last year, champion data had Geelong rated the best team (fair enough) I'll give you 7 guesses for who they had second.

Spoiler

Melbourne

Astute judges.

 

[sr36]

Astute judges.

They had a 5 week block with a magnificent statistical "profile.' Dogs must have been losing to good teams rather than thrashing bunnies during that 5 week block.

 

[Mr Meow]

You haven’t said a single meaningful thing about football. It’s obvious why.

He usually goes for wins via attrition after relentless trolling and childish remarks, shutting down any attempt to actually debate the specifics of any football discussion. It all operates on the premise of anything that doesn't label Daicos the strongest/best must be ludicrous, and any area where Daicos did "the best" is bulletproof. Then just "LOLOLOLOL" until the person realises it is being dragged down to a 3 year old level.

A rotating cast of 30 posters pointing out the same thing and ripping him to shreds is the most effective way to get around this, while continuing to highlight how poorly made his points are. Which then just turns him into even more of a Bay-style clown. Anything with numbers that support commonsense observations brings a bigger tantrum each time.

 

[Lunchtime]

So you're allowed to point out one part of the algorithm that you don't agree with, but we're not allowed to point out the many other parts of the algorithm that we don't agree with?

I'm starting to understand your MO now.

By all means, if you don't agree with parts of the algorithm, then let the makers know in writing. Let us know if you get a response and what they say. No point telling us - tell the people that matter.

 

[sr36]

By all means, if you don't agree with parts of the algorithm, then let the makers know in writing. Let us know if you get a response and what they say. No point telling us - tell the people that matter.

The mugs buying it are the people that matter. They're not going to stop selling it whilst an increasing number buy into it.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

By all means, if you don't agree with parts of the algorithm, then let the makers know in writing. Let us know if you get a response and what they say. No point telling us - tell the people that matter.

You see, I've actually read the PhD thesis that led to its creation (and so can the posters on this board now that I'm linking it here) so I believe I'm somewhat qualified to talk about it.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karl-Jackson-6/publication/328629194_ASSESSING_PLAYER_PERFORMANCE_IN_AUSTRALIAN_FOOTBALL_USING_SPATIAL_DATA/links/5bd938b0299bf1124faf790b/ASSESSING-PLAYER-PERFORMANCE-IN-AUSTRALIAN-FOOTBALL-USING-SPATIAL-DATA.pdf

I also believe that player ratings points scales in terms of pace of play. That is, it adjusts all scores for the number of possession chains in a game, scaling it to league average. Though not a strong correlation, higher scores correlates to matches with more chains (that is, kick ins + clearances + intercepts for each team). Meaning, that if it just so happens for the entire last quarter than two back pockets play kick to kick for each other for 1 total chain for the entire quarter, everyone's score for the first 3 quarters actually increases by one third to account for this (obviously, the adjustments are less extreme, but it holds true for principles). Anyway, it refutes the idea that Bont gets lots of these points because his team plays this high-octane style with lots of chains of possession for both teams - if that's true, it has already scaled down Bont's point.

We could have an intelligent discussion about Daicos, the algorithm, and both what we can learn from the algorithm as it relates to why it doesn't rate Daicos (via understanding how it scores via the above link), both in the sense that maybe the Algorithm is flawed, but maybe our collective, consensus rating of Daicos is also flawed. It's an interesting, curious, intellectual exercise... that is not engaged in at all by Pies fans, who want to troll, mislead, selectively ignore and just act in all-around bad faith.

 

[doppleganger]

Why did Collingwood's team collectively get within 10% of the team player ratings points to the Dogs when their matches were more than 20% lower scoring though? Explain that to me please.

??

You were the one incorrectly blabbering on about it being about margins.

But it's an equity measurement that is meant track directly to margins of victory,

You have misunderstood the actual ratings, the equity term is how they assign a rating based on ground position based on historic likelihood of what the next score will be.

It isn't anything to do with margins, teams can lose and still end up with a higher collective team rating score than their opponent.

The funny bit was your then created pretend imaginary ratios based on your bunkum and patted yourself on the back as "proof".

It is weird that you keep trying to force or pretend a linear relationship exists between ratings and % or scoring, but that isn't how it works.

 

[doppleganger]

The real argument for Bont over Nick is that he's been doing this shit for a decade. Everything has been thrown at him and he's adapted and always found a way to have a massive impact on a game of footy. He's a champion that everyone knows will star.

Yep.

Bont is an absolute star who has been at the top of his game for a decade...a chance to break 900 coaches votes this year!!

Only GAJ, Danger and Pendles have hit that level!!!

 

[threenewpadlocks]

??

You were the one incorrectly blabbering on about it being about margins.

You have misunderstood the actual ratings, the equity term is how they assign a rating based on ground position based on historic likelihood of what the next score will be.

It isn't anything to do with margins, teams can lose and still end up with a higher collective team rating score than their opponent.

The funny bit was your then created pretend imaginary ratios based on your bunkum and patted yourself on the back as "proof".

It is weird that you keep trying to force or pretend a linear relationship exists between ratings and % or scoring, but that isn't how it works.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322984558_Validation_of_the_Australian_Football_League_Player_Ratings

Wrong.

The linear relationship exists. Per that link.

 

[sr36]

You see, I've actually read the PhD thesis that led to its creation (and so can the posters on this board now that I'm linking it here) so I believe I'm somewhat qualified to talk about it.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karl-Jackson-6/publication/328629194_ASSESSING_PLAYER_PERFORMANCE_IN_AUSTRALIAN_FOOTBALL_USING_SPATIAL_DATA/links/5bd938b0299bf1124faf790b/ASSESSING-PLAYER-PERFORMANCE-IN-AUSTRALIAN-FOOTBALL-USING-SPATIAL-DATA.pdf

I also believe that player ratings points scales in terms of pace of play. That is, it adjusts all scores for the number of possession chains in a game, scaling it to league average. Though not a strong correlation, higher scores correlates to matches with more chains (that is, kick ins + clearances + intercepts for each team). Meaning, that if it just so happens for the entire last quarter than two back pockets play kick to kick for each other for 1 total chain for the entire quarter, everyone's score for the first 3 quarters actually increases by one third to account for this (obviously, the adjustments are less extreme, but it holds true for principles). Anyway, it refutes the idea that Bont gets lots of these points because his team plays this high-octane style with lots of chains of possession for both teams - if that's true, it has already scaled down Bont's point.

We could have an intelligent discussion about Daicos, the algorithm, and both what we can learn from the algorithm as it relates to why it doesn't rate Daicos (via understanding how it scores via the above link), both in the sense that maybe the Algorithm is flawed, but maybe our collective, consensus rating of Daicos is also flawed. It's an interesting, curious, intellectual exercise... that is not engaged in at all by Pies fans, who want to troll, mislead, selectively ignore and just act in all-around bad faith.

It's a descriptive system which describes past events. And it described the Dogs, who didn't make finals, as outperforming the teams who played finals last year.

That is a massive failure from the system.

Great that he's done a PHd and might it lead to something in the end, but it's currently way less accurate than the ladder in terms of describing performance.

 

[sr36]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322984558_Validation_of_the_Australian_Football_League_Player_Ratings

Wrong.

The linear relationship exists. Per that link.

It shows that it correlated between 2013-2016. Incidentally, that was before Richmond brought us surge footy. It sure as hell didn't correlate in terms of match outcomes last year, which is the correlation claim - because that's what matters - percentage sure as hell doesn't why would anyone test against that. Maybe Nick Daicos has broken the system - in the same he's clearly broken you.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It's a descriptive system which describes past events. And it described the Dogs, who didn't make finals, as outperforming the teams who played finals last year.

That is a massive failure from the system.

Great that he's done a PHd and might it lead to something in the end, but it's currently way less accurate than the ladder in terms of describing performance.

If you don't think margin of victory has some relevancy in letting us assess a team is good and therefore more likely to win future games (and players are "good" insofar they're likely to contribute to future wins), what are we doing here?

Obviously, against common opponents, a team that wins one game by 60 points and loses one game by 5 points is a better team then one that wins two games bothby 10 points. Despite the better team having 1 win 1 loss and not 2 wins - at least in the context of who you believe, out of the two teams, would be more likely to defeat a common third team.

If you don't agree with that principle (and to be clear, I'm saying it at is just a general principle, not a hard and fast rule in all scenarios and in all contexts) what are we doing here? Disagreeing with that principle and saying WINZZZZZ only matter.

I'd also like to point out that statistical tipping models - like the squiggle - do better at predicting future results via tipping than human experts (such as The Age's expert tipsters) who tend to care more about WINZZZZZ than actual margin of victory.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It shows that it correlated between 2013-2016. Incidentally, that was before Richmond brought us surge footy. It sure as hell didn't correlate in terms of match outcomes last year, which is the correlation claim - because that's what matters - percentage sure as hell doesn't why would anyone test against that. Maybe Nick Daicos has broken the system - in the same he's clearly broken you.

Bad faith smartarse. It continues to be correlates, because the algorithm is applied identically, and champion data records the statistical inputs identically since 2016.

Have you run the mathematics about how it correlated to match outcomes in 2025 to know it's below the 76% correlation to wins/losses as outlined in the paper, if that's your claim? The player ratings points per team per game is freely available on Wheelostats. Do your worst.

Next you'll be telling me Champion Data callers fail to correctly call Daicos' stats.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Obviously, against common opponents, a team that wins one game by 60 points and loses one game by 5 points is a better team then one that wins two games both by 10 points.

 

[sr36]

If you don't think margin of victory has some relevancy in letting us assess a team is good and therefore more likely to win future games (and players are "good" insofar they're likely to contribute to future wins), what are we doing here?

Obviously, against common opponents, a team that wins one game by 60 points and loses one game by 5 points is a better team then one that wins two games bothby 10 points. Despite the better team having 1 win 1 loss and not 2 wins - at least in the context of who you believe, out of the two teams, would be more likely to defeat a common third team.

If you don't agree with that principle (and to be clear, I'm saying it at is just a general principle, not a hard and fast rule in all scenarios and in all contexts) what are we doing here?

As a blanket rule I think it's ridiculous. I think you need a heap of context to decide that. Who were they playing? When were the games done as a contest? What were the tactics regarding the final quarter.

You just can't look at final margins to decide that.

Last season illustrated it perfectly - the AFL was basically split into two different standard leagues - Dogs were outstanding when playing in the lower league and thumped those teams, but didn't cut it in the top flight league. Your theory would suggest that a gun VFL mid who is more effective in the VFL but can't cut it in the AFL is better than the good AFL player who doesn't star as much in the VFL. It's ridiculous.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Let me present to you a thought exercise.

There's a sport you've never heard of having their world cup. It's a group of 4 teams. All the information you have is this:

Team A beat Team C by a margin of 100-99
Team A beat Team D by a margin of 90-89.

Team B loses to Team C by a margin of 100-99
Team B defeats Team D by a margin of 120-60

You know nothing about how the sport is played or how they score points, other than it is played to a clock (as opposed to tennis or badminton) or and you accumulate points as time progresses.

Team A and Team B are now playing each other in Game 3 of their world cup group.

Team A has 2 wins
Team B has 1 win

They have both played the same opponents.

You posses no other information about the matches.

It is a factual basis that the team that is the better team will be more likely to win the match.

Which team do you think is more likely to win this game?

 

[HeathySure]

Let me present to you a thought exercise.

There's a sport you've never heard of having their world cup. It's a group of 4 teams. All the information you have is this:

Team A beat Team C by a margin of 100-99
Team A beat Team D by a margin of 90-89.

Team B loses to Team C by a margin of 100-99
Team B defeats Team D by a margin of 120-60

You know nothing about how the sport is played or how they score points, other than it is played to a clock (as opposed to tennis or badminton) or and you accumulate points as time progresses.

Team A and Team B are now playing each other in Game 3 of their world cup group.

Team A has 2 wins
Team B has 1 win

They have both played the same opponents.

You posses no other information about the matches.

It is a factual basis that the team that is the better team will be more likely to win the match.

Which team do you think is more likely to win this game?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

As a blanket rule I think it's ridiculous. I think you need a heap of context to decide that

The whole point of me saying it is that it was as a general principle, not as a blanket rule, and therefore context is irrelavent.

Who were they playing? When were the games done as a contest? What were the tactics regarding the final quarter.

Over the course of a season, teams play largely similar schedules, in that they play every team at least once but not more than twice, and they have 11 home and 11 away games.

but didn't cut it in the top flight league

This is where I disagree. Across all games played among all top 9 teams last year, the Dogs had the 5th best percentage of those teams. We were competitive against the league's best, and somewhat unlucky to lose matches by narrow margins.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Which team do you think is more likely to win this game?

The indomitable Team A