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

[doppleganger]

But it is funny you laud Brownlow votes and dismiss Player Ratings, when one is based on emotion and very low level analysis and the other is based on actual data that is proven to drive outcomes.

Proven to drive outcomes

It is just tied to scoring, that is the entire premise.of the score equity ratings.

Dogs were the highest rated team in 2025,.despite only having expected wins of 13.

Carlton were highly rated in 2024, despite only having expected wins of 11.

What outcomes do you think it is driving?

All it does is give more score equity points to players on higher scoring teams. Everyone has overdone the Dogs having 5 of the 29 players who had a rating of above 14 in 2025 but missing the finals.

In 2023 it was high scoring Adelaide who lost 12 games and missed finals, but had a higher team ratings than minor premier Collingwood. And lining teams up side by side by player ratings - the player ratings had Adelaide with 18 of the best 30 players according to player ratings between Pies and Crows in 2023.

Anybody who thinks player ratings are driving outcomes doesn't actually get them.

They are just about attacking and being able to hit the scoreboard...teams who play a successful but defensive game (and players in defensive minded teams) are rated poorly for not scoring, despite winning games and ultimately flags.

 

[Fadge]

Jagger's 5th ever quarter of AFL was better than any quarter Naicos has ever played

Why hasn't this thread been shut down??

Was it?

Because he had more 'possessions', regardless of how he used it?

Or is that what PLaYeR RaTiNGZ or SuPeRCoaCH said?

 

[Fadge]

Proven to drive outcomes

It is just tied to scoring, that is the entire premise.of the score equity ratings.

Dogs were the highest rated team in 2025,.despite only having expected wins of 13.

Carlton were highly rated in 2024, despite only having expected wins of 11.

What outcomes do you think it is driving?

All it does is give more score equity points to players on higher scoring teams. Everyone has overdone the Dogs having 5 of the 29 players who had a rating of above 14 in 2025 but missing the finals.

In 2023 it was high scoring Adelaide who lost 12 games and missed finals, but had a higher team ratings than minor premier Collingwood. And lining teams up side by side by player ratings - the player ratings had Adelaide with 18 of the best 30 players according to player ratings between Pies and Crows in 2023.

Anybody who thinks player ratings are driving outcomes doesn't actually get them.

They are just about attacking and being able to hit the scoreboard...teams who play a successful but defensive game (and players in defensive minded teams) are rated poorly for not scoring, despite winning games and ultimately flags.

'Approximates the unknowing truth of player greatness, and how it leads to team success' and 'proven to drive outcomes'...

When 2 of its top 11 players in 2025 played won a single final, that being an Elimination Final, and exactly ZERO representatives from the top 4 teams.

 

[doppleganger]

'Approximates the unknowing truth of player greatness, and how it leads to team success' and 'proven to drive outcomes'...

When 2 of its top 11 players in 2025 played won a single final, that being an Elimination Final, and exactly ZERO representatives from the top 4 teams.

In 2015, Freo were a low scoring minor premier and Pies were a high scoring avg team who won just 10 games and finished 12th.

Anyone surprised that Pies team rating was higher than Freo, or that the Pies had 17 of the best 25 players between Freo and Pies according to Player Ratings?

But yes, player ratings are driving outcomes according to the Richmond "analysts"

 

[sr36]

Sounds like there is a massive rift between Dogs players. Richards and Darcy are such stars that they rob Bont of award votes (despite not getting many votes), yet peculiarly don't assist Bont get score involvements. They must hate him?

 

[doppleganger]

In 2024 Carlton were a higher rated team compared to Premiership winning Brisbane.

Carlton had 4 of the best 5 rated players between the two clubs, and 12 of best 20 rated players were also Baggers.

Carlton were another high scoring poor defensive team filled with great players according to the scoring equity points (aka PlAYA RaTinGs).

It really shouldn't be hard to understand that a scoring equity rating system rewards higher scoring teams, and players who play in higher scoring teams.

It is complete bunkum to say players from higher scoring teams are better than those who play more important roles in lower scoring more successful teams.

 

[Fadge]

In 2015, Freo were a low scoring minor premier and Pies were a high scoring avg team who won just 10 games and finished 12th.

Anyone surprised that Pies team rating was higher than Freo, or that the Pies had 17 of the best 25 players between Freo and Pies according to Player Ratings?

But yes, player ratings are driving outcomes according to the Richmond "analysts"

If you want a player whose game style 'drives outcomes', I'd look no further than Brisbane's best and fairest in their 2025 premiership season, Josh Dunkley.

Has the perfect balance of defence and ball winning capability.

But sorry Josh, despite being judged you team's best and fairest in a premiership season, you were only 'rated' the 50th best player in the competition.

But at least you were rated ahead of the Coleman Medalist from the other Grand Final team - Jeremy Cameron - who was rated 52nd.

 

[Fadge]

In 2024 Carlton were a higher rated team compared to Premiership winning Brisbane.

Carlton had 4 of the best 5 rated players between the two clubs, and 12 of best 20 rated players were also Baggers.

Carlton were another high scoring poor defensive team filled with great players according to the scoring equity points (aka PlAYA RaTinGs).

It really shouldn't be hard to understand that a scoring equity rating system rewards higher scoring teams, and players who play in higher scoring teams.

It is complete bunkum to say players from higher scoring teams are better than those who play more important roles in lower scoring more successful teams.

Funny you should mention Carlton and Brisbane in 2024...

In the famous Owen 60 Elimination Final, have a guess which team the two highest rated players on the ground came from?

That's right... CARLTON!

George Hewett and Patrick Cripps were the two highest rated players on the ground. Hewett 25% better than the best Brisbane player (Ashcroft).

In fact, Carlton had 11 of the top 21 rated players on the ground that night!

Oh boy.

 

[doppleganger]

If you want a player whose game style 'drives outcomes', I'd look no further than Brisbane's best and fairest in their 2025 premiership season, Josh Dunkley.

Has the perfect balance of defence and ball winning capability.

But sorry Josh, despite being judged you team's best and fairest in a premiership season, you were only 'rated' the 50th best player in the competition.

But at least you were rated ahead of the Coleman Medalist from the other Grand Final team - Jeremy Cameron - who was rated 52nd.

Dunkley is like our Perryman (but better), the defensive star.

But speaking of Brisbane, is anyone surprised that back in 2021 when Brisbane were the highest scoring team that they had a better team rating than Melbourne and 10 of the best 14 players from Brisbane n Melbourne were Lions players according to the score equity ratings.

If you want good score equity ratings (Player Ratings) you want to be in a team that.scores heavily.

Who cares about stopping your opponent from scoring and actually winning games, that doesn't produce score equity ratings (PlaYa RaTinGs).

 

[doppleganger]

Funny you should mention Carlton and Brisbane in 2024...

In the famous Owen 60 Elimination Final, have a guess which team the two highest rated players on the ground came from?

That's right... CARLTON!

George Hewett and Patrick Cripps were the two highest rated players on the ground. Hewett 25% better than the best Brisbane player (Ashcroft).

In fact, Carlton had 11 of the top 21 rated players on the ground that night!

Oh boy.

The bigger issue is the overall team ratings.

2025 week 1 finals

Pies beat Adelaide by 24 in a low scoring defensive game, the team PlaYer Ratings total was 215 and we kept Adelaide to just 185.

Meanwhile GWS lost a high scoring final against Hawks by 19, but they still ended up with higher player ratings (score equity ratings) than Collingwood.

According to score equity ratings (PlaYa RaTinGs) GWS had 4 players who were all rated higher than any single Pie (makes sense when you get it is just noting contributing to scoring).

But where the Tiger analysts make a mistake is then using score equity ratings and saying they drive outcomes or are in fact who the best players were.

Being the #1 rated player for a winning team in a low scoring game, is more impactful on the result than just racking up scoring points in a high scoring loss when ALL players find it easy to get scoring equity points.

 

[Fadge]

Being the #1 rated player for a winning team in a low scoring game, is more impactful on the result than just racking up scoring points in a high scoring loss when ALL players find it easy to get scoring equity points.

Are you sure?

Because apparently, it's not...

PLaYeR RaTiNGZ says so.

 

[doppleganger]

Are you sure?

Because apparently, it's not...

If your were interested in data about driving outcomes - winning games of footy - obviously the context of game style is important.

Anyone surprised that in Rd0 Brisbane Lions player ratings total points were more than 30 higher than Collingwood, despite Brisbane losing and Pies winning?

Scoring equity points are linked to points for.

Playing for a high scoring team drives up your score equity rating.

A player in a low scoring team just doesn't have the ability to get as many score equity points (aka PlAYA RaTinGs).

 

[sr36]

If your were interested in data about driving outcomes - winning games of footy - obviously the context of game style is important.

Anyone surprised that in Rd0 Brisbane Lions player ratings total points were more than 30 higher than Collingwood, despite Brisbane losing and Pies winning?

Scoring equity points are linked to points for.

Playing for a high scoring team drives up your score equity rating.

A player in a low scoring team just doesn't have the ability to get as many score equity points (aka PlAYA RaTinGs).

Are you sure? Aren't they all earnt in isolation of teammates and the team? When a player runs ahead of the ball and receives a handball and then handballs to someone who has run further ahead of the ball who kicks a goal, surely each individual score involvement and the goal assist has nothing to do with other players or the team's running patterns.

 

[doppleganger]

Are you sure? Aren't they all earnt in isolation of teammates and the team?

If you adopt a Malcolm Blight Geelong style shootout game where happy to win kicking 20+ goals whilst letting opponents score 18 it should be obvious that BOTH teams had players who were involved in heaps of scoring, and so ALL players would get large score equity ratings.

But what outcome is that driving?

Score equity ratings will give players in the team that kicked 18 goals in a loss higher ratings than players in a team that kicked 14 goals in a win.

When a player runs ahead of the ball and receives a handball and then handballs to someone who has run further ahead of the ball who kicks a goal, surely each individual score involvement and the goal assist has nothing to do with other players or the team's running patterns.

It should be obvious that in a defensive low scoring team, scoring opportunities are limited by design...so it is much harder to be involved in scoring and build score equity ratings.

But all that being said, Bont is a superstar. He plays attacking midfield for an attacking team and is their #1, and enjoys huge score equity ratings as a result, not as big a gap back to the other Dogs midfielders in 2025 (as they all run forward and score).

Daicos is a superstar. He plays attacking midfield for a defensive team and is clearly their #1 scoring threat and has been every year since 2023. He had a huge gap in scoring ratings back to next best Pie mid (3.2 in 2025), but as the team priority is winning not scoring, ALL Pies tend to have lower score equity ratings.

 

[Mr Meow]

This extended sequence of 3 Pies supporters consoling each other over the data that sells Daicos short has been hilarious. You can tell it's really gotten to them.

 

[doppleganger]

This extended sequence of 3 Pies supporters consoling each other over the data that sells Daicos short has been hilarious. You can tell it's really gotten to them.

Another ad hom post contributing nothing to the discussion but instead going the poster(s).

Standard.

 

[Mr Meow]

Another ad hom post contributing nothing to the discussion but instead going the poster.

Standard.

Please continue, I'm learning a lot.

 

[HeathySure]

This extended sequence of 3 Pies supporters consoling each other over the data that sells Daicos short has been hilarious. You can tell it's really gotten to them.

We can argue about ratings and awards all day but in the end its wins that matters.

And Nick has more wins and a premiership with a worse list than the Bulldogs. And Nick is clearly the best player at Collingwood,

I dont think thats arguable.

 

[Mr Meow]

We can argue about ratings and awards all day but in the end its wins that matters.

And Nick has more wins and a premiership with a worse list than the Bulldogs. And Nick is clearly the best player at Collingwood,

I dont think thats arguable.

Spot on. It's why Castagna was a much better player than Fyfe and Buckley. He was actually a winner.

 

[doppleganger]

Please continue, I'm learning a lot.

Great that some of us can educate you.

Unfortunately, can't say the same, as your "ad hom" posting offers nothing of value.

 

[Mr Meow]

Great that some of us can educate you.

Unfortunately, can't say the same, as your "ad hom" posting offers nothing of value.

Continue what you were doing. It was great to read and learn.

 

[doppleganger]

Continue what you were doing. It was great to read and learn.

It is great that you now understand that score equity ratings aka player ratings are influenced by game styles and team scoring.

Perhaps you can suggest another topic that you struggle with, so can be provided with additional useful targeted information.

 

[doppleganger]

Spot on. It's why Castagna was a much better player than Fyfe and Buckley. He was actually a winner.

A nice pivot from ad hom to strawman.

Smart to change it up.

 

[Mr Meow]

A nice pivot from ad hom to strawman.

Smart to change it up.

It's rivoting stuff. Please contnue the teachings.

 

[Mr Meow]

It is great that you now understand that score equity ratings aka player ratings are influenced by game styles and team scoring.

Perhaps you can suggest another topic that you struggle with, so can be provided with additional useful targeted information.

I'd like further elaboration on every point - they were so brilliant I could read dozens of pages dissecting each component further. You were doing so well you almost convinced yourself at one point. Another 5000 words and I think you'll get there.