
RCAB
Premiership Player
- Jul 25, 2024
- 3,548
- 5,853
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
For my educated guesses to be untrue, something else needs to be true.
Care to tell us what you think is true in the alternative?
That’s not how modelling works.
You’ve constructed a narrative using your own assumptions, weighted by personal bias, then dressed it up as an “educated guess.” But unless you’ve got access to the actual coach votes, it’s still a fantasy, just one you’ve formatted like an algorithm.
In statistical modelling, you don’t prove a hypothesis by saying “unless you can disprove it, it must be true.” That’s Bayesian reasoning in reverse.
You’ve built a single-path model (McRae bias → inflated votes → Daicos fraudulence) and pretended it's the null hypothesis. But in reality, there are dozens of plausible explanations:
– Coaches valuing off-ball work
– Opposition coaches influenced by scoreboard impact
– McRae judging Daicos more harshly
– Matchups that don't translate to stats
…or maybe just two people with different views on the same performance.
I don’t need to create a new fictional model to “disprove” yours. You haven’t proven yours in the first place.