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

[RCAB]

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.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

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.

That is the whole point of the thread. We don’t know which coach gives what votes. So people are free to speculate on coach bias in the votes. And because Daicos has been the recipient of some contentious votes, naturally, and rightly, people will speculate as to whether the common denominator in his voting, ie McRae, has been biased towards him.

From where we sit, it cannot be proven one way or the other. So we must do the best we can with the information we have. I have never made out any different on this thread. We have established by Dustin Martin 2017 & Heeney 2024 that the lowest maximum discrepancy between the two opposing coaches is at most 10-12 votes for players getting 100+ votes. Daicos’s maximum discrepancy in 2024 was 24 votes. So that establishes very clearly grounds for speculation.

But this is not some random guessing game where the answer is unknowable. Or some scientific theory that requires proof for credibility. It is very much a situation of reverse onus of proof. The coaches association will know who gives which votes. McRae himself will know. If they think the speculation is unfair, or wrong, it is open to them to remove doubt. I would welcome that as I am sure you would.

Otherwise, **** em. My thoughts on Daicos are declared. That you think he isn’t a squib because his loose ball gets count as contested possessions shows you are a lot less credible on the subject than you want us to believe. There is ample footage of him withdrawing from contests to tell us Daicos is a pissweak squib. You need to totally ignore that hard evidence to conclude otherwise. But you ignore this evidence and instead prefer an indicator that on its own could never prove his bravery if he averaged 100 contested possessions per game.

And you question me while lecturing about scientific method. I am speculating reasonably based on what facts can be collected, and what can be divined from those facts. You on the other hand are deliriously happy to ignore incontrovertible evidence to draw your own conclusions.

 

[Chronz]

What a rip off, should have got the full 10 again against the Swines.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

What a rip off, should have got the full 10 again against the Swines.

9 tackles that reminded me of scooby doo clinging to shaggy when there is a ghost, plus 5 wrong free kicks, plus 15 1-2’s does not constitute a 10 vote game even for Nick Daycare Chronic.

 

[Chronz]

9 tackles that reminded me of scooby doo clinging to shaggy when there is a ghost, plus 5 wrong free kicks, plus 15 1-2’s does not constitute a 10 vote game even for Nick Daycare Chronic.

9 clearances to go along with 9 tackles. The Swines got steamrolled by Nick.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

9 clearances to go along with 9 tackles. The Swines got steamrolled by Nick.

Backwards clearances in the wrong direction don’t count.

Q. How many did he get going forward?

A. 2

 

[Chronz]

Backwards clearances in the wrong direction don’t count. How many did he get going forward?

A. 2

Isn't it amazing how he has mastered the outside game and is now close to mastering the inside too. We are so lucky to have this elite talent.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Isn't it amazing how he has mastered the outside game and is now close to mastering the inside too. We are so lucky to have this elite talent.

Must be such a pleasure to watch the best stat padder in history do his stuff week after week Chro.

 

[RCAB]

That is the whole point of the thread. We don’t know which coach gives what votes. So people are free to speculate on coach bias in the votes. And because Daicos has been the recipient of some contentious votes, naturally, and rightly, people will speculate as to whether the common denominator in his voting, ie McRae, has been biased towards him.

From where we sit, it cannot be proven one way or the other. So we must do the best we can with the information we have. I have never made out any different on this thread. We have established by Dustin Martin 2017 & Heeney 2024 that the lowest maximum discrepancy between the two opposing coaches is at most 10-12 votes for players getting 100+ votes. Daicos’s maximum discrepancy in 2024 was 24 votes. So that establishes very clearly grounds for speculation.

But this is not some random guessing game where the answer is unknowable. Or some scientific theory that requires proof for credibility. It is very much a situation of reverse onus of proof. The coaches association will know who gives which votes. McRae himself will know. If they think the speculation is unfair, or wrong, it is open to them to remove doubt. I would welcome that as I am sure you would.

Otherwise, **** em. My thoughts on Daicos are declared. That you think he isn’t a squib because his loose ball gets count as contested possessions shows you are a lot less credible on the subject than you want us to believe. There is ample footage of him withdrawing from contests to tell us Daicos is a pissweak squib. You need to totally ignore that hard evidence to conclude otherwise. But you ignore this evidence and instead prefer an indicator that on its own could never prove his bravery if he averaged 100 contested possessions per game.

And you question me while lecturing about scientific method. I am speculating reasonably based on what facts can be collected, and what can be divined from those facts. You on the other hand are deliriously happy to ignore incontrovertible evidence to draw your own conclusions

You keep calling it “reasonable speculation,” but the entire framework relies on an imagined distribution of anonymous votes.



You say: "The point of the thread is that we don't know who gives the votes.”
Exactly. And once realise you're working from backwards from then can you admit that everything that follows is conjecture.

Your votr discrepancies like 24 vs. 10 votes as some kind of "real" evidence is laughable. All you're doing is setting maximum theoretical range and then building bias narratives around them. That’s not data analysis.


Declaring the onus of proof lies with the Coaches Association to disprove your theory, is not how burden of proof works in logic, or statistics.

As for the “squib” claim... you're making an emotional value judgment based on body language clips, then arguing stats must be ignored unless they support your view. You're selectivity using your anecdotes and forming definitive conclusions.

You haven’t proven McRae is biased. You’ve just decided it must be true unless someone official takes time out of their week to personally debunk your forum post. That’s just regular bias masquerading as insight.


Congratulations on your kindergarten model, but don’t pretend this is anything more than that.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You keep calling it “reasonable speculation,” but the entire framework relies on an imagined distribution of anonymous votes.



You say: "The point of the thread is that we don't know who gives the votes.”
Exactly. And once realise you're working from backwards from then can you admit that everything that follows is conjecture.

Your votr discrepancies like 24 vs. 10 votes as some kind of "real" evidence is laughable. All you're doing is setting maximum theoretical range and then building bias narratives around them. That’s not data analysis.


Declaring the onus of proof lies with the Coaches Association to disprove your theory, is not how burden of proof works in logic, or statistics.

As for the “squib” claim... you're making an emotional value judgment based on body language clips, then arguing stats must be ignored unless they support your view. You're selectivity using your anecdotes and forming definitive conclusions.

You haven’t proven McRae is biased. You’ve just decided it must be true unless someone official takes time out of their week to personally debunk your forum post. That’s just regular bias masquerading as insight.


Congratulations on your kindergarten model, but don’t pretend this is anything more than that.

Strange attack on a thread that declared its hand from the outset. There is no pretence, you have invented that. And repeated it pointlessly.

Of course the burden of proof should fall to the only people with access to that proof. If the people with the knowledge don’t share it then they cannot complain about people conjecturing based on what can be divined from known data. You are needlessly tying yourself in knots repeating the same nonsense about this.

In fact everything in your post is repeating claims I have already discredited.

It seems you are happy to die on the hill of “stats” over my assertion that Daicos is a squib, which I based on footage of him squibbing physical contact and conceding the ball to the opposition. Actual evidence to any person who understands how to interpret football, which would include most casual footy followers, let alone people who have played and coached, as I have. We have all seen the footage. So it falls to you to explain how a player accelerating into open space to collect a ball with no danger of colliding with an opponent proves he is not a squib. Because that is what you are are claiming by relying on “contested possession” stats to question my statement that he is a squib.

I haven’t proven McRae is biased, I haven’t ever claimed it is proven. I have shown reasonable grounds for conjecture about it, as I stated in a previous post. That you need to repeat your howls of “case unproven” when this point has already been conceded tells us what position you are arguing from.

The conjecture I refer to existed in significant volume long before this thread. Your position amounts to we shouldn’t conjecture over things we can’t prove to be true. Where conjecture amounts to worthless gossip, I would agree with you. This is fair game, it is conjecture about how people perform professionally. And it is perfectly refutable by the person being conjectured about in the event any of that conjecture is known to be wrong.

My job here is to argue a position. That position is there is prima facie evidence of McRae showing bias towards Daicos in his coaches votes and it warrants further investigation and scrutiny. Your position seems to be we should ignore all prima facie evidence and never scrutinise things that we cannot irrefutably prove.

I will leave it up to others to judge which position they think has greater value.

 

[RCAB]

Strange attack on a thread that declared its hand from the outset. There is no pretence, you have invented that. And repeated it pointlessly.

Of course the burden of proof should fall to the only people with access to that proof. You are tying yourself in knots about that. If the people with the knowledge don’t share it then they cannot complain about people conjecturing based on what can be divined from known data. You are needlessly tying yourself in knots repeating the same nonsense about this.

In fact everything in your post is repeating claims I have already discredited.

It seems you are happy to die on the hill of “stats” over my assertion that Daicos is a squib, which I based on footage of him squibbing physical contact and conceding the ball to the opposition. Actual evidence to any person who understands how to interpret football, which would include most casual footy followers, let alone people who have played and coached, as I have. We have all seen the footage. So it falls to you to explain how a player accelerating into open space to collect a ball with no danger of colliding with an opponent proves he is not a squib. Because that is what you are are claiming by relying on “contested possession” stats to question my statement that he is a squib.

I haven’t proven McRae is biased, I haven’t ever claimed it is proven. I have shown reasonable grounds for conjecture about it, as I stated in a previous post. That you need to repeat your howls of “case unproven” when this point has already been conceded tells us what position you are arguing from.

The conjecture I refer to existed in significant volume long before this thread. Your position amounts to we shouldn’t conjecture over things we can’t prove to be true. Where conjecture amounts to worthless gossip, I would agree with you. This is fair game, it is conjecture about how people perform professionally. And it is perfectly refutable by the person being conjectured about in the event any of that conjecture is known to be wrong.

My job here is to argue a position. That position is there is prima facie evidence of McRae showing bias towards Daicos in his coaches votes and it warrants further investigation and scrutiny. Your position seems to be we should ignore all prima facie evidence and never scrutinise things that we cannot irrefutably prove.

I will leave it up to others to judge which position they think has greater value.

You keep saying “there’s no pretence,” yet your posts are full of declarative language, loaded assumptions, and outright character attacks like “serial cheat voter McRae” and “Mr Fearful.” That’s not neutral conjecture, it's a conclusion wrapped in slander pretending to be analysis.

You also claimed you haven’t “proven” anything...but scroll up, you literally posted fabricated vote splits (“McRort 0 5 5 0”) and declared them as part of your evidence that McRae is embarrassing the club. If you weren’t claiming proof, what exactly was that supposed to be? Fan-fiction with bullet points?

Then you flip into courtroom jargon like “prima facie evidence” (which is ironic, considering nothing in your model meets the standard).

You’ve based the entire thread on an unknowable variable (coach vote distribution), filled the gaps with worst-case projections, and then demanded the burden of proof shift to the AFL to disprove you.

You want to be taken seriously while using the term “Daicos boner” and accusing others of squibbery based on body language in cherry-picked footage but somehow we’re the ones ignoring evidence?

This isn’t a case of “we shouldn’t scrutinise the unprovable” it’s that you’ve mistaken speculation for investigation, and bias for credibility. You're not building a case, you’re reinforcing a personal grudge with rhetorical scaffolding.

You say your job is to “argue a position.” Fair enough.
But if that position starts with fiction, filters through assumption, and ends in insult, it’s not a case worth defending.

Exhibit A: Prejudicial statement illustrating confirmation bias below

Flogpie fans will be nervous every time Daycare plays one of his 30 possession 1-2 riddled nothing games that serial cheat voter McRae will further embarrass their club by shoe-horning Mr Fearful into the coach votes.

So far 2025:

McRort 0 5 5 0

Oppo coaches 0 0 3 0.

This demonstrates that the author Meteoric Rise has already formed a conclusive, emotionally charged opinion about both Craig McRae’s voting behaviour and Nick Daicos’s performances, prior to presenting any objective evidence.

Rationale for inclusion:

Shows use of inflammatory language (“serial cheat voter,” “Mr Fearful,” “Daycare”) which undermines neutrality.

Fabricated vote distributions are presented as pseudo-factual data, reinforcing that speculation is being passed off as substantiated inference.

Serves to establish the tone and underlying bias driving the broader argument, indicative of a pre-existing narrative rather than an open analysis.

 

[RCAB]

So how many votes this week? One set will be from the best coach in the AFL, the other from the current Jock McHale medalist.

Do you have an index vs top sides/crunch matches/top in coaches votes opponents?

 

[catscratchfever]

Isn't it amazing how he has mastered the outside game and is now close to mastering the inside too. We are so lucky to have this elite talent.

So when, if ever, is he going to take the first contested mark of his career?

 

[Footy Is Good]

u jelly?​

 

[Footy Is Good]

So when, if ever, is he going to take the first contested mark of his career?

Nice melt

 

[catscratchfever]

Nice melt

Simple question. Seems you can't answer it. How strange considering what a mental giant you are

 

[Footy Is Good]

Simple question. Seems you can't answer it. How strange considering what a mental giant you are

No, it's a stupid question because he has taken plenty of contested marks already.

How many people have beaten him in a marking contest? Probably none.

 

[catscratchfever]

No, it's a stupid question because he has taken plenty of contested marks already.

How many people have beaten him in a marking contest? Probably none.

Silly person. Get your facts right. He has taken 0 contested marks in his entire career.

But nice melt

 

[Footy Is Good]

Silly person. Get your facts right. He has taken 0 contested marks in his entire career.

But nice melt

 

[Meteoric Rise]

View attachment 2286916

It is fake news that Daicos has zero contested marks in his whole career. He has taken zero contested marks in his whole life.

 

[zackah]

LOL at the flogs stats melting

Fishing on the main bored is like getting laid in a brothel. Not exactly difficult but still worth it in the end.

 

[Ctracks]

 

[JoinDate]

How was his game last night though?

 

[Footy Is Good]

It is fake news that Daicos has zero contested marks in his whole career. He has taken zero contested marks in his whole life.

Try manning up on him them. The 3 following him around all night last night wasn't enough though.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Try manning up on him them. The 3 following him around all night last night wasn't enough though.

I didn't see that, had to stop watching after Daycare stood there and watched Rayner take an uncontested mark 15m out from goal rather than trying to contest it. I was embarrassed for the cute little guy. Only player I have ever seen pretend to front and square an uncontested mark.