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

[doppleganger]

Score involvement.
Geez

Yep contributing to more than 30% of team score involvements is a pretty high bar

Your great Dusty only managed that in 5 seasons.

Not really
And certainly the finals record isn’t great.

His finals record is as expected.

2022 Debut season - 3 finals, avg 24 disposals in his role across HB

2023 - 2 finals, in Pies best in both, including both coaches and NS votes in the GF

2025 - 2 finals, in Pies best in both again, highest PlayARaTinGs for both games for the Pies.

 

[doppleganger]

See previous post. Opinion-based awards are subjective.

Actual statistics are objective. Sure, people can use stats in subjective ways, but at least they're all coming from the same baseline.

Well if you want to take that approach the more advanced stats are also subjective, as ultimately it is the stat teams subjective opinion on whether an action/event fits a definition of contested/uncontested, did the "tackle" impact the disposal etc.

Quoting total Brownlow votes and how many AAs or MVPs a player achieved in their career is not subjective, they are facts.

 

[Fadge]

Or you could just watch and see who was better.
Pretty simple

So use your subjective opinion to make that determination?

Finish this sentence for me:

'Gary Ablett Junior was a significantly better player than Cameron Ling, as evidenced by ....'

Go.

 

[Mr Meow]

In a very weird turn of events, this thread now mostly seems like a hangout spot for Collingwood supporters to discuss Geelong players.

 

[Fadge]

In a very weird turn of events, this thread now mostly seems like a hangout spot for Collingwood supporters to discuss Geelong players.

In all fairness, as the best player since the turn of the century, Gary Ablett Junior is a good example to use when understanding what we're allowed to and not allowed to reference when supporting any claims about him.

Because apparently we're not allowed to reference his 10 x Brownlow/MVP/Coaches Award haul (and 8 other podium finishes), because those awards are 'dumb' and 'subjective'.

 

[Do the Dew]

Well if you want to take that approach the more advanced stats are also subjective, as ultimately it is the stat teams subjective opinion on whether an action/event fits a definition of contested/uncontested, did the "tackle" impact the disposal etc.

Quoting total Brownlow votes and how many AAs or MVPs a player achieved in their career is not subjective, they are facts.

As I said, people can subjectively use stats to draw conclusions, however the base stats themselves are objective. Of course there are instances where maybe 1 person doesn't think a mark should count as contested (eg. Daicos's first ever contested mark), whereas others do, but these would account for a tiny proportion of the overall stat, and thus are negligible.

Comparing that tiny level of subjectiveness to media and umpiring voting awards is ridiculous. An umpire was found guilty only a a couple of years ago of leaking info to his mates for betting purposes. But nope, Brownlow votes are the pinnacle of a player's achievements and should be placed above all others...

Of course Brownlow votes are facts, but that doesn't make them objective. This is a really simple concept.

 

[Fadge]

Jeepers.

Imagine if we tried to reference Norm Smith Medals to support a player's standing in the game?

A subjective award for a single game!

 

[Do the Dew]

In all fairness, as the best player since the turn of the century, Gary Ablett Junior is a good example to use when understanding what we're allowed to and not allowed to reference when supporting any claims about him.

Because apparently we're not allowed to reference his 10 x Brownlow/MVP/Coaches Award haul (and 8 other podium finishes), because those awards are 'dumb' and 'subjective'.

No-one is completely disregarding subjective awards as impacting a players overall standing in the game, but basing your whole analysis solely on subjective awards is inherently flawed.

 

[Do the Dew]

Jeepers.

Imagine if we tried to reference Norm Smith Medals to support a player's standing in the game?

A subjective award for a single game!

Or you could use Dusty's stats from those 3 games, and every other final he's played, contrasted to every other player in the history of the game, leading you to the conclusion that he's the greatest finals player ever.

 

[Fadge]

As I said, people can subjectively use stats to draw conclusions, however the base stats themselves are objective. Of course there are instances where maybe 1 person doesn't think a mark should count as contested (eg. Daicos's first ever contested mark), whereas others do, but these would account for a tiny proportion of the overall stat, and thus are negligible.

Comparing that tiny level of subjectiveness to media and umpiring voting awards is ridiculous. An umpire was found guilty only a a couple of years ago of leaking info to his mates for betting purposes. But nope, Brownlow votes are the pinnacle of a player's achievements and should be placed above all others...

Of course Brownlow votes are facts, but that doesn't make them objective. This is a really simple concept.

Maybe you can answer my question...

What supporting evidence would you use to explain to someone that Gary Ablett Junior was a considerably better player than Cameron Ling?

 

[Fadge]

Or you could use Dusty's stats from those 3 games, and every other final he's played, contrasted to every other player in the history of the game, leading you to the conclusion that he's the greatest finals player ever.

Which is inaccurate.

People rate Martin as the best finals player this century, by virtue of his 3 Norms and 3 Ayres Medals.

If you look at his stats in isolation, across all of his finals, he would be inferior to players like GAJ and Judd, and on a par with Pendlebury and Selwood.

 

[Mynamesinuse]

So use your subjective opinion to make that determination?

Finish this sentence for me:

'Gary Ablett Junior was a significantly better player than Cameron Ling, as evidenced by ....'

Go.

He played a far more damaging and complete game.
More damaging by foot better over head
Didn’t lose his feet and had great skills both sides off his body.

 

[Fadge]

No-one is completely disregarding subjective awards as impacting a players overall standing in the game, but basing your whole analysis solely on subjective awards is inherently flawed.

Whose 'whole analysis' is based on subjective awards?

Didn't someone recently comment that in my published top 50 players in the history of the game, only one had won a Brownlow?

 

[Fadge]

He played a far more damaging and complete game.
More damaging by foot better over head
Didn’t lose his feet and had great skills both sides off his body.

All subjective comments based on your own personal perception.

 

[Mynamesinuse]

All subjective comments.

No they’re not they are fact.

 

[Fadge]

No they’re not they are fact.

So when coaches, or umpires, or players, or a media entity vote a player as the best player in the game (or players amongst the best in the game) - the awards and associated votes are regarded as SUBJECTIVE by you and your mates, but a comment from you about GAJ 'being better overhead' and 'more damaging by foot' than Ling is not subjective, it's FACT....

Oh boy.

 

[Cdog71]

Yep contributing to more than 30% of team score involvements is a pretty high bar

Your great Dusty only managed that in 5 seasons.

His finals record is as expected.

2022 Debut season - 3 finals, avg 24 disposals in his role across HB

2023 - 2 finals, in Pies best in both, including both coaches and NS votes in the GF

2025 - 2 finals, in Pies best in both again, highest PlayARaTinGs for both games for the Pies.

Tiges had more ave to goal, it’s Daicos or bust and for a bloke with so many best on ground in finals he must have a full cupboard of Bob Rose awards.
How’s that lookin?
Or do you want to talk up his Norm Smith votes?


Tell us the one about Rory Sloane having a better career than Dusty.
That’s my fav.

 

[doppleganger]

As I said, people can subjectively use stats to draw conclusions, however the base stats themselves are objective. Of course there are instances where maybe 1 person doesn't think a mark should count as contested (eg. Daicos's first ever contested mark), whereas others do, but these would account for a tiny proportion of the overall stat, and thus are negligible.

So there is subjectivity in stats.

Comparing that tiny level of subjectiveness to media and umpiring voting awards is ridiculous. An umpire was found guilty only a a couple of years ago of leaking info to his mates for betting purposes. But nope, Brownlow votes are the pinnacle of a player's achievements and should be placed above all others...

Providing insider information has nothing to do with subjectivity.

Leaking a fact that a player got 3 votes ensures people can place a risk free bet and benefit from information they shouldn't be aware of.

Nothing subjective about it.

Of course Brownlow votes are facts, but that doesn't make them objective. This is a really simple concept.

Yes it does.

Daicos has received 109 Brownlow votes from his first four seasons of football. Dusty had received 39 Brownlow votes after his first four seasons of football.

It is an objective fact that Daicos had received 70 more Brownlow votes than Dusty after both had played 4 seasons of football.

Can also note Daicos had 3 All Australian nods, 1 MVP award, 1 coaches player of the year, 1 BnF to 0 for Dustin.

Or note that Daicos had won 938 contested possessions to Dusty's 720 etc.

Nothing subjective there, just objective factual data.

 

[Do the Dew]

Maybe you can answer my question...

What supporting evidence would you use to explain to someone that Gary Ablett Junior was a considerably better player than Cameron Ling?

Probably stuff like disposals, contested possessions, goals, goals assists, marks. Plus all of this in finals.

And then the media awards to back up the stats.

 

[Mynamesinuse]

So when coaches, or umpires, or players, or a media entity vote a player as the best player in the game - the awards are regarded as SUBJECTIVE by you and your mates, but a comment from you about GAJ 'being better overhead' and 'more damaging by foot' than Ling is not subjective, it's FACT....

Oh boy.

Well it’s clear and obvious to anyone who knows footy.

So there is subjectivity in stats.

Providing insider information has nothing to do with subjectivity.

Leaking a fact that a player got 3 votes ensures people can place a risk free bet and benefit from information they shouldn't be aware of.

Nothing subjective about it.

Yes it does.

Daicos has received 109 Brownlow votes from his first four seasons of football. Dusty had received 39 Brownlow votes after his first four seasons of football.

It is an objective fact that Daicos had received 70 more Brownlow votes than Dusty after both had played 4 seasons of football.

Can also note Daicos had 3 All Australian nods, 1 MVP award, 1 coaches player of the year, 1 BnF to 0 for Dustin.

Or note that Daicos had won 938 contested possessions to Dusty's 720 etc.

Nothing subjective there, just objective factual data.

How many wins did Daicos play in compared to Martin?

 

[Do the Dew]

So there is subjectivity in stats.

Providing insider information has nothing to do with subjectivity.

Leaking a fact that a player got 3 votes ensures people can place a risk free bet and benefit from information they shouldn't be aware of.

Nothing subjective about it.

Yes it does.

Daicos has received 109 Brownlow votes from his first four seasons of football. Dusty had received 39 Brownlow votes after his first four seasons of football.

It is an objective fact that Daicos had received 70 more Brownlow votes than Dusty after both had played 4 seasons of football.

Can also note Daicos had 3 All Australian nods, 1 MVP award, 1 coaches player of the year, 1 BnF to 0 for Dustin.

Or note that Daicos had won 938 contested possessions to Dusty's 720 etc.

Nothing subjective there, just objective factual data.

Of course there's subjectivity in stats, but mostly in how they're applied. But a hell of a lot less than an award that a few guys that we all yell at weekly decide while they're sitting around in the changing room afterwards, without looking at stats from the game, and who have been compromised in the past. Do you really not understand that corruption in awards doesn't exactly strengthen the merit of that award?

 

[doppleganger]

Tiges had more ave to goal, it’s Daicos or bust

Daicos must be bloody good then if he has a winning percentage of 69%

and for a bloke with so many best on ground in finals he must have a full cupboard of Bob Rose awards.

More than 40% of his finals were in his debut season, ridiculous expectation to think a bloke in his debut season will win awards.

In 2023 he missed a final due to injury, so unsurprising that a bloke that played in all 3 of Collingwood's final won the award.

Pretty obvious stuff really.

How’s that lookin?
Or do you want to talk up his Norm Smith votes?

1 GF in his second season of football and he was voted 3rd best on ground.

But somehow you think this is a bad performance?

Tell us the one about Rory Sloane having a better career than Dusty.
That’s my fav.

Career PlayARaTinGs avg
Sloane 14.51
Dustin 14.35

Unsurprising when Sloane had 9 seasons where he avg above 14, and Dusty had just 5.

By the way, Daicos is at 14.33 and already has had 3 seasons where he avg above 14...

Nothing subjective there either, just facts

 

[sr36]

The thread summary:

Collingwood fans: Yes

Everyone else: He’s not yet the outright best in the competition as it stands, and will be up against it to be considered above the likes of Matthews and Ablett Snr.

Everyone thinks he'll be up against it.

It's more like:

Pies fans: Great start to his career. He's a chance.

Oppo fans in this thread: Ashcroft is better. Sheezel is better. NWM is better. He didn't win the prelim single-handedly. He's a squib. Plus a heap of misconstruing of the question into: is he the goat already?

 

[doppleganger]

How many wins did Daicos play in compared to Martin?

A typically useless question from you Adam.

What is the point in comparing total wins from a player who played 15 seasons and more than 300 games against a player who is only 4 seasons in?

A good opportunity where an alternate measure, such as win rate would be more appropriate.

 

[doppleganger]

Of course there's subjectivity in stats, but mostly in how they're applied. But a hell of a lot less than an award that a few guys that we all yell at weekly decide while they're sitting around in the changing room afterwards, without looking at stats from the game, and who have been compromised in the past.

You don't think coaches or footy experts determining AAs don't have access to stats when making their judgement?

Do you really not understand that corruption in awards doesn't exactly strengthen the merit of that award?

Insider trading influences betting outcomes, has absolutely nothing to do with the winner.

An umpire telling some mates who got 3 in a rd11 game,. doesn't change results, it just enables people to make guaranteed money. Again nothing to do with subjectivity, umpire was leaking objective data.

Coaches publish their votes progressively, so no betting market and thus no "corruption". If umpires Brownlow votes were released at the end of each game / round would it increase the merit of the award in your opinion as no possible betting corruption??

And anyway back to Daicos, the only award he hasn't won is the "shit one" according to you. Already has a coaches award and players MVP and 3 AAs, when experts are aware of stats.