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

[Atomboy]

This is nearly as silly as the commentators “PUTBAB” index

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Well this is a disaster of a thread with very flawed data analysis.

First and foremost the entire premise of it is silly because the breakdown per coach is unknown. It’s all well and good to try any guess it, but it remains a guess nonetheless.

The way around it seems to be calculating ‘maximum discrepancy’ which is ridiculous because out of all the potential vote combinations that surely is the absolute least likely to have happened because it takes both the high extreme for one coach and the low extreme for the other. So all it provides is the number differential for the least probably scenario. It’s not a useful metric to compare between players of a given season nor between seasons.

I think Mr Meow pointed it out first but the OP is inadvertently proving the opposite of his conclusion. Votes are in fact incredibly close if the biggest discrepancy for players sits at 20 odd votes. Again I must insist, based on a guess of the breakdown and on the most extreme differential possible. That is literally 4 games of potential difference if say a player would randomly get 5 votes from his coach and zero from 4 others.

Though of course the biased premise of the thread was clear when it was pointed out in the OP that the discrepancy last year for Nick is corroborated with not finishing top 6 in ‘player ratings’. I don’t know anyone serious that doesn’t have Nick as one of their top 5 players of 2024. That includes coaches, umps, other players as per awards and pretty much any footy follower with half a brain.

Funnier still are the Carlton posters trying to make a point of the R21 vote last year where Voss gave Nick no votes and Fly 5. I have no doubt funny games get played but think they were on Voss’ side to get his man Cripps up. Now if this is supposed to show bias on Fly’s side, let’s just recall that he essentially gave 5 votes to his best midfielder that day, from the winning team which is a very common thing to do, who had:

• our most disposals (28)
• our most contested possessions (15)
• our most and equal game high tackles (6)
• our most intercepts (7)
• our most i50s (7)
• our second most clearances (7)
• our most meters gained (471)
• add to that a goal, a goal assist and second most pressure acts (21)

This paints a picture that is much, much closer to a 5 vote game than it is to a nil.

Everyone can make their own conclusion from there. I don’t mind if Fly finds himself under scrutiny this year but for one, it didn’t matter in 2024 where Nick deserved the award, and for two you have to apply that same scrutiny to other coaches.

If there were heavily biased votes, do you not think that would include examples of what you call the "least probable discrepancy?" ie the maximum possible discrepancy? What you are suggesting would be like looking for a burgler and ruling out anyone who looks like this because it is much more likely a person would not look like this:






When you are looking for irregularities, why not look everywhere, including the most irregular places?

 

[Vankri]

If there were heavily biased votes, do you not think that would include examples of what you call the "least probable discrepancy?" ie the maximum possible discrepancy? What you are suggesting would be like looking for a burgler and ruling out anyone who looks like this because it is much more likely a person would not look like this:


View attachment 2263213



When you are looking for irregularities, why not look everywhere, including the most irregular places?

I’m not sure you realise you are saying nothing of substance in this response, just reiterating that even your best case for an argument is based on a guess of a low probability scenario. I’ll let you reread my post if you want to explore your own bias and flawed thinking. I’m not confident you’ve got the capacity, but keep trying and at least my post is there for people wondering if this thread had a logical premise and analysis or not.

 

[doppleganger]

Well this is a disaster of a thread with very flawed data analysis.

Though of course the biased premise of the thread was clear when it was pointed out in the OP that the discrepancy last year for Nick is corroborated with not finishing top 6 in ‘player ratings’.

Laughable stuff. This is my fav.

Amazing correlation coaches votes v player ratings, except for one player.

You guessed it, Daicos the only player in the top 6 of Coach votes who was not also top 6 in the player ratings in 2024.

If poor old Meteor thought that was an anomaly, what about a player finishing top 3 in coaches votes but outside top 40 in player ratings!

His mind would be blown.

Surely would spam us with how over-rated said player was and be overly critical of their ability to get votes when not really deserving as has no impact on games.

I don’t know anyone serious that doesn’t have Nick as one of their top 5 players of 2024. That includes coaches, umps, other players as per awards and pretty much any footy follower with half a brain.

Nailed it

 

[SC_Power]

I’m not sure you realise you are saying nothing of substance in this response, just reiterating that even your best case for an argument is based on a guess of a low probability scenario. I’ll let you reread my post if you want to explore your own bias and flawed thinking. I’m not confident you’ve got the capacity, but keep trying and at least my post is there for people wondering if this thread had a logical premise and analysis or not.

Trump’s “alternative facts” premise has a lot to answer for, hey?

 

[sabso]

There needs to be a logical fallacy bingo card for this thread.

 

[Mr Meow]

There needs to be a logical fallacy bingo card for this thread.

Simply contest the points you disagree with and explain why. It really isn't that hard.

 

[sabso]

Simply contest the points you disagree with and explain why. It really isn't that hard.

Sorry mate, I don’t understand how what you said relates to what you quoted.

Unless you wanted me to tick off “non sequitur”, in which case, thanks for your help

 

[Mr Meow]

Sorry mate, I don’t understand how what you said relates to what you quoted.

Unless you wanted me to tick off “non sequitur”, in which case, thanks for your help

Wow you're really struggling, but it seems you genuinely believe you're pretty bright.

Do you need me to handhold you in constructing arguments that contest the arguments you find flawed (with logical fallacies)?

Or is it more of a safe space for you to make broad statements as side commentary, to give a false impression of intellectual authority (without basis)?

 

[Duckimus Prime]

A coaches award determined strictly by opposition coaches votes would be interesting

Especially doing it retrospectively where it can’t be gamed

Don't need to do it retrospectively. Just don't publish a running total.

Stops people from even thinking about how votes could impact on the winner, because they simply don't know.

 

[Crankyhawk]

So lets use this round to see how many large (3 or more vote) discrepancies there are

Essendon v Port Adelaide​

8 Zach Merrett (ESS)
7 Sam Durham (ESS)
6 Xavier Duursma (ESS)
4 Jase Burgoyne (PORT)
3 Ollie Wines (PORT)
2 Dylan Shiel (ESS)

Coach A = Merrett 5, Duursma 4, Wines 3, Durham 2, Shiel 1
Coach B = Durham 5, Burgoyne 4, Merrett 3, Duursma 2, SHiel 1
(there are other possibilities though, but in spirit of thread have looked for maximum large discrepancy - Durham, Wines with 3 and Burgoyne with 4) however cannot make it consistently team biased

Carlton v Western Bulldogs​

8 Tom De Koning (CARL)
8 Tom Liberatore (WB)
8 Sam Davidson (WB)
3 Brodie Kemp (CARL)
3 Matthew Kennedy (WB)

No large discrepancy possible (between TDK, liberatore, davidson all have 5,4,3 and kemp and kennedy split the 2 and 1)

Melbourne v Gold Coast​

10 Matt Rowell (GCFC)
8 Noah Anderson (GCFC)
6 Touk Miller (GCFC)
2 Jarrod Witts (GCFC)
2 Ben King (GCFC)
1 Bailey Humphrey (GCFC)
1 John Noble (GCFC)

No large discrepancy

St Kilda v Richmond​

10 Jack Sinclair (STK)
4 Jack Macrae (STK)
4 Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera (STK)
3 Hugo Garcia (STK)
3 Rowan Marshall (STK)
2 Mason Wood (STK)
2 Mitch Owens (STK)
2 Toby Nankervis (RICH)

Here the large discrepancy is who gets the 4 votes; however both StK players so i think coach bias unlikely

Hawthorn v Greater Western Sydney​

8 Nick Watson (HAW)
6 Cameron Mackenzie (HAW)
6 Will Day (HAW)
5 Blake Hardwick (HAW)
5 Jesse Hogan (GWS)

This one is all over the shop. For maximum discrepancy, I cannot make a scenario where Hogan or Hardwick get 5-0; can make it with 2 large discrepancies (Mackenzie and Day both getting 5 from one coach and 1 from the other)

Brisbane v Geelong​

9 Hugh McCluggage (BL)
7 Will Ashcroft (BL)
5 Harris Andrews (BL)
5 Jack Payne (BL)
3 Max Holmes (GEEL)
1 Dayne Zorko (BL)

We can have either Andrews or Payne getting a 5- 0 discrepancy for maximum discrepancy here
(it is also possible to have only Ashcroft having a 5-2 discrepancy)

Adelaide v North Melbourne​

8 Rory Laird (ADEL)
5 Taylor Walker (ADEL)
5 Jake Soligo (ADEL)
4 Jy Simpkin (NMFC)
3 Izak Rankine (ADEL)
2 Nick Larkey (NMFC)
2 Riley Thilthorpe (ADEL)
1 Mitchell Hinge (ADEL)

Here both Walker and Soligo can have 5-0 discrepancies (again though this would not seem biased as both are Adelaide players) Rankine also has a 3-0 discrepancy.

West Coast v Fremantle​

8 Luke Jackson (FRE)
8 Caleb Serong (FRE)
8 Andrew Brayshaw (FRE)
4 Josh Treacy (FRE)
2 Alex Pearce (FRE)

No large discrepancy possible

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So lets use this round to see how many large (3 or more vote) discrepancies there are

Essendon v Port Adelaide​

8 Zach Merrett (ESS)
7 Sam Durham (ESS)
6 Xavier Duursma (ESS)
4 Jase Burgoyne (PORT)
3 Ollie Wines (PORT)
2 Dylan Shiel (ESS)

Coach A = Merrett 5, Duursma 4, Wines 3, Durham 2, Shiel 1
Coach B = Durham 5, Burgoyne 4, Merrett 3, Duursma 2, SHiel 1
(there are other possibilities though, but in spirit of thread have looked for maximum large discrepancy - Durham, Wines with 3 and Burgoyne with 4) however cannot make it consistently team biased

Carlton v Western Bulldogs​

8 Tom De Koning (CARL)
8 Tom Liberatore (WB)
8 Sam Davidson (WB)
3 Brodie Kemp (CARL)
3 Matthew Kennedy (WB)

No large discrepancy possible (between TDK, liberatore, davidson all have 5,4,3 and kemp and kennedy split the 2 and 1)

Melbourne v Gold Coast​

10 Matt Rowell (GCFC)
8 Noah Anderson (GCFC)
6 Touk Miller (GCFC)
2 Jarrod Witts (GCFC)
2 Ben King (GCFC)
1 Bailey Humphrey (GCFC)
1 John Noble (GCFC)

No large discrepancy

St Kilda v Richmond​

10 Jack Sinclair (STK)
4 Jack Macrae (STK)
4 Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera (STK)
3 Hugo Garcia (STK)
3 Rowan Marshall (STK)
2 Mason Wood (STK)
2 Mitch Owens (STK)
2 Toby Nankervis (RICH)

Here the large discrepancy is who gets the 4 votes; however both StK players so i think coach bias unlikely

Hawthorn v Greater Western Sydney​

8 Nick Watson (HAW)
6 Cameron Mackenzie (HAW)
6 Will Day (HAW)
5 Blake Hardwick (HAW)
5 Jesse Hogan (GWS)

This one is all over the shop. For maximum discrepancy, I cannot make a scenario where Hogan or Hardwick get 5-0; can make it with 2 large discrepancies (Mackenzie and Day both getting 5 from one coach and 1 from the other)

Brisbane v Geelong​

9 Hugh McCluggage (BL)
7 Will Ashcroft (BL)
5 Harris Andrews (BL)
5 Jack Payne (BL)
3 Max Holmes (GEEL)
1 Dayne Zorko (BL)

We can have either Andrews or Payne getting a 5- 0 discrepancy for maximum discrepancy here
(it is also possible to have only Ashcroft having a 5-2 discrepancy)

Adelaide v North Melbourne​

8 Rory Laird (ADEL)
5 Taylor Walker (ADEL)
5 Jake Soligo (ADEL)
4 Jy Simpkin (NMFC)
3 Izak Rankine (ADEL)
2 Nick Larkey (NMFC)
2 Riley Thilthorpe (ADEL)
1 Mitchell Hinge (ADEL)

Here both Walker and Soligo can have 5-0 discrepancies (again though this would not seem biased as both are Adelaide players) Rankine also has a 3-0 discrepancy.

West Coast v Fremantle​

8 Luke Jackson (FRE)
8 Caleb Serong (FRE)
8 Andrew Brayshaw (FRE)
4 Josh Treacy (FRE)
2 Alex Pearce (FRE)

No large discrepancy possible

My main laptop has carked it, my current device not suitable for number crunching so will return to this thread more seriously when I get a new Lappy.

Interesting my first thoughts on the Hawks game is Mitchell has given him 5 and Kingsley 3 in annoyance at the staging. But he looks to have got 4 from both coaches, with McKenzie & Day each getting 5+1, Hardwick & Hogan 3+2.

 

[Crankyhawk]

My main laptop has carked it, my current device not suitable for number crunching so will return to this thread more seriously when I get a new Lappy.

Interesting my first thoughts on the Hawks game is Mitchell has given him 5 and Kingsley 3 in annoyance at the staging. But he looks to have got 4 from both coaches, with McKenzie & Day each getting 5+1, Hardwick & Hogan 3+2.

From the Hawks BF board, someone has crunched options

4-4 Watson
5-1 Mackenzie
1-5 Day
2-3 Hardwick
3-2 Hogan

5-3 Watson
1-5 Mackenzie
2-4 Day
4-1 Hardwick
3-2 Hogan