...

Put Lynden Dunn into the Hawthorn back six and you'd all be lauding him as Josh Gibson reborn, but with a better kick.

All that waffle, and the last sentence is all anyone needs to read to know how much credit to give you on this topic.

Woeful statement.

All that waffle, and the last sentence is all anyone needs to read to know how much credit to give you on this topic.

Woeful statement.

Waffle?

Statements of fact are waffle? The last sentence was my opinion. The rest of it is facts. You're letting your opinion come before the facts, which is exactly what Daniel Kahneman said you would do (but you didn't read even a single paragraph synopsis of that either, I assume).

The statistics haven't fooled me at all, I just don't fall for the fallacious method of using analytical thinking to justify intuitive ideas (google Daniel Kahneman's work if you're interested in the psychology of analytical thinking).

You're all saying that Dunn should be delisted, because he's 'below AFL standard'. We're the worst team in the league, last time I checked. That means that we probably have the greatest number of players on the field who are 'below AFL standard'. Every other team is better than us (even GWS, these days), therefore any other random player on any other team is more likely than any random player on our team to be 'of AFL standard'. Not only that, any random player on our team is likely to be surrounded by more players 'below AFL standard' than the random player of the opposing team.

Thus, statistically speaking, Dunn is more likely to be up against a player of AFL standard who is surrounded by others of AFL standard, and more likely to be surrounded himself by players below AFL standard, and still leads the league in winning one-on-one contests, and I'm the one who doesn't understand statistics?

Put Lynden Dunn into the Hawthorn back six and you'd all be lauding him as Josh Gibson reborn, but with a better kick.

I never said you didn't understand statistics, but you are starting to convince me that you don't. What I said is that this particular statistic is misleading in terms of Dunn's value.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-02/the-frugal-suspects

So that actual statistic is Dunn has only conceded 3 marks or free kicks from 32 contests with a 50-50 ball. Which as the statistics and analytical genius I know you are you will have recognised is too small a sample size to make definitive statistic conclusions.

As I mentioned there are a number of reasons I believe this is to be the case:

1. He's on lesser opponents and often has a height advantage over them

2. He's so far off the play it's not a 50/50 contest

There are also reasons why despite the stat I still think he's a very ordinary footballer

1. His decision making is rubbish and disposal is shaky

2. The fake tough guy act when he really isn't hard at it

3. He rarely racks up stats for a rebounding defender with plenty of inside 50's to do so

4. He doesn't take nearly enough intercept marks or help out his other defenders

5. The stat says nothing of what happens after he's brought the ball to ground.

And by the way I wouldn't delist Dunn. He is a near AFL quality player with some position versatility and has a good injury record. But I'd be mighty glad to see us winning games and if we do get to the stage of consistent wins I don't think Dunn would be in that team.

As for your first line there full of mumbo jumbo - it reads like a Schwab sentence from Whiteboard Wednesday, and how did that turn out.

But while I'm "waffling", let me continue...

Stat comparison

Gibson just leading on disposals, marks, frees for, uncontested possessions and effective disposal %, but not by much.

Dunn leading on goals, frees against, clearances, rebound 50's and bounces, but not by much.

Gibson has a clear lead in one-percenters and clangers, Dunn has a clear lead in tackles and inside 50's.

Statistically, they're basically the same footballer. Gibson in a better team (more uncontested possessions directed to open teammates, Dunn more tackles and disposal under pressure).

Your judgement on the issue is clouded entirely by your emotional involvement in watching the game, and the outcome of the game itself. I posit that if the two players were swapped in an alternate universe, you would be calling for Gibson's delisting while simultaneously joining the chorus of praise for Dunn.

How's that for an opinion to follow fact?

So that actual statistic is Dunn has only conceded 3 marks or free kicks from 32 contests with a 50-50 ball. Which as the statistics and analytical genius I know you are you will have recognised is too small a sample size to make definitive statistic conclusions.

Well, at least you seem to be talking some sense!

I'd argue that it doesn't matter for this discussion that Dunn is taking the 'lesser' defenders. We've got Frawley, Garland, and TMac, that's going to be his role in the team in future regardless (along with the occasional swing into a forward or tagging role when the situation demands it). We're not measuring his worth as a gorilla defender, we're measuring his worth as a "utility" defender, because that's what he is.

His main shortcoming, compared to Gibson (and statistically he has very few) is disposal efficiency and clangers, and my subjective view of that subject is that any defender would make more disposal errors in the Melbourne backline than playing for any other team, because there's simply no-one to kick to when you get the ball.

He may do dumb things at times but he's hardly pea hearted.

And for all his faux toughness, his pretend hardness, do you see him run and and flatten the bloke that is bullying one of our kids?

Never, that's when. Because he is all bluff and bluster. And they rest of the comp knows it. He's an annoying player that will give them free kicks, but there wouldn't be one bloke in the AFL that would take a short step knowing it was Dunn's footsteps they heard behind them.

If he's what passes for a tough guy at the club then no wonder players like Watts smell their own farts and declare them to be like roses.

He's an annoying player that will give them free kicks

Dunn averages 0.5 free kicks against per game. League average is 0.8 (ish). This while part of a constantly beleaguered defence. Your subjective observations aren't statements of fact, I'm afraid.

We need better players than Dunn. If this is as good as we have, then its as good as we are.

It sounds rather cliche I admit, but weve become a team that is cliche for failure.

Change requires...well, change.

He was way better as a forward. He can kick straight and long. Unfortunately he has a small brain and can't decide where to kick it out of defence or to whom. So he kicks it straight to a contest, an opposition player or out on the full.

With the current state of our list, Dunn is best 22. He will remain best 22 until we get our draft/trade business in order

This thread is pathetic. Dunn will be top five in our B&F this year. Against Adelaide Dunn had our most disposals (24 at 79% efficiency) and our most Supercoach points (129, 31 more than our next highest in Toumpas). The left foot pass was a bad error, but we made hundreds of mistakes over the course of the game.

Dunn is no world beater and we need to find better players in coming drafts, but he is clearly in our best side at the moment and is playing his role.

It's just the dumb things he does that is so frustrating. Always gives away stupid free kicks and 50m penalties.

But while I'm "waffling", let me continue...

Stat comparison

Gibson just leading on disposals, marks, frees for, uncontested possessions and effective disposal %, but not by much.

Dunn leading on goals, frees against, clearances, rebound 50's and bounces, but not by much.

Gibson has a clear lead in one-percenters and clangers, Dunn has a clear lead in tackles and inside 50's.

Statistically, they're basically the same footballer. Gibson in a better team (more uncontested possessions directed to open teammates, Dunn more tackles and disposal under pressure).

Your judgement on the issue is clouded entirely by your emotional involvement in watching the game, and the outcome of the game itself. I posit that if the two players were swapped in an alternate universe, you would be calling for Gibson's delisting while simultaneously joining the chorus of praise for Dunn.

How's that for an opinion to follow fact?

Could not agree more. I look at Gibson if he was actually made as accountable as our key backs he would look very second rate. As it is with the Hawks dominance in the mid field and having Hodge playing the quarter back roll, Gibson gets to roam the back line punching from behind at will. I used to do the same myself as a back line player in a dominant team at suburban level, it is a doddle as I remember it. The forwards are sitting ducks when it comes in high and slow.

But while I'm "waffling", let me continue...

Stat comparison

Gibson just leading on disposals, marks, frees for, uncontested possessions and effective disposal %, but not by much.

Dunn leading on goals, frees against, clearances, rebound 50's and bounces, but not by much.

Gibson has a clear lead in one-percenters and clangers, Dunn has a clear lead in tackles and inside 50's.

Statistically, they're basically the same footballer. Gibson in a better team (more uncontested possessions directed to open teammates, Dunn more tackles and disposal under pressure).

Your judgement on the issue is clouded entirely by your emotional involvement in watching the game, and the outcome of the game itself. I posit that if the two players were swapped in an alternate universe, you would be calling for Gibson's delisting while simultaneously joining the chorus of praise for Dunn.

How's that for an opinion to follow fact?

Your continued analysis of Gibson v Dunn is a waste of time, mainly because you're comparing one club's number one defender with another club's number four.

Their roles are completely different. Gibson plays FB/CHB on the opponent's best or second best tall. Dunn plays HBF, a far easier position, on the opponent's fourth, at best, tall.

You're purportedly trying to focus on facts and statistics and comparisons - you simply cannot compare Gibson and Dunn as they don't play the same role.

Could not agree more. I look at Gibson if he was actually made as accountable as our key backs he would look very second rate. As it is with the Hawks dominance in the mid field and having Hodge playing the quarter back roll, Gibson gets to roam the back line punching from behind at will. I used to do the same myself as a back line player in a dominant team at suburban level, it is a doddle as I remember it. The forwards are sitting ducks when it comes in high and slow.

Sometimes he is lose, other times he takes a teams CHF and has historically done a very good job even with a good team around him. Gibson is a good ordinary player in a team with some stars. Dunn is a bad ordinary player in a team with no stars. But that gap between just been part of the side and actually been able to influence a game is a huge and important gap. It's one that Garland bridged this year and one that if we just had a couple of midfielders or small forwards who could elevate to that level then we wouldn't be discussing things like this thread.

Sometimes he is lose, other times he takes a teams CHF and has historically done a very good job even with a good team around him. Gibson is a good ordinary player in a team with some stars. Dunn is a bad ordinary player in a team with no stars. But that gap between just been part of the side and actually been able to influence a game is a huge and important gap. It's one that Garland bridged this year and one that if we just had a couple of midfielders or small forwards who could elevate to that level then we wouldn't be discussing things like this thread.

The other point I think is that we have talked about our mid field stocks and lack there of and I wonder should we have Dunn in the mid field as a big bodied run with tagger, as he did this year I think with Judd and then with less success with Ablett. We should have tested Davis at half back where he has been groomed for most of his VFL career and thrown Dunn into the middle where he can niggle to his hearts content without giving away shots on goal, hopefully.

Christ almighty!

Are we REALLY debating the merits of Lynden Dunn as a great defender?

It defies logic.

Christ almighty!

Are we REALLY debating the merits of Lynden Dunn as a great defender?

It defies logic.

Autocol doesn't need logic, he has stats.

You guys are welcome to construct a coherent and logical counter to my argument, but other than the claim that Gibson takes a better forward than Dunn (which I imagine might be true, not that anyone has done the research to check if it actually is or not, and I'm not getting the feeling any of you are going to), I haven't seen anything yet.

You might scoff at the idea that someone would do any research to test their intuitions (and admit that their intuition is wrong on occasion, as they often are), but that's the manner in which all great scientific discoveries have taken place in the last two centuries.

You'll note also that every single team pays Champion Data and a fleet of analysts huge wads of cash to measure and analyze every tiny facet of the game... You don't suppose that might be because... there's some merit in it!?

You guys are welcome to construct a coherent and logical counter to my argument, but other than the claim that Gibson takes a better forward than Dunn (which I imagine might be true, not that anyone has done the research to check if it actually is or not, and I'm not getting the feeling any of you are going to), I haven't seen anything yet.

You might scoff at the idea that someone would do any research to test their intuitions (and admit that their intuition is wrong on occasion, as they often are), but that's the manner in which all great scientific discoveries have taken place in the last two centuries.

You'll note also that every single team pays Champion Data and a fleet of analysts huge wads of cash to measure and analyze every tiny facet of the game... You don't suppose that might be because... there's some merit in it!?

There's absolutely merit in statistics.

Just not in the pathetic way you attempt to use them.

Dunn averages 0.5 free kicks against per game. League average is 0.8 (ish). This while part of a constantly beleaguered defence. Your subjective observations aren't statements of fact, I'm afraid.

And if he was smarter it'd be 0.2 or something. It's not a stat thing. It's a dumb thing. It's bloody unnecessary.

And mate footy is subjective. Those frees on a wing are not the same as one's in a goal square. Frees that give easy goals against the run of play =/= soft HBF frees that give you time to man up.

You can see it how you want, but he's only in our best 22 because our best 22 is bloody ordinary.

You guys are welcome to construct a coherent and logical counter to my argument, but other than the claim that Gibson takes a better forward than Dunn (which I imagine might be true, not that anyone has done the research to check if it actually is or not, and I'm not getting the feeling any of you are going to), I haven't seen anything yet.

You might scoff at the idea that someone would do any research to test their intuitions (and admit that their intuition is wrong on occasion, as they often are), but that's the manner in which all great scientific discoveries have taken place in the last two centuries.

You'll note also that every single team pays Champion Data and a fleet of analysts huge wads of cash to measure and analyze every tiny facet of the game... You don't suppose that might be because... there's some merit in it!?

How exactly do you research or use statistics to measure the strength of opposition? That entire question is illogical. Blind freddy can see that Gibson is Hawthorn's CHB and often plays on the oppositions best or second best key defender where as Dunn played on Schultz in round one and Lindsay Thomas a few weeks back. They are the only real quality opponents I've seen him take. Besides from when he tagged Judd (well) and Ablett (disastrously).

By the way a lot of great scientific discoveries have had absolutely nothing to do with research. They get tested with research eventually but the actual discovery has nothing to do with it. Penicillin is the obvious example. A lot of other medical discoveries were made by observations and intuition as well and not research. Actually most common antibiotics used to treat conditions have never been fully tested because you can't create an ethical trial these days. You can't find someone with pneumonia and check whether a standard dose of penicillin will treat it compared to no treatment because it's completely unethical to watch people get sicker without treatment that clearly works.

In some ways that's what you'd have to do with Dunn. You'd have to find his replacement and design some nearly impossible trial to work out whether the evidence shows he is better than said player. To get a big enough sample it would have to go over many games, probably seasons, which most Melbourne supporters would find unethical because we'd be watching Dunn spud it up for no reason.

AFL teams use statistics to find out trends in the game and to map strengths and weaknesses of certain players. They certain can't use them to provide detailed rankings of players, there are just way to many variables. In essence you are suggesting a moneyball theory of statistics outweighing vision and instinct and it just isn't possible in AFL.

Dumb and slow to react "tweener" that makes the same mistakes he made years ago.

Some of you are pathetic, you let your emotion cloud your judgement. I went to the game on the weekend, and Dunn was fantastic, he is one of only a handful that had a presence on the ground. Watching him 1 v 1 on the ground was impressive, really backs into his opponents hard and annoys them all day. Just because we are having a terrible year, you are all happy to throw everyone in the same category......unless they are a young talented messiah, which you all love to pin your hopes on.

There's absolutely merit in statistics.

Just not in the pathetic way you attempt to use them.

Haha. Good argument. I notice you've instead brought a well researched reply which demonstrates Dunn's ineptitude with plenty of supporting evidence.

Oh. No you didn't.

Those frees on a wing are not the same as one's in a goal square.

Right. And where do we put Dunn? In the goal square. Of course if he gives away a free it's going to be a goal, his job is to stand in the frickin' goal square! If ever there was a more obvious case of the emotional cost of a result bearing on the perception of the test than this, I can't think of one. The free kicks Dunn gives away - 38% less often than the average player - often result in a goal because his job is to defend right in front of the goal. That doesn't mean his transgression was any stupider or less skilled than one by Luke Tapscott on the half forward flank, you're just more likely to remember it. You're exhibiting a classic cognitive bias caused by the availability heuristic.

They certain can't use them to provide detailed rankings of players.

I don't have any evidence to support this claim, but I bet you that's exactly what they do. Especially guys in recruitment (who no doubt utilise many intuitive judgement call also).

Blind freddy can see that Gibson is Hawthorn's CHB and often plays on the oppositions best or second best key defender where as Dunn played on Schultz in round one and Lindsay Thomas a few weeks back. They are the only real quality opponents I've seen him take.

Okay, well let's assume then that Hawthorn and Melbourne have played exactly the same opposition as each other throughout the year (the fixture being uneven means that's almost certainly not true, but let's assume it is for the sake of the argument).

On that basis, no matter who Dunn plays on or how far down the pecking order he is, someone in Hawthorn's back six has the same role as him, and plays against the same guys as him. Do you want to know how Dunn stacks up against everyone in Hawthorn's back six?

Very well. He takes less marks than most of them, and his disposal efficiency is marginally below most of them, but I'd attribute both of those facts largely to the constant pressure and lack of "free possessions" that comes with playing in the most consistently poor team in the league. Subjectively, I'd say he tries to spoil more often than mark too, unlike Brian Lake for example, but I don't have any proof of that.

Other than Grant Birchall - who accumulates seven more possessions per game - statistically Dunn compares very nicely to every single member of the Hawks back six. The talls, the smalls, the negaters and the attackers. His defensive capabilities in particular appear to be better than most of the Hawks back six (though again, that could be because the other team has the ball more often than we do).

So here I remain, a card carrying member of the Lynden-Dunn-goes-half-alright club.

Ask me what I think about Jake Spencer, future superstar.