Autocol, everything you have said on this thread makes absolute sense, but you're never going to get satisfaction by arguing objectivity, fact, and impartiality in analysis with a lot on here. They just dont want to know. The very nature of people's frustration means they will attribute blame. It's effectively the 'he just gives me the sh**s' mode of argument. In relative terms Lynden Dunn has been good this year, and the absolutely relevant stats you provide reinforce why he has been. A more than effective role player in a horrible team.

Keep trying though, I enjoy your efforts!

I do love it how if someone doesn't agree with our point of view, it must be because they're not being objective.

FWIW, I don't agree with the POV you and autocol have put forward, but I appreciate the way in which it's [mostly] being argued.

Autocol you can argue all you like about statistics because I just don't think you can use statistics in AFL to compare players with any kind of accuracy. You can argue who is the better kick or who gets more ball or who is a better tackler but in terms of overall comparison I don't see why you are so against a good pair of eyes a brain as a judge.

As for Dunn, surely you agree he could be much better if he cut the silly crud out of his game and went up a level in hardness to really attack contests. That's without even mentioning doing anything about his decision making which I think at this stage of his career is pretty stuffed.

As for a comparison of Dunn with another player I was thinking of another guy who played a lot of mid sized defender last time we were a horrible side in 2007 to 2009 and then made way for a better class of footballer when we got it together in 2010. And that player is Daniel Bell. He was different in a lot of ways but shoddy decision making and a lack of influence on the game was common to both. I hope we climb at least a couple of spots and gain some more wins next year and I predict that if we do then we won't see Dunn as such a regular.

I do love it how if someone doesn't agree with our point of view, it must be because they're not being objective. FWIW, I don't agree with the POV you and autocol have put forward, but I appreciate the way in which it's [mostly] being argued.

Nasher, I DON'T love it how someone redefines the English language to make their point. Objectivity is by definition is 'observable phenomena presented as fact'. The only thing we have to use as 'fact' are statistics, whether you like them or not. I would NEVER accuse someone of lacking objectivity, UNLESS they are ignoring or refuting the objective facts, which are statistics. By definition. To do so would be ignorant to the meaning of the word, and belittle the discussion. I have plenty of subjective opinions on all manner of matters, and some of them have no objective support, thus they lack objectivity. Any opinion that suggests Lynden Dunn is a rubbish footballer lacks objectivity. Fact.

Ahhhh, but it's how you choose to present and interpret those very statistics...

Nasher, I DON'T love it how someone redefines the English language to make their point. Objectivity is by definition is 'observable phenomena presented as fact'. The only thing we have to use as 'fact' are statistics, whether you like them or not. I would NEVER accuse someone of lacking objectivity, UNLESS they are ignoring or refuting the objective facts, which are statistics. By definition. To do so would be ignorant to the meaning of the word, and belittle the discussion. I have plenty of subjective opinions on all manner of matters, and some of them have no objective support, thus they lack objectivity. Any opinion that suggests Lynden Dunn is a rubbish footballer lacks objectivity. Fact.

Aren't opinions by definition subjective?

My subjective opinion is that Dunn is not a very good footballer and he plays the easiest position in the whole world ever - HBF.

He makes far too many mistakes, and has far too many brain fades not to have his position under review going into 2014.

He also doesn't lose a lot of contests because he doesn't quite get there in time to actually be involved in that contest.

You watch him on the field, and he's an expert at making his last couple of steps look like be busted a gut to get there, but it was physically impossible. It's a variation of "losers' limp."

Since you guys are stuggling with the difference between objective and subjective observation, allow me to offer my subjective opinion.

Dunn is not a creative footballer. "See the ball, hit the ball out of bounds" seems to be his default thought process. When he does get the ball, his ability to scan for options quickly is not fantastic. He's a good, accurate kick, but the guy who wants it needs to make all manner of large motions with flourescent semaphore flags if they expect him to notice them, if not, he'll revert to the most basic of defensive kicks - the bomb down the boundary line. That said, when the ball is delivered to a contest, Dunn is more likely than not to spoil the ball, and achieve one of his two basic aims - hit it out of bounds or bomb it back down the boundary line. That's his talent. Simple, negating football.

These are my subjective observations, just as most (well, all, actually) of the opinions presented in this thread by the rest of you are.

I could, if I had the time or inclination, attempt to turn my observations into something more closely resembling objective facts by engaging in research. This might involve watching the game tapes, categorising types of contests, types of results, and scoring Dunn and his opponent in various ways. I could even score the frequency with which Dunn forgets to have an opponent which a few of you claim to be a common occurrence. All these facts are knowable, you simply need to perform the research to obtain them.

Last year on Bigfooty I posed a hypothesis about the likelihood of a score based on an inside 50 being from a low "stab" pass or a high "bomb" into attack, and questioned by one of the more astute posters, I performed an analysis just as I'm describing on two quarters of football picked at random by him. The results only somewhat supported my hypothesis. As a result, I was forced to concede that the objective facts did not match my subjective opinion and thus my opinion was altered.

You should go and read it. I'm proud of that post (and it took me two hours to create it so do me the kindness of at least making it worthwhile).

Those of you making statements like "Ahhhh, but it's how you choose to present and interpret those very statistics..." as though there's been some grand conspiracy to fudge the numbers in this thread to make Dunn look good would do well to note that I have not presented OR interpreted any statistics in this thread. I've provided links to the stats, and invited people to peruse them. This notion that "statistics are all lies" is a falsehood consistently propagated by those that struggle to deal with facts. The facts already existed, and were already true, I just happened to point them out for you.

Also, those of you that don't think that the offices of every AFL club are absolutely brimming with geeks like me (but smarter and better trained) running statistical analyses on all manner of data that we don't have access to, with direct effects on tactics, recruitment and list management, are sorely mistaken.

Aren't opinions by definition subjective? My subjective opinion is that Dunn is not a very good footballer and he plays the easiest position in the whole world ever - HBF. He makes far too many mistakes, and has far too many brain fades not to have his position under review going into 2014.

Sheesh! And I was worried MY defence was pedantic. Yes, of course all opinions are subjective, but the issue is obviously how they are supported from objectivity, i.e. facts/statistics. Who would've thought Lynden Dunn would provoke a philosophical debate on the validity of Statistics in interpreting life from the half back flank? Not him I suspect! :-)

Those statistics do not take into account a bevy of pertinent factors:

- Dunn's opponent in the contest

- Dunn picking & choosing his contests

- his inability to get to some contests

- what he does with the ball when he does win the contest

- how often it is against his own man, as opposed to how often he is contesting against a teammates opponent

Therefore, in isolation, those stats are misleading.

However, I do concede that they indicate, that when Dunn is involved in a 50/50 contest, he wins more often than anyone else.

But that's like crowing about a high goalkicking efficiency when you only have shots from the goalsquare, in comparison to a highly skilled player who is willing to roll the dice from 50 out on the boundary.

Furthermore, this thread, as defined by the OP, is not about Dunn's one singular excellent stat.

It is about Dunn's general propensity to make stupid mistakes that harm his team more than any of his positive actions benefit it.

And this one anomaly does not cancel out his negatives for me (subjective opinion).

Those statistics do not take into account a bevy of pertinent factors:

- Dunn's opponent

- Dunn picking & choosing his contests

- his inability to get to some contests

Therefore, in isolation, those stats are misleading.

.....

Get out of here......done t you know stats are the be all and end all....they're like a gospel to their disciples !!

Sums up Dunn pretty well though. Mutton dressed up as lamb ...sts

Considering the unbridled hatred for him on here, he's done pretty well to be coming 10th in the player of the year votes.

Stats might not tell the whole story, but to disregard them altogether just seems to be treating them as an inconvenience to the pigeonholing of Dunn that occurs every time someone dare mentions his name.

Lynden Dunn, Matty Bate and Juice Newton, now that was a draft.

I prefer the 2008 debarkle

Watts

Bleaze

Strauss

Jetta

Bail

Watts has played the most games with 70 odd. The rest below 40 out of over 200.

Undeniable waste of picks

Those statistics do not take into account a bevy of pertinent factors:

- Dunn's opponent in the contest

- Dunn picking & choosing his contests

- his inability to get to some contests

- what he does with the ball when he does win the contest

- how often it is against his own man, as opposed to how often he is contesting against a teammates opponent

Therefore, in isolation, those stats are misleading.

However, I do concede that they indicate, that when Dunn is involved in a 50/50 contest, he wins more often than anyone else.

But that's like crowing about a high goalkicking efficiency when you only have shots from the goalsquare, in comparison to a highly skilled player who is willing to roll the dice from 50 out on the boundary.

Furthermore, this thread, as defined by the OP, is not about Dunn's one singular excellent stat.

It is about Dunn's general propensity to make stupid mistakes that harm his team more than any of his positive actions benefit it.

And this one anomaly does not cancel out his negatives for me (subjective opinion).

Quite clearly you've not read anything I've written beyond a quick skim, you have no interest in discussion beyond pushing your own opinion, have no idea whatsoever about what I'm even talking about, or have gleaned any insight as to how analytical thinking can improve one's perception of a given situation.

In short, I'm bored of arguing with you. Good day sir.

i doubt linden could spell objective let alone subjective

just my objective opinion but

i doubt linden could spell objective let alone subjective

just my objective opinion but

Hate to be critical, but that's your subjective opinion. You have no concrete evidence to support your hypothesis.

i doubt linden could spell objective let alone subjective

just my objective opinion but

dunno,i think he could spell it

his name has 4 consecutive consanents in it ,so that tells me a lot about his writing ability

i doubt linden could spell objective let alone subjective

just my objective opinion but

yeah but what about Lynden ( speaking of spelling ) ?? lol

It's true that data can be manipulated. As the saying goes, there's lies, damned lies, and statistics. However, it's become a tediously easy way for people to deny whatever facts are being shown to them to simply cry that "the data doesn't support my intuitive claim, therefore the data has been manipulated!"

The easiest form of this is cherry picking, that is, only presenting data which supports your claim.

You could accuse me of doing that, except the truth is that I haven't. I didn't pick Josh Gibson, someone else named him first, and as a regularly lauded player in a top team I expected an interesting comparison. I expected Dunny's stats to be far behind his, but reasonable enough to justify a claim that he might be able to perform a similar role in a similar team. I was surprised to find him pretty much on level pegging. Howled down by the "Gibson has to take a better opponent" brigade, I simply expanded the comparison to all of the players around Gibson. Note that I didn't choose Hawthorn or Gibson after checking that the stats would support my claim. I simply linked to the stats and read out the results.

Everybody has access to the same statistics that I do, so anyone could easily search the 16 other teams to search for one which statistically proves that Dunn is a poor player. My hypothesis is that you won't find one, but I won't claim that to be fact until someone does the research. If my statistics had been manipulated, as you're suggesting they could have been, then you could easily disprove my claims by accessing the publicly available data and making an analysis of your own. You're likely to reach a similar conclusion to the one I've detailed here, because there's been no manipulation of figures.

I really wish I could teach people that it's okay to have a hypothesis or prediction (GO YOU GOOD THING SPENCER!) that turns out to be wrong. It's okay to refer to the evidence and realise that your initial intuitive reaction needn't be the same as your reasoned critical analysis. Subjectively, I think the main reason people think Dunn sucks as a footballer is his persona, and the fact that when he gives away a free kick, the opposition typically score a goal. The rest of it is an irrational attempt to justify their opinion, because the evidence is that Dunn is not a sucky footballer.

It's interesting (and/or frightening) to note that the majority of the votes cast on September the 7th will be made with equal disregard for evidence and facts.

Thanks. I just wish people would actually read them before making claims about my lack of credibility.

Sorry AC I was really not being critical and did commence with a request for similar discussion on Spencer as I was impressed with your approach . I also referenced the Chaos theory to impart my belief in statistics to expose trends so I fully support you and genuinely did take pleasure in reading your arguments.

There was no lack of credibility from me as I thought your arguments gave me support for my opinion

yeah but what about Lynden ( speaking of spelling ) ?? lol

good catch bub, you're quicker than autocool who didn't have his sarcasm monitor turned on

Who would've thought Lynden Dunn would provoke a philosophical debate on the validity of Statistics in interpreting life from the half back flank? Not him I suspect! :-)

Arguably his best / only contribution for the year

good catch bub, you're quicker than autocool who didn't have his sarcasm monitor turned on

quicker than Autocol too !!

( there are days huh ..lol )

quicker than Autocol too !!

( there are days huh ..lol )

After 62 posts so far today you should be pretty quick off the mark.

quicker than Autocol too !!

( there are days huh ..lol )

they're called bluey days bub..........i'm still in rehab

they're called bluey days bub..........i'm still in rehab

I shouldnt pick...but know youre ok with it..

Ready for the preseason DC ?

Quite clearly you've not read anything I've written beyond a quick skim, you have no interest in discussion beyond pushing your own opinion, have no idea whatsoever about what I'm even talking about, or have gleaned any insight as to how analytical thinking can improve one's perception of a given situation.

In short, I'm bored of arguing with you. Good day sir.

Oh, I've read.

But I don't agree.

You're not the authority on Dunn and how football statistics are to be applied.

Quite clearly you don't like anyone who has the gall to disagree with you, or your assertion that statistics are infallible, provided you use them in a way that suits your agenda.