Dane Swan v Brent Stanton

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

Nice theory.
History says that Stanton is the least of our worries in finals. Cleeeeeaaarly our best out there, last time around, and probably best the time before.

There are plenty of hardnuts who've had poor finals records and plenty of outside guys who've had great records.

Craig Bradley & Nigel Lappin had great finals records and they were both more at home outside the pack than in. Sam Mitchell & Jobe Watson don't have great finals records, and they're pure stoppage players.

Reality > theory.

In the last 2 finals there hasn't been any need to stop Stanton. Adelaide and Carlton both smashed essendon with Stanton supposedly being one of your best. Now that Essendon have seemingly improved and so has Stanton that might change a bit this year.

Lappin was one of an army of truly great Brisbane midfielders and Bradley was a legend of the game.

 

[Drummer_19]

Nice strawman.

 

[Jade]

I don't rate him as anything more, especially in comparison to Swan. It's that simple. He's a good runner, not particularly damaging nor unique or dynamic in his capabilities. He isn't a topliner, and never will be IMO. In the scheme of things, in 15 years time, I believe, we'll look back at the top 4 teams from the last 10 or so years and rattle off 2 or 3 mids from each side that will be looked upon more favorably than Stanton. So in my eyes, when you line up all the 200 game mids he gets slotted in as what you'd typically expect from someone who's played that amount of games without setting the league alight.

"Good average" doesn't have to be taken as an insult.

That's not to say he hasn't been good for you in your down years, it's just that he's more your "solid" midfielder like Sewell than an out and out star of the comp like Swan is in my eyes.

Thats a fair enough comment I would have thought.

I'm assuming that you don't disagree with the contention that Stanton has been one of the best performed midfielders for the last 15-20 games?

If that's the case, would it be fair to say you don't believe Stanton will maintain his current form?

In the last 2 finals there hasn't been any need to stop Stanton. Adelaide and Carlton both smashed essendon with Stanton supposedly being one of your best. Now that Essendon have seemingly improved and so has Stanton that might change a bit this year.

Lappin was one of an army of truly great Brisbane midfielders and Bradley was a legend of the game.

Bloody hell, the HOLE you are digging.....

 

[Collingwoodity]

If you have a query about moderation, do it via Pm.

Stanton's having his best season ever, and so I think the poll could be seen as valid. Personally, I think he's a very average footballer getting the best out of himself, while Swan is a champion of the game.

Plenty of people here are suggesting the difference isn't all that great, but while I don't see it, if they can make their case without trolling or baiting I think we'll let the discussion continue.

people were saying this about swan up to and until he won the brownlow.

utter crap

swan is in front and clearly.

but you can't accuse someone belonging to one category and over a 10 week period say "he is just getting the best out of himself"

he is either performing at a certain standard or isnt.

stanton is a top player.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

I don't rate him as anything more, especially in comparison to Swan. It's that simple. He's a good runner, not particularly damaging nor unique or dynamic in his capabilities. He isn't a topliner, and never will be IMO. In the scheme of things, in 15 years time, I believe, we'll look back at the top 4 teams from the last 10 or so years and rattle off 2 or 3 mids from each side that will be looked upon more favorably than Stanton. So in my eyes, when you line up all the 200 game mids he gets slotted in as what you'd typically expect from someone who's played that amount of games without setting the league alight.

"Good average" doesn't have to be taken as an insult.

That's not to say he hasn't been good for you in your down years, it's just that he's more your "solid" midfielder like Sewell than an out and out star of the comp like Swan is in my eyes.

Pretty much how I see it too.

 

[The Speaker]

I don't rate him as anything more, especially in comparison to Swan. It's that simple. He's a good runner, not particularly damaging nor unique or dynamic in his capabilities. He isn't a topliner, and never will be IMO. In the scheme of things, in 15 years time, I believe, we'll look back at the top 4 teams from the last 10 or so years and rattle off 2 or 3 mids from each side that will be looked upon more favorably than Stanton. So in my eyes, when you line up all the 200 game mids he gets slotted in as what you'd typically expect from someone who's played that amount of games without setting the league alight.

"Good average" doesn't have to be taken as an insult.

That's not to say he hasn't been good for you in your down years, it's just that he's more your "solid" midfielder like Sewell than an out and out star of the comp like Swan is in my eyes.

So how do you rate Stanton's performance so far this year, then?

 

[Lifetime ban]

No-one in their right mind would take Stanton over Swan based on what they have achieved over their respective careers so far, but it is interesting to look at their stats at the same age.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...id1=1347&tid2=5&pid2=491&type=A&fid1=O&fid2=O

Not a hell of a lot in it statistically.

 

[entourage]

Stats don't tell even a quarter of the story.

 

[lamaros]

If I closed every thread based on how far apart I thought the subjects were in output or talent, this board wouldn't be worth visiting.

Then why did you close the Stanton v Simpson v Wells one?

Stanton is probably leading the brownlow at this point and is second in the coaches votes, but that doesn't mean that this thread is reasonable. It is designed to troll, everyone knows that.

Watch him next time you play us, live is best. He is currently the best player at our club, and we're 7-1. He kicks more than ANY player in the comp, and kicks long and accurately. He has also kicked 11 goals. To not rate him this year is absurd.

To not think he will keep it up and Swan will, maybe there's a point there, but to think he's average right now?

 

[boncer34]

Stats don't tell even a quarter of the story.

The only thing more overrated then stats on Bigfooty is the derision of stats.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

people were saying this about swan up to and until he won the brownlow.

Only idiots were. Don't listen to them.

utter crap

It is.

swan is in front and clearly.

No argument here.

but you can't accuse someone belonging to one category and over a 10 week period say "he is just getting the best out of himself"

I'm pretty sure I explained my thoughts earlier.

he is either performing at a certain standard or isnt.

stanton is a top player.

See above.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Thats a fair enough comment I would have thought.

I'm assuming that you don't disagree with the contention that Stanton has been one of the best performed midfielders for the last 15-20 games?

If that's the case, would it be fair to say you don't believe Stanton will maintain his current form?

Best performed, yeah possibly? He's up against quite a few handy players though, so it's arguable.

Who knows how the rest of the year will go.

 

[Lifetime ban]

Stats don't tell even a quarter of the story.

Not true, stats can tell you a hell of a lot about a player. Unfortunately I don't have access to stats for hard ball gets, handpass receives, 1%ers, I50's, rebound 50's etc etc, which would help to paint a better picture. Stanton doesn't have the pure burst speed of Swan, which is one of Swans main attributes. By the same token, it wasn't really until 2009 that Swan really started tearing it up, and by then he had Pendlebury, Thomas, Shaw, Wellingham and others to help take the pressure off, by providing other targets for taggers, and was playing in a team contesting finals. Name one other player in the Essendon side bar Watson, who other teams would have considered tagging in the last 5 years. Stants is about where Swan was 3 years ago, give or take statistically. Whether he is capable of maintaining that standard going forward is the real question.

 

[jonbe54]

Not true, stats can tell you a hell of a lot about a player. Unfortunately I don't have access to stats for hard ball gets, handpass receives, 1%ers, I50's, rebound 50's etc etc, which would help to paint a better picture. Stanton doesn't have the pure burst speed of Swan, which is one of Swans main attributes. By the same token, it wasn't really until 2009 that Swan really started tearing it up, and by then he had Pendlebury, Thomas, Shaw, Wellingham and others to help take the pressure off, by providing other targets for taggers, and was playing in a team contesting finals. Name one other player in the Essendon side bar Watson, who other teams would have considered tagging in the last 5 years. Stants is about where Swan was 3 years ago, give or take statistically. Whether he is capable of maintaining that standard going forward is the real question.

Lol there's lies, DAMNED LIES and stats

 

[Lifetime ban]

Lol there's lies, DAMNED LIES and stats

Oft quoted, and quite humorous, but the movie Moneyball (yes I know all the arguments about it) does highlight that sometimes substance (stats) is more important than flash. No-one would argue that Buddy Franklin isn't a good footballer, possibly even great, but statistically, when kicking for goal he butchers it, nearly as often as he gets it right. That stat tells me that he is not the most reliable kick going around. Anthony when he was playing for your mob was extremely efficient in front of goal, telling me he was a better than average kick, but that stat in isolation doesn't tell me that he is a dud footballer. The better the statistics, and the terms of reference of those statistics, as well as the greatest amount of data possible, reducing the weighting of anomalies, the more accurately you can use them to conduct an appraisal.

 

[jonbe54]

Oft quoted, and quite humorous, but the movie Moneyball (yes I know all the arguments about it) does highlight that sometimes substance (stats) is more important than flash. No-one would argue that Buddy Franklin isn't a good footballer, possibly even great, but statistically, when kicking for goal he butchers it, nearly as often as he gets it right. That stat tells me that he is not the most reliable kick going around. Anthony when he was playing for your mob was extremely efficient in front of goal, telling me he was a better than average kick, but that stat in isolation doesn't tell me that he is a dud footballer. The better the statistics, and the terms of reference of those statistics, as well as the greatest amount of data possible, reducing the weighting of anomalies, the more accurately you can use them to conduct an appraisal.

Stats aren't the problem LB as they are completely unbiased as mere collected facts, the problem is the framing of the collection and interpretation of those facts. How is that biased? Are they used in isolation or coloured by other stats?

In other words unless we know the contracting party, the author, the bias and other conflicting or corroborating evidence those stats are almost useless as a basis for making an informed and rational judgement.

 

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

Thats a fair enough comment I would have thought.

I'm assuming that you don't disagree with the contention that Stanton has been one of the best performed midfielders for the last 15-20 games?

If that's the case, would it be fair to say you don't believe Stanton will maintain his current form?



Bloody hell, the HOLE you are digging.....

Yes I don't believe he will mantain his current form. That is why I said he will be shut down later in the season.

What was it you were saying about Twain? Sometimes its hard not to get dragged down to the other persons level...You have talked about how hard it is for you to argue your point with some people on Bigfooty, perhaps it is because instead of actually talking about the topic you choose to pull out single sentence responses that attack the man and are a poor attempt to make you look intelligent and your view indisputable.
Your views are very much disputable and I can guarantee that you are not right all of the time. Neither am I. All I can say is that it'll be interesting to see who is right about Stanton and whether his form drops off or not.

 

[Lifetime ban]

Stats aren't the problem LB as they are completely unbiased as mere collected facts, the problem is the framing of the collection and interpretation of those facts. How is that biased? Are they used in isolation or coloured by other stats?

In other words unless we know the contracting party, the author, the bias and other conflicting or corroborating evidence those stats are almost useless as a basis for making an informed and rational judgement.

If the stats were based on direct observation, i.e. did player x kick the ball yes or no, there can be no bias in the collection, therefore knowing who collected the stats makes no difference. Bias only enters the equation when you try to make the statistical data fit into a framework or methodology, i.e. interpretation.
Footywire stats would be considered as unbiased, because they are not trying to present the data as anything other than black and white. They have no agenda to promote one player over another. As such, a straight statistical comparison between player A and player B gives a true, unbiased account of their averages and totals for those criteria that data is collected for, i.e. kicks, handpasses, marks etc.
This isn't to say that the stats provided give any indication about other aspects of those players games, but they do provide data on key values that can be used to evaluate each players output during a game e.g. player A, on average will have 24 possessions per game. Will he do that every game, of course not. But by the same token, if player a averages 4 goals per game, while player B averages .5 goals per game, it would be fair to assess player A as a bigger scoring threat than player B. For example, Reimers at Essendon scored 8 goals against Gold Coast, while Schulz kicked 7 the other day against Carlton. In isolation Reimers is more dangerous in front of goal, statistically, on average Schulz is the more consistent goal kicker.

As my original post said, compare their statistical output for this season so far, and there is very little between them. I also said that Swan is by far the more accomplished player to date.

 

[jonbe54]

If the stats were based on direct observation, i.e. did player x kick the ball yes or no, there can be no bias in the collection, therefore knowing who collected the stats makes no difference. Bias only enters the equation when you try to make the statistical data fit into a framework or methodology, i.e. interpretation.
Footywire stats would be considered as unbiased, because they are not trying to present the data as anything other than black and white. They have no agenda to promote one player over another. As such, a straight statistical comparison between player A and player B gives a true, unbiased account of their averages and totals for those criteria that data is collected for, i.e. kicks, handpasses, marks etc.
This isn't to say that the stats provided give any indication about other aspects of those players games, but they do provide data on key values that can be used to evaluate each players output during a game e.g. player A, on average will have 24 possessions per game. Will he do that every game, of course not. But by the same token, if player a averages 4 goals per game, while player B averages .5 goals per game, it would be fair to assess player A as a bigger scoring threat than player B. For example, Reimers at Essendon scored 8 goals against Gold Coast, while Schulz kicked 7 the other day against Carlton. In isolation Reimers is more dangerous in front of goal, statistically, on average Schulz is the more consistent goal kicker.

As my original post said, compare their statistical output for this season so far, and there is very little between them. I also said that Swan is by far the more accomplished player to date.

I'm not talking about bias as in promoting one player or club over another I'm talking about bias as in preconceptions and I'm not trying to downplay Brents season - which I'm inclined to believe is a watershed for him so far, I just don't trust stats to give a complete picture. Too much is usually ignored as irrelevant to the facts sought which is a judgement call, when judgements come into it analysis is coloured and bias has to enter - to whatever extent.

As a quick example look at the Pies last number 1 pick - Josh Fraser, was considered the best young ruckman in the country at the time because the judgement at the time was that smaller, more mobile ruckmen had the upper hand with the increasing pace of AFL. This has been long since discarded as flawed yet at the time was right.

 

[mufassa]

Nice theory.
History says that Stanton is the least of our worries in finals. Cleeeeeaaarly our best out there, last time around, and probably best the time before.

There are plenty of hardnuts who've had poor finals records and plenty of outside guys who've had great records.

Craig Bradley & Nigel Lappin had great finals records and they were both more at home outside the pack than in. Sam Mitchell & Jobe Watson don't have great finals records, and they're pure stoppage players.

Reality > theory.

So do you choose to ignore all his finals and just focus on his Ok ones?

2 kicks 1 handball
4 kicks 4 handballs

Reality says these 2 finals apperance were pathetic.

Stanton was tagged once this year and was terrible.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

So do you choose to ignore all his finals and just focus on his Ok ones?

2 kicks 1 handball
4 kicks 4 handballs

Reality says these 2 finals apperance were pathetic.

Stanton was tagged once this year and was terrible.

He came off a 4-day break against Carlton facing a player who was sitting on the half back against Port.

 

[mufassa]

He came off a 4-day break against Carlton facing a player who was sitting on the half back against Port.

Anzac day medalist Swan only had 4 day break and Stanton was one player they sent to him but Swan "munched" on him as well. Quote from the Herald Sun.

Stanton is no where near Swan. The gap was on display on Anzac day.

 

[Lifetime ban]

I'm not talking about bias as in promoting one player or club over another I'm talking about bias as in preconceptions and I'm not trying to downplay Brents season - which I'm inclined to believe is a watershed for him so far, I just don't trust stats to give a complete picture. Too much is usually ignored as irrelevant to the facts sought which is a judgement call, when judgements come into it analysis is coloured and bias has to enter - to whatever extent.

As a quick example look at the Pies last number 1 pick - Josh Fraser, was considered the best young ruckman in the country at the time because the judgement at the time was that smaller, more mobile ruckmen had the upper hand with the increasing pace of AFL. This has been long since discarded as flawed yet at the time was right.

Fair call. Good to have a discussion here that isn't about my d(ck being bigger than yours.

 

[jonbe54]

Fair call. Good to have a discussion here that isn't about my d(ck being bigger than yours.

Couldn't agree more LB

And for the record we all have to use stats as they are the sharpest tools we have for measuring such things but its always interesting when rogue factors interfere with the results because we are, after all merely flawed humans

 

[Drummer_19]

So do you choose to ignore all his finals and just focus on his Ok ones?

2 kicks 1 handball
4 kicks 4 handballs

Reality says these 2 finals apperance were pathetic.

Stanton was tagged once this year and was terrible. Once the clamp comes the boo's will soon follow.

Such amazingly relevant stats for how he's been performing recently. Couldn't do it as an 18 year old, well that's pretty much career done from there. Are you really this daft or do you just put it on?