Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

Marginally, except for contested marks where Naughton is marginally ahead. I think aerial prowess fits our forward needs better than someone who gets an extra kick a game.

You seem really adamant about this. Why would you take Dixon even if based only on stats?

Personally I wouldn't, but the stats overall favour Dixon.

I guess I am trying to highlight the inherent failings of a purely statistical approach.

[hujsh]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

Personally I wouldn't, but the stats overall favour Dixon.

I guess I am trying to highlight the inherent failings of a purely statistical approach.

I think we've had that discussion around the value of statistics pretty comprehensively since a certain poster joined

[jeemak]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

I think we've had that discussion around the value of statistics pretty comprehensively since a certain poster joined

It's odd that we haven't seen statsbot this week.........

[boydogs]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

If you look at Naughton's stats 95% of his goals come from set shots - so he is a bit of a 1-trick pony.

Luckily for us that trick is flying at the footy from 7 deep, crunching packs and taking ridiculous marks.

Naughton almost starts chasing after the ball before he hits the ground after a marking contest, he's like a cat

[Mofra]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

Personally I wouldn't, but the stats overall favour Dixon.

I guess I am trying to highlight the inherent failings of a purely statistical approach.

Well I disagree on the first point (as per F50 marks), and have never made the second point.