Prediction Aaron Naughton

[Proffessor]

Holy strawman!

You started out criticising my opinion using an argument of authority, which is rarely an effective strategy by the way.
Then when I pointed out the flawed nature of the authority that you have based your position on, you further suggest that I had used a Straw man argument. This is incorrect, I refuted an argument you had made not one you hadn't.

Don't feel too bad though, Naughton's 4th placing is so ridiculous and indefensible, that anyone trying to defend it is going to be clutching at straws.

 

[BEaston]

You started out criticising my opinion using an argument of authority, which is rarely an effective strategy by the way.
Then when I pointed out the flawed nature of the authority that you have based your position on, you further suggest that I had used a Straw man argument. This is incorrect, I refuted an argument you had made not one you hadn't.

Don't feel too bad though, Naughton's 4th placing is so ridiculous and indefensible, that anyone trying to defend it is going to be clutching at straws.

Not all appeals to authority are invalid FYI and in this case it's quite clear which side has a teensy bit more credence.

Strawman because ladder position has absolutely nothing to do with judging our own players, but I'm sure you already knew that.

Carry on.

 

[Some Idiot]

Naughton had an excellent first season at AFL level and looks to have a great future ahead of him.

However his 4th placing in the B and F, amongst other strange results in that count, raises serious questions about the people voting in that award.

Consistent with some ridiculous match committee decisions this year, especially early in the season. I think this B and F result it is so wildly out of kilter that the judgement and integrity of the people voting should be seriously questioned.

My experience with best and fairest results at lower levels is that coaches can tend to give votes more to a younger player who exceeds their expectations over a more experienced player who doesn't meet the loftier expectations held for them, even if the more experienced player technically had a better individual performance.

 

[dogwatch]

My experience with best and fairest results at lower levels is that coaches can tend to give votes more to a younger player who exceeds their expectations over a more experienced player who doesn't meet the loftier expectations held for them, even if the more experienced player technically had a better individual performance.

I reckon this is true of the Ching too. Subjective awards are always going to be flawed because they're ... well, because they're subjective. Expectations (high or low) certainly influence perceptions.

Obviously there are problems with objective measures too (like fantasy points), so there's no perfect system.

 

[go you pups]

I reckon this is true of the Ching too. Subjective awards are always going to be flawed because they're ... well, because they're subjective. Expectations (high or low) certainly influence perceptions.

Obviously there are problems with objective measures too (like fantasy points), so there's no perfect system.

Wallis was robbed in 2015

Won the Ching but only came 9th IIRC in the BnF

Most of us thought he was a top 3 lock that year

 

[Proffessor]

My experience with best and fairest results at lower levels is that coaches can tend to give votes more to a younger player who exceeds their expectations over a more experienced player who doesn't meet the loftier expectations held for them, even if the more experienced player technically had a better individual performance.

I reckon this is true of the Ching too. Subjective awards are always going to be flawed because they're ... well, because they're subjective. Expectations (high or low) certainly influence perceptions.

Obviously there are problems with objective measures too (like fantasy points), so there's no perfect system.

It's true that such awards are subjective, that there is no perfect system, and that the voters may occasionally bias their results for particular reasons both consciously and unconsciously.
That is why people in such positions need to try hard to be as objective and fair as possible.

I think there is a correlation between the biased way the coaches have been treating players at both the selection table and B and F voting, with the recent exodus of players from the club.

Everyone wants to be treated fairly, and if you feel like you aren't, then you are likely to go elsewhere.

 

[Dav1d]

So are there any Naughton highlights from this year up on YouTube yet?

I have only found a small sample from his RS nomination

 

[immortalmike]

My experience with best and fairest results at lower levels is that coaches can tend to give votes more to a younger player who exceeds their expectations over a more experienced player who doesn't meet the loftier expectations held for them, even if the more experienced player technically had a better individual performance.

I think this is as it should be as it's a reward from the coaches. Giving an A+ player plaudits for a B game is ridiculous but giving a D+ player plaudits for the B game makes far more sense.

 

[DognBones]

I reckon this is true of the Ching too. Subjective awards are always going to be flawed because they're ... well, because they're subjective. Expectations (high or low) certainly influence perceptions.

Obviously there are problems with objective measures too (like fantasy points), so there's no perfect system.

Another point to consider is that usually there are only 20 or so WB BigFooty participants who vote regularly. This is a very small sample of opinions as to the best players each week and I'm sure that most of these voters have 'favourites' or who have their eyes conditioned to notice certain players. Further, of those Ching voters, how many actually attend the game where often the perspective is far different from what we see on television.
Having said all that, I do believe that the Ching does have value and I'm sure voters are smart enough to make their best assessments. We can also back up what we see by studying stats (as does the club) if we wish to and if our opinions differ from the B&F results, that doesn't mean we got it wrong; it is, after all, as you say, just a matter of subjectivity.

 

[Yojimbo]

Another point to consider is that usually there are only 20 or so WB BigFooty participants who vote regularly. This is a very small sample of opinions as to the best players each week and I'm sure that most of these voters have 'favourites' or who have their eyes conditioned to notice certain players. Further, of those Ching voters, how many actually attend the game where often the perspective is far different from what we see on television.
Having said all that, I do believe that the Ching does have value and I'm sure voters are smart enough to make their best assessments. We can also back up what we see by studying stats (as does the club) if we wish to and if our opinions differ from the B&F results, that doesn't mean we got it wrong; it is, after all, as you say, just a matter of subjectivity.

In the top ten players in every clubs best and fairest that is 182 players in total as GWS had a three way tie for tenth position
only one player was born in 1999 that was Aaron Naughton who finished fourth in the Sutton. Now that places Aaron in the
top 72 players in the competition if we use the old 18 x 4 equation. Now Naughton finished 22 nd in the "Ching" fifth in the
"Pups" and eighteenth statistically at the Dogs, Honey-Church 19th off much fewer games. Maybe we are not the people
with the obvious bias here.