Opinion Questions For Rowsus

[Lukus193]

Hi Rowsus,

Interested in your opinion on my conundrum.

I have Mike Pyke, who got subbed last night with a hamstring. My slightly negative POD is now extremely negative!!

Aside from Sandilands, I have no ruck cover at R3/4 (King and Holmes).

While it is a disaster for this to happen (especially when Pyke had a break even of 150 going into this round), I am contemplating holding him.

Next week (assuming Langford and Dunstan both return), I'll have 19 playing without trading.

After trades before round 9, it will be a similar figure.

Given it is best 18 for the next 3 rounds, I could hold Pyke for round 8 and 9 and not suffer too much.

I could then re-assess at round 10, and trade him for a round 8 or 9 ruck man.

Another option is to trade him now for someone like Derickx, bank a bit of cash, with a view to getting a premium R2 after the byes.

I could also trade Holmes/King for Derickx (at a cost of around $100k), who will hopefully cover Pyke for the next few weeks.

The success of any of this is still highly dependant on Sandilands not missing too many games!

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Edit: 22 trades remaining.

 

[Maso]

Was just wondering if you would be doing a table during the 2nd half of season of the leagues and positioning for relegations ?

 

[Mr Young]

Hey Rowsus, I notice a type of argument in this forum which goes something like this:

(Assuming we make this argument after game 2 of a 22 game season)
Player A was expected to average 100 points for the year. In the first two games they have averaged 140 so therefore they are most likely to average 86 from this point on... and the 100 point assumption is fulfilled.

Isn't this logically incorrect because we are completely ignoring a good or a bad start which not only will feed in to their year's average but is now set in stone and the most reliable data of all?

In other words we are discounting their future scores because of a good start or marking them up because of a bad start.

I think it's great make an educated projection of their scores and value a player's per game average based on your research and it would be more correct to think something along the lines of:

A) I project/believe that player A is a 100 point a game player and I believe that although they are averaging 140 now they should go back to that 100 point a game average for the rest of the year (they got lucky at the start etc). Giving them a projected score for the remaining games of 100 per game (not 86 for the last 20) and and 103.6 average for the entire 22.

Better still would be to make a new projection and mark it up/discount it on the back of a very good or very poor start.

Does this make sense?

 

[lakb24]

Hi Rowsus
Do you think it is time for Matty Wright to get the cull? And if so would you consider Dahlhaus a keeper as I know you dont think that about Zorko lol. Dont really know who else would be good in the fwd line

thanks

 

[dyii]

Hey Rowsus, crisis mode:

Brought in O'Rourke for Impey (already kind of a waste of a trade) banking on O'Rourke having a solid game, while thinking Hallahan to be pushed out of the side in two weeks. Now bloody Sam Mitchell gets injured (i've got him), Hallahan's JS is just that little bit better and bloody O'Rourke will probably get dropped.

Now I have 15 on field for round 8 with Mitchell and O'Rourke excluded, and I'm looking at trading out McDonald and Sam Mitchell. Just wondering you think represents value in the defence? I'm looking at Grimes, as a dees supporter does his history suggest he can get to that 90 avg for the season? Feel like I missed the boat on Rampe, Hooker, Adcock. I'm looking at Hurn right now even though he burnt me at the start of the season because I need a good cash base for the byes. Cheers for the advice mate

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Hi Rowscus,
What's the magic number this week and how can I find it out in the future? Cheers

 

[Bontempele]

Hey Rowsus, think I have to trade out Mitch this week if out for 3+ weeks.

Do u think Mcveigh is the best option or is he too expensive?

I'm thinking maybe Hodgey who is still discounted?

 

[Juzzo]

Hey Rowsus, I notice a type of argument in this forum which goes something like this:

(Assuming we make this argument after game 2 of a 22 game season)
Player A was expected to average 100 points for the year. In the first two games they have averaged 140 so therefore they are most likely to average 86 from this point on... and the 100 point assumption is fulfilled.

Isn't this logically incorrect because we are completely ignoring a good or a bad start which not only will feed in to their year's average but is now set in stone and the most reliable data of all?

In other words we are discounting their future scores because of a good start or marking them up because of a bad start.

I think it's great make an educated projection of their scores and value a player's per game average based on your research and it would be more correct to think something along the lines of:

A) I project/believe that player A is a 100 point a game player and I believe that although they are averaging 140 now they should go back to that 100 point a game average for the rest of the year (they got lucky at the start etc). Giving them a projected score for the remaining games of 100 per game (not 86 for the last 20) and and 103.6 average for the entire 22.

Better still would be to make a new projection and mark it up/discount it on the back of a very good or very poor start.

Does this make sense?

I tend to agree with you, interesting to hear Rows reply

 

[Squiz]

Hey Rowsus, I notice a type of argument in this forum which goes something like this:

(Assuming we make this argument after game 2 of a 22 game season)
Player A was expected to average 100 points for the year. In the first two games they have averaged 140 so therefore they are most likely to average 86 from this point on... and the 100 point assumption is fulfilled.

Isn't this logically incorrect because we are completely ignoring a good or a bad start which not only will feed in to their year's average but is now set in stone and the most reliable data of all?

In other words we are discounting their future scores because of a good start or marking them up because of a bad start.

I think it's great make an educated projection of their scores and value a player's per game average based on your research and it would be more correct to think something along the lines of:

A) I project/believe that player A is a 100 point a game player and I believe that although they are averaging 140 now they should go back to that 100 point a game average for the rest of the year (they got lucky at the start etc). Giving them a projected score for the remaining games of 100 per game (not 86 for the last 20) and and 103.6 average for the entire 22.

Better still would be to make a new projection and mark it up/discount it on the back of a very good or very poor start.

Does this make sense?

Just have to look at Zorko's season. Yes those first two scores were set in stone, but if you didnt have him at the time then thats no help to you. Take out Zorko's first two scores and his average drops from 97.3 to 79.8.

 

[_Slip_]

Hi Rowsus

I posted this in Rd 8 trade talk but I'd love your valuable opinion please.

I need to do 2 mid downgrades this week (Rd 8), one mid downgrade Rd 9 and one mid downgrade Rd 10.

Limited options so my thoughts are:

Rd 8
Options (need 2)
1. J.Lloyd $162K (-50 BE)
2. M.Hallahan [Yes i said for the last week I wouldn't take him but few options] $157K (-26 BE)
3. P.Cripps [If selected] $157K (-2 BE)
4. C.Salem [ Horrible game time in first 2 games ] $177K (55 BE)
* B.Jack and O'Rourke not options in my opinion

Rd 9
Options (need 1)
1. B.Acres $130K (this week BE is -43)
2. N.Gordon [Pit pricey now but under $200k] $192K (27 BE)
3. J.Sheringham [Geelong rookie so ... hmmm risky] $168K (-17 BE)

Rd 10
Options (need 1)
1. B.Hartung [Usual Hawk JS issues] $117K (-70 BE )
2. B.Newton $124K (-41 BE)

Have I missed any other options??

Thanks in advance

_Slip_

 

[TeeButOne]

Hey Rowsus,

With the news this afternoon of Sam Mitchell's extended absence, I'm sure most people's plans have been thrown out of whack.

In any case, I'm sure we'd all love your thoughts on the best replacement for him (all the more difficult with a few good R8 BYE options unavailable this week). Me personally, I also have Swallow, Enright & Dunn, so the best options I could see include:

- McVeigh / Hibberd (both expensive, and well over the $500k mark, but you get what you pay for)
- Michael Johnson (about the right price ($490k) for a 98 avg)

Apart from this, would it be smarter going for one of the premium HAW defenders? I personally like the look of Hodge ($485k, avg. 91, but avg. 103 if you exclude his R2 red vest) ... do you think he'll benefit from Mitchell's absence?

Thanks in advance for your feedback (and to whomever else wishes to respond).

 

[MrMurdoch]

Hi Rowsus

What are your thoughts on the prospects of Charlie Dixon now that Tom Nichols is out injured? Will he see more ruck time leading to his points going up? Thanks in advance

 

[happydays]

Rowsus, we miss you. Where are you...

 

[KLo30]

Hey Rowsus, I notice a type of argument in this forum which goes something like this:

(Assuming we make this argument after game 2 of a 22 game season)
Player A was expected to average 100 points for the year. In the first two games they have averaged 140 so therefore they are most likely to average 86 from this point on... and the 100 point assumption is fulfilled.

Isn't this logically incorrect because we are completely ignoring a good or a bad start which not only will feed in to their year's average but is now set in stone and the most reliable data of all?

In other words we are discounting their future scores because of a good start or marking them up because of a bad start.

I think it's great make an educated projection of their scores and value a player's per game average based on your research and it would be more correct to think something along the lines of:

A) I project/believe that player A is a 100 point a game player and I believe that although they are averaging 140 now they should go back to that 100 point a game average for the rest of the year (they got lucky at the start etc). Giving them a projected score for the remaining games of 100 per game (not 86 for the last 20) and and 103.6 average for the entire 22.

Better still would be to make a new projection and mark it up/discount it on the back of a very good or very poor start.

Does this make sense?

Starting with two 140pt games would require an average of 96pt/game, not 86 as you've stated, to fulfill the 100 projection for the season. When projecting an average for the season you would do so in a range, +/- 4-5% is not unrealistic. Hence projecting a 100+/-4% point average gives a range of 96 - 104, and thus covers either the original scenario of 96pt/game after 2x140pt games and 2x100pt games and 100pt/game thereafter.

Let’s look at D.Swallow as a case in point to your supposition. Before the start of the season he had not averaged 80pts for a season, therefore using historic player data, and being optimistic, a 20% rise would see an expected range of 92 – 100 (96pt av). At Round 6 Swallow was averaging 114pt/game, which is well above his expected 96pt average. If he averages 96pt/game for the remainder his season average will be 100.9, which is a little above the expected range. If he averages 89pt/game he will attain the predicted 96pt season average. Both of those scenarios are reasonable and historically realistic. However, if you raise his expectations, due to his great start, and suggest that 105pt/game is his new benchmark then he’ll average 107.5pt. This is over a 34% increase on his previous historic high. An incredible outcome that not too many players have achieved.

In short, a great start/multi-game streak increases the likelihood of a player having a season average at the high end of their expected range but it is highly unlikely to result in setting a significantly higher new benchmark for the remainder of the season.

 

[Juzzo]

Boy is Rowsus going to be busy this week, I think I'll give him a break from my noob questions.

 

[Rowsus]

Rowsus, we miss you. Where are you...

Sorry Guys, I have had a busy couple of days, but I'm back now.
Had to burn a few hours yesterday and this morning on my other footy love, the footyquad.
I'll try and answer the questions in the order they have come in, unless there is a little overlap.
By the look of it, I've got a couple of days work there already!

 

[Erich1036]

Hey Rowsus, not a question. Just wondering if it was possible to have a 'Premium Defender' special for the trade tables this week considering quite a number of teams had one of Sam Mitchell or Matt Jaensch, or even both. Players like Andrew Walker, Luke Hodge, Heath Shaw, Pearce Hanley, Shannon Hurn etc. would be appreciated by a large number of people I suspect.

I hope you enjoyed your break while it lasted by the way, seems like you have your work cut with a lot of questions to be answered

 

[Courtesans]

Sorry Guys, I have had a busy couple of days, but I'm back now.
Had to burn a few hours yesterday and this morning on my other footy love, the footyquad.
I'll try and answer the questions in the order they have come in, unless there is a little overlap.
By the look of it, I've got a couple of days work there already!

Take it easy mate, we ask a lot of you.

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus,

Interested in your opinion on my conundrum.

I have Mike Pyke, who got subbed last night with a hamstring. My slightly negative POD is now extremely negative!!

Aside from Sandilands, I have no ruck cover at R3/4 (King and Holmes).

While it is a disaster for this to happen (especially when Pyke had a break even of 150 going into this round), I am contemplating holding him.

Next week (assuming Langford and Dunstan both return), I'll have 19 playing without trading.

After trades before round 9, it will be a similar figure.

Given it is best 18 for the next 3 rounds, I could hold Pyke for round 8 and 9 and not suffer too much.

I could then re-assess at round 10, and trade him for a round 8 or 9 ruck man.

Another option is to trade him now for someone like Derickx, bank a bit of cash, with a view to getting a premium R2 after the byes.

I could also trade Holmes/King for Derickx (at a cost of around $100k), who will hopefully cover Pyke for the next few weeks.

The success of any of this is still highly dependant on Sandilands not missing too many games!

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Edit: 22 trades remaining.

Hi Lukus,
It's a tricky situation you face, and something I am nearly sure will be a problem for all Sandi owners in the not too distant future.
Focussing on your direct situation, do you spend $100k, that could be used for upgrades, and secure yourself some back up in the Rucks, or do you downgrade Pyke to Derickx, securing cash, and also making some cash, lastly, do you just ride Pyke out.
Two of the scenarios involve getting Derickx, so let's look at a likely scenario for him in the next 2 weeks.
His Price is $216,000, and B/E is -10. With Pyke out, let's assume he is out until round 11, and with his his new R1 role Derickx can score 85 for the next 2 weeks. In that scenario Derickx price rises to around $294,000, and his B/E will still be low at around 5.
If you bring in Derickx for Holmes/King you spend $114k, but you get Ruck cover for when Sandi misses a game, and you might boost your round 8 and round 9 scores by 40 - 85 points. It also gives you the opportunity, with Dericks growth, to later in the season do a one up one down on Pyke/Derickx for a Minson type and get some cash, keeping in mind, you then lose your Sandi cover.
If you bring in Derickx for Pyke you still have the threat of a Sandi out hanging over your head, though you can wear that, or more easily trade Sandi to another Ruck, now he has risen so much in price.
When comparing that 2nd option to just riding Pyke out, I think unless you are getting more than one donut, I'd prefer to ride Pyke out. You possibly intended to upgrade Pyke in round 10 anyway, and if you are prepared for the inevitable tough call WHEN Sandi has an out, I think that's the course I'd take, as it uses less trades, and still fixes Pyke in the long run.
As I said, not easy, as there are many scenarios that can Work against you.
Good luck

 

[Rowsus]

Was just wondering if you would be doing a table during the 2nd half of season of the leagues and positioning for relegations ?

Certainly a bit of work in that, now we have so many Leagues. I would need the ladders and the total points screen for all the Leagues to do it. If we can organise that maybe around round 15 or 16 I can have a look at it.