Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
gday rowsus - mate what don't you like about Andrew walker? to me he appears an ok kind of pick and a little POD.
priced @ 491k and SC gold advise a BE of 89, is last year an aberration in your opinion; can he repeat last season in your opinion? (it is a standout compared to his previous seasons)
he is averaging 24 touches game. going at 6.7 rebound 50s and 2 inside 50s per game. averaging 4.7 contested possies, only .7 clearances.
last year he averaged 20 disposals a game, to me he seems to be pegging along at a similar rate to last season, I've read previous comments and you have rated simpson the better pick of the two. he went 120+ seven times last season; zero times so far this season.
also, Robbie gray seems to be past his injury battles and to be honest I've probably picked him quite a few times in the past - last year I got him in for 380k or something half way through the year (was subbed often in first few games) and was awesome as a F6/F7 for me. tonned up in 5 of last 7 games. i'd say he'd make AA team if it was named right now.
he is priced at 528k, SC gold BE suggests 91 - full stop has the coup flown here? if I think he can remain at a 105 average from here on how much I am over paying?
any feedback would be great on these two mate
priced @ 491k and SC gold advise a BE of 89, is last year an aberration in your opinion; can he repeat last season in your opinion? (it is a standout compared to his previous seasons)
he is averaging 24 touches game. going at 6.7 rebound 50s and 2 inside 50s per game. averaging 4.7 contested possies, only .7 clearances.
last year he averaged 20 disposals a game, to me he seems to be pegging along at a similar rate to last season, I've read previous comments and you have rated simpson the better pick of the two. he went 120+ seven times last season; zero times so far this season.
also, Robbie gray seems to be past his injury battles and to be honest I've probably picked him quite a few times in the past - last year I got him in for 380k or something half way through the year (was subbed often in first few games) and was awesome as a F6/F7 for me. tonned up in 5 of last 7 games. i'd say he'd make AA team if it was named right now.
he is priced at 528k, SC gold BE suggests 91 - full stop has the coup flown here? if I think he can remain at a 105 average from here on how much I am over paying?
any feedback would be great on these two mate
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
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
Hi _Slip_
there cetainly has been some problems in the last few weeks with downgrade targets!
We can't really plan for rounds 9 and 10 yet, as there is a lot that will change between now and then.
All 4 you listed have one problem or another. I will probably grab J Lloyd this week, and while it is a lot of guess work with the other three, Hallahan might just have it over Salem, because at least he makes some money this week.
Good luck
there cetainly has been some problems in the last few weeks with downgrade targets!
We can't really plan for rounds 9 and 10 yet, as there is a lot that will change between now and then.
All 4 you listed have one problem or another. I will probably grab J Lloyd this week, and while it is a lot of guess work with the other three, Hallahan might just have it over Salem, because at least he makes some money this week.
Good luck
Hi _Slip_
there cetainly has been some problems in the last few weeks with downgrade targets!
We can't really plan for rounds 9 and 10 yet, as there is a lot that will change between now and then.
All 4 you listed have one problem or another. I will probably grab J Lloyd this week, and while it is a lot of guess work with the other three, Hallahan might just have it over Salem, because at least he makes some money this week.
Good luck
there cetainly has been some problems in the last few weeks with downgrade targets!
We can't really plan for rounds 9 and 10 yet, as there is a lot that will change between now and then.
All 4 you listed have one problem or another. I will probably grab J Lloyd this week, and while it is a lot of guess work with the other three, Hallahan might just have it over Salem, because at least he makes some money this week.
Good luck
I have changed my strategy at the last minute and taking the bold move of bringing in a POD in Cooney. I think he has a lot of upside, what are your thoughts please.
Cheers
_Slip_
It's an interesting question, and I'm going to say nearly, but not quite.
Watson is sitting on an average of 106.1 after averaging 90 in his last 3 games, and 94.6 in his last 5. His price has fallen to $513,200 after peaking at $606,200 in round 3. His current B/E of 109 probably means his his price won't change much either way this week.
Selwood was sitting on an average of 104.2 after averaging 82.3 in his last 3 games, and 89.8 in his last 6. His price had fallen to $491,300 after peaking at his opening price of $629,500. His B/E going into round 11 was around 131, so he was a chance to drop a little further, even though he didn't.
Watson's best seasons in order are: 121, 112, 107, 106, 102. Selwoods were: 118, 118, 112, 111, not including last season.
Selwood had established a level, where you were comfortable to say you'd hope/expect 115-116.
Watson lacks the consistent high history. Looking at those numbers, a realistic expectation is 110-112.
Selwood had dropped $138,200 from his season peak, and was priced to score at about 17 less than our season expectation, and 26 less than what he'd need to score at to hit our target.
Watson has dropped $93,000 from his season peak, and is priced to score at about 9 less than our season expectation, and about 11 less than what he needs to score at to hit our target.
So in summary.
Selwood was underpriced by between 17 and 26/game, based on a strong reliable history.
Watson is underpriced by between 9 and 11/game, based on a good, and moderately reliable history.
Having said all that, he and Swan might be the best opportunities we get/got presented this season.
Watson is sitting on an average of 106.1 after averaging 90 in his last 3 games, and 94.6 in his last 5. His price has fallen to $513,200 after peaking at $606,200 in round 3. His current B/E of 109 probably means his his price won't change much either way this week.
Selwood was sitting on an average of 104.2 after averaging 82.3 in his last 3 games, and 89.8 in his last 6. His price had fallen to $491,300 after peaking at his opening price of $629,500. His B/E going into round 11 was around 131, so he was a chance to drop a little further, even though he didn't.
Watson's best seasons in order are: 121, 112, 107, 106, 102. Selwoods were: 118, 118, 112, 111, not including last season.
Selwood had established a level, where you were comfortable to say you'd hope/expect 115-116.
Watson lacks the consistent high history. Looking at those numbers, a realistic expectation is 110-112.
Selwood had dropped $138,200 from his season peak, and was priced to score at about 17 less than our season expectation, and 26 less than what he'd need to score at to hit our target.
Watson has dropped $93,000 from his season peak, and is priced to score at about 9 less than our season expectation, and about 11 less than what he needs to score at to hit our target.
So in summary.
Selwood was underpriced by between 17 and 26/game, based on a strong reliable history.
Watson is underpriced by between 9 and 11/game, based on a good, and moderately reliable history.
Having said all that, he and Swan might be the best opportunities we get/got presented this season.
Just to clarify, I think what Nathan meant was that his current average from this seasons 7 games his higher than any of his previous seasons averages. Interestingly enough, it is also close to his his highest ever 7 game streak, which was between rounds 12 and 18 last season, where he managed 99.9.
My attraction to Johnson is his consistency. I must admit, even though I traded him in last week, he wasn't my first choice. I really intended to get Adcock, but missed that lockout. I think Johnson is currently slightly over priced on what he'll probably produce from here on in, and his Price will rise just a little bit more this week.
In 2012 Johnson:
finished 12th on the Def averages table for those that played 18 or more games.
finished 7th on the Def total points scored table
finished 10th on the PIT65 Def table
In 2013 Johnson:
finished 17th on the Def averages table for those that played 18 or more games.
finished 15th on the Def total points scored table
finished 16th on the PIT65 Def table.
It's not fantastic, and must have stuff, but throw in 50 out of a possible 51 H & A games in the past 2.07 seasons, and it's consistent. He is currently priced to what he is scoring, so is no bargain, especially as that is above his historical level. I needed a round 10 Def, and his consistency won me over. He will be my D5/6 for the rest of the season, barring injury.
Hibberd and McVeigh are probably also overpriced to what they'll return from here, too. Unfortunately, the ones that are underpriced right now are round 8 bye Defs, or will probably score short of what you want from your D4 or 5.
My attraction to Johnson is his consistency. I must admit, even though I traded him in last week, he wasn't my first choice. I really intended to get Adcock, but missed that lockout. I think Johnson is currently slightly over priced on what he'll probably produce from here on in, and his Price will rise just a little bit more this week.
In 2012 Johnson:
finished 12th on the Def averages table for those that played 18 or more games.
finished 7th on the Def total points scored table
finished 10th on the PIT65 Def table
In 2013 Johnson:
finished 17th on the Def averages table for those that played 18 or more games.
finished 15th on the Def total points scored table
finished 16th on the PIT65 Def table.
It's not fantastic, and must have stuff, but throw in 50 out of a possible 51 H & A games in the past 2.07 seasons, and it's consistent. He is currently priced to what he is scoring, so is no bargain, especially as that is above his historical level. I needed a round 10 Def, and his consistency won me over. He will be my D5/6 for the rest of the season, barring injury.
Hibberd and McVeigh are probably also overpriced to what they'll return from here, too. Unfortunately, the ones that are underpriced right now are round 8 bye Defs, or will probably score short of what you want from your D4 or 5.
Posted in round 8 trades. Would like to hear your thoughts also Rowsus. Thanks
OUT Kolodjashnij ($353,200) IN Hunt ($117,300)
OUT Langdon ($311,600) IN Griffen ($508,900)
OUT Mitchell ($500,400) IN Watson ($513,200)
I know KK and Langdon can make more money but I feel this is the correct time to trade these two and Griff and Watson at good price?
Hunt for loophole
Thoughts?
Thanks
OUT Kolodjashnij ($353,200) IN Hunt ($117,300)
OUT Langdon ($311,600) IN Griffen ($508,900)
OUT Mitchell ($500,400) IN Watson ($513,200)
I know KK and Langdon can make more money but I feel this is the correct time to trade these two and Griff and Watson at good price?
Hunt for loophole
Thoughts?
Thanks
I think you're still in the running, but need to start making ground now. Good luck
I guess it comes down to where your upgrades are being made, and the quality of the cows your trading out. If they're good quality cows and your targets aren't too highly priced, you might be able to manage 4 upgrades with 7 trades. If they're poor quality cows, and you have some higher priced targets, you might need 10 trades to achieve those last 4 upgrades. A lot too depends on what downgrade targets present themselves in the next 5 or 6 weeks.
I guess it comes down to where your upgrades are being made, and the quality of the cows your trading out. If they're good quality cows and your targets aren't too highly priced, you might be able to manage 4 upgrades with 7 trades. If they're poor quality cows, and you have some higher priced targets, you might need 10 trades to achieve those last 4 upgrades. A lot too depends on what downgrade targets present themselves in the next 5 or 6 weeks.
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 750
- Likes
- 29
Ok this is a maths/excel question but I feel like a dummy to ask.
=STDEV
=STDEVP
For the life of me, and I've read the Microsoft Help, I can't wrap my head around what the actual difference is. I know the P stands for population but what does that mean? When I select a range using both formulas why is it different?
Need it in layman terms I think.
=STDEV
=STDEVP
For the life of me, and I've read the Microsoft Help, I can't wrap my head around what the actual difference is. I know the P stands for population but what does that mean? When I select a range using both formulas why is it different?
Need it in layman terms I think.
Ok this is a maths/excel question but I feel like a dummy to ask.
=STDEV
=STDEVP
For the life of me, and I've read the Microsoft Help, I can't wrap my head around what the actual difference is. I know the P stands for population but what does that mean? When I select a range using both formulas why is it different?
Need it in layman terms I think.
=STDEV
=STDEVP
For the life of me, and I've read the Microsoft Help, I can't wrap my head around what the actual difference is. I know the P stands for population but what does that mean? When I select a range using both formulas why is it different?
Need it in layman terms I think.
STDEV.P measures the population which means every single bit of data in the world possible to get.
So for example say I knew the weight of every single Fremantle player and I wanted to measure the standard deviation of the weight for just Fremantle players I would use STDEV.P as I have all of the data in the world.
However say I had the exact same data but I wanted to work out the standard deviation of all AFL players I would use STDEV as I now only have a sample of the possible data in the world.
Hence the exact same set of data creates two different standard deviations with the different formulas as they are being used in a different context.
Hope that makes sense.
Last edited:
Nearly everything about Walkers season in 2013 just screamed "spike".
He's a 150+ game player that recorded a 20+ pts/game jump on his career best.
His numbers didn't seem to support his scoring. Just comparing his 2012 and 2013 figures, in 2013 his goals/game dropped 0.8, his CP's dropped 0.7 and his H'balls dropped 0.9 and his kicks went up 5.9, yet all that equated to a 27/game rise in his score. (Before everyone jumps in, I know there is more to score structure than that, but they are the bones of it.). His SC to DT seemed historically too high as well, and made me think it was not sustainable. It just didn't look or feel like 106 season, and the numbers support that feeling to quite some extent. Amongst his scoring last season, he had:
Rnd 1 - 26 possessions, 0 goals, for 137 points
Rnd 6 - 21 possessions, 1 goal, for 141 points
Rnd 10 - 34 possessions, 0 goals, for 150 points
Rnd 11 - 28 possessions, 0 goals, for 140 points
Rnd 23 - 25 possessions, 0 goals, for 123 points
They are all high scores for someone operating on a CP rate of around 25%, and isn't kicking goals. Keep in mind, they are Selwood type scores, where Selwood is operating on a CP rate of 50%, and kicking 2 goals/game in most of those good scores. Yes, scores like that can and obviously do happen, but he seemed to get more than his share last season (even with some of them having a high K:H ratio). You wouldn't want to pay top dollar for him, and rely on a repeat of those "generous" scores to get the return you want on your money.
Given he was obviously priced to that 106, I felt he was never really going to be a good selection this year, value-wise. He is starting to get down to his right price now, but I would want him even just that little bit cheaper before I got him, and I wouldn't be expecting a 100/game return from him.
R Gray is certainly living up to his displayed potential this season. I'm prepared to say I might have let his previous injury woes cloud my judgement with him. Though having said that, I'm still not confident he'll see the season out, but I guess that applies to so many players. I personally think the boat might have sailed on him now. If you haven't got him, he's no value now. It appears that you are paying around the right Price for him now. I guess you can afford to do that with 2 or 3 players, but in general, if you are not finding value, you may struggle to fill your team with the quality you want/need.
He's a 150+ game player that recorded a 20+ pts/game jump on his career best.
His numbers didn't seem to support his scoring. Just comparing his 2012 and 2013 figures, in 2013 his goals/game dropped 0.8, his CP's dropped 0.7 and his H'balls dropped 0.9 and his kicks went up 5.9, yet all that equated to a 27/game rise in his score. (Before everyone jumps in, I know there is more to score structure than that, but they are the bones of it.). His SC to DT seemed historically too high as well, and made me think it was not sustainable. It just didn't look or feel like 106 season, and the numbers support that feeling to quite some extent. Amongst his scoring last season, he had:
Rnd 1 - 26 possessions, 0 goals, for 137 points
Rnd 6 - 21 possessions, 1 goal, for 141 points
Rnd 10 - 34 possessions, 0 goals, for 150 points
Rnd 11 - 28 possessions, 0 goals, for 140 points
Rnd 23 - 25 possessions, 0 goals, for 123 points
They are all high scores for someone operating on a CP rate of around 25%, and isn't kicking goals. Keep in mind, they are Selwood type scores, where Selwood is operating on a CP rate of 50%, and kicking 2 goals/game in most of those good scores. Yes, scores like that can and obviously do happen, but he seemed to get more than his share last season (even with some of them having a high K:H ratio). You wouldn't want to pay top dollar for him, and rely on a repeat of those "generous" scores to get the return you want on your money.
Given he was obviously priced to that 106, I felt he was never really going to be a good selection this year, value-wise. He is starting to get down to his right price now, but I would want him even just that little bit cheaper before I got him, and I wouldn't be expecting a 100/game return from him.
R Gray is certainly living up to his displayed potential this season. I'm prepared to say I might have let his previous injury woes cloud my judgement with him. Though having said that, I'm still not confident he'll see the season out, but I guess that applies to so many players. I personally think the boat might have sailed on him now. If you haven't got him, he's no value now. It appears that you are paying around the right Price for him now. I guess you can afford to do that with 2 or 3 players, but in general, if you are not finding value, you may struggle to fill your team with the quality you want/need.
Last edited:
Ok this is a maths/excel question but I feel like a dummy to ask.
=STDEV
=STDEVP
For the life of me, and I've read the Microsoft Help, I can't wrap my head around what the actual difference is. I know the P stands for population but what does that mean? When I select a range using both formulas why is it different?
Need it in layman terms I think.
=STDEV
=STDEVP
For the life of me, and I've read the Microsoft Help, I can't wrap my head around what the actual difference is. I know the P stands for population but what does that mean? When I select a range using both formulas why is it different?
Need it in layman terms I think.
Answered much better than I would have, and with a very good example!
- Status