2015: Premium Rucks

[Lost In The Sky]

@LITS

Definitely concerning!! I was considering ditching TBC cover but I think I definitely need it....

Yeah I can definitely see how it may be concerning to some, But as a West Coast fan and coming from years of Nic Nat having no pre-season at all and missing plenty of pre-season practice matches, The fact he has had such a great pre-season and put in so much work should lead to a fantastic season. We have never risked him in meaningless practice games and if I recall he only played half of one game last pre-season yet went on to play 20 games with a busted groin... Of which he is now free of.

That being said, depending on who your second ruck is... It may be wise to have some cover, alternatively you could just deal with any potential problem if and when it occurs.

Another point is NN had no pre-season last year, a busted groin & played only half of one practice match... Yet he went on to play 20 games and the first match of only 2 missed in the season wasn't until round 16, with the other being round 22.

My thoughts are based on SC risk and the fact that at Lycetts price, he would want to play all games this season which IMO he's not a certainty. Form of last year is just that, form of last year. Lycett may have been the prefered option but if Sinclair has shown further development than I'm sure the club will assess that and reward him if it's deserved. This could mean less minutes for Lycett or a spell in WAFL.

I won't argue with WC experts, I mean, all those years of cursing and bashing Priddis has finally paid off, I mean you pushed him to win a brownlow which now most fans say was always in the bag.

My point is purely SC based on, let's say an outsiders neutral perspective. No one doubts NN's value but I do doubt he's ability to run out the season wh I is being supported by his NAB cup preparation. I have no doubt if he's not right he'll be rested and ATM he doesn't appear to be right and is being rested.

I can see your concern but as Ricky Bobby pointed out with Goldy/Currie a few seasons ago, Currie smashed it in the pre-season, everyone thought he would play round 1 yet come round 1 he is no where to be seen and NM proceed with their preferred option of a sole ruck.

I feel the same thing is happening with at West Coast, Our preferred set-up is NN / Lycett, We are trying a few things in these early NAB games with Sinclair getting a lot more ruck time than Lycett and thus outshining him so far. Come round 1 I fully expect NN / Lycett to be our starting ruck duo and Sinclair to be rucking at East Perth in the WAFL.

People read way too much into the first few NAB games and start freaking out, It happens every year. The only real indicator is usually when teams have a full dress rehearsal in their last pre-season game before round 1.

Nic Nat is never the type of player that is going to play every pre-season game. Never has been and never will be. Much like a lot of the stars around the comp... A lot only play limited time during the NAB cup and quite often have little niggles / issues. Yet come round 1 they play, have no issues and have fantastic seasons.

 

[GrainFedBeef]

Yeah I can definitely see how it may be concerning to some, But as a West Coast fan and coming from years of Nic Nat having no pre-season at all and missing plenty of pre-season practice matches, The fact he has had such a great pre-season and put in so much work should lead to a fantastic season. We have never risked him in meaningless practice games and if I recall he only played half of one game last pre-season yet went on to play 20 games with a busted groin... Of which he is now free of.

That being said, depending on who your second ruck is... It may be wise to have some cover, alternatively you could just deal with any potential problem if and when it occurs.

Another point is NN had no pre-season last year, a busted groin & played only half of one practice match... Yet he went on to play 20 games and the first match of only 2 missed in the season wasn't until round 16, with the other being round 22.




I can see your concern but as Ricky Bobby pointed out with Goldy/Currie a few seasons ago, Currie smashed it in the pre-season, everyone thought he would play round 1 yet come round 1 he is no where to be seen and NM proceed with their preferred option of a sole ruck.

I feel the same thing is happening with at West Coast, Our preferred set-up is NN / Lycett, We are trying a few things in these early NAB games with Sinclair getting a lot more ruck time than Lycett and thus outshining him so far. Come round 1 I fully expect NN / Lycett to be our starting ruck duo and Sinclair to be rucking at East Perth in the WAFL.

People read way too much into the first few NAB games and start freaking out, It happens every year. The only real indicator is usually when teams have a full dress rehearsal in their last pre-season game before round 1.

Nic Nat is never the type of player that is going to play every pre-season game. Never has been and never will be. Much like a lot of the stars around the comp... A lot only play limited time during the NAB cup and quite often have little niggles / issues. Yet come round 1 they play, have no issues and have fantastic seasons.

Totally agree with people reading too much into NAB cup.

Lycett is 2nd ruck behind NN and will be playing forward this year, hence, he was playing his normal position against Carlton. If Lycett rucked more in that game, it may have inferred that NN injuries were more serious than what we have been led to believe.

NAB cup is 95% about rookies, prior years has shown that any reading into premium players are fraught with danger. Dane Swan at his peak was one of the worst NAB cup players from memory.

The 5% that applies to premium players is more those in positional changes, such as David Swallow last year.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I feel the same thing is happening with at West Coast, Our preferred set-up is NN / Lycett, We are trying a few things in these early NAB games with Sinclair getting a lot more ruck time than Lycett and thus outshining him so far. Come round 1 I fully expect NN / Lycett to be our starting ruck duo and Sinclair to be rucking at East Perth in the WAFL.

Surely Lycett playing more forward time is simply indicative of him playing a more forward when Nic Nat comes back to full fitness and plays. Sinclair simply filling in Nic Nats spot while he is rested.

 

[Mudflap]

Majak playing a really good first half today so I thought I would have a quick look at his price as a possible bench ruck...... but just realised that he is just a forward???

Would anyone be able to explain this to me? Surely an oversight? Gawn, Campbell, Bellchambers, McKernan, Hale.... how is Daw any different than these blokes?

 

[Lost In The Sky]

Surely Lycett playing more forward time is simply indicative of him playing a more forward when Nic Nat comes back to full fitness and plays. Sinclair simply filling in Nic Nats spot while he is rested.

Lycett will be playing forward a fair bit, but let's not forget how well both Nic Nat & Dean Cox scored over many years playing together. Both scored extremely well together and while Cox was one of the best ruckmen in recent times, With more opportunities in 2015 you would not expect Lycett to go backwards in scoring from his average of 77.8 last season.

The question is whether Lycett is worth picking. He probably won't be in the top 6 scoring forwards and won't be right at the top of the ruck scorers either. But what he should provide is great cover for your rucks being a Mid/Fwd and the man most likely to benefit if Nic Nat goes down like so many are expecting.

 

[NT.Thunder]

And Sinclair has broken his thumb - that makes things a little cleaner in here.

 

[freowho]

And Sinclair has broken his thumb - that makes things a little cleaner in here.

Only expected to miss a month!

 

[Feerits Elf]

Posted this in another forum. This has bugged me since the prices were released.

Kreuzer and Leuenberger are priced at their 2014 averages (69 and 66.6 respectively) without any injury discount, despite only having played one game (Kreuzer) and five games (Leuenberger).

For having played just the one game in 2014, I would have expected a 30 per cent discount for Kreuzer (based on his average of 69).

Luke Lowden, Jordon Bourke and Mason Wood all played one game in 2014 and averaged 60+. All received a 30 per cent discount. Kreuzer did not.

For having played five games in 2014, I would have expected a 20 per cent discount for Kreuzer (based on his average of 66.6).

Jake Spencer, Ciaran Sheehan, Jake Neade, Tony Armstrong, Jamie Macmillan, Ben Sinclair, Zac O'Brien, Paul Stewart and Daniel Currie all played five games in 2014 and averaged 60+. All received a 20 per cent discount. Leuenberger did not.

Any ideas?

 

[Grant]

Posted this in another forum. This has bugged me since the prices were released.

Kreuzer and Leuenberger are priced at their 2014 averages (69 and 66.6 respectively) without any injury discount, despite only having played one game (Kreuzer) and five games (Leuenberger).

For having played just the one game in 2014, I would have expected a 30 per cent discount for Kreuzer (based on his average of 69).

Luke Lowden, Jordon Bourke and Mason Wood all played one game in 2014 and averaged 60+. All received a 30 per cent discount. Kreuzer did not.

For having played five games in 2014, I would have expected a 20 per cent discount for Kreuzer (based on his average of 66.6).

Jake Spencer, Ciaran Sheehan, Jake Neade, Tony Armstrong, Jamie Macmillan, Ben Sinclair, Zac O'Brien, Paul Stewart and Daniel Currie all played five games in 2014 and averaged 60+. All received a 20 per cent discount. Leuenberger did not.

Any ideas?

They either factor in performances from previous seasons when calculating discounts or they don't purely generate prices based on a formula (e.g: a human decided they shouldn't receive a discount).

I definitely agree that both players should be priced cheaper regardless of whether they have been priced correctly according to the pricing methods used.

 

[IDIG]

They probably don't but i reckon you're right Grant. A human decided not to give them a discount cos they'll then become an autopick at R2 which the HS figure is not good for the game...which it's not.

 

[BC]

They probably don't but i reckon you're right Grant. A human decided not to give them a discount cos they'll then become an autopick at R2 which the HS figure is not good for the game...which it's not.

Exactly

 

[Feerits Elf]

They probably don't but i reckon you're right Grant. A human decided not to give them a discount cos they'll then become an autopick at R2 which the HS figure is not good for the game...which it's not.

A worthwhile theory, but since when does the HS arbitrarily price players according to whether it's good for the game?

By that rationale, Sandilands was a lock at R2 last year and on average alone, should have been priced at $341.8k. Nope, he received his 10 per cent discount (same as any other 60+ average player who played seven games) and started at $310.7.

Similarly, Beams was an autopick at M4 last year and on average alone, should have been priced at $546.9k. Nope, he received his 10 per cent discount (same as any other 60+ average player who played seven games) and started at $497.2.

Rich is another curious one. Entitled to 30 per cent discount (3 games, 60+ average) but only received 20 per cent.

 

[IDIG]

A worthwhile theory, but since when does the HS arbitrarily price players according to whether it's good for the game?

By that rationale, Sandilands was a lock at R2 last year and on average alone, should have been priced at $341.8k. Nope, he received his 10 per cent discount (same as any other 60+ average player who played seven games) and started at $310.7.

Similarly, Beams was an autopick at M4 last year and on average alone, should have been priced at $546.9k. Nope, he received his 10 per cent discount (same as any other 60+ average player who played seven games) and started at $497.2.

Rich is another curious one. Entitled to 30 per cent discount (3 games, 60+ average) but only received 20 per cent.

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think they should do what i suggested they do, but if they did, it would make sense. It's possible they learnt from previous years that Sandi/Beams' autopick status was not good for the game.

Purely speculating of course...

 

[IDIG]

I also recall a few inconsistencies with the discount given across the board a couple of years ago. The year Berger was cheap from memory.

 

[Feerits Elf]

That year being 2013?

Leuenberger priced at $301.1k (20 per cent discount) despite being entitled to 30 per cent (three games in 2012 at an average of 70.3).

 

[Benno]

I like how they didn't get a discount. It prevents having auto picks in everyone's teams. They are still cheap enough to be strongly considered as value picks at that price, but they aren't auto locks in all teams. Only auto lock should be Ablett

 

[Feerits Elf]

Yeah I'm not complaining Benno, they still represent value. But the rule seems to be arbitrarily applied.

Everyone having Sandilands and Beams last year didn't seem to be much of a problem.

 

[IDIG]

That year being 2013?

Leuenberger priced at $301.1k (20 per cent discount) despite being entitled to 30 per cent (three games in 2012 at an average of 70.3).

Yeah that'd be the one. From memory there were a few other players who did/didn't get consistent discounts that year as well. It's puzzling but consistently inconsistent...lol

 

[Mudflap]

They probably don't but i reckon you're right Grant. A human decided not to give them a discount cos they'll then become an autopick at R2 which the HS figure is not good for the game...which it's not.

Posted a question above about Majak.

Do you think this applies to why he is not listed as a ruck (just a human deciding that he doesn't play there)?

 

[Nathan]

Posted this in another forum. This has bugged me since the prices were released.

Kreuzer and Leuenberger are priced at their 2014 averages (69 and 66.6 respectively) without any injury discount, despite only having played one game (Kreuzer) and five games (Leuenberger).

For having played just the one game in 2014, I would have expected a 30 per cent discount for Kreuzer (based on his average of 69).

Luke Lowden, Jordon Bourke and Mason Wood all played one game in 2014 and averaged 60+. All received a 30 per cent discount. Kreuzer did not.

For having played five games in 2014, I would have expected a 20 per cent discount for Kreuzer (based on his average of 66.6).

Jake Spencer, Ciaran Sheehan, Jake Neade, Tony Armstrong, Jamie Macmillan, Ben Sinclair, Zac O'Brien, Paul Stewart and Daniel Currie all played five games in 2014 and averaged 60+. All received a 20 per cent discount. Leuenberger did not.

Any ideas?

Clearly we are not told everything, same as the scoring system.