Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
Hey Woodsey,
I had him locked in my team way back months ago. He definitely falls into the risk area, just on price alone. Now he has had an interupted pre-season it just puts him in the too hard basket for mine. He could definitely still come out and kill it, and average 90-95, and be a great pick, though.
I had him locked in my team way back months ago. He definitely falls into the risk area, just on price alone. Now he has had an interupted pre-season it just puts him in the too hard basket for mine. He could definitely still come out and kill it, and average 90-95, and be a great pick, though.
- Joined
- 21 May 2012
- Messages
- 22,312
- Likes
- 31,158
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I can see very little downside in having Salem. He has good JS, and what would appear to have a very SC friendly role. I don't think there are any/many "must haves" this season, but getting Rookies with that sort of description would seem to be very high up on the "should probably have" list! 
He played all 3 games, and I believe Philzsay wrote in the ASADA thread that Dalgliesh might be one of the few to get an early game, if there are no suspensions. His SC points and TOG%'s were: 52:74, 106:68, 62:75. He's very quick on his feet, too.
I'm trying to avoid all Essendon players. Especially their Rookies if there is no suspension, or a very short suspension. It is just too hard to judge their JS. If there is a suspension long enough for them to moo, then that is an entirely different story, I will probably have some of their Rookies.
I'm trying to avoid all Essendon players. Especially their Rookies if there is no suspension, or a very short suspension. It is just too hard to judge their JS. If there is a suspension long enough for them to moo, then that is an entirely different story, I will probably have some of their Rookies.
Hi Rowsus, hope you're travelling well over there in Denmark, start of the season is almost on us. Just reflecting in your excellent Rockliff piece in Janurary, just wondering what you thought about Beams vs Rockliff in a selection sense. Starting to think Rockliff's high price might be a bit of a risk and Beams could be just as good value at $80k less. Any thoughts would be kindly appreciated.
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 6,968
- Likes
- 11,084
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Hi Rowsus, I have a question for you about what constitutes good (or clever) trading. On a fairly simple level I understand that good trading involves buying "undervalued" assets (eg fallen premos) and selling "overvalued" assets, but I wonder whether there is more to it than that.
I have read many stories of good Coaches who get off to a poor start (say, worse than top 50,000) but through smart trading work their way back into the top 1000 (or thereabouts) towards the back end of the season. Now, I thought I traded quite well last year and I did well through the Byes and managed to improve from about 15k up to about 3k before falling away a bit in the final few rounds due to injuries and no trades left. I guess my question is this: what sort of trades do the really good coaches do to allow them to improve their ranking so much more than I was able to achieve?
Is it more than just targeting fallen promos at the right time? Do they do one or two clever sideways trades of promos at opportune times? or possibly upgrade/downgrade rookies & mid pricers in a particular (non obvious) way? Or target POD value players rather than the more obvious ones? Or is it something else or a little bit of all of the above?
I would be interested in any thoughts you may have on this subject. Many thanks in advance.
I have read many stories of good Coaches who get off to a poor start (say, worse than top 50,000) but through smart trading work their way back into the top 1000 (or thereabouts) towards the back end of the season. Now, I thought I traded quite well last year and I did well through the Byes and managed to improve from about 15k up to about 3k before falling away a bit in the final few rounds due to injuries and no trades left. I guess my question is this: what sort of trades do the really good coaches do to allow them to improve their ranking so much more than I was able to achieve?
Is it more than just targeting fallen promos at the right time? Do they do one or two clever sideways trades of promos at opportune times? or possibly upgrade/downgrade rookies & mid pricers in a particular (non obvious) way? Or target POD value players rather than the more obvious ones? Or is it something else or a little bit of all of the above?
I would be interested in any thoughts you may have on this subject. Many thanks in advance.
Hey Slammer,
historically the only player being that affects Pendles is Swan.
In the last 3 seasons Pendles has averaged 107 in the 9 games where Swan didn't play, and 129 in the 52 games where Swan did play.
If we look at Pendles lowest scoring games in that period we can see that of his 7 worst scores (his only sub 100 scores in those 3 seasons) 5 were in losses, and generally in bigger losses. He has another 6 scores in the same period, that were between 100 and 110, and they were all in winning teams.
Looking at the table, it's not a case of another player dominating, and putting Pendles in the shade. When you look at the top, where we see the other players season averages, for the most part, when Pendles had a quiet day, they still played at about their season averages.
This next table shows how he performed if one of them wasn't playing.
We can see that apart from Swan missing dropping Pendles average considerably, the other missing have little affect on him.
Pendlebury has scored 110+ in 48 of his 61 games in the last 3 seasons, and while he can score lower in losses, particularly bigger losses, it's hard to see him dropping below something like 117 this season. The loss of another Midfielder would appear to have little affect on him, going by these tables.
As to Swan running through the Middle more, it might happen, but I don't think it will boost his mid time that much. I'm not a collingwood person, so I can't confidently say how much prime Midtime J Thomas would have had, and how much Swan would have had with Thomas there anyway. My gut feel is we are only talking possibly minutes/game extra Mid for Swan due to the other missing Midfielders.
historically the only player being that affects Pendles is Swan.
In the last 3 seasons Pendles has averaged 107 in the 9 games where Swan didn't play, and 129 in the 52 games where Swan did play.
If we look at Pendles lowest scoring games in that period we can see that of his 7 worst scores (his only sub 100 scores in those 3 seasons) 5 were in losses, and generally in bigger losses. He has another 6 scores in the same period, that were between 100 and 110, and they were all in winning teams.
Looking at the table, it's not a case of another player dominating, and putting Pendles in the shade. When you look at the top, where we see the other players season averages, for the most part, when Pendles had a quiet day, they still played at about their season averages.
This next table shows how he performed if one of them wasn't playing.
We can see that apart from Swan missing dropping Pendles average considerably, the other missing have little affect on him.
Pendlebury has scored 110+ in 48 of his 61 games in the last 3 seasons, and while he can score lower in losses, particularly bigger losses, it's hard to see him dropping below something like 117 this season. The loss of another Midfielder would appear to have little affect on him, going by these tables.
As to Swan running through the Middle more, it might happen, but I don't think it will boost his mid time that much. I'm not a collingwood person, so I can't confidently say how much prime Midtime J Thomas would have had, and how much Swan would have had with Thomas there anyway. My gut feel is we are only talking possibly minutes/game extra Mid for Swan due to the other missing Midfielders.
Last edited:
It strongly depends on me being able to keep the Rookies I have now. It's possible I might have to bone Young to afford selected Rookies, if I am missing too many of my current selections.
Yeah, the excitement is building. I think we are a chance to beat the site record of 431 people being on line at the site at once!
Yeah, the excitement is building. I think we are a chance to beat the site record of 431 people being on line at the site at once!
It's traditionally not a great idea, but this season is looking anything other than traditional! It limits your opportunity in those lines, if for some inexplicable reason a number of must have Rookies jump out of the woodwork. Yes, that can be fixed with corrective trades, but the less work done with corrective trades the better.
I'd say given the carnage I am expecting, it could even possibly be a smart move this season!
I'd say given the carnage I am expecting, it could even possibly be a smart move this season!
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 3,858
- Likes
- 1,652
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
ideally what mid structure would you start 4-0-7 or 5-0-6 have def 4-1-3 ruck 2-0-1 fwd 4-0-4 im worried that starting a 4-0-7 mid is a tad light but not 100% certain.
am i better to play another fwd rookie and go 5-0-7 mid and 3-0-5 fwd? The prob is there isnt many rookies showing a great deal of promise.
def- who knows
mid- none look real solid or avoid the vest
ruck - is there any?
fwd- clark and hogan look like only certainties
am i better to play another fwd rookie and go 5-0-7 mid and 3-0-5 fwd? The prob is there isnt many rookies showing a great deal of promise.
def- who knows
mid- none look real solid or avoid the vest
ruck - is there any?
fwd- clark and hogan look like only certainties
Hi Drew, I'm travelling ok, but after being unemployed (again!) for the last 3 months, I'd love a job again!
There is no doubt risk built in with Rocky's price, and a strong possibility that Beams could out perform Rocky with $80k in your pocket.
The thing that keeps bringing me back to Rocky is, he is actually the historical benchmark!
Looking at players the debuted in 2005 or after: The figures after each player are what they achieved after 50 or 100 games.
Rocky is the leader of those that have played 50 games or more. After 50 games he averaged 100.2, Barlow is second placed at 99.3. For the record, Selwood was 94.0, Pendlebury 88.8, and Fyfe 94.5. Rocky is also first in 100+ scores at 50 games with 52%, 120+ games with 28%, and 140+ games with 12%.
Rocky is the leader of those that have played 100 games or more. After 100 games he averaged 105.7, Selwood is 2nd with 103.8. Rocky is 2nd for 100+ scores with 57%, Selwood is 1st with 59% and Pendlebury 3rd with 50%. Rocky is 2nd for 120+ scores with 33%, Selwood is first with 37%. Rocky is 1st for 140+ scores with 17%, Selwood is 2nd with 12%, and Pendlebury equal 3rd with Dangerfield at 9%.
It's that last stat that attracts me so much. Rocky has played 101 games (his 101st game was 170!), and across his Whole career he is scoring 140+ scores at a rate better than 1 in 6 (17.8%), and at that same stage of their relative careers, twice as fast as anyone except Selwood! Add to that, that he has scored more points than anyone that debuted during 2005 or later for the same stage of their careers, and he looks like he could be heading towards Ablett/Swan/Pendlebury/Selwood status at a very fast rate. That high rate of 140+ scores means, that even if he throws in a 90, and gets a big B/E somewhere, just like Ablett, he's a chance to reach it anyway!
There is no doubt risk built in with Rocky's price, and a strong possibility that Beams could out perform Rocky with $80k in your pocket.
The thing that keeps bringing me back to Rocky is, he is actually the historical benchmark!
Looking at players the debuted in 2005 or after: The figures after each player are what they achieved after 50 or 100 games.
Rocky is the leader of those that have played 50 games or more. After 50 games he averaged 100.2, Barlow is second placed at 99.3. For the record, Selwood was 94.0, Pendlebury 88.8, and Fyfe 94.5. Rocky is also first in 100+ scores at 50 games with 52%, 120+ games with 28%, and 140+ games with 12%.
Rocky is the leader of those that have played 100 games or more. After 100 games he averaged 105.7, Selwood is 2nd with 103.8. Rocky is 2nd for 100+ scores with 57%, Selwood is 1st with 59% and Pendlebury 3rd with 50%. Rocky is 2nd for 120+ scores with 33%, Selwood is first with 37%. Rocky is 1st for 140+ scores with 17%, Selwood is 2nd with 12%, and Pendlebury equal 3rd with Dangerfield at 9%.
It's that last stat that attracts me so much. Rocky has played 101 games (his 101st game was 170!), and across his Whole career he is scoring 140+ scores at a rate better than 1 in 6 (17.8%), and at that same stage of their relative careers, twice as fast as anyone except Selwood! Add to that, that he has scored more points than anyone that debuted during 2005 or later for the same stage of their careers, and he looks like he could be heading towards Ablett/Swan/Pendlebury/Selwood status at a very fast rate. That high rate of 140+ scores means, that even if he throws in a 90, and gets a big B/E somewhere, just like Ablett, he's a chance to reach it anyway!
Hi RB,
if they have climbed their way from 50,000 to 1,000 it is usually a combination of nearly everything you said. The key word is "efficiency" If they use 6 trades to achieve what others use 7 trades for, then they have saved 3 trades by just after the byes. That's a lot. They also must have not only identified which fallen Prems to get, but also which ones to avoid! Deciding which players not to get is every bit as deciding which ones to get. Swan was a Classic example last season. He was heavily traded in after his bye. He teased everyone that everything was ok, by scoring 116, 122, 143 leading into his bye, and it turned out, those were his only 3 100+ scores for the season! Those smart traders avoided him, us dumb bunnies jumped on board! To trade like that, it takes every bit as much work (or luck!) as we put in, in the preseason, to pick our teams. Watching as many games as you can, so you might be able to identify why a Prem has fallen. Was it just a tough section of their draw, or are they playing like they are carrying a niggle? All of that sort of thing can save a bad decision. Keep in mind, one bad decision can usually lead to 3 or 4 more, and more wasted trades! You have to choose between player A and player B. If you jump the wong way, the player you should have chosen quickly gets out of reach, unless you burn 2 trades to get them. That means you've used 3 trades to get BEHIND the players that used 1 trade to get there! You are behind, because you missed the points the good choice scored in the weeks you had the bad choice. It can also lead to bad decisions like "I missed player A now, I will take a chance on player C!". We've all seen a chain of unfortunate events that can unfold, leading to a trade to players D, E and F, and suddenly your season is in tatters.
In summary, Watch as many games as you can, so you can get a leg up on spotting WHY things are happening. If it saves you one bad decision, it might save you 3 to 5 trades! Avoid speculation, and avoid flavours of the month. Nothing worse than jumping on the hotstreak player, just as his streak goes cold! Make sure they are not hollow scores (not supported by his stats), only happening because of a weak draw (this isn't just weak teams, but weak opponents in better teams), or because they were playing a different role while someone was out injured (who soon comes back). Just like success at the races, knowing who not to back, can be just as much a key to success as knowing who to back!
if they have climbed their way from 50,000 to 1,000 it is usually a combination of nearly everything you said. The key word is "efficiency" If they use 6 trades to achieve what others use 7 trades for, then they have saved 3 trades by just after the byes. That's a lot. They also must have not only identified which fallen Prems to get, but also which ones to avoid! Deciding which players not to get is every bit as deciding which ones to get. Swan was a Classic example last season. He was heavily traded in after his bye. He teased everyone that everything was ok, by scoring 116, 122, 143 leading into his bye, and it turned out, those were his only 3 100+ scores for the season! Those smart traders avoided him, us dumb bunnies jumped on board! To trade like that, it takes every bit as much work (or luck!) as we put in, in the preseason, to pick our teams. Watching as many games as you can, so you might be able to identify why a Prem has fallen. Was it just a tough section of their draw, or are they playing like they are carrying a niggle? All of that sort of thing can save a bad decision. Keep in mind, one bad decision can usually lead to 3 or 4 more, and more wasted trades! You have to choose between player A and player B. If you jump the wong way, the player you should have chosen quickly gets out of reach, unless you burn 2 trades to get them. That means you've used 3 trades to get BEHIND the players that used 1 trade to get there! You are behind, because you missed the points the good choice scored in the weeks you had the bad choice. It can also lead to bad decisions like "I missed player A now, I will take a chance on player C!". We've all seen a chain of unfortunate events that can unfold, leading to a trade to players D, E and F, and suddenly your season is in tatters.
In summary, Watch as many games as you can, so you can get a leg up on spotting WHY things are happening. If it saves you one bad decision, it might save you 3 to 5 trades! Avoid speculation, and avoid flavours of the month. Nothing worse than jumping on the hotstreak player, just as his streak goes cold! Make sure they are not hollow scores (not supported by his stats), only happening because of a weak draw (this isn't just weak teams, but weak opponents in better teams), or because they were playing a different role while someone was out injured (who soon comes back). Just like success at the races, knowing who not to back, can be just as much a key to success as knowing who to back!
- Status