Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
After reading your 'Rucks - New Scoring' thread and a good night sleep, I've decided to adopt your approach of suck it up and wear the pain.
I still would like some clarity on how much a H2A is worth under the new system...is it 4 or 5 points
I still would like some clarity on how much a H2A is worth under the new system...is it 4 or 5 points
So, it's a lucky dip
Edit: Sorry Rowsus, got carried away. Didn't mean to hijack your thread.
Last edited:
Hi Rowsus,
I won't beat around the bush this time...Is it worth persisting with the expensive Ruck Premiums?
This new ruck scoring system have really levelled out the playing field amongst the rucks division and the art and craft of a 'skilled' ruckman has been lost in this process as they are not being rewarded adequately. I expected the scoring of Rucks to be lower but seriously NOT this low, picking a Ruck score is like buying a lottery ticket. I just don't think the difference between a high scoring ruckman (say 100) and a low scoring ruckman (say 70) is worth the initial $ investment. In my opinion, they should have adjusted the pricing of ALL Rucks at the start of the season to reflect their TRUE value with the 'negative' effect that this new rule was going to have. Why implement a rule change that WILL negatively affect a player ability to score points and yet still priced them based on averages that was obtained under the OLD scoring system? If this measure was taken, I think that all Rucks should of been priced no more than 500K at the start of the season.
If I was to trade I could classed it as a 'correction trade' due to CD lack of clarity of the new ruck scoring rule
I need your calming influence and wisdom...
I won't beat around the bush this time...Is it worth persisting with the expensive Ruck Premiums?
This new ruck scoring system have really levelled out the playing field amongst the rucks division and the art and craft of a 'skilled' ruckman has been lost in this process as they are not being rewarded adequately. I expected the scoring of Rucks to be lower but seriously NOT this low, picking a Ruck score is like buying a lottery ticket. I just don't think the difference between a high scoring ruckman (say 100) and a low scoring ruckman (say 70) is worth the initial $ investment. In my opinion, they should have adjusted the pricing of ALL Rucks at the start of the season to reflect their TRUE value with the 'negative' effect that this new rule was going to have. Why implement a rule change that WILL negatively affect a player ability to score points and yet still priced them based on averages that was obtained under the OLD scoring system? If this measure was taken, I think that all Rucks should of been priced no more than 500K at the start of the season.
If I was to trade I could classed it as a 'correction trade' due to CD lack of clarity of the new ruck scoring rule
I need your calming influence and wisdom...
After reading your 'Rucks - New Scoring' thread and a good night sleep, I've decided to adopt your approach of suck it up and wear the pain.
I still would like some clarity on how much a H2A is worth under the new system...is it 4 or 5 points
I still would like some clarity on how much a H2A is worth under the new system...is it 4 or 5 points
So, it's a lucky dip
I have both Mummy and Goldy, and I picked Mummy hoping for some monster scores in the first 6 to 8 games, and then I expected him to hit a wall, and need trading. I can approach it two ways:
I can hurt that I have paid way too much to get 2 players that will likely averaged between 95 - 105, and if I had gone Blicavs and TBC I could have another Mid Prem in my team right now instead of Miller.
Alternatively, I can say Hey, I paid too much, but I have the number 1 and number 3 ranked Rucks in my team. If they both stay top 3, then I haven't done too bad!
As to the H2A scoring, I believe freowho explained it well, but because the CD definitions and scoring system is so complicated, just Work on the published score of 5 points for a H2A, and know that sometimes it mightn't quite work out that way.
Hi Rowsus,
I have Adamson as FD.
I have to trade out Rocky and maybe A Saad (forwards).
As I have Adamson my cash generation could suffer, would it be a wise move to employ a stepping stone like Rich so I don't have to generate as much cash to upgrade to a full premium? Or just get a premium for Rocky? Or maybe get 2 rookies, ie Vandenberg and Heeney (my rookie selection was poor) and have cash for the week after?
Cheers, hope we crush them in round 2
I have Adamson as FD.
I have to trade out Rocky and maybe A Saad (forwards).
As I have Adamson my cash generation could suffer, would it be a wise move to employ a stepping stone like Rich so I don't have to generate as much cash to upgrade to a full premium? Or just get a premium for Rocky? Or maybe get 2 rookies, ie Vandenberg and Heeney (my rookie selection was poor) and have cash for the week after?
Cheers, hope we crush them in round 2
once our teams are locked in, the most important step in trading (only if we need to!) in rnd 2 and rnd 3 is to make sure we have our Rookies right. So the question becomes, how poor are your Rookies? Do you need to replace 2, 4 or more? Remember, it is only 1 game so far, and it only takes one half decent game to turn a Rookies fortunes around. If you are sure you need to make 4 corrections, and I'd be pretty surprised if you do after 1 game, then grabbing 2 Rookies this week is the right course of action.
As to grabbing Rich, you need to ask yourself, where you highly interested in him, before his Round 1 score? His round 1 score disappears in 1 price change, so there is no great guarantee he will have risen significantly by Rnd 6 or 8. If you were very interested in him before, then yes maybe, if you weren't, you are letting one score, that you can't get, blind you. Hence the saying, chasing last weeks points.
If your Rookies aren't desperately bad, grab a Prem, and it gives you a chance to bring in vandenBerg this week, and have a look at your own, and the other Rookies, for another week, before deciding what to do.
Not that it's a great selling point, but I will be going Rockliff/Miller to Hannebery/Miller this week. I had Hannebery all pre-season, along with Heppell and Sidebottom most of the pre-season. Sidey's gone, I'm still weary of Essendon players, so Hannebery is an easy pick for me. vdB can score a 40 this week, and still have one of the best B/E's going into Round 3, so I am happy to correct Miller to him.
I'd be happy to just give them squeeze, let alone crush them this week!
As hard as it is to do, you need to forget what everyone scored this week, and pretend it is Round 1 again. It's no use getting seduced by a Lewis or Wines just because they posted a good score this week. We knew they were capable of that, so unless you were very keen on them anyway, and couldn't fit them in, forget it happened, and move to the player you would have chosen, if Rocky had done this injury before Round 1.
The same applies to your backline. Don't be quick to label them duds on the back of one game. You chose them after a long consideration. There's nothing worse than knee jerking a trade out on a selected Keeper, then seeing them do what you expected them to do, when you first picked them. Patience (which my wife will tell you, I don't have!) is one of the keys to being a good SC Coach. Cripps may still come good, but after watching Miller, I have decided to correct him to vdB. Miller looked a long way off it, and if I didn't think I'm a chance to need to 2 more correction trades next week, I'd even wait before pulling that trigger. Remember, early trading is to get Rookies right, and fix Rockliff type injuries. Show patience with your selected "Keepers".
The same applies to your backline. Don't be quick to label them duds on the back of one game. You chose them after a long consideration. There's nothing worse than knee jerking a trade out on a selected Keeper, then seeing them do what you expected them to do, when you first picked them. Patience (which my wife will tell you, I don't have!) is one of the keys to being a good SC Coach. Cripps may still come good, but after watching Miller, I have decided to correct him to vdB. Miller looked a long way off it, and if I didn't think I'm a chance to need to 2 more correction trades next week, I'd even wait before pulling that trigger. Remember, early trading is to get Rookies right, and fix Rockliff type injuries. Show patience with your selected "Keepers".
Hey Lobo,
it was just another long weekend, nothing much to write home about.
I must start by saying, I have never been a Griffen fan, but I can understand why some people took him on at the price, and his early draw. I think it is too early cull any non-injured Keeper/Stepping-Stones, particularly one like Griffen. What I mean by that is, he has always had a wide range to his scoring or a big standard deviation, take your pick.
[table="width: 500, align: center"]
[tr]
[td]Year[/td]
[td]80-[/td]
[td]140+[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2011[/td]
[td]4[/td]
[td]4[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2012[/td]
[td]6[/td]
[td]3[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2013[/td]
[td]4[/td]
[td]5[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2014[/td]
[td]5[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
We can see from this table, that it is not totally unexpected for Griffen to cough up sub 80 scores, even in his good years. He seems to have one or two low scores in the first 3 rounds every season, too. Bottom line, he was a considered risk, that didn't really throw up something unexpected, so I wouldn't burn a trade on him on the back of one game.
it was just another long weekend, nothing much to write home about.
I must start by saying, I have never been a Griffen fan, but I can understand why some people took him on at the price, and his early draw. I think it is too early cull any non-injured Keeper/Stepping-Stones, particularly one like Griffen. What I mean by that is, he has always had a wide range to his scoring or a big standard deviation, take your pick.
[table="width: 500, align: center"]
[tr]
[td]Year[/td]
[td]80-[/td]
[td]140+[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2011[/td]
[td]4[/td]
[td]4[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2012[/td]
[td]6[/td]
[td]3[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2013[/td]
[td]4[/td]
[td]5[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2014[/td]
[td]5[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
We can see from this table, that it is not totally unexpected for Griffen to cough up sub 80 scores, even in his good years. He seems to have one or two low scores in the first 3 rounds every season, too. Bottom line, he was a considered risk, that didn't really throw up something unexpected, so I wouldn't burn a trade on him on the back of one game.
Hey McC,
I'm not sure I share your view that Parker won't get tagged a whole lot. If he keeps asserting influence on games like he has been, the tags will undoubtedly come. The Sloane Vs Parker conundrum is a good one. It's the classic consistency Vs upside with risk of disappointment equation. I think the answer lies in your team. You don't want too many risk players, not that Parker is high risk, the down side with him look pretty safe. If you already have a couple of players in your Keepers that meet the risk factor, maybe go Sloane. If you are satisfied your other Keepers, particularly in the Mid, are low risk, throw the dice on Parker.
As for Newnes to Smith, it would either be a good early call, or a waste of a trade. Anyone who plays any amount of time in Def will have some inconsistent scores. There's 2 ways to look at both Smith and Newnes' scores from the weekend. Smith might have been flattered by Adelaide giving North a good poodling, or he's the real deal. Newnes played terribly, and either his score was good for his effort, or he was Lucky to score what he did. Your opinion on those 2 things probably answers your question. The other question is, if you had the extra Money prior to Round 1, would you have upgraded Newnes to Smith. If the answer is yes, then you should consider doing it now, if the answer is no, then your crazy to change your opinions on one games evidence. I think 105-110 for Smith is probably too much to expect, but not impossible.
I'm not sure I share your view that Parker won't get tagged a whole lot. If he keeps asserting influence on games like he has been, the tags will undoubtedly come. The Sloane Vs Parker conundrum is a good one. It's the classic consistency Vs upside with risk of disappointment equation. I think the answer lies in your team. You don't want too many risk players, not that Parker is high risk, the down side with him look pretty safe. If you already have a couple of players in your Keepers that meet the risk factor, maybe go Sloane. If you are satisfied your other Keepers, particularly in the Mid, are low risk, throw the dice on Parker.
As for Newnes to Smith, it would either be a good early call, or a waste of a trade. Anyone who plays any amount of time in Def will have some inconsistent scores. There's 2 ways to look at both Smith and Newnes' scores from the weekend. Smith might have been flattered by Adelaide giving North a good poodling, or he's the real deal. Newnes played terribly, and either his score was good for his effort, or he was Lucky to score what he did. Your opinion on those 2 things probably answers your question. The other question is, if you had the extra Money prior to Round 1, would you have upgraded Newnes to Smith. If the answer is yes, then you should consider doing it now, if the answer is no, then your crazy to change your opinions on one games evidence. I think 105-110 for Smith is probably too much to expect, but not impossible.
Hi wT2k,
I'm still not convinced that Lewis isn't coming off a spike season. Not many players turned from 95 players to 110+ players after 200+ games. I would much rather take the chance on Wines, as he may genuinely be on the way up after only 50 games.
I'm not sure where you're thinking Geary was a very decent SC player. He's never had a 80+ season. I can see Newnes improving, Trading him on one bad game in Round 1 would seem to be a knee jerk trade.
I'm still not convinced that Lewis isn't coming off a spike season. Not many players turned from 95 players to 110+ players after 200+ games. I would much rather take the chance on Wines, as he may genuinely be on the way up after only 50 games.
I'm not sure where you're thinking Geary was a very decent SC player. He's never had a 80+ season. I can see Newnes improving, Trading him on one bad game in Round 1 would seem to be a knee jerk trade.
Hi Rowsus, say you deliberately left 412k in the bank (as a sort of insurance policy in case the moneyball Leuey & TBC ruck combo goes pair shaped quickly) or for an early upgrade or 2 for 'must have' players, would you burn almost 400k to make 2 upgrades this week or just sit tight for 1 more week to get a better sighter?
I scored close to par 2042 last week with what I currently have, but was thinking of
Hamling> Hunt
&
Cripps > Bontempelli
this week
This is my current team before trades: 412k bank
Simpson, Shaw, Newnes, McIntosh, Oxley, Saad (Brown, Hamling)
Ablett, Pendles, Fyfe, Parker, Griffen, Cripps, Heeney, Vandenberg (CEY, Lang, Miller)
Leuey, TBC (Lucey)
Gray, Bartel, Martin, Swan, Salem, Clark (Lamb, Lambert)
Just feels weird sitting on so much $$$ it's burning a hole in my SC pocket
I scored close to par 2042 last week with what I currently have, but was thinking of
Hamling> Hunt
&
Cripps > Bontempelli
this week
This is my current team before trades: 412k bank
Simpson, Shaw, Newnes, McIntosh, Oxley, Saad (Brown, Hamling)
Ablett, Pendles, Fyfe, Parker, Griffen, Cripps, Heeney, Vandenberg (CEY, Lang, Miller)
Leuey, TBC (Lucey)
Gray, Bartel, Martin, Swan, Salem, Clark (Lamb, Lambert)
Just feels weird sitting on so much $$$ it's burning a hole in my SC pocket
- Joined
- 29 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 996
- Likes
- 75
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Thanks Row, the effort you put in for everyone here is immense.
Really love both Parker and Sloane and it will be a tough call. Re Smith I had him locked into defense until Phil Walsh said he wanted adelaide to play more defensively. After scoring seeing adelaide score140 and seeing smith playing a pure wing/midfeild that's eliviated my concern. Sloane & Danger should take most the attention off him. Might wait a round and see.
Really love both Parker and Sloane and it will be a tough call. Re Smith I had him locked into defense until Phil Walsh said he wanted adelaide to play more defensively. After scoring seeing adelaide score140 and seeing smith playing a pure wing/midfeild that's eliviated my concern. Sloane & Danger should take most the attention off him. Might wait a round and see.
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 750
- Likes
- 29
Rowsus, not really SC related, but more how we approach SC and the decisions we make; as someone who spends a lot of time analysing and trying to reached conclusions based on facts and hypothesis backed up by stats, what is your thoughts on the "trust your gut" sayings that seem to creep into everyday SC parlance? It seems a mantra that is at odds at least the research one is meant to have done to come into as much an informed decision as possible. That a reaction or instinct is somehow greater than any analysis one does. "Your gut" is very hard to define statement as well doesn't really help either, especially in such a predictive field such as fantasy scoring, which as has been noted in the past, is very similar to finance, stock brokering etc.
I think what is better method, is to find out why you have to come to such a counter-conclusion to begin with. Is it because of X stat instead of Y stat? Is it because of Fact B instead of Fact A? Is it because you remember Player C doing something good that you can't remember ever seeing Player D do? Work out what's not cognitive bias and then compare and see if you come to the same conclusion.
Of course end of the day, it's not such a bad thing if your just have a preference for Player X instead of Player Y. If you're already at that stage then you have 50% chance of picking the right player anyway, which is good odds. But that realisation needs to be made.
Thoughts?
I think what is better method, is to find out why you have to come to such a counter-conclusion to begin with. Is it because of X stat instead of Y stat? Is it because of Fact B instead of Fact A? Is it because you remember Player C doing something good that you can't remember ever seeing Player D do? Work out what's not cognitive bias and then compare and see if you come to the same conclusion.
Of course end of the day, it's not such a bad thing if your just have a preference for Player X instead of Player Y. If you're already at that stage then you have 50% chance of picking the right player anyway, which is good odds. But that realisation needs to be made.
Thoughts?
- Status