Opinion Questions For Rowsus

[Darkie]

Thanks for that.

Not entirely convincing, although I'm wondering whether his first few years in the league have dropped the average a tad. His last 4 years have been his strongest.

I'm a gambling man, so he may still be worth a punt.

This might give you a bit more info to work with:

http://www.fanfooty.com.au/players/groundsc.php?firstname=Jack&surname=Steven

I haven't calced the averages in recent years, but almost all of his huge scores have been at Etihad, so that's a good start.

 

[Darkie]

To me if a player has a substantial injury history that history doesn't just disappear mid year if they are looking fit.
You most likely are choosing this ''injury prone'' player for the upside as there are greater risks involved meaning you are banking on their higher scoring making up for that added injury risk, if this is all true it would be safer if you are dead set on having this player, to start them and get as many of these ''higher scores for risk'' as you can in case history repeats it's self, trading into them later doesn't bring any less risk in my view.

Just my opinion of course.

Thanks mate. I think that's fair enough in that if I was certain, I'd simply start him. The issue with Adams is that I'm not sure about him, and I'm probably erring more on him being a "no" than a "yes".

I tend to think that the injury risk doesn't change much per week, so if you start him, you get any extra scoring for longer, but also bear the injury risk for longer, and vice versa, so the two largely o***et (ie, they increase more or less proportionately). Buddy is probably a good example of someone for whom the risk does increase more than proportionately in the second half ... but it's more that he fades in his scoring and that the injury risk increases on a per week basis, rather than that he's injury prone per se, that drives the "start him or forget him" approach.

At the moment I'm erring on not starting him, given I'm not sure about him, with a backup plan to upgrade to him if I'm wrong and he really is a standout. Fingers crossed he doesn't gt injured the week I do that

 

[Rowsus]

Hi row, welcome back to yet another pre season. I was wondering if you (or anyone else for that matter), had a list of the injury efffected scores from last season? May have been a touch easier in years gone by with the sub ruling

Hi bender,
unfortunately as you alluded to, it's a bit more work involved in compiling it these days. I haven't seen anything along those lines from the 2016 season, but if I come across something, I'll let you know.

 

[Rowsus]

Hey Rowsus,

If I have an undervalued player who I think will increase their output by quite a bit, but have spare cash left to upgrade to an almost guaranteed top scorer(But is priced fairly), should I do it?

So Tom Mitchell>Joel Selwood if I have the cash?

Hey Pro,
That's a more complicated question than it first seems.

There are a number of different ways of approaching it. The simplest I guess would be ranging the components involved.
Try and keep your numbers realistic here, otherwise it's a wasted exercise.

Let's say Selwood is an 80% chance to be between 110 - 117
Mitchell is a 80% chance to be between 103 - 110
The $41,000k loose change is a 80% chance to be between 2 - 9

obviously insert your own numbers/thoughts here.

If we take the most simplistic approach, and remove the bell curve, then each of those point brackets have a 10% chance of happening. I re-iterate, this a completely simplistic approach to it, mathematically anyway.

Under these figures, Selwood is the better pick 59% of the time, Mitchell 32% and it's pretty even about 9% of the time.

If you bumped Mitchell up to a range of 105 - 112, then the figures change to: Selwood 41%, Mitchell 50% and even 9%.

So as you can see, it's a pretty fine line, as you might expect. The cut off appears to be about 6 points. ie if you think Mitchell can score within 6 points of Selwood, then go Mitchell, otherwise go Selwood.

Possibly a silly approach, but I hope it helped.

 

[Rowsus]

Great question.

I have a similar conundrum. I like Grundy to increase his output by 5 points (from 95 to 102, let's say). I think Goldstein will come back from 108 to 105. I have the extra cash to upgrade, even though it would be going against logical predictions. Goldy is obviously the better scorer, but do I back the cash saving option?

That's a much easier one! A 3 point differential for $67,900. Take the money and run, if you think Grundy will score within 3 points of Goldy!
Even if you don't use the money until Round 7, it "works" for you for 16 Rounds, and has to make up 3 x 22 = 66 points.
66 / 16 Rounds = 4.1 points/Round. You'd realistically expect that $68k to bring in more like 10 points/round.

 

[Rowsus]

Hey Rowsus,

My first post for the year. Great to see your back to doing what you do best. You do an amazing job so keep up the great work!
My first question revolves around Jack Riewoldt. I think I have started him for the last two years and although it's a rocky ride he has been ok. He just seems to be the one that either lets me down in close league matches or gets me over the line. I was just wondering what your opinion is on him this year with the extra additions for the Tigers this year. Do you think he will get better supply this season as a player like Martin may play more on the outside and hit him up on the chest with the likes of Caddy and Prestia to assist on the inside?

Cheers

Hey Slammer,
good to have you back, too!
Great on field numbers, which is always useful! JRoo has only missed 1 game in the past 7 seasons! That's the good news.
The bad news is, he's 28, played 10 seasons and 202 games, and his best 3 seasons are only: 92 (2010), 91 (2012) and 91 (2015).
Outside of a potential spike season, it appears he has set his scoring pattern. 84 - 91 in each of the last 5 seasons, and that appears to be his level. It takes a brave man to try and predict a spike season, and he won't be for me.
I guess the other side is, if you think he can push up to say 22/93, then it's pretty much the same PIT score as another Fwd that goes 19/97 with 3 x 65 Rookie scores in there. The only problem with that approach is, you limit yourself to the 93 at best, and if the Coach with the 97 Prem gets more than 19 games out of his player, he has you covered easily.

 

[Rowsus]

Thanks again Row, that makes perfect sense. I remember reading your views in Buddy last year and deciding against him on that basis!

I'm not sure whether I am misremembering the way other people have used your phrase, or whether some people might have intentionally used it in a different way, but I feel like it has been used for players that are generally injury prone (Adams, eg, maybe Beams) rather than those that are liable to fade.

Bringing in the latter group late in the year doesn't make a lot of sense, but I was thinking about whether I can take a wait and see approach on a player like Adams.

I am dubious about him as he's very injury prone, and actually isn't even that high scoring for a mid. I don't think he's that cheap (maybe a few points discounted, although I think injury-affected scores will be par for he course for him), so I'm inclined to take a wait and see approach on him. Either (1) he will be a standout scorer and I'll bring him in and be exposed to his injury risks for a shorter period, or (2) he'll be similar to/inferior to the tiger options and I'll take a more durable option and potentially end up well ahead on a PIT basis, especially if he has a very low injury-affected score.

It doesn't sound like you would object to that approach (or, at least, he doesn't fall into your typical "start or forget" category?)?

My understanding from reading all this is that Adams is exactly the kind of player you take more risk trading into later.

Interesting on Buddy though i didn't realize his first halves were so much better.

What makes you say that GoGeta? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

To me if a player has a substantial injury history that history doesn't just disappear mid year if they are looking fit.
You most likely are choosing this ''injury prone'' player for the upside as there are greater risks involved meaning you are banking on their higher scoring making up for that added injury risk, if this is all true it would be safer if you are dead set on having this player, to start them and get as many of these ''higher scores for risk'' as you can in case history repeats it's self, trading into them later doesn't bring any less risk in my view.

Just my opinion of course.

Thanks mate. I think that's fair enough in that if I was certain, I'd simply start him. The issue with Adams is that I'm not sure about him, and I'm probably erring more on him being a "no" than a "yes".

I tend to think that the injury risk doesn't change much per week, so if you start him, you get any extra scoring for longer, but also bear the injury risk for longer, and vice versa, so the two largely o***et (ie, they increase more or less proportionately). Buddy is probably a good example of someone for whom the risk does increase more than proportionately in the second half ... but it's more that he fades in his scoring and that the injury risk increases on a per week basis, rather than that he's injury prone per se, that drives the "start him or forget him" approach.

At the moment I'm erring on not starting him, given I'm not sure about him, with a backup plan to upgrade to him if I'm wrong and he really is a standout. Fingers crossed he doesn't gt injured the week I do that

I'm a bit loathed to catagorise young players as injury prone. They are still building their bodies, and learning how to protect themselves, and manage their workloads.
Adams was only 22 when he played his last game.
I'm not wanting to put a player that young in the start them or forget them basket..... yet.
History might show it is prudent to do it now, but it is nowhere near same thing as looking at a Franklin, Hodge or Bartel. Anyone wanting to see Adams role, and then decide if they want him, isn't necessarily doing the wrong thing. As for mine, if he doesn't hit any road bumps between now and the start of the season, he's in my team. Young players with possibly some upside, and the potential to play some Mid time and go at 100+ are pretty rare Def commodities in SC.

 

[Goodie's Guns]

Hey Pro,
That's a more complicated question than it first seems.

There are a number of different ways of approaching it. The simplest I guess would be ranging the components involved.
Try and keep your numbers realistic here, otherwise it's a wasted exercise.

Let's say Selwood is an 80% chance to be between 110 - 117
Mitchell is a 80% chance to be between 103 - 110
The $41,000k loose change is a 80% chance to be between 2 - 9

obviously insert your own numbers/thoughts here.

If we take the most simplistic approach, and remove the bell curve, then each of those point brackets have a 10% chance of happening. I re-iterate, this a completely simplistic approach to it, mathematically anyway.

Under these figures, Selwood is the better pick 59% of the time, Mitchell 32% and it's pretty even about 9% of the time.

If you bumped Mitchell up to a range of 105 - 112, then the figures change to: Selwood 41%, Mitchell 50% and even 9%.

So as you can see, it's a pretty fine line, as you might expect. The cut off appears to be about 6 points. ie if you think Mitchell can score within 6 points of Selwood, then go Mitchell, otherwise go Selwood.

Possibly a silly approach, but I hope it helped.

That's a much easier one! A 3 point differential for $67,900. Take the money and run, if you think Grundy will score within 3 points of Goldy!
Even if you don't use the money until Round 7, it "works" for you for 16 Rounds, and has to make up 3 x 22 = 66 points.
66 / 16 Rounds = 4.1 points/Round. You'd realistically expect that $68k to bring in more like 10 points/round.

Unreal responses these Rowsus, makes for great reading and a really interesting way to go about determining the potential value that the selection of a cheaper player has in terms of the points differential. Certainly has me thinking about a lot of X vs. Y type options now.

 

[Rowsus]

Rowsus can you provide your list of rules?

Couch Coach, I was being silly I must admit. You know, like Gibbs' rules in NCIS. I actually don't have numbered list of rules.

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus,

You mentioned that you were looking at Nick Roo (health pending) because of the Saints nice early & mid draw at Etihad.

How does Jack Steven go at Etihad? If you don't have time to research, could you or someone who knows where to look please pint me in that right direction.

Cheers.

I know i'm no Rowsus, but just by a quick look at Jack Steven's stats per stadium.

Etihad
average disposals: 23.61
goal average: 0.6
average tackles: 4.95
contested possessions: 9.4
SC average: 97.3

MCG
average disposals: 21.75
goal average: 0.9
average tackles: 4.7
contested possessions: 8.2
SC average: 87.0


Adelaide Oval
average disposals: 29.17
goal average 0.33
average tackles: 5.3
contested possessions: 10
SC average: 102.7


SCG
average disposals: 28.33
goal average: 1.0
average tackles: 2.3
contested possessions: 8
SC average: 91.3


The SC average by stadium is available with Supercoach Gold, which everyone has trial access to until the end of round 2.

This might give you a bit more info to work with:

http://www.fanfooty.com.au/players/groundsc.php?firstname=Jack&surname=Steven

I haven't calced the averages in recent years, but almost all of his huge scores have been at Etihad, so that's a good start.

I started him a few years ago when he was cheapish 450k IIRC averaged about 104 for the year i think, wasn't an awful pick but he just isn't in that elite top bracket.
He is a first tagged every time, 26 yo 130 games under his belt, looks like a spike year at 110 as Rowsus would say.

Forgive my intrusion once again.

No intrusion, everyone is allowed to contribute answers in this thread.

Here is what I said about him last pre-season:

Jack Steven

Season - 22 games at 104.3 (2014 17 games at 84.8)
MCG - 2 games at 101.5 (MCG wins 1 at 90.0, MCG losses 1 at 113.0)
Etihad - 12 games at 109.9 (Etihad wins 3 at 114.7, Etihad losses 9 at 108.3)
Interstate - 8 games at 96.5 (Interstate wins 2 at 89.5, Interstate losses 6 at 98.8)
Wins - 6 games at 102.2
Losses - 16 games at 105.1

Of note...
It's interesting to compare Steven's 2013 and 2015 seasons.
Similarities:
[table="width: 600"]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td]games[/td]
[td]disp's[/td]
[td]Rb50's[/td]
[td]Fr For[/td]
[td]Fr Ag[/td]
[td]Sc shots[/td]
[td]Goal ass[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2013[/td]
[td]22[/td]
[td]591[/td]
[td]34[/td]
[td]28[/td]
[td]21[/td]
[td]24[/td]
[td]17[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2015[/td]
[td]22[/td]
[td]591[/td]
[td]36[/td]
[td]28[/td]
[td]21[/td]
[td]24[/td]
[td]15[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Differences:
[table="width: 600"]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td]Gls.Bh[/td]
[td]Tackles[/td]
[td]Ins50's[/td]
[td]Clear[/td]
[td]Clang[/td]
[td]CP's[/td]
[td]bounces[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2013[/td]
[td]16.8[/td]
[td]87[/td]
[td]85[/td]
[td]118[/td]
[td]59[/td]
[td]239[/td]
[td]51[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2015[/td]
[td]9.15[/td]
[td]151[/td]
[td]120[/td]
[td]95[/td]
[td]79[/td]
[td]195[/td]
[td]20[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
In 2013 Steven averaged 110, in 2015 104.
I think the biggest concern with Steven, is that he only managed 3 120+ scores: 171, 123 & 122. If I was looking to take him in 2016, I would much rather see another say 3 120+ scores in there, even if it was at the sacrifice of that average bending 171. In 2013 he had 6 120+ scores: 161, 157, 150, 133, 127 & 123, and he averaged 129 in their 5 wins that season. He just seems very awkwardly priced compared to some other players, and like most Mids, he might benefit from playing in a team that will win more games, unfortunately, that's probably not St Kilda in 2016.

His table from last season looks like this:

While he is advantaged by a lot of games at Etihad, I'm troubled by the fact that he was a small ground Flat Track Bully last season.
Breaking his season up into 3 sections we get:
Wins on small grounds: 9/124.3
Wins on Lge/Med grounds: 3/100.0
Losses on any size ground: 10/87.7
I think to take him, you need to be of the opinion that St Kilda will win 12 of their 17 games on small grounds this season. Whilst that's not beyond them, I don't want to back them to achieve that.

 

[Rowsus]

Well Miles is another who has been pretty disappointing at times. Miles can't really play anywhere except inside mid but he's been dropped before.

As the previous poster said Grigg comes in for his share of criticism and might be pushed out. Was Edwards getting some midfield rotations for a while? Caddy and Dusty rotating forward. Cotch might switch back to a bit more of an outside role.

At any rate here is a video of Nick himself talking about getting "pushed out of the midfield" by the emerging talent in the backline so I'm pretty sure the move to the midfield is happening ...

http://m.richmondfc.com.au/news/2017-01-31/change-a-fillip-for-vlastuin

So I think he will play a midfield role. I'm just not sure he is going to score enough while doing it. I believe he played a couple of game in the midd last year. Can't remember which ones. Went alright from a football point of view but hardly set the world on fire from the SC perspective.

Unfortunately on your first post, you have landed on one of my bugbears!
There is no way that emerging talent on the Fwd line or the Def line ever forces a player into the Midfield.
By accepting that it does/can happen you are saying "Well, he was good enough to play Mid last season, but they just didn't have enough Fwd Flankers/Back Flankers to be able to push him into the Midfield!".
What a ridiculous notion! If there's one thing every club has, it's an abundance of players that can play one of the 4 Flanks!
The other thing people fail to recognise, when they start writing in breathless excitement "Joe Blow's training with the Midfield group this season!" is that Clubs are by the nature of things, forced to have 10 or 12 players train with the Midfield group. If your average team in any given Round has 7 Midfielders (5 playing, 2 on the bench), you actually need around 12-14 trained up Midfielders in your squad. It's no use looking around if one of your main 7 goes down, and thinking "What will we do now?". The players need to train so they know the drills and plays, in case they are called to play there. Even with 7 main Midfielders in a team, as many as 10 or 12 will play some Mid minutes at some part of the game.
Does all this mean Vlastuin won't play some Mid games, partly or even nearly fully, this season? No.
But there is no way on Earth, that "emerging" players have "pushed" him into the Midfield.
Given Prestia and Caddy have come on board, I'd be surprised if Valstuin was any higher than 5th or 6th in the Mid rotations in most games this season. Also given the nature of the beast, I'd suggest when he does play Mid it will quite often be in a run with role (as opposed to tagging, which is a whole other thing), which is not that SC friendly. In fact, the way some loosey goosey Half Back Flankers were scoring last season, he might score better back there, than he would in the Mid anyway.

 

[Couch Coach]

Couch Coach, I was being silly I must admit. You know, like Gibbs' rules in NCIS. I actually don't have numbered list of rules.

I was going to ask if it was an NCIS type think where you have to watch 300 episodes to get a complete list and then the last rule comes and it is something like "ignore all other rules and just go with your gut".

 

[Prochard]

Hey Rowsus,

Can you name a few players who started their careers injury prone and had low game count despite being clear best 22, but as their careers progressed they significantly improved in durability?

This is for Adams

Thanks

 

[30BucketsofRo]

Hey Rowsus,

Can you name a few players who started their careers injury prone and had low game count despite being clear best 22, but as their careers progressed they significantly improved in durability?

This is for Adams

Thanks

I know Cotchin struggled with soft-tissue injuries early in his career. Played 15, 10 and 17 games in his first 3 seasons. Since then, he has played 22, 22, 22, 22, 21 and 20 games.

 

[Tamuhawk]

Couch Coach, I was being silly I must admit. You know, like Gibbs' rules in NCIS. I actually don't have numbered list of rules.

Love NCIS. Saw this a few days ago lol. Gibbs' rules although a few numbers are doubled up.

 

[Santoz]

No intrusion, everyone is allowed to contribute answers in this thread.

Here is what I said about him last pre-season:



His table from last season looks like this:

While he is advantaged by a lot of games at Etihad, I'm troubled by the fact that he was a small ground Flat Track Bully last season.
Breaking his season up into 3 sections we get:
Wins on small grounds: 9/124.3
Wins on Lge/Med grounds: 3/100.0
Losses on any size ground: 10/87.7
I think to take him, you need to be of the opinion that St Kilda will win 12 of their 17 games on small grounds this season. Whilst that's not beyond them, I don't want to back them to achieve that.

Maybe it's because I'm at work, but the table link isn't working for me. I just see a small grey square.

In 12 games at Etihad in 2015 he averaged 109.9 & that's doing it for me.

I noted that St Kilda were getting very very good at playing at Etihad last year (did they roll the Dogs there?) and I think I'll keep him in for now.

Cheers for everyone's help.

 

[jarrad_]

i saw on rodney eades q&a that he said that steven may could be played in a more attacking role this season whats your view?

also with the suns expected to improve this year it might be bad for may as the ball wont be down there as much

 

[Daniel]

Hi Rowsus and all,

I was wondering what your opinion on Fyfe is for the season, seeing his incredibly high ownership already. (Herald Sun is quoting 50%). Is there any merit in the "Buddy effect" applying to Fyfe with his popularity? It would be interesting to get a comparison with others like T.Mitchell, Heppell and Bont. Obviously great scoring potential but limited by injuries.

Cheers,

DK.

 

[<actus]

Unfortunately on your first post, you have landed on one of my bugbears!
There is no way that emerging talent on the Fwd line or the Def line ever forces a player into the Midfield.
By accepting that it does/can happen you are saying "Well, he was good enough to play Mid last season, but they just didn't have enough Fwd Flankers/Back Flankers to be able to push him into the Midfield!".
What a ridiculous notion! If there's one thing every club has, it's an abundance of players that can play one of the 4 Flanks!
The other thing people fail to recognise, when they start writing in breathless excitement "Joe Blow's training with the Midfield group this season!" is that Clubs are by the nature of things, forced to have 10 or 12 players train with the Midfield group. If your average team in any given Round has 7 Midfielders (5 playing, 2 on the bench), you actually need around 12-14 trained up Midfielders in your squad. It's no use looking around if one of your main 7 goes down, and thinking "What will we do now?". The players need to train so they know the drills and plays, in case they are called to play there. Even with 7 main Midfielders in a team, as many as 10 or 12 will play some Mid minutes at some part of the game.
Does all this mean Vlastuin won't play some Mid games, partly or even nearly fully, this season? No.
But there is no way on Earth, that "emerging" players have "pushed" him into the Midfield.
Given Prestia and Caddy have come on board, I'd be surprised if Valstuin was any higher than 5th or 6th in the Mid rotations in most games this season. Also given the nature of the beast, I'd suggest when he does play Mid it will quite often be in a run with role (as opposed to tagging, which is a whole other thing), which is not that SC friendly. In fact, the way some loosey goosey Half Back Flankers were scoring last season, he might score better back there, than he would in the Mid anyway.

Thanks for the reply - you've explained that very well and you're right - at around 400K I'd want a bit more than a couple of rotations or a run with role.

I think the "being pushed out of the backline" stuff was actually Nick himself being modest and not wanting it to sound like he'd been tapped on the shoulder for bigger things. But that definitely doesn't mean he will actually end up SC relevant.

PS. I didn't know that was my first post! I've been lurking for a while and I made the login last year but this is the first time I've had anything to add. Keep up the good work I really enjoy reading your thoughts.

 

[Suits]

I think the "being pushed out of the backline" stuff was actually Nick himself being modest and not wanting it to sound like he'd been tapped on the shoulder for bigger things. But that definitely doesn't mean he will actually end up SC relevant.

This is correct. He said it in jest. I also agree with you that I don't think this new proposed shift will make him SC relevant enough.