Opinion Questions For Rowsus

[Rowsus]

Possibly a difficult question for a definitive answer, but here goes. Is there a point where ownership of a player could be seen as "must have" whether the end result is positive or negative? To follow the crowd so to speak. There are some players i have really been against starting all pre-season as they break a couple of my SC rules, but their high ownership is really making me second guess myself.

Swallow 39.1%
Roughead 38.9%
O'Meara 38%
Adams 30.6%
Sandilands 22.2%
Ryder 21%

I understand the reasoning to start any and all of those players, i'm just not sure at what point i draw the line and just follow the high ownership.

I'd say that, outside Adams, the rest of those listed players are for structural reason.

Most of them are on my watch list, but they DO NOT define the structure of my starting team. I like to think of them as players who I'd consider if I have left over funds and/or I can get them by going from an expensive rookie to a cheaper one.

I'll leave it to Rows to provide a more elaborate response, but just wanted to add my thoughts as I've been wrestling with this exact thing over the past few days.

Somewhere in Rowsus' last 1000 posts he has answered this type of question. Can't find it at the moment surprise, surprise

Obviously Rowsus would/will give a much more profound and statistically considered response to this question, however it seems like a classic case of FOMO. Let's look at it a different way to perhaps make us all feel better:

Non Ownership:

Swallow 60.9%
Roughead 61.1%
O'Meara 62%
Adams 69.4%
Sandilands 73.8%
Ryder 79%

Gee I didn't realise JOM was up to that much, I'm of the opinion you start your favourite of JOM or Swallow (potentially that's what people are doing though).

You've touched on a way of thinking, that splits Coaches into two groups/ways of thinking.
Some believe in safety in numbers. If he succeeds we all (read most of us taking it seriously) succeed, if he fails, and becomes a problem, we are all in the same boat.
I believe the opposite.
I really think the "Oh well, he's just so popular I just have to start him" logic is totally back to front.
Some things are blatantly obvious, and I don't mind running with the crowd on these situations. But I'm talking blatantly obvious! There aren't many blatantly obvious positive things in SC, but there are any number of blatantly obvious negative things.
eg. of a positive - if Dangerfield stays fit, he will do better than a 20/100 season. - blatantly obvious positive.
eg of a negative - Connor Nash is very unlikely to play 20 games this season. - blatantly obvious negative.
What isn't blatantly obvious, is that any of the players you listed will turn out to be good picks. What you need to do is, decide how likely they are to be good picks, and make your decision accordingly. If you are having trouble deciding, then mark them lower, as your confidence is lower. Now, here is exactly why I'm against picking popular players, just because they are popular. Apart from the blatantly obvious, and the nearly blatantly obvious decisions, and excluding the majority of "fun" Coaches and just looking at the "serious" Coaches, do you think the majority of decisions made by these "serious" Coaches are good, or bad? Let's pretend it is black and white, and there is no grey area. My thoughts are, there are far more poor decisions made, even by "serious" Coaches, than there are good decisions. Remember, we have excluded the blatantly, and nearly blatantly obvious decisions.
There is no doubt there is a habit for group thinking. This can happen in isolated places like this site, but is more generally driven by the media, and in particular, the Herald-Sun. It is this type of thinking that lead to Lumumba being so popular. So many people either got conned by the media, fell into group thinking, or picked him just out of sheer popularity*. Nearly every single one of them expressed buyers remorse, along with the thought "I wasn't going to pick him, but.....". A lot popularity is driven by group thinking, why take popular players that actually have big question marks over them???!!! Yes, price can mitigate risk, to a certain extent, but you really should only be taking one, maximum two players, where you are saying "I know he's a risk, but he's cheap, so I shouldn't do too much damage if it backfires".
So what do I suggest is the best way to approach this?
Let's look at an easy one, Dangerfield. My opinion is that he is a 80-85% chance to prove to be a good pick. He currently is sitting in 49% of teams. 80% is much higher than 49%, so I'm happy to start Dangerfield. If the ridiculous happened, and he was sitting in 95% of teams, then there is no way on Earth I would have him! It may be an overly simplistic way of looking at it, but I figure, if he's in 95% of teams, and fails, then I've got an advantage over 19 out of 20 teams, 20% of the time. The odds might seem small, but the reward outweighs the probability. Classic Risk/Reward.
Looking at Roughead as an example on your list. My thoughts are that he's too expensive to be a Stepping Stone, so he needs to be looked at as a Keeper. I think he's around a 20-25% chance of being considered a successful Keeper come the end of the season, and as he's in around 40% of teams, I won't be starting him in my team.
If you believe you are reducing your risk by taking popular players, even though you are not sure you like them, I'd be drawing a cut off line at somewhere around 28-30%. I generally think you are either better off backing your research or even gut feel, than just going with popular opinion. If you want to start with a popular team, you are basically saying, I will start even steven with around 10-15% of other Coaches, and back myself to out trade them. There are some Coaches at this site that could do that, but I'm not one of them!


*Disclaimer- yes, I started with Lumumba, but I did trade him out early on.

 

[Jurn Stern]

Hi Row,

I don't come hear unless I judge the questions to have to require some truly objective thought. I also don't like the idea of the x vs y for you, so I will phrase it in a sentence.

I'm having trouble with a G&R midfield. I've been strong on it for a while now, but stuck on the idea that I could swap Rockliff, Brodie and a 102k loophole donut rookie out for O'Meara, Swallow, and Sheed.

With Rocky, I can field mid two rookies and run a D/M emergency loophole donut which improves the likelihood I'll get a good rookie score. On the other hand, with Sheed at M8 I could take another cash cow instead of the loophole donut because I'd be comfortable starting JOM, Swallow, and Sheed without a loophole. I don't expect numbers and analysis on this one because that's the easier part, I'd love to know your gut feel on this one though.

Cheers mate.

 

[benderiffic]

Haha yeah tell me about it, but I would love to nail one of them prior to the start

 

[jarrad_]

Hard at it as anybody going around!!! He will injure a few players this season, and I just hope it's more opposition players than Melbourne players! He will probably injure himself too, the way he plays. He will unfortunately get some negating/run with type roles this season, but I'm also confident he'll have some good scores too. I don't think he's a SC option...... at the moment. Keep him in mind for 2019!

wouldnt that be a waste of his contested possesion ability? when bugg or someone else would be better off doing that

 

[Cattleherder]

Hey Peter,
I am well thanks, and I hope things are going well for you too! Great to see you back.
I'm of the mind that we should be taking as few risks as possible with our starting 12-14 Keepers, and with that in mind, the only wat to cut our wish list down, and our risks down, is to identify reasons why they mightn't be good picks. To me, that's easy with the Essendon players, and I won't be starting any non-Rookie Essendon players, as there is just that unknown factor, and I'd rather keep to the (more) known options.
Good luck, I hope you have a great season!

Thanks Rowsus.
I have since come to that conclusion - sometimes just asking the question clarifies what needs to be done!
I have gone for reliability and have completed my first draft team without any Essendon or mid-priced players, except for Ryder for his ruck DPP. I may have to downgrade one Premium to a mid-pricer depending on how the rookie options eventuate.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

Hi j711,
they both have the potential to make Keeper level this season, but I rate Petracca a better chance. I know BB (not bb) really rates Salem, and always has an eye to bringing Salem into his team, but always just falls short of doing it. I think Salem can suffer from "possession disease", where he can rack up good disposal numbers, but doesn't always convert those to good SC scores. Having said that, like any small Def, he can have quiet days too. Petracca is likely to have less quiet days I would think, and I actually replaced Acres with Petracca in my side a little while ago. It does leave me with a problem though! My Forward line currently reads: Dahl, Heeney/Riewoldt, Petracca, Rookie, Rookie, Rookie. The problem is, they are all Round 11 players, and if you are going to have a "problem" bye Round, you don't want it to be Round 11!!!! The only way to fix a Round 11 bye problem, is to bring in players who will then face a bye in the next week or two, or Port or GC players. Not a very desirable situation!
Petracca is doing what you want a good Mid/Fwd to do, and that's getting a good number of possessions as contested possessions, around 50%, and he can kick a goal. If he was a little taller, and took a few more Marks, he'd nearly be your blue print of a future Mid. People are predicting Heeney to be a staple for our SC teams for years to come, and I wouldn't be surprised if Petracca turned out to be one too.

Hi Rowsus
Just to take this assessment one step further, how would you rate Hogan compared to Petracca? Hogan is obviously a bit more expensive, however despite being a KPP his stats seem to compare quite favorably to Petracca's for 2016. He seems to get plenty of possessions/disposals, marks and kicks plenty of goals. In fact, while he kicked 41 goals last year I thought he was pretty disappointing and I think there is plenty of room for him to kick a lot more in 2017. Further, it also seems that he will have the opportunity to play further up the ground and this may help him improve his possession stats even further. The possible downside is that his TOG was 90% compared to Petracca 80, so there's not much room for growth there.
Anyway, I look forward to your thoughts on this topic

 

[anfa18]

You've touched on a way of thinking, that splits Coaches into two groups/ways of thinking.
Some believe in safety in numbers. If he succeeds we all (read most of us taking it seriously) succeed, if he fails, and becomes a problem, we are all in the same boat.
I believe the opposite.
I really think the "Oh well, he's just so popular I just have to start him" logic is totally back to front.
Some things are blatantly obvious, and I don't mind running with the crowd on these situations. But I'm talking blatantly obvious! There aren't many blatantly obvious positive things in SC, but there are any number of blatantly obvious negative things.
eg. of a positive - if Dangerfield stays fit, he will do better than a 20/100 season. - blatantly obvious positive.
eg of a negative - Connor Nash is very unlikely to play 20 games this season. - blatantly obvious negative.
What isn't blatantly obvious, is that any of the players you listed will turn out to be good picks. What you need to do is, decide how likely they are to be good picks, and make your decision accordingly. If you are having trouble deciding, then mark them lower, as your confidence is lower. Now, here is exactly why I'm against picking popular players, just because they are popular. Apart from the blatantly obvious, and the nearly blatantly obvious decisions, and excluding the majority of "fun" Coaches and just looking at the "serious" Coaches, do you think the majority of decisions made by these "serious" Coaches are good, or bad? Let's pretend it is black and white, and there is no grey area. My thoughts are, there are far more poor decisions made, even by "serious" Coaches, than there are good decisions. Remember, we have excluded the blatantly, and nearly blatantly obvious decisions.
There is no doubt there is a habit for group thinking. This can happen in isolated places like this site, but is more generally driven by the media, and in particular, the Herald-Sun. It is this type of thinking that lead to Lumumba being so popular. So many people either got conned by the media, fell into group thinking, or picked him just out of sheer popularity*. Nearly every single one of them expressed buyers remorse, along with the thought "I wasn't going to pick him, but.....". A lot popularity is driven by group thinking, why take popular players that actually have big question marks over them???!!! Yes, price can mitigate risk, to a certain extent, but you really should only be taking one, maximum two players, where you are saying "I know he's a risk, but he's cheap, so I shouldn't do too much damage if it backfires".
So what do I suggest is the best way to approach this?
Let's look at an easy one, Dangerfield. My opinion is that he is a 80-85% chance to prove to be a good pick. He currently is sitting in 49% of teams. 80% is much higher than 49%, so I'm happy to start Dangerfield. If the ridiculous happened, and he was sitting in 95% of teams, then there is no way on Earth I would have him! It may be an overly simplistic way of looking at it, but I figure, if he's in 95% of teams, and fails, then I've got an advantage over 19 out of 20 teams, 20% of the time. The odds might seem small, but the reward outweighs the probability. Classic Risk/Reward.
Looking at Roughead as an example on your list. My thoughts are that he's too expensive to be a Stepping Stone, so he needs to be looked at as a Keeper. I think he's around a 20-25% chance of being considered a successful Keeper come the end of the season, and as he's in around 40% of teams, I won't be starting him in my team.
If you believe you are reducing your risk by taking popular players, even though you are not sure you like them, I'd be drawing a cut off line at somewhere around 28-30%. I generally think you are either better off backing your research or even gut feel, than just going with popular opinion. If you want to start with a popular team, you are basically saying, I will start even steven with around 10-15% of other Coaches, and back myself to out trade them. There are some Coaches at this site that could do that, but I'm not one of them!


*Disclaimer- yes, I started with Lumumba, but I did trade him out early on.

Thanks for the time and effort put into that answer. It has helped a lot.

 

[Rowsus]

Thanks Rows,

I tend to agree.
However this year I am finding it hard with Ruck selection also but to a lesser extent.
I am wondering how much affect the likes of an emerging Spencer ,Preuss and Cox will will have on Gawn, Goldy and Grundy respectively. In particular Gawn at that price. Do u think nothing will change and the premo Rucks will continue scoring well as they will rest up fwd more? Or do u think these teams will play both Rucks and their scores will suffer slightly?

Happy to help, Slammer.
I actually think they'll have less of an effect than many people think. Particularly in Gawn's case. While I expect Gawn to score somewhere around 8 to 12 less/game than last season, I really think Spencers affect on Gawn will be pretty small. I'd actually be surprised if Spencer manages 13 or 14 games, and when he does play, it is likely it will be more up Forward, just giving Gawn a chop out when needed.

 

[Rowsus]

It was a 10 x 22 player draft. Really just on the look out for any players that you feel could improve significantly on last years numbers

The top 220 players price down to about $425k.
I'm not sure I can give you too many players cheaper than that, that you won't have already considered.
Here's a short list anyway. Most are probably only good for depth in Draft teams, and probably aren't SC relevant.
de Goey, Acres, Jong, Billings, Martin J, Hibberd, Cameron C, Petracca, Wright P, Dunstan, Hopper, Salem, Nankervis, Gleeson, Steele.

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Row,

I don't come hear unless I judge the questions to have to require some truly objective thought. I also don't like the idea of the x vs y for you, so I will phrase it in a sentence.

I'm having trouble with a G&R midfield. I've been strong on it for a while now, but stuck on the idea that I could swap Rockliff, Brodie and a 102k loophole donut rookie out for O'Meara, Swallow, and Sheed.

With Rocky, I can field mid two rookies and run a D/M emergency loophole donut which improves the likelihood I'll get a good rookie score. On the other hand, with Sheed at M8 I could take another cash cow instead of the loophole donut because I'd be comfortable starting JOM, Swallow, and Sheed without a loophole. I don't expect numbers and analysis on this one because that's the easier part, I'd love to know your gut feel on this one though.

Cheers mate.

Hi JS,
my immediate reaction upon reading it was stick to G'n'R. You really need two of the Midpricers to be successful picks, to be give or take even with the Rocky option, assuming Rocky and Brodie do reasonably well. It would seem more likely that Rocky and Brodie give you what you want/need, than all of the Midpricers working out as you'd like. I must admit, looking at a Midfield with Sheed at M8 would be tempting, but long term, I think the other option wins out.

 

[Rowsus]

wouldnt that be a waste of his contested possesion ability? when bugg or someone else would be better off doing that

Not at all. You want good contested players in Run With roles. Remember, it's not tagging like Jacobs from North, or like Crowley used to do, where they get few possessions themselves. Run With is more letting that player take you to the contest, then you try and beat him. If you're not a good contested player, you won't be a good Run With player. As to Bugg doing it instead, I think you'll find a lot of teams have 2 or 3 players in negating roles in most games, not just one.

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus
Just to take this assessment one step further, how would you rate Hogan compared to Petracca? Hogan is obviously a bit more expensive, however despite being a KPP his stats seem to compare quite favorably to Petracca's for 2016. He seems to get plenty of possessions/disposals, marks and kicks plenty of goals. In fact, while he kicked 41 goals last year I thought he was pretty disappointing and I think there is plenty of room for him to kick a lot more in 2017. Further, it also seems that he will have the opportunity to play further up the ground and this may help him improve his possession stats even further. The possible downside is that his TOG was 90% compared to Petracca 80, so there's not much room for growth there.
Anyway, I look forward to your thoughts on this topic

Hi RB,
it's interesting that they are pushing him up the ground a bit, in both the JLT's and also near the end of last season. Certainly getting more possessions probably won't hurt his score, but it is probably robbing Peter to pay Paul, as it will also reduce his goal kicking opportunities. In general, it's probably a bad thing, as when you picture his good scores to come this season, they are more likely to be on the back of 4 to 6 goals, than an extra 6 or 8 possessions. I'd probably rather Hogan in my SC team than Salem, but Petracca in front of both.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

Hi RB,
it's interesting that they are pushing him up the ground a bit, in both the JLT's and also near the end of last season. Certainly getting more possessions probably won't hurt his score, but it is probably robbing Peter to pay Paul, as it will also reduce his goal kicking opportunities. In general, it's probably a bad thing, as when you picture his good scores to come this season, they are more likely to be on the back of 4 to 6 goals, than an extra 6 or 8 possessions. I'd probably rather Hogan in my SC team than Salem, but Petracca in front of both.

Thanks Rowsus. I appreciate the response ant it will be interesting/exciting to see how he and Petracca go this year.

 

[Adrenaline]

Hi row

There's a lot of discussions regarding rucks this year. The options are the same every year do we go set and forget rucks or do we go with gawn and sandi as the mid price option. I was wondering which option are you leaning towards? If the mid price option works, we can save over 200k.

My structure wouldn't change a lot however With that money, I can upgrade heeney and another player in my midfield or defence

 

[Slammer]

Hi row

There's a lot of discussions regarding rucks this year. The options are the same every year do we go set and forget rucks or do we go with gawn and sandi as the mid price option. I was wondering which option are you leaning towards? If the mid price option works, we can save over 200k.

My structure wouldn't change a lot however With that money, I can upgrade heeney and another player in my midfield or defence

I am interested in seeing your response to this too Rows. I am torn with not only going Gawn and Sandi but also even Grundy and Sandi.
Is the Gawn/Grundy difference in $$ worth the extra points. It means I can bring in a better Premo lik N.Roo instead of a potential midpricer.
Still running 3-0-3 Def and now thinking 3-1-2 fwd instead of 3-0-3 due to lack of confidence in fwd rookies.

 

[TommyGobbler]

Hi Rowsus, interested in your thoughts on Josh Kelly as a break out candidate?

My main concern is competition for points in the Giants team with Ward, Cogs, Shiel, Lids, Shaw etc. is this a legitimate concern?

 

[Rowsus]

Hi row

There's a lot of discussions regarding rucks this year. The options are the same every year do we go set and forget rucks or do we go with gawn and sandi as the mid price option. I was wondering which option are you leaning towards? If the mid price option works, we can save over 200k.

My structure wouldn't change a lot however With that money, I can upgrade heeney and another player in my midfield or defence

Hi Ad,
I would think that is a pretty good use of $200k!
I really think set and forget, particularly if it is Gawnstein, is a bit too much cash for the risk involved. A silly as it sounds, as Grundy is only $68k cheaper than Goldy, I think if you are going set and forget, to minimize the cash exposure risk, I think it needs to include Grundy, especially if Preuss gets selected Round 1.
I'm toying with two really left field options at the moment, that most might laugh at (particularly the second one! ), but could prove to be season defining, one way or the other.
Common sense had me sitting: Gawn, Sandilands, Cameron/Witts
Speculation has me thinking: Gawn, Naismith, Cameron - where Cameron likely only plays where Naismith doesn't anyway.
Madness, do I have the guts: Sandilands, Naismith, Cameron - possibly with one of Lycett/Ryder at F4
I believe Naismith is ahead of Sinclair, and Cameron might possibly be too, but I think Cameron only plays if Naismith or Tippett gets injured, which is part of the reason I came up with the new "mad" ideas. For the totally mad idea to work, you probably need one or more of Gawn/Goldstein/Grundy to really disappoint, or get injured. Otherwise both Sandilands and Naismith need to perform at a really good level.
Given the level of uncertainty, it seems crazy to commit so much cash. The more money you invest, the more you need to be comfortable it is well spent. I think one of the 3 G's, with Sandi and some sort of potential cover is the best approach. I'm just not sure I won't do something stupid though!

 

[Rowsus]

I am interested in seeing your response to this too Rows. I am torn with not only going Gawn and Sandi but also even Grundy and Sandi.
Is the Gawn/Grundy difference in $$ worth the extra points. It means I can bring in a better Premo lik N.Roo instead of a potential midpricer.
Still running 3-0-3 Def and now thinking 3-1-2 fwd instead of 3-0-3 due to lack of confidence in fwd rookies.

Hi Slammer,
I'd probably only switch Gawndilands to Grundylands if the $124.5k gets you a genuine upgrade, otherwise I'd just stick with Gawn over Grundy.

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus, interested in your thoughts on Josh Kelly as a break out candidate?

My main concern is competition for points in the Giants team with Ward, Cogs, Shiel, Lids, Shaw etc. is this a legitimate concern?

Hi TG,
It's a totally legitimate concern, and I'd be really hesitant to take any GWS player that wasn't a Def, as the strength of their team nearly demands that the high end points get spread around. If I was to take one, Kelly would probably be high up on the list, as I think he represents pretty good value. I just think he won't do any better than a half decent M8 by the end of the season. I think taking him now might save you $40-$50k, but you might be better off shooting higher than M8 at the start of the season.

 

[Slammer]

What did you make of Marchbank yesterday Rows? Is he still in your team? TBH I didn't make much of the whole of my Carlton Team..