Opinion Questions For Rowsus

[Rowsus]

Hey again

Wondering what your thoughts and expectations are on the 3 main Sydney mids and weather or not any of them are worth starting based on their value? JPK, Parker and Hannebery all seemed down last season, I have a feeling one of them could explode this year, but i'm not sure which one is the most likely.

Hey again
I think Sydney might start a bit better this season, and that might possibly translate to better scores for their Mids.
It really is guess work, but I think I would back Parker of the 3 of them. JPK is very close to 30, and it's very hard to bounce back to 110+ as you get older. Hannebery has fitness and role question marks, and that leaves Parker, who had an interrupted preseason last year, and finished off the season well. He's only 25, so he gets my nod over JPK.

 

[Rowsus]

Hello Rowsus.
My first post for the year and I trust you are well. I hope the "Beast from the East" has bypassed Denmark.

I have a nagging query regarding the effect of Ablett on the rest of the Geelong Mids. It is true that SC has finite scoring, but most of the commentary I have seen assumes that Ablett will take points off his team-mates and not the opposition. Surely the reverse will be true, or else what is the point in having him? Geelong clearly expects his presence to result in higher scoring and more time in possession, not just a redistribution of the existing pie. As this is a stats orientated thread, let me try to justify the argument:
Motlop Out, Ablett in
Let us make the reasonable assumption that Ablett replaces the loss of Motlop, as they both are Mid/Forward types. Last year Motlop averaged 73.4 ppg and Ablett 114.8, a difference of 41.4 ppg. So if Ablett by his presence in the team picks up Motlop's points he needs a further 41 ppg from the opposition to reach his average and leave the rest of the team's scoring unaffected. With over 3,000 points (?) available each game, this should be easy to do.

If you compare total points, then Motlop made 1,468 to Ablett 1,607, and difference of just 139 points. So Ablett only needs to pick up 139 points to achieve the status quo from last year. Once again, this should be achievable without plundering his team-mates points.

The loaves and fishes (there is no i in team)
While he has declined to be in the leadership group, he has indicated in the Saturday Age that he intends to be a leader in instructing and passing on his knowledge to the other players. Will this result in them being worse players with lower SC scores? I suppose time will tell.

My view is that the scoring of the core group - Danger, Jelwood, Duncan, Menagola - should be unaffected by and will perhaps even benefit from Ablett's presence, with some of the other developing players perhaps having less time in the mid and forward line. I have Dangerfield and Menagola in my team.

Hello Cattle,
good to see you back. We didn't get much snow, but 4 days of -10 weather was pretty hard work, especially as I have to ride a scooter to get to work!

I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not sure I agree with that model. Having said that, I'm not sure what model I can use, to explain how I see it.
Let me try this.
The players that were available as Mids for Geelong last season scored 14,032. That's 638/game. While they didn't score all their points while playing on the ball, it does give some sort of indication as to what a Midfield can score. Even if Ablett's arrival means they boost that to say 670/game, if Ablett averages 115, it means those left now only 555/game to split up. I understand that most people think that will be pushing people at the bottom end out, a bit like a 6th bigger body, getting in a bed, and the littlest one falls out the other side.
Bottom line, in my mind, while Ablett might increase the size of the pie the Geelong Mids feast on, it is pretty inconceivable, that the increase he causes will match his score. We can't really off-set it against Motlop either, as his score will be eaten by Kelly, Gregson, Miers types, or whoever ends up on the Half Forward Flank.

 

[Rowsus]

Thank you for your responses Rows.
This year I finding it very tough in finalising positions.
One thing I do notice is there is not a lot of talk this year regarding
Set and forget Rucks. It all seems to be about fitting in a Lycett or a Nic Nat into their side.
I consider this high risk this year so currently I have a set and forget combo.
Just wondering which way you are leaning to.

Always happy to help, Slammer.
My two options I'm currently tossing up are:
Goldstein, Gawn, (Lycett)
or
Goldstein, Martin, (McInerny) - I think McInerny might possibly be in front of Archie (I hope anyway.)
I think anyone considering NN is crazy, and I'm not liking Lycett as an on ground option.

 

[Slammer]

Always happy to help, Slammer.
My two options I'm currently tossing up are:
Goldstein, Gawn, (Lycett)
or
Goldstein, Martin, (McInerny) - I think McInerny might possibly be in front of Archie (I hope anyway.)
I think anyone considering NN is crazy, and I'm not liking Lycett as an on ground option.

Interesting that you are looking at Goldy. I am guessing you are hoping he can regain his form

 

[Cattleherder]

Hello Cattle,
good to see you back. We didn't get much snow, but 4 days of -10 weather was pretty hard work, especially as I have to ride a scooter to get to work!

I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not sure I agree with that model. Having said that, I'm not sure what model I can use, to explain how I see it.
Let me try this.
The players that were available as Mids for Geelong last season scored 14,032. That's 638/game. While they didn't score all their points while playing on the ball, it does give some sort of indication as to what a Midfield can score. Even if Ablett's arrival means they boost that to say 670/game, if Ablett averages 115, it means those left now only 555/game to split up. I understand that most people think that will be pushing people at the bottom end out, a bit like a 6th bigger body, getting in a bed, and the littlest one falls out the other side.
Bottom line, in my mind, while Ablett might increase the size of the pie the Geelong Mids feast on, it is pretty inconceivable, that the increase he causes will match his score. We can't really off-set it against Motlop either, as his score will be eaten by Kelly, Gregson, Miers types, or whoever ends up on the Half Forward Flank.

Hi Rowsus.
Glad it's you on the scooter and not me! I recall you were in between jobs last year? Good to hear you are back in the workforce and still finding time for supercoach. I have had to retire due to medical issues, but I'm not missing work now that I am out of it.
I agree my model is not very strong, and its just an attempt to shore up something which I feel intuitively should happen. In the real world of AFL the inclusion of Ablett should improve Geelong's overall performance to the detriment of the opposition. Whether that will be mirrored in the virtual world of supercoach scoring remains to be seen. I'm taking a punt with my SC team that it will and I am looking forward to seeing how it will play out!

 

[Bermi]

Got his colours.
We all know his prowess as a stats guru.
His 2 favourite country to live in, Australia on top of Denmark.

...And Bermi's onto something here as he's going to be the top dog for SC 2018!

I wish!

You both are dreaming

 

[Pearcey47]

Looking at this a slightly different way.

The top 8 in the AFL at the end of the premiership season has come from the top 10 averaging Supercoach teams in each of the last 4 years (other than WC in 2017 who finished 8th but had the 13th highest SC average).

In relation to Geelong, they finished 10th in 2015 and had the 11th highest SC average of 1655 per game (keeping in mind the total game score is 3300 so an 'average' team should score 1650 per week). Enter Patrick Dangerfield in 2016 (who averaged 119.9 in 2015) and they ended up 2nd on the ladder and 1st for SC average with 1753.8 per game. Now of course it can be surmised that Dangerfield was responsible for the rise up the ladder and the increase in SC average of 98.8 per game (which was 33 points per game less than his actual average in 2016 of 131.8) so it can be argued that he took points off the opposition and his new team mates.

Enter 2018 - Geelong are coming off a 2nd place finish on the AFL ladder and a 4th place finish on the SC ladder with an average of 1688.9 per game. If you think Ablett is going to average similar to 2017 (115ppg) then it is highly unlikely that this is all going to come from the opposition. They might get their SC average back over 1700 but I cant really see Ablett adding too many more wins to the team as a whole (considering they won 15 last year) so the bulk of points will come from his team mates. If you want to use Motlop as a straight swap then that accounts for 73.4, then maybe 20 or so for team improvement which leaves around 1 point per player to come from team mates. This of course doesn't take into account improvement/decline of the other said team mates.

To be honest I don't think Ablett coming in will affect the season averages of his team mates, but what we might see is more of a yo-yo affect on the scoring of the top end players ie it is unlikely that Ablett, Danger, Selwood, Duncan, Menegola etc can all score 100+ consistently every week but 3 of them could score 110+ and the others could score 90 etc on a rotating basis.

Hi Rowsus.
Glad it's you on the scooter and not me! I recall you were in between jobs last year? Good to hear you are back in the workforce and still finding time for supercoach. I have had to retire due to medical issues, but I'm not missing work now that I am out of it.
I agree my model is not very strong, and its just an attempt to shore up something which I feel intuitively should happen. In the real world of AFL the inclusion of Ablett should improve Geelong's overall performance to the detriment of the opposition. Whether that will be mirrored in the virtual world of supercoach scoring remains to be seen. I'm taking a punt with my SC team that it will and I am looking forward to seeing how it will play out!

 

[jarrad_]

thanks for answering my previous questions much appreciated

you wouldn't have or already have done a table of players in their last year of contracts and how much their averages have in/decreased?

because at the moment I'm quite keen on Lynch due to horrible rookies and not wanting to pay full price for any premiums

 

[Cattleherder]

Looking at this a slightly different way.

The top 8 in the AFL at the end of the premiership season has come from the top 10 averaging Supercoach teams in each of the last 4 years (other than WC in 2017 who finished 8th but had the 13th highest SC average).

In relation to Geelong, they finished 10th in 2015 and had the 11th highest SC average of 1655 per game (keeping in mind the total game score is 3300 so an 'average' team should score 1650 per week). Enter Patrick Dangerfield in 2016 (who averaged 119.9 in 2015) and they ended up 2nd on the ladder and 1st for SC average with 1753.8 per game. Now of course it can be surmised that Dangerfield was responsible for the rise up the ladder and the increase in SC average of 98.8 per game (which was 33 points per game less than his actual average in 2016 of 131.8) so it can be argued that he took points off the opposition and his new team mates.

Enter 2018 - Geelong are coming off a 2nd place finish on the AFL ladder and a 4th place finish on the SC ladder with an average of 1688.9 per game. If you think Ablett is going to average similar to 2017 (115ppg) then it is highly unlikely that this is all going to come from the opposition. They might get their SC average back over 1700 but I cant really see Ablett adding too many more wins to the team as a whole (considering they won 15 last year) so the bulk of points will come from his team mates. If you want to use Motlop as a straight swap then that accounts for 73.4, then maybe 20 or so for team improvement which leaves around 1 point per player to come from team mates. This of course doesn't take into account improvement/decline of the other said team mates.

To be honest I don't think Ablett coming in will affect the season averages of his team mates, but what we might see is more of a yo-yo affect on the scoring of the top end players ie it is unlikely that Ablett, Danger, Selwood, Duncan, Menegola etc can all score 100+ consistently every week but 3 of them could score 110+ and the others could score 90 etc on a rotating basis.

Hi Pearcey47

Interesting analysis - thanks for adding your comments and I'm warming to your idea that Geelong scores may become more like a yo-yo. The more I think about it the more variables I see coming into play (e.g. how many games will Ablett actually play) which add to the uncertainty. It will be interesting to watch.

 

[Jurn Stern]

G'day Diabolical,
I'm actually struggling more than usual this year, to finalise my team. Too many players I don't want to leave out, and more that I just want to squeeze in!
While Gawn and Fyfe are the most popular players, I don't think too many people see them as their go to C/VC options, particularly Gawn.
The maths would have us believe, that 24% of teams have none of Danger, Dusty or Titch, but the logic is flawed. A Team without say Danger is more likely to have Martin, than any random team. My guess would be more like 3 or 4% of teams have none of them, and those are teams that aren't showing much thought or experience, I would think.
Your maths is right, there are 8 options, and I agree with your logic, that starting all 3 stretches the dollars a bit too far. You are either left with throwing 3 or 4 Stepping Stone hail mary's, or only starting 11, maybe 12, Keepers. Where do those teams find 18 Rookies!
I have both Gawn and Fyfe, but they are not in my immediate C/VC plans. I have taken Dusty, Mitchell and Sloane as my early C/VC strategy. Sloane's high ceiling (he was 2nd to Danger on the 130+ scores list last season with 9 scores), makes him a great VC option, and the other two have draws that fit nicely as C choices, if Sloane fails.
It would certainly seem to be dangerous to start without all 3. You nearly need one of them to fail, completely, for that strategy to work, otherwise you might use 1/4 of your trades just trying to get them in!
If anyone was of the opinion that Gawn, Fyfe, and one those 3 constituted a good, healthy C/VC plan, then I would advocate getting as many value Keepers into your team as you can. To push home any advantage that might eventuate, if that plan looked like working, you would need to be able use a number of trades to get the other two, or press home your advantage, by completing your team as quickly as possible, and hoping one or both of the missing 3 fail.

I currently have none in my team. Considering Titch if he dominates possession again, but I am maybe in that 4% considering Fyfe and Gawn for C and VC.

 

[Abad]

Hi mate. Big fan of your work. Apologies if this has already been asked but I searched the thread and the search engine told me "yeo" is too short of a search term... Perhaps that's an omen.
Was wondering if you could shed some light on the difference between his scores as a midfielder and as a defender. My shallow assessment is he played mainly as a midfielder in 2016 and couldn't get his hands on the pill, averaging 75 that season. Last year he played as somewhat of a roaming loose defender and killed it, averaging 103. It seems as though he might be playing more as a midfielder this season and I suspect he has a bad track record playing this role? The bloke can seriously play but if he takes a while to find his feet playing mainly as a midfielder then I'm thinking he might be a better upgrade target. Cheers mate

 

[Rowsus]

thanks for answering my previous questions much appreciated

you wouldn't have or already have done a table of players in their last year of contracts and how much their averages have in/decreased?

because at the moment I'm quite keen on Lynch due to horrible rookies and not wanting to pay full price for any premiums

No, it's not something I've ever tried to keep track of.

 

[Rowsus]

Hi mate. Big fan of your work. Apologies if this has already been asked but I searched the thread and the search engine told me "yeo" is too short of a search term... Perhaps that's an omen.
Was wondering if you could shed some light on the difference between his scores as a midfielder and as a defender. My shallow assessment is he played mainly as a midfielder in 2016 and couldn't get his hands on the pill, averaging 75 that season. Last year he played as somewhat of a roaming loose defender and killed it, averaging 103. It seems as though he might be playing more as a midfielder this season and I suspect he has a bad track record playing this role? The bloke can seriously play but if he takes a while to find his feet playing mainly as a midfielder then I'm thinking he might be a better upgrade target. Cheers mate

Hi Abad,
intercept marks, especially inside the Defensive arc, are SC gold! You pretty much nailed it. When Yeo plays Mid, he just doesn't get enough of the pill, or impact the game enough. When he plays Def, especially the loose man in Def, his play reading and marking skills raise his SC scoring to another level.

 

[apolis]

G'day Diabolical,
I'm actually struggling more than usual this year, to finalise my team. Too many players I don't want to leave out, and more that I just want to squeeze in!
While Gawn and Fyfe are the most popular players, I don't think too many people see them as their go to C/VC options, particularly Gawn.
The maths would have us believe, that 24% of teams have none of Danger, Dusty or Titch, but the logic is flawed. A Team without say Danger is more likely to have Martin, than any random team. My guess would be more like 3 or 4% of teams have none of them, and those are teams that aren't showing much thought or experience, I would think.
Your maths is right, there are 8 options, and I agree with your logic, that starting all 3 stretches the dollars a bit too far. You are either left with throwing 3 or 4 Stepping Stone hail mary's, or only starting 11, maybe 12, Keepers. Where do those teams find 18 Rookies!
I have both Gawn and Fyfe, but they are not in my immediate C/VC plans. I have taken Dusty, Mitchell and Sloane as my early C/VC strategy. Sloane's high ceiling (he was 2nd to Danger on the 130+ scores list last season with 9 scores), makes him a great VC option, and the other two have draws that fit nicely as C choices, if Sloane fails.
It would certainly seem to be dangerous to start without all 3. You nearly need one of them to fail, completely, for that strategy to work, otherwise you might use 1/4 of your trades just trying to get them in!
If anyone was of the opinion that Gawn, Fyfe, and one those 3 constituted a good, healthy C/VC plan, then I would advocate getting as many value Keepers into your team as you can. To push home any advantage that might eventuate, if that plan looked like working, you would need to be able use a number of trades to get the other two, or press home your advantage, by completing your team as quickly as possible, and hoping one or both of the missing 3 fail.

I like the logic behind the Sloane pick (high ceiling and lots of early games makes him a great vc option) but aren't you worried about Gibbs in the same way you are with Ablett and Dangerfield?

 

[Rowsus]

I like the logic behind the Sloane pick (high ceiling and lots of early games makes him a great vc option) but aren't you worried about Gibbs in the same way you are with Ablett and Dangerfield?

Gibbs has never been a 130+ player, or a big points pig like Ablett, so no, not really.

 

[doc ron]

Hey Row, would you be able to put up a list of the players with the biggest standard deviations in their scores from last year? If anyone can i figured you'd be able to. I could go through each player one by one but round 1 is fast approaching.

 

[elzorko16]

Hey Row, would you be able to put up a list of the players with the biggest standard deviations in their scores from last year? If anyone can i figured you'd be able to. I could go through each player one by one but round 1 is fast approaching.

FOOTYWIRE
click -Supercoach (left side)
click -Supercoach scores (right side(
-click std deviation (right side)

may be what your after...

 

[THCLT]

Hey Row, would you be able to put up a list of the players with the biggest standard deviations in their scores from last year? If anyone can i figured you'd be able to. I could go through each player one by one but round 1 is fast approaching.

I can help with this, give me a sec...

I'll compile a list of those who played 18+ games and averaged 90+. If there's a particular player you're interested in looking at, then let me know and I can post that separately.

 

[THCLT]

FOOTYWIRE
click -Supercoach (left side)
click -Supercoach scores (right side(
-click std deviation (right side)

may be what your after...

That also works as well, just be mindful that there's the occasional 'glitch' when going from one view to another as not all data are transferred across.

As an example, Sloane actually played 22 H&A games in 2017. Following your instructions, what is displayed in that view format is 21 games for Sloane. However, if you go to the individual players stats view format, it actually has 22 games. Hence the results may be slightly skewed, albeit only very marginally.

 

[elzorko16]

That also works as well, just be mindful that there's the occasional 'glitch' when going from one view to another as not all data are transferred across.

As an example, Sloane actually played 22 H&A games in 2017. Following your instructions, what is displayed in that view format is 21 games for Sloane. However, if you go to the individual players stats view format, it actually has 22 games. Hence the results may be slightly skewed, albeit only very marginally.

Thanks
Was not trying to overstep the mark
Like many i really appreciate the work you guys put into this site and i'd back your stats against 'the machine' anytime...