Injuries & Suspensions

[TeeButOne]

do you think Macrae can maintain a 131 average for the rest of the season though ? started off amazing.

if he finishes with a 110 average season end , he is only going to average 106/107 for the rest of the season though.

This kind of logic has been thrown around a lot on this forum lately (based on Rowsus' thread) but I just don't get it.

To over simplify it - it's like saying the coin flip has been heads the last 3 times so if you assume over 22 flips it will be 11 heads and 11 tails then chances are the next 19 flips will be 8 heads and 11 tails. It's just wrong, chances are still 50/50 for every flip.

If you think Macrae is a 110 average type player then you should assume he will average 110 no matter when you bring him in. This kind of logic only works with the benefit of hindsight, it shouldn't be used to predict the future.

Sorry, but this is indeed an over-simplication, purely from the perspective of your comparison between (a) a game of chance, and (b) a player's natural fluctuations in performance.

However, I think it may be realistic for people to increase their expectations of him a little bit. If you were going into the season expecting him to be a 105-110 player, you might now realistically perceive him to be more of a 110-115 player. Given his proven performance thus far, as well as the Libba factor, this doesn't seem unrealistic. So even at $600k, he does still seem like a viable selection.

Plus, one of the reasons he's getting a lot of attention is the issues surrounding many other similarly-priced players. There are only 3 'non-injured' players currently priced higher than him, "the big 3" (Dangerfield, Mitchell, Martin). After that, the options are:

- Ablett (injured)
- Crouch (injured)
- Macrae
- Oliver (a good selection)
- Duncan (too risky for that price)
- Kelly (injured)
- Fyfe (already in most teams)
- Sloane (only averaging 103 so far)
- Gibbs (most people unsure he can keep his initial scoring going)
- Pendlebury (reliable, but no real value)

Oliver would be the only other option I'd be considering at this stage, but Macrae also seems solid (averaged 102 last year, 111 after the BYE).

 

[Zagbag]

This kind of logic has been thrown around a lot on this forum lately (based on Rowsus' thread) but I just don't get it.

To over simplify it - it's like saying the coin flip has been heads the last 3 times so if you assume over 22 flips it will be 11 heads and 11 tails then chances are the next 19 flips will be 8 heads and 11 tails. It's just wrong, chances are still 50/50 for every flip.

If you think Macrae is a 110 average type player then you should assume he will average 110 no matter when you bring him in. This kind of logic only works with the benefit of hindsight, it shouldn't be used to predict the future.

Completely disagree. It's not starting afresh, it's Mean reversion. The question is whether what you've seen in the first 3 weeks has changed your outlook on a player.

No, I don't think Macrae has made the leap to uber-premium. I think Macrae will still average around 110 for the year, so logically I think he will average under 110 hereafter to hit that mark.
Ditto, Jarryd Lyons isn't going to average 128. I think he'll be flat out averaging 100. So in that vein, he'll probably average 95 for the remainder of the season.

The coin-flip analogy doesn't work, because unlike the coin the players DO have a memory, and they DO have scoring history we can rely on to make predictions.

 

[Hasnoshoes]

Completely disagree. It's not starting afresh, it's Mean reversion. The question is whether what you've seen in the first 3 weeks has changed your outlook on a player.

No, I don't think Macrae has made the leap to uber-premium. I think Macrae will still average around 110 for the year, so logically I think he will average under 110 hereafter to hit that mark.
Ditto, Jarryd Lyons isn't going to average 128. I think he'll be flat out averaging 100. So in that vein, he'll probably average 95 for the remainder of the season.

The coin-flip analogy doesn't work, because unlike the coin the players DO have a memory, and they DO have scoring history we can rely on to make predictions.

I understand that's it's mean reversion, I just don't agree with it.

Macrae has average 131 in first 3 games.

If you think he is a 110 average type player then you should work on the assumption that he will average 110 once you trade him in and ~113 for the year.

If you think that given his first 3 games he is better than a 110 player then that's fine as well and you can decide your expectations for yourself.

I don't agree with the idea that because he has scored well in his first 3 games he will score any worse in the next 19. Football is obviously much more complicated than a coin flip but that was the point of the analogy.

 

[Zagbag]

If you think he is a 110 average type player then you should work on the assumption that he will average 110 once you trade him in and ~113 for the year.

This is the part I inherently disagree with.

We can't predict the various oscillations a player will have throughout the year. I think Macrae will average 110 across the season, with all the peaks and troughs that come with it. That doesn't mean I think he will average 110 across all pockets of the seasons, e.g. rounds 1-6, rounds 4-23, whatever. It just means that despite the variability in scores, his final average will be circa 110. And that - in my mind - means blocking out the "noise" of his 131 average in the first three rounds. In the same way that if he'd averaged 90, I wouldn't be adjusting my expectations.

I don't agree with the idea that because he has scored well in his first 3 games he will score any worse in the next 19.

I think it often does. The case is clearer with Key Forwards, for example. I have owned Jesse Hogan since Round 1, but you can bet I'm not even close to pencilling in a 116 average for him. If he continues this great run of form, you can guarantee I'll be cashing him in - fully expecting him to have an extended period of averaging 75-85. Why? Because that's what Key Forwards, and players who've never averaged 90+, do.

 

[Leroy]

If you think he is a 110 average type player then you should work on the assumption that he will average 110 once you trade him in and ~113 for the year.

If you think that given his first 3 games he is better than a 110 player then that's fine as well and you can decide your expectations for yourself.

I don't agree with the idea that because he has scored well in his first 3 games he will score any worse in the next 19. Football is obviously much more complicated than a coin flip but that was the point of the analogy.

Regardless of which theory you subscribe to, you have to take into account what AFL coaches will do as well - which is to react to how players are going throughout the year and plan accordingly.

If Buddy kicks 8 goals this week he'll get a great SC score, but you can also bet that the Crows will try extra hard to shut him down next week, perhaps with a double team (as with Reid out he really does seem like Sydney's only way to goal at the moment).

Similarly, I don't think Macrae will merrily rack up 30 touches every week without somebody noticing and realising his clean disposal is what is making the Doggies midfield work at all these days. The pressure will come and I think we'll see his scores drop a bit, but possibly pick up again near the end of the year when the Bulldogs probably won't be a finals threat and will have the cue in the rack.

 

[THCLT]

Players often goes on a mini 'hot streak' of games from time to time. Macrae previous best ever 3 rounds rolling average was from Rd17 to Rd19 in 2014 where he scored 172, 136 & 100 to average 136.

So far this season, he's gone 120, 142 & 131 for an average of 131.

Last season, where he went 22/107, he had 6 x 120+ scores and 7 x under 100. He has already recorded 3 scores in the 120+ range thus far. I would expect some lower scores to come, in particular a few under 100, which would significantly reduce his season's average. My opinion is that he would be doing well to average 107 from hereon to give him a season average of approx. 110. If he was to end the season with a 115 average, he would need to continue to score at 112/game for the remainder of the season.

Only 5 players managed a 115+ average last season, and only 12 went at 110 or greater in total. That's a very exclusive group of players, Macrae would have to have a season 'out of the box' to join that group this year. Doesn't mean that he has no chance, but I would probably err on the side of caution and say that his 3 rounds to date is part of his 'hot streak' for the season and would expect a more realistic 105 average from hereon.

Revisit last season where we had the following players at the top of the scoring chart, Rd3 average (season average):

Dusty 144 (120)
Murphy 142 (108)
Danger 139 (136)
NRoo 133 (86)
Bont 131 (105)
Sloane 130 (110)
Wines 130 (99)
Pendles 130 (107)
ZSmith 127 (92)
Cotchin 123 (101)
Montagna 121 (90)
Rockliff 120 (96)

As it can be seen, even some of the most elite players are not immune to the effects of such a 'hot streak'.

Of course, the reverse of this is also true and valid, hence we often hear the term 'fallen premiums' being bantered through the course of a season when coaches are looking to upgrade their team.

Regardless, history shows that ALL players will experience highs and lows throughout the course of a season. It takes a very special player to break that 110 barrier, and only a select few can achieve that milestone in any given season. Outside the 2 or 3 current elite players, I would advice caution on jumping on any players who are going through/have gone through a 'hot streak'.

 

[Nathan]

If you follow all the statistical reasons for and against players you’d never pick a POD/breakout.

If your keen on Macrae pick him, he won’t continue @130 but he isn’t priced at that anyway.

 

[KLo30]

I think this discussion belongs in this thread. It would be great to follow Macrae, and others, across the season and see how they go in Rowsus' table and against everyone's opinion.

http://www.supercoachscores.com/thr...And-How-To-Use-It-To-Adjust-Your-Expectations

 

[TeeButOne]

Players often goes on a mini 'hot streak' of games from time to time. Macrae previous best ever 3 rounds rolling average was from Rd17 to Rd19 in 2014 where he scored 172, 136 & 100 to average 136.

So far this season, he's gone 120, 142 & 131 for an average of 131.

Last season, where he went 22/107, he had 6 x 120+ scores and 7 x under 100. He has already recorded 3 scores in the 120+ range thus far. I would expect some lower scores to come, in particular a few under 100, which would significantly reduce his season's average. My opinion is that he would be doing well to average 107 from hereon to give him a season average of approx. 110. If he was to end the season with a 115 average, he would need to continue to score at 112/game for the remainder of the season.

Only 5 players managed a 115+ average last season, and only 12 went at 110 or greater in total. That's a very exclusive group of players, Macrae would have to have a season 'out of the box' to join that group this year. Doesn't mean that he has no chance, but I would probably err on the side of caution and say that his 3 rounds to date is part of his 'hot streak' for the season and would expect a more realistic 105 average from hereon.

Revisit last season where we had the following players at the top of the scoring chart, Rd3 average (season average):

Dusty 144 (120)
Murphy 142 (108)
Danger 139 (136)
NRoo 133 (86)
Bont 131 (105)
Sloane 130 (110)
Wines 130 (99)
Pendles 130 (107)
ZSmith 127 (92)
Cotchin 123 (101)
Montagna 121 (90)
Rockliff 120 (96)

As it can be seen, even some of the most elite players are not immune to the effects of such a 'hot streak'.

Of course, the reverse of this is also true and valid, hence we often hear the term 'fallen premiums' being bantered through the course of a season when coaches are looking to upgrade their team.

Regardless, history shows that ALL players will experience highs and lows throughout the course of a season. It takes a very special player to break that 110 barrier, and only a select few can achieve that milestone in any given season. Outside the 2 or 3 current elite players, I would advice caution on jumping on any players who are going through/have gone through a 'hot streak'.

All great points. However, I definitely wouldn't consider it an "out of the box" season from here on for him to average 112, considering that he averaged 111 after the BYE last year. Yes it wasn't for an ENTIRE season, but it was a pretty solid 'streak' for a guy who's now only 23-year-old, coming into his peak period, without Libba taking his midfield points.

 

[THCLT]

If you follow all the statistical reasons for and against players you’d never pick a POD/breakout.

If your keen on Macrae pick him, he won’t continue @130 but he isn’t priced at that anyway.

Agree...statistical precedents are to be used as a guide and is not the rule.

There's nothing more rewarding than going out on a limb with a POD/breakout player or selecting your 'favourite' players, all helps towards your enjoyment of playing the game.

 

[Johnsy44]

Anything on Lobb?

 

[Bob Loblaw]

do you think Macrae can maintain a 131 average for the rest of the season though ? started off amazing.

if he finishes with a 110 average season end , he is only going to average 106/107 for the rest of the season though.

This kind of logic has been thrown around a lot on this forum lately (based on Rowsus' thread) but I just don't get it.

To over simplify it - it's like saying the coin flip has been heads the last 3 times so if you assume over 22 flips it will be 11 heads and 11 tails then chances are the next 19 flips will be 8 heads and 11 tails. It's just wrong, chances are still 50/50 for every flip.

If you think Macrae is a 110 average type player then you should assume he will average 110 no matter when you bring him in. This kind of logic only works with the benefit of hindsight, it shouldn't be used to predict the future.

Completely agree. Also, high scoring games now are indicative of high scoring games in the future not lower ones.
If you thought Macrae would average 110 before the season began and he averages 130 in the first three matches, you should only revise this upwards.

Yes it doesn't mean he will average 130 and probably not even 120 but the fact that he had three amazing games DOES NOT mean that he is at a higher risk of playing bad games soon and will only average 106/107 for the remainder.

The only way that this flies is if you think that he is at a higher risk of tag or injury or role change but that is pretty irrelevant to the first 3.

If you though MacCrae would average 110 and he is averaging 130 in the first three playing the same role as expected then it is MORE logical to revise this estimate (for the remainder of the season) upwards rather than downwards, to for example maybe 113-115.

 

[Darkie]

Revisit last season where we had the following players at the top of the scoring chart, Rd3 average (season average):

Dusty 144 (120)
Murphy 142 (108)
Danger 139 (136)
NRoo 133 (86)
Bont 131 (105)
Sloane 130 (110)
Wines 130 (99)
Pendles 130 (107)
ZSmith 127 (92)
Cotchin 123 (101)
Montagna 121 (90)
Rockliff 120 (96)

Some amazing stats here.

Of these 12 players:

- None maintained their average over the year. Not one.

- In fact, only one player got within 20 points of his round three average ... and it was Danger.

- On average, this group went from averaging 131 over the first three to 104 over the season - a drop of 27 points!

Maybe we should be wary of reading too much into the first three rounds.

 

[Rowsus]

Revisit last season where we had the following players at the top of the scoring chart, Rd3 average (season average):

Dusty 144 (120)
Murphy 142 (108)
Danger 139 (136)
NRoo 133 (86)
Bont 131 (105)
Sloane 130 (110)
Wines 130 (99)
Pendles 130 (107)
ZSmith 127 (92)
Cotchin 123 (101)
Montagna 121 (90)
Rockliff 120 (96)

Some amazing stats here.

Of these 12 players:

- None maintained their average over the year. Not one.

- In fact, only one player got within 20 points of his round three average ... and it was Danger.

- On average, this group went from averaging 131 over the first three to 104 over the season - a drop of 27 points!

Maybe we should be wary of reading too much into the first three rounds.

Nicely analysed THCLT/Darkie.
It's further proof, that you really need to fight that urge, that things will continue as they have been, in the short term past.
So many SC Coaches chase these "hot" players in the first 6 weeks of the season, and in most cases, it becomes regrettable.
We will read time, and time again, that "I/We have to get Joe Blow in this year, he's a must have/ he's breaking out this season."
If a player is averaging 10-15 more than you expected, you have to ask yourself "why, and can it continue?". If a player is averaging 20-30 more than you expected, and his price shooting up, you really need to steady yourself, and think "Good luck to those that started him, but it's too late to chase him now!".



....... either that, or question your own judgement, on how you could be 30/game out on that player!

 

[GoGeta]

Regardless of which theory you subscribe to, you have to take into account what AFL coaches will do as well - which is to react to how players are going throughout the year and plan accordingly.

If Buddy kicks 8 goals this week he'll get a great SC score, but you can also bet that the Crows will try extra hard to shut him down next week, perhaps with a double team (as with Reid out he really does seem like Sydney's only way to goal at the moment).

Similarly, I don't think Macrae will merrily rack up 30 touches every week without somebody noticing and realising his clean disposal is what is making the Doggies midfield work at all these days. The pressure will come and I think we'll see his scores drop a bit, but possibly pick up again near the end of the year when the Bulldogs probably won't be a finals threat and will have the cue in the rack.

Need to take into account how other teams rate the team they are playing, Macrae and Lyons stand better chances of continuing good seasons should their respective teams not be given much respect by many of the teams they play, why tag someone if you're going to crush them, they (in theory) should see less tagging because they (at the moment) are not consider a real threat to many teams, if they are in a close game or playing a team around their level i think the tags are more likely to come, not a proven science by any means but it's something i consider, rightly or wrongly.

It also helps to have a ''better target'' along side said players as a more seductive tagging option, A.Hall falling to pieces might encourage a tag to come his way if it's considered more affective and Lyons less damaging for example

 

[Ricky Bobby]

Does anyone have any further info re the Kelly injury? Apparently discussed on SEN last night that it could be 2 weeks rather than 1 week. Can anyone confirm or add anything to this?

 

[Bomber18]

Does anyone have any further info re the Kelly injury? Apparently discussed on SEN last night that it could be 2 weeks rather than 1 week. Can anyone confirm or add anything to this?

SEN 1116
‏@SENNews
Josh Kelly could be out for longer than a week, according to @sam_mcclure | https://sen.lu/2qs1Ei6 | #AFL

I think Leon Cameron made a comment too that he could be out for two as well.

I think if you think two weeks, it's probably a hold unless you have only used 0 or 1 trade so far. If used two already, it's really tricky to justify a sideways trade of a guy who you would've pegged for a 110 avg in the preseason.

If you really doubt GWS and think it could be OP or a more serious issue (ie: 3 weeks), it's probably a trade. But there's always the risk that you'd be quite peeved if he just came back firing next week (ie: Treloar did this last year!).

If it were me, I'd probably hold or try be a bit strategic and use this as a chance to free up a bit more cash. ie: Rather than target Oliver, I'd go down to Gray and push to bring in Merrett at 450k in a few weeks. In the end you'd end up with Kelly to a 450k Merrett which essentially frees up 150k cash (if you think Merrett can go at 110 for the year as well).

 

[Zimmer]

Haven't used a trade yet. What are the thoughts on Kelly to Cogs? Or should I wait and look at Danger?

Wish I could get a look at some rookie scores before making a decision.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

Haven't used a trade yet. What are the thoughts on Kelly to Cogs? Or should I wait and look at Danger?

Wish I could get a look at some rookie scores before making a decision.

I’d be looking at Cogs

 

[BigRuss]

Haven't used a trade yet. What are the thoughts on Kelly to Cogs? Or should I wait and look at Danger?

Wish I could get a look at some rookie scores before making a decision.

I’d probably hold mate, every chance Kelly being out effects Cogs scoring in some way. Giants are pretty straight up and down with their injury info so I tend to believe Kelly will be 2 weeks worst case, might be straight back in next week.