Opinion Questions For Rowsus

[Pieman17]

Hi Rowsus, Hope you’re well.

As a fellow member of the ’Grawndyless’ ruckline for last year, I was wondering what your thoughts on the two are this year and even Lloyd and Whitfield who were all comfortably ahead of the rest of the position for last year.

Is their price worth it despite their possible drop in average in order to get a ‘guaranteed’ top 1-6 player on their respective line.

 

[Inside50]

Hi Rowsus,
How much emphasis do you place on jumps in scoring in the 2H of the year? Neale was one who slowed up in the back half of the year, while a number of other top mids increased their output. Are those who finish the year better more likely to outperform their starting price?

 

[Rowsus]

Geez , all the cheapies down back. Would think it would be difficult to create a good structure without taking the risk on a couple of these. All depends on Rookies but I have all three currently in my team, Dochers, Dodo, Robo. Let's hope they become viable options over the pre season viewing.

I'm starting this answer without knowing how it works out, but let's see.

Team A starts 13 Prems, 1 Mid price, and 16 Rookies.
Team B starts 12 Prems, 4 Mid prices and 14 Rookies.
They have 27 players in common, but
Team A has Peter Prem $620k + Rookie 19 $125k + Rookie 20 $125k = $870,000
Team B has Smith + Doedee + Roberton =$869,900
I call them Rookie 19 + 20 because they were the last Rookies in, not the first. This means Team A has 8 Rookies on the field, compared to Team B's 6.
After Round 8 last season, the 19th and 20th best earning Rookies were: Parker (+$138k) and Ross (+$135k)
Assuming both teams did well with their Rookie picks and corrections, Team A has 73 (7th Rookie Drew) on the field and 70 (8th Rookie Duursma) on the field, where Team B has those 2 on the bench.
I hope that made sense, it's a little complicated.
Let's assume Team A's extra Prem, that cost $620k, is scoring at 110. That gives us after Round 8:
Team A 110 + 73 + 70 = 253 x 8 = 2,024 points + $273k in growth on the Rookies.
The next part is tricky. If you took Smith/Roberton/Doedee what do you expect their output to be?
Let's assume it matches the points of the Team A players:
Doedee 78 + Roberton 82 + Smith 93 = 253 x 8 = 2,024 points.
At those scores, their prices increase by Round 8 to:
Doedee + $93,400, Roberton +$118,100, Smith +$100,700 = $312,200

So under the scenario presented, Team A and Team B are level on points, Team B has an extra $39,200 over Team A,

BUT

The most important part is, Team A is one step closer to completing his team than Team B, with each upgrade costing 2 trades (1 up, 1 down), that puts Team A 2 trades ahead of Team B, and a week ahead in the race to a full team. How many points is a trade worth, how many points is an (early) get ahead upgrade worth? Team B needs 10 upgrades to be complete, so for those 10 Rounds he is one Prem behind Team A. While Team B's non-Rookie Mid pricers are scoring higher than Team A's rookies, they are not scoring higher than Prems. Even if the 3 Midpricers score higher than the above example, unless at least one of them becomes a good solid Keeper, you are behind Team A.

I think I'd rather be Team A.

 

[GrainFedBeef]

I'm starting this answer without knowing how it works out, but let's see.

BUT

The most important part is, Team A is one step closer to completing his team than Team B, with each upgrade costing 2 trades (1 up, 1 down), that puts Team A 2 trades ahead of Team B, and a week ahead in the race to a full team. How many points is a trade worth, how many points is an (early) get ahead upgrade worth? Team B needs 10 upgrades to be complete, so for those 10 Rounds he is one Prem behind Team A. While Team B's non-Rookie Mid pricers are scoring higher than Team A's rookies, they are not scoring higher than Prems. Even if the 3 Midpricers score higher than the above example, unless at least one of them becomes a good solid Keeper, you are behind Team A.

I think I'd rather be Team A.

Great work Rowsus and spot on. Return on investment in team B is higher earlier on, with the key to success post trade analysis is you need the mid pricer (or one of those 3) to be a keeper and not sub optimal at the end of the season (faux premium).

The o***et is did Team A also picked the right premium and doesn't need to sideways trade him.

Whilst easier for 400k mid price to improve and become a premium, I often find it is that one that hurts me at the end of the year, unable to upgrade them and haven't made much money from them. A Doe/Robbo/Smith at least should all make money this year assuming they stay on the park.

Until I read a piece of yours yesterday I had considered a no premium def backline, using Roberton, Doedee, Smith up front etc. I then swung the other way as premiums had whittled down to 9-10, now balanced it with just one of the them.

 

[Zagbag]

Gday Rowsus

I find myself keep coming back to Andrew Brayshaw ($382k) in the forwards.

I’m lured in by the fact that he’s a no. 2 draft pick coming into his third year, with an average pattern (60.5, 70.5, ?) that screams breakout. When he got his chance in the mids in the second half of last year his scoring rate increased dramatically, and with Hill & Langdon departing, there’s little chance he doesn’t see even more mid time this year.

On the flip side, it’s just an awful price and all logic says to avoid these kind of picks ... penny for your thoughts?

 

[Bomber18]

I'm starting this answer without knowing how it works out, but let's see.

Team A starts 13 Prems, 1 Mid price, and 16 Rookies.
Team B starts 12 Prems, 4 Mid prices and 14 Rookies.
They have 27 players in common, but
Team A has Peter Prem $620k + Rookie 19 $125k + Rookie 20 $125k = $870,000
Team B has Smith + Doedee + Roberton =$869,900
I call them Rookie 19 + 20 because they were the last Rookies in, not the first. This means Team A has 8 Rookies on the field, compared to Team B's 6.
After Round 8 last season, the 19th and 20th best earning Rookies were: Parker (+$138k) and Ross (+$135k)
Assuming both teams did well with their Rookie picks and corrections, Team A has 73 (7th Rookie Drew) on the field and 70 (8th Rookie Duursma) on the field, where Team B has those 2 on the bench.
I hope that made sense, it's a little complicated.
Let's assume Team A's extra Prem, that cost $620k, is scoring at 110. That gives us after Round 8:
Team A 110 + 73 + 70 = 253 x 8 = 2,024 points + $273k in growth on the Rookies.
The next part is tricky. If you took Smith/Roberton/Doedee what do you expect their output to be?
Let's assume it matches the points of the Team A players:
Doedee 78 + Roberton 82 + Smith 93 = 253 x 8 = 2,024 points.
At those scores, their prices increase by Round 8 to:
Doedee + $93,400, Roberton +$118,100, Smith +$100,700 = $312,200

So under the scenario presented, Team A and Team B are level on points, Team B has an extra $39,200 over Team A,

BUT

The most important part is, Team A is one step closer to completing his team than Team B, with each upgrade costing 2 trades (1 up, 1 down), that puts Team A 2 trades ahead of Team B, and a week ahead in the race to a full team. How many points is a trade worth, how many points is an (early) get ahead upgrade worth? Team B needs 10 upgrades to be complete, so for those 10 Rounds he is one Prem behind Team A. While Team B's non-Rookie Mid pricers are scoring higher than Team A's rookies, they are not scoring higher than Prems. Even if the 3 Midpricers score higher than the above example, unless at least one of them becomes a good solid Keeper, you are behind Team A.

I think I'd rather be Team A.

This is great analysis! Interesting XY. It’s the perennial GnR v Midpricer question. One thing I’d note is that it’s really the strength of the rookies that dictate whether a midpricer or GnR approach is more favourable in a particular year.

In that XY, Team B has 70+ avg rookies on the bench, which I think means that the midpricer strategy most definitely isn’t viable or otherwise, Team B has not got the correct structure. I think it’s quite rare that we get stuck with 70+ rookies on the bench, I usually have rookies in that 55-60 range or worse on bench and probably 1-2 55-60 avg rookies on field as well (ie JClark, Parker, Setterfield types early 2019)

In the same XY, if you assumed the quality of rookies wasn’t as strong and Rookie 19 and Rookie 20 were 55-60 avg rookies, Team B seems around 20-25ppg better for the first 8 rounds, which is about 160-200 pts - a fair headstart!

I think if DSmith was a 93 avg he’d be a keeper so A and B would have the same number of upgrades to make. But of course, the risk with midpricers is that you need an extra trade to upgrade them if they fail. An additional rookie on field is not without risk either due to the iffy scoring/JS of rookies.

I remember one year I took Birchall as what I thought a value premium. But along with other midpricers, it meant I skipped MDea and I think MDea matched Birchall’s average early season (absolute disaster for me!).

Basically, it’s the strength of the rookies in a year that answers the midpricer v GnR XY. I’ve gone a bit more midpricer of late and it’s worked as I dont think there has been depth in strength of the rookies in the past couple of seasons (maybe not since the Esendon top player season).

 

[Rowsus]

Do midfield rookies always score the most? I loaded up in the year that Dunkley debut and whilst some came good, they were very late in the season and often thrown forward early on. Midfield rookies at junior level who play forward don't always seem to score well.

Not sure if this would pique Rowsus, I wonder whether the common thought of mid rookies score best a factor of recent 1-2 seasons and if this could analysed. Think the great man may have done something 3 years back and was interesting to compare def rookie #4 vs mid#7 (rather than 6th if you are going 4 premium mid) vs fwd #4, given difference in bench depth.

For me, I love defender rookies and dislike forward the most. feels like the former consistently deliver points if given games, mids ok, rucks amazing and forwards mixed and volatile.

I do find my best starting teams have more midfield premiums, as you as say, 5 looks the optimal number.

It can vary from year to year, but as general rule, the answer is yes, the Mid Rookies score better.
Let's look at the first 8 Rounds of the last 3 seasons using the following criteria.
Any player that started the season $210,000 or cheaper.
Must have played at least 6 of the 8 games.
The filling order was Def, Fwd, Mid. ie if you were D/F you were put in the Def section. The mid section had Mid only players.

When looking at the table below, here is what it means, using Hore as an example:
Hore $117,300, had played 6 of the first 8 games, and averaged 84. Each point he averaged cost you $1,400, based on his original purchase price.



Amazingly, in 2017, there were only 2 Mid only Rookies that qualified!!!
As we can see, looking at the 4 highest averaging Rookies each year, that had played at least 6 games to Round 8, the Mids were the highest scoring Rookies. They were also the cheapest per average point scored, but the most expensive to buy. The Defs were cheaper than the Fwds, but outscored them.
Each year should be taken on it's own, and we shouldn't preempt numbers, but as general rule, it looks like the Mid Rookies usually have better depth, for the ones you are forced to have on field, early in the season.

 

[GrainFedBeef]

. Amazingly, in 2017, there were only 2 Mid only Rookies that qualified!!!
As we can see, looking at the 4 highest averaging Rookies each year, that had played at least 6 games to Round 8, the Mids were the highest scoring Rookies. They were also the cheapest per average point scored, but the most expensive to buy. The Defs were cheaper than the Fwds, but outscored them.
Each year should be taken on it's own, and we shouldn't preempt numbers, but as general rule, it looks like the Mid Rookies usually have better depth, for the onesyou are forced to have on field, early in the season.

Amazing work as always Rowsus.
for those consider 4 prem mids and going extra mid rookie over defender rookie, how does that analysis compare on depth.

If we assume normal is 5 prem mids plus midpricer plus 5 rookies vs going 6 rookies. This would result for defenders going down from 4 rookies to 3 (assumes 4 prem midpricer def goes to 5).

Thus compare 4th def vs 6th rookie.

Think this is the seing for most, rather than fwds.

 

[THCLT]

Now that you've found your grove for season 2020, thought I would throw out a few of the break out candidates to get your opinion on how you see their prospect for the season ahead. Some are popular whilst some are those that I have my eyes on...

I acknowledge that there's a few names below so no stress if you can't get to them all and/or don't currently have an opinion either way.

Christian Salem, D $491,200
Age during 2020 = 25yo
2019: 20/91
2018: 21/82
2017: 16/80
Preseason talk: Continue on that rebounding role, very much in the Houli mould

Dan Houston, D/M $484,800
Age during 2020 = 23yo
2019: 21/89
2018: 22/78
2017: 16/73
Preseason talk: More midfield opportunity

Lachie Weller, D $481,100
Age during 2020 = 24yo
2019: 17/89
2018: 22/74
2017: 22/72
Preseason talk: Settled into role and new club

Jordan Dawson, D/F $467,800
Age during 2020 = 23yo
2019: 20/86
2018: 4/60
2017: 1/32
Preseason talk: Better mark and ball user compared to Lloyd

Tim Kelly, M $561,800
Age during 2020 = 26yo
2019: 22/104
2018: 22/93
2017: NA
Preseason talk: New club equal new opportunity to shine ala Neale of 2019

Tim Taranto, M $555,900
Age during 2020 = 22yo
2019: 22/102
2018: 21/89
2017: 12/67
Preseason talk: Can he overcome the 'too many cooks' phenomenon

James Worpel, M $527,00
Age during 2020 = 22yo
2019: 22/97
2018: 9/73
2017: NA
Preseason talk: Can he sustain his trajectory with Mitchell back in the fold

Jacob Hopper, M $520,200
Age during 2020 = 23yo
2019: 19/96
2018: 19/79
2017: 10/62
Preseason talk: If not Taranto, then maybe Hopper as he's one year older and longer in the system

Jack Steele, M $515,900
Age during 2020 = 24yo
2019: 20/95
2018: 21/94
2017: 20/91
Preseason talk: Is this the year he takes that next big step

Hugh McCluggage, M $510,700
Age during 2020 = 22yo
2019: 21/94
2018: 22/77
2017: 18/54
Preseason talk: Is this the guy we should really be talking about at the Lions

Darcy Parish, F/M $465,400
Age during 2020 = 23yo
2019: 20/86
2018: 15/80
2017: 19/76
Preseason talk: Has he got the capacity to play more midfield or will he remain to be that 'almost' guy

Jade Gresham, F/M $456,400
Age during 2020 = 23yo
2019: 19/84
2018: 22/79
2017: 22/66
Preseason talk: Will he be the main beneficiary which exist in their midfield

Patrick Lipinski, F/M $441,500
Age during 2020 = 22yo
2019: 13/81
2018: 17/59
2017: 1/53
Preseason talk: Had great impact when he secured a spot in the starting 22 but the focus is obviously on their Big 3

Christian Petracca, F $441,300
Age during 2020 = 24yo
2019: 22/81
2018: 21/82
2017: 22/79
Preseason talk: Will this be the year

Jaidyn Stephenson, F $436,200
Age during 2020 = 23yo
2019: 12/80
2018: 22/64
2017: NA
Preseason talk: Was building nicely before his suspension

Connor Rozee, F $422,100
Age during 2020 = 20yo
2019: 22/78
2018: NA
2017: NA
Preseason talk: Not many 20yo & 2nd year player has done it but he's a special talent

 

[Ben's Beasts]

Hello Rowsus!

Assuming he is 100% fit come round 1, just wondering what your thoughts are on Jack Steven’s prospects this season?

Is he worthy of a spot in our starting teams?

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus,
I'd love to get your thoughts this year on two players that have historically been at different ends of the durability spectrum:
Dangerfield and Naitanui.
Danger has been so consistent and durable for years now, but his numbers appear to be fading and he is into that age bracket where soft tissue injuries are more commonly encountered.
NicNat is obviously underpriced for what he can produce, and with a cloud over Gawn to start the year he is very enticing given his uninterrupted preseason.
These two have been in and out of my team more than any others this preseason so I'd love to get your view.
Cheers.

Hi TT,
welcome on board. Good to see new members actively posting.

Dangerfield $625,500 - Will basically turn 30 when the season starts, so he's in that dangerzone for age. Has 1 x 20 game season, 4 x 21 game, and 4 x 22 game seasons in the past 9 seasons, so has only missed 6 H&A games in the past 9 seasons. First cracked the 115+ barrier in 2012, and has only 1 season under it since then (2014 - 22/106). The big scare for those talking Dangerfield in the past season or two is how much time will he spend in the Forward Line? That's something I'm prepared to overlook this season. Last season Geelong won 980 Clearances. Kelly was highest with 147, he's gone. Danger was 2nd with 139. Then we have Selwood 96 (under a cloud), Guthrie 81, Duncan was 6th with 52 (under a cloud), of the non-Rucks. This means Geelong have lost or have a cloud over 3 of their top 6 Clearance players from last season. It gives me confidence that Danger will see his share of Mid time, and spend less time up Forward. Also, if Jenkins plays, that also pushes Danger out of the Forward Line a little. I didn't start Dangerfield last season, as his ownership numbers were way too high. This season he's down on 28% ownership. If he stays below the low 50% area, I'll be starting him.

Naitanui $457,800 - There's 2 hurdles in picking NicNat. TOG% and game count.
Let's look at the past 2 seasons, and compare NicNat with Grundy and Gawn
2018
NicNat - 57.4% TOG - SC 93.7 - SC/100%TOG 163.2
Grundy - 88.4% TOG - SC 130.5 - SC/100%TOG 147.6
Gawn - 85.0% TOG - SC 127.5 - SC/TOG% 150.0
2019
NicNat - 56.4% TOG - SC 96.6 - SC/100%TOG 171.3
Grundy - 89.1% TOG - SC 130.0 - SC/100%TOG 145.9
Gawn - 85.9% TOG - SC 128.4 - SC/TOG% 149.5
As we can see, he's easily the most effective SC Ruck for the past 2 seasons, from a points/minute played perspective, but he just doesn't play enough minutes, or games! Word is, he's having a good preseason, which might lead him to boosting his TOG up 65-68%. Based on his past 2 seasons, that might lead him to average around 110-115. That would be more than handy, if he can manage it. That leaves the problem of game counts. Since 2013 his game counts read: 11, 20, 20, 15, 0, 15, 3 - That's an average of 12/season.
Here's the thing, if you took him, you are probably going to need to cover, even if your plan is to trade him between Rounds 8 and 14. If he can score at 110 he could make $80-$100k. IF. I think it's a locked in trade, and a problem or two Rounds until then. If you take him, and cover, you nearly may as well play the cover at R2 (if there is a cheap one), make dollars, and potentially save a trade. I think those that start NicNat will have some exciting times, and the occassional 50 point quarter. He's great to watch when he's going, but he's just a bit too problematic for me to start him.

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus, could you have a look at whether players going to new clubs have a good or bad impact on their scoring?

Hi Tim,
I have a pretty hard and fast view on players changing clubs, and that is, that it doesn't make them better players. If a player has had 6 or more seasons, or 100 or more games, they have pretty much shown us what to expect, and I don't see a new location changing that. They can sometimes get a little bump in scoring in their first season at the new club. Put that down to "I need to show them what I've got", but they nearly always return to "normal" scoring after that. If they are a young player, under the above mentioned levels, then just assess them as you might normally, and just ignore the change in clubs.

 

[TigerTime]

Hi TT,
welcome on board. Good to see new members actively posting.

Dangerfield $625,500 - Will basically turn 30 when the season starts, so he's in that dangerzone for age. Has 1 x 20 game season, 4 x 21 game, and 4 x 22 game seasons in the past 9 seasons, so has only missed 6 H&A games in the past 9 seasons. First cracked the 115+ barrier in 2012, and has only 1 season under it since then (2014 - 22/106). The big scare for those talking Dangerfield in the past season or two is how much time will he spend in the Forward Line? That's something I'm prepared to overlook this season. Last season Geelong won 980 Clearances. Kelly was highest with 147, he's gone. Danger was 2nd with 139. Then we have Selwood 96 (under a cloud), Guthrie 81, Duncan was 6th with 52 (under a cloud), of the non-Rucks. This means Geelong have lost or have a cloud over 3 of their top 6 Clearance players from last season. It gives me confidence that Danger will see his share of Mid time, and spend less time up Forward. Also, if Jenkins plays, that also pushes Danger out of the Forward Line a little. I didn't start Dangerfield last season, as his ownership numbers were way too high. This season he's down on 28% ownership. If he stays below the low 50% area, I'll be starting him.

Naitanui $457,800 - There's 2 hurdles in picking NicNat. TOG% and game count.
Let's look at the past 2 seasons, and compare NicNat with Grundy and Gawn
2018
NicNat - 57.4% TOG - SC 93.7 - SC/100%TOG 163.2
Grundy - 88.4% TOG - SC 130.5 - SC/100%TOG 147.6
Gawn - 85.0% TOG - SC 127.5 - SC/TOG% 150.0
2019
NicNat - 56.4% TOG - SC 96.6 - SC/100%TOG 171.3
Grundy - 89.1% TOG - SC 130.0 - SC/100%TOG 145.9
Gawn - 85.9% TOG - SC 128.4 - SC/TOG% 149.5
As we can see, he's easily the most effective SC Ruck for the past 2 seasons, from a points/minute played perspective, but he just doesn't play enough minutes, or games! Word is, he's having a good preseason, which might lead him to boosting his TOG up 65-68%. Based on his past 2 seasons, that might lead him to average around 110-115. That would be more than handy, if he can manage it. That leaves the problem of game counts. Since 2013 his game counts read: 11, 20, 20, 15, 0, 15, 3 - That's an average of 12/season.
Here's the thing, if you took him, you are probably going to need to cover, even if your plan is to trade him between Rounds 8 and 14. If he can score at 110 he could make $80-$100k. IF. I think it's a locked in trade, and a problem or two Rounds until then. If you take him, and cover, you nearly may as well play the cover at R2 (if there is a cheap one), make dollars, and potentially save a trade. I think those that start NicNat will have some exciting times, and the occassional 50 point quarter. He's great to watch when he's going, but he's just a bit too problematic for me to start him.

Thanks for the analysis Rowsus. I appreciate your great work.
Two of the more exciting players from the past decade!
I was going to start Naismith at R3 as cover for NicNat, but if big Gawny is right to go for round 1 then I will likely follow the masses aboard the Gawndy train.
Best of luck for the season ahead

 

[Toothless Tigers]

Hello Rowsus

What is your opinion on Sean Darcy with 211 retired and Lobb reportedly playing forward?

 

[TommyGobbler]

Hey Row,

I'm considering a starting Ruck lineup of:

Grundy, Jacobs, Naismith

The theory I'd like to test is - is $250k too much money to be sitting on the bench?

I think a few questions need to be considered to determine the answer.

1. How much money does Naismith need to make to be a better pick than a basement price rookie? And therefore, what does he need to average?

2. How much value do we attribute to dollars sitting on the bench - assuming that the rest of the starting lineup is okay?

I believe Naismith has the potential to make good money (similar to Witts in his first year at the Sun's). Not sure if R3 if feasible though, and I can't see how I can start without Grundy.

Cheers!

 

[KLo30]

Hey Row,

I'm considering a starting Ruck lineup of:

Grundy, Jacobs, Naismith

The theory I'd like to test is - is $250k too much money to be sitting on the bench?

I think a few questions need to be considered to determine the answer.

1. How much money does Naismith need to make to be a better pick than a basement price rookie? And therefore, what does he need to average?

2. How much value do we attribute to dollars sitting on the bench - assuming that the rest of the starting lineup is okay?

I believe Naismith has the potential to make good money (similar to Witts in his first year at the Sun's). Not sure if R3 if feasible though, and I can't see how I can start without Grundy.

Cheers!

This thread should give you a pretty good indication of what a $250K player needs to do compared to a Rookie priced player.

https://supercoachscores.com/thread...s-a-fine-line-between-pleasure-and-pain.2799/

I think Naismith's real value would only be obtained if you have an early injury to Grundy, in particular, and/or Jacobs.

 

[TommyGobbler]

This thread should give you a pretty good indication of what a $250K player needs to do compared to a Rookie priced player.

https://supercoachscores.com/thread...s-a-fine-line-between-pleasure-and-pain.2799/

I think Naismith's real value would only be obtained if you have an early injury to Grundy, in particular, and/or Jacobs.

Thanks mate great thread. Probably best to give him a miss then. He's a potential trade down option if something goes wrong with Grundy or Jacobs in the first 2 weeks, that's prob a better way to approach it.

 

[warewolves]

Hi Rowsus

 

[warewolves]

At the end of the 2019 season an SC article was published that showed the optimum team would have won by over 8000 pts and in R23 would have had Nic Newman, Dane Rampe, Adam Treloar, Jarryd Lyons, Michael Walters, Todd Goldstein, James Worpel and Toby Greene all sitting on the bench. It would inconceivable to match that but hey, I'd be happy to win by 1000 pts. What interests me most is the starting line-up had lots of mid-pricers. Only 4 of the starting 30 were over $600K. Doesn’t that suggest that the conventional G & R approach may not be that reliable.

 

[Toothless Tigers]

I currently have Dion Prestia in my side, what is his average at the MCG considering he plays 9 games there before the round 13 bye.

Will his average be enough of an o***et for Rnd 5 vs WCE @ Optus Stadium and Rnd 7 vs GWS @ MCG