Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
TY ... after looking at it, if you take out the game where he scored "7" .... yep I brought him in that week with spare trades to boot (killed my season) ... the averages are a bit misleading IMO ... all Port players got smashed in that game ...
Hinks has no game plan against some of the top sides IMO and unfortunately they face the same match ups in round 5 ...
- Tends to starts slow which is an obvious put off but trying to look beyond the averages to find value ...
Hinks has no game plan against some of the top sides IMO and unfortunately they face the same match ups in round 5 ...
- Tends to starts slow which is an obvious put off but trying to look beyond the averages to find value ...
Before I reveal Prestia's stats, let me say, you shouldn't avoid picking a player because he has this opposition in Round 5, or Round 7. They have to play them sometime, and two "bad" games out of seven is actually a pretty good draw!
Prestia 2018 (11/89.9)
MCG 7/84.4 (all wins)
Marvel 2/108.0 (both wins)
In Melbourne 9/89.7 (all wins)
Interstate 2/85.5 (1 win, 1 loss)
Prestia 2019 (22/101.3)
MCG 13/106.3 (wins 11/110.3, losses 2/84.5)
Marvel 4/99.5 (wins 2/107.5, losses 2/91.5)
In Melbourne 17/104.7 (wins 13/109.4, losses 4/88.0)
Interstate 5/89.8 (wins 3/87.3, losses 2/93.5)
Wins 16/105.6, losses 6/89.8
Prestia 2018 (11/89.9)
MCG 7/84.4 (all wins)
Marvel 2/108.0 (both wins)
In Melbourne 9/89.7 (all wins)
Interstate 2/85.5 (1 win, 1 loss)
Prestia 2019 (22/101.3)
MCG 13/106.3 (wins 11/110.3, losses 2/84.5)
Marvel 4/99.5 (wins 2/107.5, losses 2/91.5)
In Melbourne 17/104.7 (wins 13/109.4, losses 4/88.0)
Interstate 5/89.8 (wins 3/87.3, losses 2/93.5)
Wins 16/105.6, losses 6/89.8
Phillips $403,100 5/92.8
Rnd 1 - 98 - v Richmond - solo Ruck v Nank, 27 to 34 H/O's 8 tackles
Rnd 2 - 79 - v Port - solo Ruck v Lycett/Ryder 29 to 58 H/O's
Rnd 7 - 75 - v North - with Casboult v Goldy 28 to 34 H/O's
Rnd 19 - 114 - v Ade - with Casboult v R'OB/Jenkins 35 to 32 H/O's kicked a goal
Rnd 20 - 90 - v WC - with Casboult v Hickey/Allen 30 to 23 H/O's
Looked ok against opponents that gave up ok/good scores to opponents, struggled against stronger opposition.
Has a good draw the first 5 Rounds, then smashes into a brickwall the next 4 Rounds.
Rnds 1-5: Freo, Syd, Carl, GWS, Ade - goodo!
Rnds 6-9: Coll, Melb, Geel, Nth - holy crap!
Phillips probably has questionable JS, and will likely lose any small amount he made in the first 5 Rounds, over the next 4 Rounds.
L Jackson will probably be cotton-woolled, and I can't see him getting early games. I think Melb would just use tall players, if Gawn/Preuss miss.
Rnd 1 - 98 - v Richmond - solo Ruck v Nank, 27 to 34 H/O's 8 tackles
Rnd 2 - 79 - v Port - solo Ruck v Lycett/Ryder 29 to 58 H/O's
Rnd 7 - 75 - v North - with Casboult v Goldy 28 to 34 H/O's
Rnd 19 - 114 - v Ade - with Casboult v R'OB/Jenkins 35 to 32 H/O's kicked a goal
Rnd 20 - 90 - v WC - with Casboult v Hickey/Allen 30 to 23 H/O's
Looked ok against opponents that gave up ok/good scores to opponents, struggled against stronger opposition.
Has a good draw the first 5 Rounds, then smashes into a brickwall the next 4 Rounds.
Rnds 1-5: Freo, Syd, Carl, GWS, Ade - goodo!
Rnds 6-9: Coll, Melb, Geel, Nth - holy crap!
Phillips probably has questionable JS, and will likely lose any small amount he made in the first 5 Rounds, over the next 4 Rounds.
L Jackson will probably be cotton-woolled, and I can't see him getting early games. I think Melb would just use tall players, if Gawn/Preuss miss.
For our color blind friends
Salem -
Houston -
Weller -
Dawson -
Kelly T -
Taranto -
Worpel -
Hopper -
Steele -
McLuggage -
Parish -
Gresham -
Lipinski -
Petracca -
Stephenson -
Rozee -
Salem -
Houston -
Weller -
Dawson -
Kelly T -
Taranto -
Worpel -
Hopper -
Steele -
McLuggage -
Parish -
Gresham -
Lipinski -
Petracca -
Stephenson -
Rozee -
But, for me, I would have T Kelly in the same group as Taranto, just a gut feel as I'm not sure about his output with all of the other WCE mids. Might be just me but he's not a lock like Houston, more of an upgrade target in my mind at least.
Hey Agent 47, thanks for the kind words.
Let's start with something obscure: Is your real name Pat McCaffrig?
I'm a little surprised at how low some of those numbers are, particularly in 2017.
The 2019 Mids were pretty close together. Treloar, Lyon and Cripps were all around 130 as well. Fyfe was 126.
Let's start with something obscure: Is your real name Pat McCaffrig?
I'm a little surprised at how low some of those numbers are, particularly in 2017.
The 2019 Mids were pretty close together. Treloar, Lyon and Cripps were all around 130 as well. Fyfe was 126.
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
- Likes
- 11,150
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Nice Rowsus. When I look at the good years, it is the year where more GnR is picked. changed my way post an article you did a few years which showed the likelihood picking successful mid prices was somewhere in the 10-30% range from memory. Last year started 13 premiums and only one was changed due to injury. Ranked 650 by round 7-8. I don't go overall so drifted back after that, but it highlighted the process works.
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 418
- Likes
- 2,699
- AFL Club
- Bulldogs
Hi Rowsus
Thanks for running those numbers, I can see where you're coming from but - correct me if I'm missing something - but you have really proved that its much, much harder to pick the best mid-pricer based team than it is to pick the best G&R based team.
That is a valid point of course and would be decisive if we assume that the 2 methods are likely to produce equivalent results. It would be good to know from the guy who churned out the 2019 optimum team if say, there were squillions of mid-pricer combos that produced higher scores than the best G&R score - but we don’t know.
A slight change of subject - if you're a maths nerd check out this mind-blowing link https://czep.net/weblog/52cards.html
Thanks for running those numbers, I can see where you're coming from but - correct me if I'm missing something - but you have really proved that its much, much harder to pick the best mid-pricer based team than it is to pick the best G&R based team.
That is a valid point of course and would be decisive if we assume that the 2 methods are likely to produce equivalent results. It would be good to know from the guy who churned out the 2019 optimum team if say, there were squillions of mid-pricer combos that produced higher scores than the best G&R score - but we don’t know.
A slight change of subject - if you're a maths nerd check out this mind-blowing link https://czep.net/weblog/52cards.html
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 575
- Likes
- 1,040
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Hi Rowsus,
A little surprised to hear you are so bullish on Telly.
Would love to get your thoughts on Yeo. Slow start and low TOG (compared to 2018) all year makes me think he is more likely to improve than Telly who only seems to have "natural progression" as his upside. Does Telly coming into the side put you off Yeo?
Edit - would also love your thoughts on Worpel if you don’t mind. Seems to be consistently improving in all right areas to become a premium.
A little surprised to hear you are so bullish on Telly.
Would love to get your thoughts on Yeo. Slow start and low TOG (compared to 2018) all year makes me think he is more likely to improve than Telly who only seems to have "natural progression" as his upside. Does Telly coming into the side put you off Yeo?
Edit - would also love your thoughts on Worpel if you don’t mind. Seems to be consistently improving in all right areas to become a premium.
Last edited:
As you pointed out, they're different types. But lets compare Oliver's first 2 seasons, and Walsh's first.
Some of this is supposition/opinion, but anyway ....
Walsh started from a better fitness base than Oliver (Higher TOG, covered more ground shown by both R50 and I50 being higher).
Walsh has a far better K:H (1.15:1 to 0.44;1), but lower DE (to be expected when he kicks more) and lower CP% (38% to 50%).
Walsh has a higher Clanger rate/disposal (not all Clangers are disposals)
Walsh has a lower tackling and Clearance rate than Oliver, and played in a lower % of wins.
From year 1 to year 2 Oliver increased his TOG significantly, but also increased his Disposals/100%TOG (28.4 to 39.0). It's hard to see Walsh increasing his TOG, but he could improve his Disposals/100%TOG. To get into "Oliver Territory" he needs to improve his Tackle count, DE and CP%. While it's not impossible, it seems unlikely he can do it, and get to 110+ in SC. Oliver also has the advantage of standing at Gawn's feet.
I'd be amazed if Walsh didn't make progress, even into the 100-102 area, but I'd be pretty surprised if he managed say 108+.
Some of this is supposition/opinion, but anyway ....
Walsh started from a better fitness base than Oliver (Higher TOG, covered more ground shown by both R50 and I50 being higher).
Walsh has a far better K:H (1.15:1 to 0.44;1), but lower DE (to be expected when he kicks more) and lower CP% (38% to 50%).
Walsh has a higher Clanger rate/disposal (not all Clangers are disposals)
Walsh has a lower tackling and Clearance rate than Oliver, and played in a lower % of wins.
From year 1 to year 2 Oliver increased his TOG significantly, but also increased his Disposals/100%TOG (28.4 to 39.0). It's hard to see Walsh increasing his TOG, but he could improve his Disposals/100%TOG. To get into "Oliver Territory" he needs to improve his Tackle count, DE and CP%. While it's not impossible, it seems unlikely he can do it, and get to 110+ in SC. Oliver also has the advantage of standing at Gawn's feet.
I'd be amazed if Walsh didn't make progress, even into the 100-102 area, but I'd be pretty surprised if he managed say 108+.
I will 100% guarantee you, that every single year of SC, the "optimum team" will be full of Midpricers. Mathematically, because of the points/dollar basis, it has to be. Pretty much every year, or close to it, you can construct a set and forget team, that would win SC without even making a trade! That doesn't mean that approach is your best chance of winning SC in any given year.
The best comparison I can give you is, the chances of landing on that "optimum team" are less than the chances of you winning Tattslotto with one entry containing 6 numbers. Midpricers have a success rate of well less than 30%, and there are a hell of a lot more than them, than genuine Prems, who have a success rate (depending on your definition on both Prem and success) of around 60%. The chances of you picking a absolutely brilliant G'n'R team, are about the same as correctly naming two cards drawn randomly from a deck of playing cards. I much prefer that, to the Tattslotto odds.
Thanks for the link.
I've seen a similar breakdown of the deck of cards before.
On a similar theme, around 15-20 years ago, I made a game that was a cross between chinese checkers and chess. It was for 2-6 players, and each player started with 6 playing pieces. Those playing pieces had set starting positions on the board, but could be placed in any order by the player using them.
When 6 people played there were 1.43 x 10^45 ways of setting up the board!
When 2 people played, there was 1.13 x 10^15 ways of setting up the board.
For a comparison, the number of ATOMS on Earth is around 1 x 10^50!
The best comparison I can give you is, the chances of landing on that "optimum team" are less than the chances of you winning Tattslotto with one entry containing 6 numbers. Midpricers have a success rate of well less than 30%, and there are a hell of a lot more than them, than genuine Prems, who have a success rate (depending on your definition on both Prem and success) of around 60%. The chances of you picking a absolutely brilliant G'n'R team, are about the same as correctly naming two cards drawn randomly from a deck of playing cards. I much prefer that, to the Tattslotto odds.
Thanks for the link.
I've seen a similar breakdown of the deck of cards before.
On a similar theme, around 15-20 years ago, I made a game that was a cross between chinese checkers and chess. It was for 2-6 players, and each player started with 6 playing pieces. Those playing pieces had set starting positions on the board, but could be placed in any order by the player using them.
When 6 people played there were 1.43 x 10^45 ways of setting up the board!
When 2 people played, there was 1.13 x 10^15 ways of setting up the board.
For a comparison, the number of ATOMS on Earth is around 1 x 10^50!
G'Day Rowsus,
RE: …...….Midpricers have a success rate of well less than 30%, ………..
Do you see the Midpricers success rate to proven good scorers, who have dropped in price because of missing many games in a season, like a Docherty, J.Steven, the same as Midpricers who may improve, because of changes in circumstances, like a Houston, Greenwood?
Probably hard to answer, as each individual's case is different and their environment is different.
RE: …...….Midpricers have a success rate of well less than 30%, ………..
Do you see the Midpricers success rate to proven good scorers, who have dropped in price because of missing many games in a season, like a Docherty, J.Steven, the same as Midpricers who may improve, because of changes in circumstances, like a Houston, Greenwood?
Probably hard to answer, as each individual's case is different and their environment is different.
- Status