Position SC 2021: Midfielder Discussion

[Toothless Tigers]

MIDFIELDERS ($500k+)
THE LOCKS
Lachie Neale (Bris) $721,800

It’s a lot to pay – and, yes, he’s probably slightly overpriced – but do you really want to start without the Brownlow Medallist?

Neale posted 13 scores of 130 or more – seven of them in excess of 150 – to finish with a career-best average of 134. Only Max Gawn averaged more KFC SuperCoach points per game.

With shortened quarters, his percentage of time-on-ground was up by almost four per cent in 2020 and, as a result of his dominance through the midfield, Neale was one to benefit from the slightly adjusted scaling, which was mostly done at the top-end.

Without going into the complicated detail – you can read more here though – I’m not betting on another 134-point average.

But he’ll go close, and I’m tipping he will be the $650k+ midfielder who goes closest to maintaining his huge price tag – as well as the gap to the next-best scorer.

Neale tallied more disposals, contested possessions, effective disposals and KFC SuperCoach points than any other player last year and he passed that 134-point mark on eight occasions in 2019.

The Phantom’s Verdict: The answer to the question in the first line is no.

NEXT-BEST
Clayton Oliver (Melb), $656,700

Oliver’s staggering start to his career continued last year. After recording averages of 70, 111, 115 and 109 in his first four seasons, the contested-ball star went to another level in 2020.

He passed the 120-point mark for the first time, on the back of 13 scores of 100 or more and the first KFC SuperCoach double ton of his career.

Sure, his huge scores of 177 and 205 may have been scaled up slightly more than usual last season, but Oliver was more direct.

Adjusting his stats per 100 minutes, Oliver, on average, gained an extra 59 metres per game than in 2019 and recorded almost two extra kicks in each match.

He’s also proven himself as one of the most-durable players in the game, playing 89 consecutive games since the end of his debut season.

The Phantom’s Verdict: He’s in at the moment, but I’m starting to come around to the idea there may be better value.

CAN THEY MAINTAIN IT?
Christian Petracca (Melb) $631,900

After a standout junior career as a midfielder, the KFC SuperCoach community waited - and waited – for Petracca’s breakout year. And, finally, after four years of failing to average more than 81 points, it happened.

And, to be fair, it was worth the wait.

A fitter, leaner Petracca took on a full-time midfield role in 2020 and thrived, averaging 23 disposals and 117 points per game, to finish the season as the seventh-ranked player in KFC SuperCoach.

The key to the strongly-built Demon’s rise was that he not only won more of the ball – at the contest and away from it – but he did so while mainting his influence forward-of-centre.

Petracca booted 15.14 off his own boot, played a direct-hand in 13 other majors – the ninth-most in the competition – and only Geelong forward Tom Hawkins was involved in more of his team’s scoring chains.

The Phantom’s Verdict: As good as those numbers are, and despite how unstoppable he looked at times last year, $631k is a lot to pay. An upgrade target for mine.

THE BULLDOGS
Jack Macrae ($650,100), Marcus Bontempelli ($623,900) and Adam Treloar ($587,600)

One of the biggest questions of the KFC SuperCoach pre-season is how the Bulldogs midfield operates with the inclusion of Treloar.

All are terrific scorers in their own right and the crowded Bulldogs engine-room has scored well individually in the past, too.

In 2019, Macrae, Bontempelli and Josh Dunkley finished as the second, fifth and sixth-ranked KFC SuperCoach scorers in the game.

But there were signs last year – Macrae out on a wing to start, Dunkley back inside-50 – that point to potential trouble in 2021.

Sure, despite the concern shorter quarters would affect the influence of accumulators, Macrae (121) was influential and Bontempelli (116) starred.

But the addition of Treloar is different.

Unlike Dunkley, he can’t play forward. He’s a jet but, arguably, he’s the least versatile of his new midfield teammates.

Add to that Tom Liberatore’s return to form, the rise of Bailey Smith and the magnet man himself, coach Luke Beveridge, and KFC SuperCoaches could very well have a problem.

The Phantom’s Verdict: Bontempelli is the one I’m concerned most about, given his effectiveness as a forward. Macrae not as much, given, even if he is moved around to some degree, he’s still likely to play more inside than outside. But Treloar is the value selection here – I’m tipping the former Magpie to go close to No. 1 at his new club, given the likelihood he could be the most-settled position-wise.

SLEEPERS
Matt Crouch (Adel) $594,700

In 2017, Crouch recorded more disposals than any other player in the competition, earning himself an All-Australian jacket for the first time, as well as his first Crows’ Club Champion award, in a year when Adelaide made the grand final.

Crouch averaged 111 SuperCoach points per match to finish the season as the sixth-ranked player in the game.

He was on the radar of every KFC SuperCoach.

But then the Crows lost their way and, to some degree, so did Crouch.

He was still winning the ball but he became less influential with it and averaged 102 and 104 points per game in the next two seasons respectively.

Then, after averaging 88 points in the opening three rounds of 2020, he was dropped by new coach Matthew Nicks.

He was well and truly off the radar.

And, given he’s only in 2 per cent of teams at the moment, he hasn’t found his way back on it.

That’s despite posting a KFC SuperCoach ton in 10 of the final 13 matches of the year after returning to the side.

And, more impressively, averaging 129 points from Round 12 onwards, when he really started to have an impact with his possession, following some external criticsm.

Only Max Gawn scored more points in the final month of the season.

The Phantom’s Verdict: Starting to tempt me.

Taylor Adams (Coll) $588,800

This one is simple. In the eight games Adams played alongside Treloar last season, he averaged 102 KFC SuperCoach points per game. In the nine games without his former teammate, he averaged 116.

It was a similar story in 2019 with Adams increasing his average from 86 to 108 without Treloar in the side.

Now he’s gone, Adams assumes the extra midfield responsibility on a full-time basis.

And the tough midfielder, who averaged 28 disposals, 13 contested possesions, seven tackles, six clearances and six score involvements per 100 minutes, is coming off the best KFC SuperCoach season of his career, finishing 2020 with a 109-point average.

The Phantom’s Verdict: Given the questions marks on a number of $600k+ midfielders, like Crouch, Adams’ numbers are well and truly making the case for him. And only 10.4 per of KFC SuperCoaches are listening at the moment.

 

[Toothless Tigers]

BOUNCE BACK
Patrick Cripps (Carl) $523,700

“You’re going to see him back to his powerful self and hopefully dominating clearances.”

That’s what Carlton assistant coach Brent Stanton said about the Blues co-captain in January, after Cripps added a few kilos over summer in a bid to return to the body shape which saw him star in the previous two seasons.

Between 2018 and 2019, Cripps posted a KFC SuperCoach ton in 29 of his 42 games – 11 of them in excess of 140.

After a career-best average of 119 in 2018, Cripps started the following year price at $648k.

This year, after trimming down in 2020 and struggling with form and injury on his way to a 97-point average, the 25-year-old is available for $125k less than the 2018 figure.

Now that’s value.

He had a shoulder reconstruction over summer but he’s ‘ahead of schedule’ according to Stanton.

The Phantom’s Verdict: I think I’ve just talked myself into him.

INJURY CONCERN
Josh Kelly (GWS $615,600), Nat Fyfe (Freo $608,300) and Tom Mitchell (Haw $610,100)

If you could guarantee all three would play every game for the year in the midfield, they would be just about the first three players you pick.

But history – and current injury – suggests that is unlikely to happen.

Kelly has averaged 114 or more in each of the past four seasons but in the past three he’s missed 18 home-and-away matches.

Fyfe has averaged 113 or more in the past three years and boasts three 120-point season averages across his career. But the Dockers star has missed 35 games through injury and suspension since 2015. And the rapid rise of the Fremantle midfield’s next generation saw him spend plenty of time inside-50 in 2020.

Mitchell has a different concern. The Brownlow Medallist played every last year after missing 12 months with a broken leg and averaged 113 points per game. A fit-and-firing Mitchell improves on that mark with the return of standard quarters.

But after undergoing a shoulder reconstruction, he’s yet to resume full training and is an unlikely starter for the Hawks’ AAMI Series fixture.

The Phantom’s Verdict: I love them all, but I’m just not sure I can justify starting any of them at this point.

NEXT GEN
Sam Walsh (Carl) $543,300

Walsh exploded onto the scene in his debut season of 2019, posting six KFC SuperCoach tons and finishing with an average of 87.

And just when it looked like the young gun had succumbed to the dreaded second-year Blues, following his 78-point average in the first seven rounds, he exploded again.

Walsh’s inside game developed dramatically in the second-half of the season, on the back of more exposure in the role, and he averaged 114 points in his final 11 matches.

Two of his final three matches of the year highlighted his rapidly improving all-round game.

In Round 16 against the Swans, Walsh tallied 25 disposals – 21 of them effective - 19 uncontested possessions, 10 score involvements, nine marks and six inside-50s.

Then in the final game of the year against the Lions in Round 18, Walsh stepped up on the inside, finishing with career highs in contested possessions (21) and groundball-gets (18), to go with 31 disposals and six clearances.

The Phantom’s Verdict: He ended up adding 11 points to his KFC SuperCoach average in his second season and a similar increase – if not bigger – is on the cards in 2021.


Hugh McCluggage (Bris) $545,500

The sublimely-skilled Brisbane young gun threatened to take over KFC SuperCoach in 2020.

After a moderate opening two games, McCluggage went bang, posting scores of 155, 141 and 116.

But then he struggled for consistency, passing the 100-point mark in just six of his next 12 matches.

It will happen, though.

In 12 TAC Cup games during his draft year, McCluggage was dominant through the midfield and forward of centre, averaging 28 disposals and two goals — a combination of numbers Champion Data had never seen at any level during their time covering the game prior to this.

Averages of 13 contested possessions, six clearances and nine score involvements per game made McCluggage the complete midfielder.

And it’s all likely to come together at the next level very soon.

If it wasn’t for his uncharacteristically bad conversion in front of goal – 8.21 – last year, McCluggage would’ve gone close to replicating his impressive 23-disposal, 1-goal per game season of 2019.

But what did improve was his contested possession rate which jumped from 37 to 40 per cent in 2020, after increasing from 35 the previous year.

The trend mirrors his KFC SuperCoach average, too, with McCluggage going from 55 to 77 in his sop****re year before jumping to 94 in 2019 and 101 last season.

The Phantom’s Verdict:Another jump isn’t all that far away.

AVOID
Dylan Shiel (Ess) $548,000

The Essendon midfielder’s past seven season averages are 95, 103, 99, 98, 90, 97, 102. Solid numbers. But not true KFC SuperCoach premium numbers. And he’s had more than enough time to convince us otherwise.

 

[manyproblems]

What do you think he will average? I just see him as too inexperienced to expect a 110 average from and thats what I think people picking him are expecting.

Does he make 100? it's possible, but I see it as unlikely because over a longer time period it's just going to be harder and harder to sustain the kind of performances he had early last year. If he was 400k I'd almost roll the dice thinking he had a chance to average 100 but at 500k you're really looking for 105-110+ and that's asking too much of a player with no real experience at AFL level.

Just a big risk with too much of a lack of data and a lack of precedents to pick him in my opinion. He was so good in those few games and in his junior career that I'd say he's the best prospect and most promising player I've seen, but not sure he's going to be one of the best players in the league across a whole season just yet.

Walsh's first scores in the league were 68, 83, 112, 123 and 112. He ended up averaging 86.

I get the feel he is an outlier and the rules get thrown out the window based on what he was able to do in his few games and junior career. Walsh didnt really dominate and his frame was much lighter. I'd like a good look at Rowell in a preseason game. No one can really say with any certainty what to expect from Rowell, but with high ownership, potential upside and no risk of role change, the risk is lessened. His work ethic and obsession with footy give me a bit more confidence in the pick as well. I completely understand why someone wouldnt pick him with the lack of data.

 

[Rowsus]

No matter what, those guys underpriced are going to see appreciation. I do always find it interesting just how much it actually takes for the midprice guys to move strongly though, again, magic number wizardry stuff, but they seem to have to sustain it for about twice as long as rookies who appreciate much faster generally. Think I posted it elsewhere but Setterfield had to average 98 for 13 weeks to make 180k from his 310 base point. In comparison Tom Green made 155k in 6 games averaging 73 from 165k, that's roughly the same gap in scoring to starting point.

I'd love any of the MN wizards to completely debunk this though, would be very valuable

Ok, I'm going to have a crack at this for you.
If you will indulge me, I'd like to dumb it down a little. Not because I think you need me to dumb it down for you to understand it, but more to make it easier for me to work through the process.

Instead of using your exact example, I'm going to use something very close to it.

As a starting point, this years MN is around 5371. History tells us it will drop (around 5%-6%) to somewhere around 5100 in the first 6 to 8 Rounds. From there it fluctuates up and down a little, depending on the number of new Rookies, and how the exposed Rookies score.

So, for the dumbing down process, I'm going to use 2 examples near to what you gave us, and assume they score their average score, week in week out. I'm also going to lock the MN in at an unshifting 5,100 right from the start.

So a player scoring at 98 is heading towards an ultimate price of 98 x 5,100 = $499,800.
A player scoring at 73 is heading towards an ultimate price of 73 x 5,100 = $372,300

Obviously, in normal circumstance, the fluctuation in a players scores has an affect on rate of growth in value, and can also affect the final destination, or ultimate value. In that sense, the tables below are obviously just illustrative.



We can see that player A took 10 increases before he broke through the +$180,000 area, and player B took 7 increases to break the same barrier. We can also see that player B is heading to an overall increase of $207,300, which is roughly 10% higher than player A's expected total increase. This is part of the reason, that player B's dollars are increasing more quickly than player A's. The real way to look at this, is to look at their PTS (Priced To Score), and compare it to what they actually are scoring.

Player A is Priced To Score $310,000 / 5,100 = 60.8, scores at 98, which is 61.2% higher than his PTS.

Player B is Priced To Score $165,000 / 5,100 = 32.4, scores at 73, which is 125.3% higher than his PTS.

So we can see that player B is going to grow at a much quicker rate, relative to his starting price, than player A, as he his outscoring his starting price by 125.3%, but player B is outscoring it by "only" 61.2%.

Two of the most important things in the 2 tables above are the last 2 columbs. You can see that they are identical. This is because the total percentage of the expected growth is identical for every player, when we are living in this make believe world, where the player scores at his average every week. The first 6 price rises give you 83% of what they are eventually going to make, and the next 5 give you less than 13% of their total growth.

I hope this has helped explain the difference between Setterfield and Green in your observation.
If you have any quiries or questions, please feel free to ask.

 

[wogitalia]

I get the feel he is an outlier and the rules get thrown out the window based on what he was able to do in his few games and junior career. Walsh didnt really dominate and his frame was much lighter. I'd like a good look at Rowell in a preseason game. No one can really say with any certainty what to expect from Rowell, but with high ownership, potential upside and no risk of role change, the risk is lessened. His work ethic and obsession with footy give me a bit more confidence in the pick as well. I completely understand why someone wouldnt pick him with the lack of data.

Think I'm more worried about the durability. Suns medical staff has been very ordinary and have a bad track record with shoulders. Shoulders in general are one of the more worrying injuries, especially for a guy who is the epitome of bash and crash.

The unknown is kind of the kicker rather than the crux. Wouldn't surprise me if he at least matches Oliver's second season if he stays fit though.

 

[wogitalia]

Ok, I'm going to have a crack at this for you.
If you will indulge me, I'd like to dumb it down a little. Not because I think you need me to dumb it down for you to understand it, but more to make it easier for me to work through the process.

Instead of using your exact example, I'm going to use something very close to it.

As a starting point, this years MN is around 5371. History tells us it will drop (around 5%-6%) to somewhere around 5100 in the first 6 to 8 Rounds. From there it fluctuates up and down a little, depending on the number of new Rookies, and how the exposed Rookies score.

So, for the dumbing down process, I'm going to use 2 examples near to what you gave us, and assume they score their average score, week in week out. I'm also going to lock the MN in at an unshifting 5,100 right from the start.

So a player scoring at 98 is heading towards an ultimate price of 98 x 5,100 = $499,800.
A player scoring at 73 is heading towards an ultimate price of 73 x 5,100 = $372,300

Obviously, in normal circumstance, the fluctuation in a players scores has an affect on rate of growth in value, and can also affect the final destination, or ultimate value. In that sense, the tables below are obviously just illustrative.

View attachment 25850

We can see that player A took 10 increases before he broke through the +$180,000 area, and player B took 7 increases to break the same barrier. We can also see that player B is heading to an overall increase of $207,300, which is roughly 10% higher than player A's expected total increase. This is part of the reason, that player B's dollars are increasing more quickly than player A's. The real way to look at this, is to look at their PTS (Priced To Score), and compare it to what they actually are scoring.

Player A is Priced To Score $310,000 / 5,100 = 60.8, scores at 98, which is 61.2% higher than his PTS.

Player B is Priced To Score $165,000 / 5,100 = 32.4, scores at 73, which is 125.3% higher than his PTS.

So we can see that player B is going to grow at a much quicker rate, relative to his starting price, than player A, as he his outscoring his starting price by 125.3%, but player B is only outscoring it by "only" 61.2%.

Two of the most important things in the 2 tables above are the last 2 columbs. You can see that they are identical. This is because the total percentage of the expected growth is identical for every player, when we are living in this make believe world, where the player scores at his average every week. The first 6 price rises give you 83% of what they are eventually going to make, and the next 5 give you less than 13% of their total growth.

I hope this has helped explain the difference between Setterfield and Green in your observation.
If you have any quiries or questions, please feel free to ask.

You're a wizard Harry! Bloody masterful work.

If you tweaked so they had the exact same gain in points does that close the gap, it's such a small gap but it seems most of the difference is driven by the couple of points difference in scoring gain.

Also would extreme scores heighten this discrepancy, it would seem that a good score would have a bigger impact and a bad score a lesser impact on the low priced guy and that a low score would have a bigger impact and a high score a lesser impact on player A or am I reading it wrong?

Finally what impact does the real world falling magic number in the first couple of rounds have, if any?

Cheers mate, appreciate the effort!

 

[Rowsus]

You're a wizard Harry! Bloody masterful work.

If you tweaked so they had the exact same gain in points does that close the gap, it's such a small gap but it seems most of the difference is driven by the couple of points difference in scoring gain.

I'm not sure I'm with you on this on. Could you maybe re-word the question, and I'll have a crack at it.
Rest assured, this is probably my problem, rather than yours. I can be slow on the uptake sometimes!

Also would extreme scores heighten this discrepancy, it would seem that a good score would have a bigger impact and a bad score a lesser impact on the low priced guy and that a low score would have a bigger impact and a high score a lesser impact on player A or am I reading it wrong?

While an extremely high score or low score can accelerate or slow growth, in the overall scheme of where they are heading, they have little effect. This is actually a little simplistic, I guess, as any player that you are watching closely grow in value would tend to be a temporary citizen in your team, and you are watching them closely, as you are trying to time their departure from your team to the exact right Round. So lets look at some extreme examples.



Now, the important thing to understand here, is that the player's price doesn't tend towards his season average multiplied by the MN, but towards his most recent average within this season, multiplied by the MN.
In the first table, we can clearly see that the players price is still tending towards 98 x 5,100 = $499,800, where his season average is on track for (21 x 98) + (1 x 180) / 22 = 101.7.
The large score has pushed Mr.98 beyond the price he is tending towards only 2 Rounds later. The low score has basically cost Mr.98 two weeks in reaching his ultimate price. I'd suggest he's not a sell because of the low score, you just ride out his high BE's, and shuffle him back in the order of players to be traded out.
With Mr.73 you can see that his high score has pushed him close enough to his ultimate price just two Rounds later. In fact, his price in Rnd 6 is about what his price would be in Round 15 or 16, from the first tables above. As it was with Mr.98. Mr.73's low score has just cost him 2 weeks in reaching his ultimate destination.
This is where good/smart/correct opinion, and having the strength to follow it, are gold in this game.
When the player has his high score, if you can see that it really was one out of the box, and very unlikely to be repeated, you may as well cash him in 2 Rounds later! So many Coaches won't have the courage to do that, as they live with the "But, what if he does it again?". If your opinion is it is unlikely, then get a jump on the others, and cash him in!
Similarly, when a player has a poor score, but you can see the reason behind it, and feel it is unlikely to happen again, then hold! All he has lost is 2 weeks. Most Coaches will cut him straight away, scared that his new high BE means he's ready to be culled. If you can see why this low score occured, and feel it is unlikely to be repeated, you are best just to shuffle him back in the trade out list!

Finally what impact does the real world falling magic number in the first couple of rounds have, if any?

In reality, not a lot. It's the Boogie Monster of SC!
Look at someone like Gawn. The MN falls 5 or 6% quickly, which means if a Gawn scores at last years average, his price will be tending to dip 5 or 6%. In the great scheme of things, if Gawn is scoring 140, and his price has dropped to $710,000, so what?
What it does do though, if a Gawn or Neale put in a couple of low scores, is accelerate their decline in their price slightly more dramatically, than just the low scores by themselves. This leads you off on a different arm of the SC decision making flow chart. ie. Do we know the reason for the low scores, and can we judge if it will continue? If it is a player that is reaching a point where you are worried about his declining value early on, and feel he is a trade out candidate, then it accelerates the decline. If you are going to ride him out, then the MN soons levels off, give or take, and no longer contributes to your players losing value.
The early decline of the MN means that Rookies that debut after Round 5 or 6 grow just slightly slower than those that debut in Round 1.
Overall, I wouldn't really give it too much thought, as it is largely irrelevant.

Cheers mate, appreciate the effort!

Always happy to help!

 

[wogitalia]

I'm not sure I'm with you on this on. Could you maybe re-word the question, and I'll have a crack at it.
Rest assured, this is probably my problem, rather than yours. I can be slow on the uptake sometimes!

Simply whether the 98-60.8 = 37.2 and 73-32.4 = 40.6 variance in the comparison seems to be essentially the same variance as the price changes to my naked eye.

Does changing player B to 69.6 change the equation at all.

I may have copied your spreadsheet and tested it already and it does close the gap, making the price changes pretty much the same.

While an extremely high score or low score can accelerate or slow growth, in the overall scheme of where they are heading, they have little effect. This is actually a little simplistic, I guess, as any player that you are watching closely grow in value would tend to be a temporary citizen in your team, and you are watching them closely, as you are trying to time their departure from your team to the exact right Round. So lets look at some extreme examples.

View attachment 25853

Now, the important thing to understand here, is that the player's price doesn't tend towards his season average multiplied by the MN, but towards his most recent average within this season, multiplied by the MN.
In the first table, we can clearly see that the players price is still tending towards 98 x 5,100 = $499,800, where his season average is on track for (21 x 98) + (1 x 180) / 22 = 101.7.
The large score has pushed Mr.98 beyond the price he is tending towards only 2 Rounds later. The low score has basically cost Mr.98 two weeks in reaching his ultimate price. I'd suggest he's not a sell because of the low score, you just ride out his high BE's, and shuffle him back in the order of players to be traded out.
With Mr.73 you can see that his high score has pushed him close enough to his ultimate price just two Rounds later. In fact, his price in Rnd 6 is about what his price would be in Round 15 or 16, from the first tables above. As it was with Mr.98. Mr.73's low score has just cost him 2 weeks in reaching his ultimate destination.
This is where good/smart/correct opinion, and having the strength to follow it, are gold in this game.
When the player has his high score, if you can see that it really was one out of the box, and very unlikely to be repeated, you may as well cash him in 2 Rounds later! So many Coaches won't have the courage to do that, as they live with the "But, what if he does it again?". If your opinion is it is unlikely, then get a jump on the others, and cash him in!
Similarly, when a player has a poor score, but you can see the reason behind it, and feel it is unlikely to happen again, then hold! All he has lost is 2 weeks. Most Coaches will cut him straight away, scared that his new high BE means he's ready to be culled. If you can see why this low score occured, and feel it is unlikely to be repeated, you are best just to shuffle him back in the trade out list!

The main reason I copied was to test this part out and check how much of a difference it makes when they have good or bad scores.

It's an oversimplification still but essentially if they score 98/69.6 every week (being the same point above starting average) then I could test the impact of if they both scored say 120 in round 4 or 30 in round 4, this is where the true discrepancy lies, I believe.

Basically if they both score a 30 in round 4, player B is 12k better in week 4, 9k better in week 5 and 7k better in week 6 before it flips back the other way to re-close the gap and get them back towards those closing prices.

Similarly if they both score 120 the gap is basically the same, ditto for a 60.

Basically if they both score the same score then player A will be rewarded less quickly for good ones and punished more quickly for bad ones than player B. They still both get to the same gain over the 13 weeks essentially (with equal gain on start point) but the lower the starting price the more accelerated they are by every point they go over and the less harmed.

I think? If I'm wrong, please prove it!

 

[Rowsus]

Simply whether the 98-60.8 = 37.2 and 73-32.4 = 40.6 variance in the comparison seems to be essentially the same variance as the price changes to my naked eye.

Does changing player B to 69.6 change the equation at all.

I may have copied your spreadsheet and tested it already and it does close the gap, making the price changes pretty much the same.





The main reason I copied was to test this part out and check how much of a difference it makes when they have good or bad scores.

It's an oversimplification still but essentially if they score 98/69.6 every week (being the same point above starting average) then I could test the impact of if they both scored say 120 in round 4 or 30 in round 4, this is where the true discrepancy lies, I believe.

Basically if they both score a 30 in round 4, player B is 12k better in week 4, 9k better in week 5 and 7k better in week 6 before it flips back the other way to re-close the gap and get them back towards those closing prices.

Similarly if they both score 120 the gap is basically the same, ditto for a 60.

Basically if they both score the same score then player A will be rewarded less quickly for good ones and punished more quickly for bad ones than player B. They still both get to the same gain over the 13 weeks essentially (with equal gain on start point) but the lower the starting price the more accelerated they are by every point they go over and the less harmed.

I think? If I'm wrong, please prove it!

Sounds like you nailed it me. Well done!

 

[dlanod]

I dont see the Rowell hype either, needs to average 110 at that price you dont want to have to upgrade him, big ask for a guy thats played 4 full games and is coming back from shoulder surgery.

If we had more form line for him it'd be a no brainer. The guy averaged 125+ over four games, got 6 or whatever in his fifth game which tanked his average to 100 and effectively gifted you a free 20 points a game.

The problem is obviously how confident can you be that he'll be back. Shoulders don't tend to be a huge issue for AFL players in terms of scoring unless they re-occur. But the tiny sample size is obviously the big question. I'm tempted to start with him and pencil him in for a correction trade if he comes out with a pair of 80s, but I suspect he'll be good to go and it won't be an issue.

 

[GrainFedBeef]

Agree - good discussion mate.

I think the only place we are differing on is the notion that everyone is overvalued and that the MN will force everyone down at proportionally the same rate. If the total $ pool is fixed (I suppose this could be confirmed but my understanding is that it is @Rowsus ?) then the MN's adjusts to account for all player's movements.

My understanding is the total value of all players is fixed (around $250,000,000) Last last season there were 825 players at $255,777,000.

Over the course of the season (assuming no players are added), the total is allocated across every player based on performance and, effectively for every increase in price there is a corresponding decrease somewhere else (notionally). Basically it's dollars doing physics. The magic number is just a product of the process. It's not really "magic".

As rookies generally score well in excess if the average they're priced at (22), their prices go up quicker. On the flipside, every premo comes down in price even if they're hitting their average. That's just the nature of SC.

First let me say, a big welcome to the guys from FFC!
From the little I have seen, you guys are really bringing some quality content to the table, which is absolutely fantastic!!!
Great to have you here, guys!

In answer to @Dimmawit 's question:
This is something I used to keep track of, but haven't the past 2 or 3 seasons. It certainly used to be a "zero sum game", where the rises and the drops cancelled each other out in the total player value, as @Wheedus has indicated.

You are all spots on, as expected from top level names I see in this chain.

The other point to note whilst it is fixed, it doesn't just come down because lower priced players do better than higher priced players. it also comes down from the dilution of new players who may score average, similar to an equity raising dilution on shares.

1) If you have 3 players 500k (100ave) 1 player 250k (50ave) and pool $1.75m, then MN is $5000/pt
2) if 3 stay at 100 ave and mid pricer goes to 100 ave then MN goes down to $4375/pt, the 100ave players drops to $437,500.
3) If though you add a rookie who scores 50, 3 stay at 100 and mid pricer stays at 50, then MN also goes down to $437,500.
4) If you have rookie @ 50, mid pricer goes to 100 as in scenario 2, then MN goes to $3,888/point.

Why is this relevant to this year?

In the GWS/GC days the main dilution came from new rookies. In 2021, given the top players did better in 2020 than bottom quality players, the dilution will come mainly from a reversion to mean. Longer quarters will result in less pressure, lower standard of footy which will give more time to lower quality players to have an effect. Less interchanges will impact this more as it leads to greater wearing down of players, which is intended to lead to higher scoring, seeing some points increase for forwards.

Not suggesting to avoid Lloyd, Neale, Gawn, Grundy on this alone, it does give me some comfort if a Walsh, Rowell do deliver. The downside of picking M5-8, D3-6 players and avoiding the big guns is you are relying on these 4 players to have a lower score to set up a buying opportunity. whereas if you start them, there is plenty of D3-6 players in that universe of players who could be injured for one game (think Stewart) who are not must players week 1, however they are if they drop to $430k when they should be $500k.

This is the theory anyway.

 

[pizza safety]

I get the feel he is an outlier and the rules get thrown out the window based on what he was able to do in his few games and junior career. Walsh didnt really dominate and his frame was much lighter. I'd like a good look at Rowell in a preseason game. No one can really say with any certainty what to expect from Rowell, but with high ownership, potential upside and no risk of role change, the risk is lessened. His work ethic and obsession with footy give me a bit more confidence in the pick as well. I completely understand why someone wouldnt pick him with the lack of data.

Yeah I get that and he is a better player and prospect than Walsh. Walsh was a better scorer in the U18 champs from memory, but didn’t have Rowell covered in the TAC

I’ve never seen anyone play the way he did in their first few games an 18 year old, kind of tragic that he got injured.

It just feels quite risky to me when if everything goes as well as possible you’re hoping for a 110 avg. surely you can’t expect more than that from a guy that inexperienced

 

[GrainFedBeef]

Yeah I get that and he is a better player and prospect than Walsh. Walsh was a better scorer in the U18 champs from memory, but didn’t have Rowell covered in the TAC

I’ve never seen anyone play the way he did in their first few games an 18 year old, kind of tragic that he got injured.

It just feels quite risky to me when if everything goes as well as possible you’re hoping for a 110 avg. surely you can’t expect more than that from a guy that inexperienced

I get the feel he is an outlier and the rules get thrown out the window based on what he was able to do in his few games and junior career. Walsh didnt really dominate and his frame was much lighter. I'd like a good look at Rowell in a preseason game. No one can really say with any certainty what to expect from Rowell, but with high ownership, potential upside and no risk of role change, the risk is lessened. His work ethic and obsession with footy give me a bit more confidence in the pick as well. I completely understand why someone wouldnt pick him with the lack of data.

I have both and whilst comparable price, the risks are different.

Walsh - role risk (does he get midfield minutes with other players in the side and competition risk - has a good inside and out game although competing with Cripps (not injured) on inside and Williams (new to team) on outside.

Rowell - beast. Risk is tagging (Geelong were doing this well when injured), fade risk over a season (unproven) and shoulder risk (still not doing contact, can feel ok until that tackle or bump stretches the tendons).

Also if you allow for impact and mean reversion on points distribution, this may help Walsh and hinder Rowell. Rowell though had a 120 ave pre injury and priced at 95.

 

[gutsroy]

A couple combined into one:

1. Mitchell: Anyone prepared to look past the shoulder and just start him?
2. M. Crouch: Anyone starting him? Seems to have pretty good arguments for sustaining output
3. Macrae: Can he still be viable despite Dogs' mid plethora given he should stay very high TOG and be mid/wing mostly?
4. Josh Kelly: Pristine preseason, correct?

 

[gutsroy]

Not going to comment on individual posts, but good discussion of the MN, MN decay, practical consequences above (such as expectations in terms of appreciation as % of total over time - and influence on decisions re timing of switching horses etc.) 👍

 

[wogitalia]

Yeah I get that and he is a better player and prospect than Walsh. Walsh was a better scorer in the U18 champs from memory, but didn’t have Rowell covered in the TAC

I’ve never seen anyone play the way he did in their first few games an 18 year old, kind of tragic that he got injured.

It just feels quite risky to me when if everything goes as well as possible you’re hoping for a 110 avg. surely you can’t expect more than that from a guy that inexperienced

I mean if he's a better prospect than Walsh, then he's a better prospect than Oliver and Oliver did 111 in his second season so you could make a case he should push 115. I think the difference is he played so well last year that he's not under the radar of opposition teams, he's going to get attention from round 1 and have to deal with it while that Oliver season in comparison was his coming out party and he never really got attention as a result until the next year where despite improving a fair bit as a player he barely moved in fantasy terms.

 

[gutsroy]

Just on the TPP item, it is a fixed pool, but as I understand it, in cases like this year where you have changes in terms of the player n / pool composition like this year, they prioritize retention of the game mechanics over TPP stability across years
= they prioritize keeping the starting MN close to the value of previous years and go from there.

 

[wogitalia]

A couple combined into one:

1. Mitchell: Anyone prepared to look past the shoulder and just start him?
2. M. Crouch: Anyone starting him? Seems to have pretty good arguments for sustaining output
3. Macrae: Can he still be viable despite Dogs' mid plethora given he should stay very high TOG and be mid/wing mostly?
4. Josh Kelly: Pristine preseason, correct?

Mitchell would need to play and look great in the preseason match for mine. Otherwise happy to wait and see.

Crouch very much on my radar. Probably like him or Adams the most in that 590-610 range but that whole group is riddled with risk.

Macrae, absolutely but I think it limits his upside potential to an extent and thus prefer to get more information and, hopefully, pay a bit less for him. If he falls back to 115 he'd be an ideal upgrade target in my eyes. (I get him wrong every season it seems, so jump on!).

Kelly, haven't heard anything, which is probably good given it's him. I like him but I'm not sure he's worth the risk either. He feels like he should be capable of 120+ but always gets injured and never gets there. There's an upside argument but also a lot of downside counters. I think Fyfe or even Mitchell make more sense though, they've at least proven their upside case before for a "whole" season. Still really like him though and keep finding him in drafts!

 

[BlueNwhiteHoops]

I can't see the Rowell pick. What am I missing?
Surely Taranto, despite the DT:SC ratio knock, 50k cheaper, is the better selection.

Feeling the same way seeing him in over 50% of teams.

 

[wogitalia]

Feeling the same way seeing him in over 50% of teams.

I get it over Taranto, who has more questions on just about every front for mine. I can actually get it in general but over 50% seems shocking to me.

I think he's very capable of 110+, I think he'll be their top midfielder as he was to start last year. Shoulder is a worry, if he plays and looks great in the preseason then that could answer that query for me. Tags are a question for sure. Ability to run out a season and keep scoring the whole way a question. Durability in general, we don't know how his body handles a whole season even if his shoulder is fine. Ultimately that's why he's so cheap

Probably my main thing with him is actually struggling to find a use for the extra cash he generates. I actually think he goes pretty well for those not starting Gawn, he's an pretty good spot for that cash, but with Gawn I find I'm basically just dropping down to him and ending up with 100k left over!