Position 2021: Ruck Discussion
- Thread starter THCLT
- Start date
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
- Likes
- 11,150
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Exactly what we need to do, compare over several players. Atkins though wouldn't be a choice, 244k for a player who probably makes you 100k if he is scoring 75. Appreciate though you may currently have him.
If you substitute a ziebell (80-85) and allow that Gawn gets you 10pts extra because of Capt and one less trade to be used, plus you don't have Taranto and Rozee leaking points to top 6 players at year end, then you get a different outcome. You could argue Rozee, Taranto don't need to be traded saving one trade over option B which is fair.
Thanks Bomber18, not trying to get caught up on which options are better, just that the thinking is across multiple players.
At this stage I have 7 x players 139k-$257k and then it jumps to ZWilliams and Butters then 11 players of +$490k incl Neale, Gawn and Grundy.
If a Gould plays (which 50% team have) and a DGB goes out, then Butters becomes Dunkley.
If you substitute a ziebell (80-85) and allow that Gawn gets you 10pts extra because of Capt and one less trade to be used, plus you don't have Taranto and Rozee leaking points to top 6 players at year end, then you get a different outcome. You could argue Rozee, Taranto don't need to be traded saving one trade over option B which is fair.
Thanks Bomber18, not trying to get caught up on which options are better, just that the thinking is across multiple players.
At this stage I have 7 x players 139k-$257k and then it jumps to ZWilliams and Butters then 11 players of +$490k incl Neale, Gawn and Grundy.
If a Gould plays (which 50% team have) and a DGB goes out, then Butters becomes Dunkley.
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 848
- Likes
- 493
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
It may but also definitely needs 2 extra trades to go one up one down given one less “keeper” spot. The non-Gawn option gives you an extra “keeper”. Could argue one of the value options would need to be traded out if they underperform but at least you have a shot at saving 1-2 trades or so on the Gawn option.
Neale + Preuss vs Hately + Gawn is probably the most clear cut XY. Good one. Costs 37k extra on the Gawn side though.
Great points!
Although don’t think you can use Ziebell types in these sort of XYs. They are likely the best cash cows on offer so the non-Gawn side would have those types. It really needs to be the worst cash cows on offer in the Gawn XYs which the non-Gawn side might not otherwise start. In a good rookie/cashcow year, you can definitely see the value in going more GnR thus Gawn. If say instead of Atkins there’s a clear 80-85 avg 250k mid rookie and a 65 avg fwd rookie, suddenly it becomes only a 5ppg or so gap which Gawn could cover on C scores. In most years, I think the rookies aren’t as obvious.
I tend to struggle picking the right rookies most years so I do like having less onfield rookie spots to fill. Gotta play it year by year though so am open to both structures pending on how the rookies look.
Neale + Preuss vs Hately + Gawn is probably the most clear cut XY. Good one. Costs 37k extra on the Gawn side though.
Great points!
Although don’t think you can use Ziebell types in these sort of XYs. They are likely the best cash cows on offer so the non-Gawn side would have those types. It really needs to be the worst cash cows on offer in the Gawn XYs which the non-Gawn side might not otherwise start. In a good rookie/cashcow year, you can definitely see the value in going more GnR thus Gawn. If say instead of Atkins there’s a clear 80-85 avg 250k mid rookie and a 65 avg fwd rookie, suddenly it becomes only a 5ppg or so gap which Gawn could cover on C scores. In most years, I think the rookies aren’t as obvious.
I tend to struggle picking the right rookies most years so I do like having less onfield rookie spots to fill. Gotta play it year by year though so am open to both structures pending on how the rookies look.
My worst seasons have come from trying and failing to nail a mid-priced ruck pick. 
IIRC one year I missed out on Gawn or Grundy's breakout year, but had a very solid Stef Martin instead. I nailed the mid-priced ruck pick but the net result was still just par, even though I was taking on significant extra risk.
IIRC one year I missed out on Gawn or Grundy's breakout year, but had a very solid Stef Martin instead. I nailed the mid-priced ruck pick but the net result was still just par, even though I was taking on significant extra risk.
Gawns x2 score more than likely makes those points back. Also that extra rookie goes up in value easier. This is all on assumptions. You’re assuming Preuss averages 100/110 purely on being a loan ruck. Plenty of loan rucks score crap. Gawn is priced at 750k for a reason. He may not maintain his scoring but the only certainty in any of this is To get Gawn in later you need to use 2/3 trades unless he gets an injury early in a game early in the season. Which can also happen to Preuss, or we can see mummy in to help. The more that overcomplicate things and avoid Gawn the better IMO.
even if in isolation a non Gawn owner gets a win with poor scores, injury, with 30 players there is way too many variables going on to categorically say it was a win. You could win with Gawn yet suffer 3 bad injuries with premiums early, have crap rookies and miss a good one.
even if in isolation a non Gawn owner gets a win with poor scores, injury, with 30 players there is way too many variables going on to categorically say it was a win. You could win with Gawn yet suffer 3 bad injuries with premiums early, have crap rookies and miss a good one.
It’s a brave position that those guys would be keepers, not to mention keepers at a level close enough to the top 10 for their positions to not be bleeding points to teams as they upgrade around you. Feels a tad “rose coloured glasses” to me as nailing 3 out of 3 breakout contenders that hit keeper level is buy a lottery ticket kind of stuff!
Disagree on Preuss being the best mid-pricer for one major factor. He's almost certainly not going to be a keeper. If you think Preuss can be a keeper then your only decision in the rucks is who to start next to him. Realistically, Preuss is a cash cow, he's a 300k rookie.
While I do think Preuss is probably the strongest case guy in the <350k guys to score 95 the fundamental difference is that if Caldwell or Harmes (for example) do that, they're legitimate chances at being keepers. Realistically this goes for all the midprice guys, so Rozee, Taranto, etc. that cost more.
Unless you're strongly against Grundy and Gawn, the ruck keeper level is 120, even if you're against them, it's probably still 110+.
None of this means Preuss is a bad pick but I would say he's a risky one. A 123k rookie averaging 61 matches Preuss making 95. If you think Preuss can comfortably average 95 or you can't find a rookie to do that then he makes a lot of sense. Now this is an oversimplification and I do think one of Preuss big selling points is the potential to score big as evidenced by his 140 which can price spike significantly but he's also got a pretty solid track record of some terrible scores to counter that. He also doesn't have job security until he does, he has no real durability track record to count on (or against) and there is a pretty wide range of outcomes possible for him with the 95 seeming the likely high end of his outcomes.
Looking at rucks changing teams/breaking in to the main role (excluded premiums moving to same role like McEvoy, Mumford the 2nd time, etc):
ROB - 95
Witts - 94
Sinclair - 64
Hickey - 58 & 79
Nankervis - 89
Lycett - 101
Mumford - 92.5
Z. Smith - 77
Phillips - 56
Pittonet - 72
Warnock - 61
OMc - 83
Jacobs - 93
I think that OMc probably deserves a note as he was forward part year, Lycett is an exception as he'd been the top ruck for the Eagles but he's also the best performed.
I'd say Nank, Witts, Mumford and Jacobs are probably the most comparable which would get you ~92, only Witts didn't go to a strong midfield in that group (Ablett aside) so don't think the GWS factor changes anything. Pittonet, Smith, Hickey and Warnock probably represent the worst case scenarios, for the most part they all failed to asset themselves and ended up in ruck battles.
Ultimately, Preuss should, imo, be assessed against rookies at other positions. If you can find a rookie at 123k with moderate job security and a decent chance to average 60, you should take them over Preuss, imo.
For mine, I still think Marshall at R2 is the better play for those fading Gawn and pick a rookie over Preuss on another line or another midpricer who has premium potential.
While I do think Preuss is probably the strongest case guy in the <350k guys to score 95 the fundamental difference is that if Caldwell or Harmes (for example) do that, they're legitimate chances at being keepers. Realistically this goes for all the midprice guys, so Rozee, Taranto, etc. that cost more.
Unless you're strongly against Grundy and Gawn, the ruck keeper level is 120, even if you're against them, it's probably still 110+.
None of this means Preuss is a bad pick but I would say he's a risky one. A 123k rookie averaging 61 matches Preuss making 95. If you think Preuss can comfortably average 95 or you can't find a rookie to do that then he makes a lot of sense. Now this is an oversimplification and I do think one of Preuss big selling points is the potential to score big as evidenced by his 140 which can price spike significantly but he's also got a pretty solid track record of some terrible scores to counter that. He also doesn't have job security until he does, he has no real durability track record to count on (or against) and there is a pretty wide range of outcomes possible for him with the 95 seeming the likely high end of his outcomes.
Looking at rucks changing teams/breaking in to the main role (excluded premiums moving to same role like McEvoy, Mumford the 2nd time, etc):
ROB - 95
Witts - 94
Sinclair - 64
Hickey - 58 & 79
Nankervis - 89
Lycett - 101
Mumford - 92.5
Z. Smith - 77
Phillips - 56
Pittonet - 72
Warnock - 61
OMc - 83
Jacobs - 93
I think that OMc probably deserves a note as he was forward part year, Lycett is an exception as he'd been the top ruck for the Eagles but he's also the best performed.
I'd say Nank, Witts, Mumford and Jacobs are probably the most comparable which would get you ~92, only Witts didn't go to a strong midfield in that group (Ablett aside) so don't think the GWS factor changes anything. Pittonet, Smith, Hickey and Warnock probably represent the worst case scenarios, for the most part they all failed to asset themselves and ended up in ruck battles.
Ultimately, Preuss should, imo, be assessed against rookies at other positions. If you can find a rookie at 123k with moderate job security and a decent chance to average 60, you should take them over Preuss, imo.
For mine, I still think Marshall at R2 is the better play for those fading Gawn and pick a rookie over Preuss on another line or another midpricer who has premium potential.
As for Gawn...
Something I noticed when responding to another post is as much as we're focusing on his enormous SC average and explaining it with the shortened quarter randomness there is one counter point to that explanation I haven't seen mentioned.
That is his DT average... It jumped to 123.6 when you account for shortened quarters. Now while his TOG% may be up which can impact SC scaling and total share of points, DT is raw counting numbers and the minutes played will likely be similar (there is a case for being able to go a bit harder in those minutes, for sure). Using his previous two seasons ratios you'd actually expect Gawn to score 142 in SC from that DT basis.
Now I have a hard time saying Gawn is undervalued but figured I'd throw that little tidbit out there as perhaps a counter to the idea that he fundamentally can't sustain that average.
Basically he added a couple of touches, took an extra mark, had an extra tackle and a bit and a couple of hitouts per game.
Something I noticed when responding to another post is as much as we're focusing on his enormous SC average and explaining it with the shortened quarter randomness there is one counter point to that explanation I haven't seen mentioned.
That is his DT average... It jumped to 123.6 when you account for shortened quarters. Now while his TOG% may be up which can impact SC scaling and total share of points, DT is raw counting numbers and the minutes played will likely be similar (there is a case for being able to go a bit harder in those minutes, for sure). Using his previous two seasons ratios you'd actually expect Gawn to score 142 in SC from that DT basis.
Now I have a hard time saying Gawn is undervalued but figured I'd throw that little tidbit out there as perhaps a counter to the idea that he fundamentally can't sustain that average.
Basically he added a couple of touches, took an extra mark, had an extra tackle and a bit and a couple of hitouts per game.
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 9,617
- Likes
- 37,712
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I am loving your input @wogitalia its great to have you around.
I am wondering if the 123.6 DT calculation is a little inflated due to a higher % of time on ground (92.6 compared to 85.9 in 2019) which I would have thought gave him more opportunity for the raw numbers?
Do you think the change to rotations means that he will continue to go at 90%+ TOG? If so, I think this could be a very good argument for him!
I am wondering if the 123.6 DT calculation is a little inflated due to a higher % of time on ground (92.6 compared to 85.9 in 2019) which I would have thought gave him more opportunity for the raw numbers?
Do you think the change to rotations means that he will continue to go at 90%+ TOG? If so, I think this could be a very good argument for him!
Nice summary there!
I think RMarshall going 110 the other one to note.
Might’ve been half seasons but SMartin’s first ruck breakout at the Lions and Gawn’s half season ruck breakout as R/Fs worth noting too. May have been older scoring systems.
Only other point is that Preuss only needs to do 95 for half a season before being sold which makes the task somewhat easier. IIRC Nank and Pittonet did start at 95+ before fading late season.
I think RMarshall going 110 the other one to note.
Might’ve been half seasons but SMartin’s first ruck breakout at the Lions and Gawn’s half season ruck breakout as R/Fs worth noting too. May have been older scoring systems.
Only other point is that Preuss only needs to do 95 for half a season before being sold which makes the task somewhat easier. IIRC Nank and Pittonet did start at 95+ before fading late season.
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,960
- Likes
- 126,628
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
B Preuss:
Ruck Contests Attended (Career Avg): 37.17 from 18
SC avg when ruck contests attended equal/exceed 38: 90.14 from 7 (low of 39 and a high of 140, 1/7 below 80, 5/7 below 100, 1/7 120+)
SC avg when ruck contests attended below 38: 48.55 from 11 (low of 19 and a high of 97, 10/11 below 80, 11/11 below 100)
Hitouts to Advantage (Career Avg): 6.56 from 18
SC avg when hitouts to advantage equal/exceed 7: 92.29 from 7 (low of 54 and a high of 140, 1/7 below 80, 5/7 below 100, 1/7 120+)
SC avg when hitouts to advantage below 7: 47.18 from 11 (low of 19 and a high of 97, 10/11 below 80, 11/11 below 100)
Hitouts (Career Avg): 20.94 from 18
SC avg when hitouts equal/exceed 21: 90.14 from 7 (low of 39 and a high of 140, 1/7 below 80, 5/7 below 100, 1/7 120+)
SC avg when hitouts below 21: 48.55 from 11 (low of 19 and a high of 97, 10/11 below 80, 11/11 below 100)
Hitouts to Advantage Rate%:
2017: 28.3%
2019: 34.6%
2020: 32.8%
Career: 31.3%
4 matches with 80% or more TOG%= 108.75 from 4
RD2 2017=111
RD3 2017=87
RD5 2019= 97
RD16 2019= 140
5 matches without Gawn or Goldy alongside him= 91.8 from 5 (111, 39 (against Gawn), 140, 84, 85)
Ruck Contests Attended (Career Avg): 37.17 from 18
SC avg when ruck contests attended equal/exceed 38: 90.14 from 7 (low of 39 and a high of 140, 1/7 below 80, 5/7 below 100, 1/7 120+)
SC avg when ruck contests attended below 38: 48.55 from 11 (low of 19 and a high of 97, 10/11 below 80, 11/11 below 100)
Hitouts to Advantage (Career Avg): 6.56 from 18
SC avg when hitouts to advantage equal/exceed 7: 92.29 from 7 (low of 54 and a high of 140, 1/7 below 80, 5/7 below 100, 1/7 120+)
SC avg when hitouts to advantage below 7: 47.18 from 11 (low of 19 and a high of 97, 10/11 below 80, 11/11 below 100)
Hitouts (Career Avg): 20.94 from 18
SC avg when hitouts equal/exceed 21: 90.14 from 7 (low of 39 and a high of 140, 1/7 below 80, 5/7 below 100, 1/7 120+)
SC avg when hitouts below 21: 48.55 from 11 (low of 19 and a high of 97, 10/11 below 80, 11/11 below 100)
Hitouts to Advantage Rate%:
2017: 28.3%
2019: 34.6%
2020: 32.8%
Career: 31.3%
4 matches with 80% or more TOG%= 108.75 from 4
RD2 2017=111
RD3 2017=87
RD5 2019= 97
RD16 2019= 140
5 matches without Gawn or Goldy alongside him= 91.8 from 5 (111, 39 (against Gawn), 140, 84, 85)
Yeah not necessarily disagreeing with you that the midpricers might need a trade out due to not performing just quite enough. Point still stands thought that it’s possible that you end up with an extra “keeper” and thus trades in hand if one of the Taranto or Rozee types do in fact hit keeper levels.
It's an interesting one, not sure what the stats say but logically I'd have expected most premium players to have increased TOG% last year, quite simply if I'm capable of playing 15 minutes a quarter, I'd still expect to play that and shorter quarters would mean higher TOG%.
That said it does mess with scaling scores up because his TOG hasn't dropped relative to the quarter changes and adjusting for that probably would bring him right back to the 135-139 range.
That said it does mess with scaling scores up because his TOG hasn't dropped relative to the quarter changes and adjusting for that probably would bring him right back to the 135-139 range.
Could throw them in for sure. I still like Witts/Mumford/Nank as the good solid player type comparisons.
They only need the 95 for half a season but remember that 95 is what is needed to match a normal rookie scoring 61. Last year we had Ceglar, Pittonet, Phillips, Draper, OMc, Soldo, Darcy, Sinclair and Naismith all have a crack at taking a #1 ruck role and the best of them managed an 82.5 (Naismith 100 but an example of what can go wrong still). FWIW I like Preuss as a candidate as much or more than any of that group, but it's certainly no sure thing he's going to be in the considerably rarer group of ~95 guys and, again, that's to match a decent rookie.
Personally I think to be picking Preuss I'd need at least 1 of 3 things and ideally all of them...
1. A distinct lack of rookie alternatives - Very possible.
2. A firm belief that he's capable of averaging 105 - That way he can fall short of it and hit 95 and be acceptable.
3. A strong belief he's capable of catching fire and scoring big scores back to back for a month - If I think he can average 110 for a month, he can make the cash regardless of where he ends up, Ladhams for example made 150k in 7 weeks mostly on the back of a 123, 138 and 89 three weeks.
I do think that both 2 and 3 can be made for Preuss, I'm not sure I'd say I'm strong on either personally but I can definitely make the case. Ultimately for me 1 could force my hand. If the rookies don't exist, I think Preuss is the best 300k cash cow available though I still might chase keepers in other positions instead.
Obviously those 3 things all come after a belief that one of Gawn or Grundy is significantly overpriced, although logically you could take Preuss as R3 if you believe strongly enough in those 3 points and be soundly justified in the selection, heck, for those who don't like dead rookies, that case can still legitimately be made.
I think the fundamental thing with Preuss, barring if you think he is a keeper, is to accept that he is effectively a rookie cash cow and not a midpricer and to then analyse him from that basis point. This point goes for every "midpricer" you're considering, any that you don't think are capable of being a premium are effectively in your team as rookie selections to generate cash and that should really be all that you consider. If they'll match or outperform a rookie then they'll still make fine picks. There is opportunity cost though of that starting cash and the trading (ie. taking 3 300k rookies is a premium elsewhere and trades needed to get to that premium ultimately). There is also however an argument that they also can facilitate a big upgrade earlier than others.
They only need the 95 for half a season but remember that 95 is what is needed to match a normal rookie scoring 61. Last year we had Ceglar, Pittonet, Phillips, Draper, OMc, Soldo, Darcy, Sinclair and Naismith all have a crack at taking a #1 ruck role and the best of them managed an 82.5 (Naismith 100 but an example of what can go wrong still). FWIW I like Preuss as a candidate as much or more than any of that group, but it's certainly no sure thing he's going to be in the considerably rarer group of ~95 guys and, again, that's to match a decent rookie.
Personally I think to be picking Preuss I'd need at least 1 of 3 things and ideally all of them...
1. A distinct lack of rookie alternatives - Very possible.
2. A firm belief that he's capable of averaging 105 - That way he can fall short of it and hit 95 and be acceptable.
3. A strong belief he's capable of catching fire and scoring big scores back to back for a month - If I think he can average 110 for a month, he can make the cash regardless of where he ends up, Ladhams for example made 150k in 7 weeks mostly on the back of a 123, 138 and 89 three weeks.
I do think that both 2 and 3 can be made for Preuss, I'm not sure I'd say I'm strong on either personally but I can definitely make the case. Ultimately for me 1 could force my hand. If the rookies don't exist, I think Preuss is the best 300k cash cow available though I still might chase keepers in other positions instead.
Obviously those 3 things all come after a belief that one of Gawn or Grundy is significantly overpriced, although logically you could take Preuss as R3 if you believe strongly enough in those 3 points and be soundly justified in the selection, heck, for those who don't like dead rookies, that case can still legitimately be made.
I think the fundamental thing with Preuss, barring if you think he is a keeper, is to accept that he is effectively a rookie cash cow and not a midpricer and to then analyse him from that basis point. This point goes for every "midpricer" you're considering, any that you don't think are capable of being a premium are effectively in your team as rookie selections to generate cash and that should really be all that you consider. If they'll match or outperform a rookie then they'll still make fine picks. There is opportunity cost though of that starting cash and the trading (ie. taking 3 300k rookies is a premium elsewhere and trades needed to get to that premium ultimately). There is also however an argument that they also can facilitate a big upgrade earlier than others.
Amazing
His indicators are really all significantly better than the guys who’ve done 90-95+ in that No.1 ruck role before like ROB (nothing), Marshall (nothing), Nank (limited history), Witts (limited history of 70s)
His indicators are really all significantly better than the guys who’ve done 90-95+ in that No.1 ruck role before like ROB (nothing), Marshall (nothing), Nank (limited history), Witts (limited history of 70s)
Nank was wasted as a forward pocket by Sydney, still dirty we gave him away for nothing as he'd looked solid in his limited ruck time!
What I wish was Preuss had a few more games as the #1 and a couple more 115+ scores, that would be a big sell for me. I also wish I trusted Leon Cameron but he genuinely seems to have been sent to sabotage GWS.
