Opinion Questions For Rowsus

wogitalia · 6 Feb 2021

Not to steal Rowsus' thunder but figured I'd give a bit of an answer on this one as well

Essentially it comes down to a finite amount of trades and cash generation during the season combined with a finite amount of "keepers" at any position.

Yes, in theory you can win this game on pure value, every year someone works out the zero trade team that would win it but the reality is that every value pick has inherent risks that have created that value, be it injury, role changes, breakout, whatever, and those risk compound with every value pick you select.

Take your Preuss example, you've simplified it down to 1 down, 1 up but what you've really done here is left 180k in the bank at the start, paying more for a cash cow gives the impression you've "saved" a trade but you could achieve the same thing by picking a 120k rookie who averages 60 and just keeping the money in the bank until the trade.

Ultimately your starting picks are one of two things. They're a cash cow or they're a keeper, every keeper is an up/down you can use elsewhere, there is inherent value in this.

Now, obviously, if you can get a keeper for value, that's a slam dunk and you should take it every time over paying a premium. That's why every man and his dog is starting Cripps.

But the reality is we only have so many trades and come round 15 or so when everyone is approaching their finished side and you've used the best part of your 24 trades you need as many of those keepers to be the top level guys. The more of the elite picks you start with, the more value scope you have. Someone who starts with a midfield full of 105-110 types needs to fill it with the 115+ guys, of which there are considerably fewer. Someone who starts with the 115+ guys can fill with the horde of 105-110 guys. Having to pick from the 3 120 guys that are 680k is very different than being able to find the 110 guys who've fallen to 520k.

I also don't think most of us that are picking top guys are doing it expecting to lose value. Those top end guys I'm picking are the ones I expect to hold their average and have a narrative that says they can improve (to me). You're also paying for durability or should be in that range. I'm picking Neale because I legitimately think he can back it up or improve, now I don't think he will but I think he can and I think if he doesn't he should still approach the 125 range that would remain a prohibitive upgrade, he's also a captain option.

The rucks are probably their own set of rules here but with Marshall it's actually not as relevant this year because you can start him in the rucks as a forward premium and still pick the rookies elsewhere or you can back Preuss in to match the rookies (he very well may). Still, I'm personally taking Gawn, I don't think he can improve but I actually think he can go a lot closer to maintaining than probably most, I don't think 135 is impossible for him, his DT improvement last year was actually greater than his SC increase which kind of undermines the broken SC theory, in fact his SC increase was lower than you'd expect given his historical ratios (you'd actually have expected 142 based on those), also a strong captain obviously.

I do agree fundamentally you shouldn't be picking a player to drop, break even I can understand given the other things you'd also be picking them for (durability, captain, exposure, etc), you should be picking those top tier guys you think can sustain or possibly improve BUT if they do drop would still be premiums.

For example, I like Steele, I think he can improve, I think he can sustain and if he did drop I think it would be into the 115 range where he'd still be a premium keeper, I think that's still a fine outcome and enough "value" as a starting pick. I don't like Macrae (devils advocate mode), I don't think Treloar is a good change for him, I don't like his 98 average when they were full strength to close last year and I don't like his downward trend, I think 123 is his best case but he's likely to drop to 110 or below (devils advocate reminder), I don't think this example makes sense as a starting pick because there is no value, if I'm right about his top end my worst case is paying the same for him and if I'm totally right I can get him a lot cheaper.

Finally, locking in the loss part, hopefully most of the above has outlined that you're not trying to do that and should probably rethink the pick if you are, but if it happens the idea is that you've still got a premium and you've still got the trades you haven't had to use on that starting pick. I don't think you should be picking a player you expect to lose 100k outside of very rare circumstances, it's more a this is how much can go wrong and the pick has still achieved it's ends, being a keeper.

Ultimately... maximise value, minimise risks. Picking well balanced keepers is walking down the middle of this line, you should still see value in the pick but knowing that the downside risk is still a likely keeper has it's value.

Rowsus · 6 Feb 2021

wogitalia said:

No thunder to steal here. I encourage anyone that wants to add their opinon, to any question here, to do so.

Good answer, I am hoping to catch up on all the questions posted so far this weekend.

Mudflap · 6 Feb 2021

Rowsus said:

Hi Mudflap, I like the new profile pic.
LDU - $432,800 - Mid
Z Fisher - $394,200 - Fwd

While everyone has their own measuring stick, by my measuring stick both are too expensive to be Stepping Stones. My measuring stick says I want +$100,000 to be happy with a Stepping Stone, to go along with the useful on field points. At +$80,000 I'm a bit disappointed, but it's not a total disaster. LDU needs to average 105 to make his $100,000 and Fisher needs to average 97. That means if you take either one, you need to be expecting they are Keepers.

LDU has the double edged problem of, if he does reach that 105-108 area he will be filling your M7/8 spot. While it's nice to fill your M7/8 cheaply, I don't think you should be targetting Keepers that are filling the lower end of their position. D5/6, M7/8, F5/6 you want these positions left open, if possible. There's 2 good reasons for this. Any player you take, with the hope they will fill a higher spot, have those lower spots as a safety net. They can slide down from say a M3 to M7, and while they have disappointed you, they have not been a total disaster. The second reason is, you then need to be getting those M3, D2, F2 types into your team, and that is a lot harder as the season goes on, than it is to do with your starting bank. LDU has another 2 hurdles to overcome to be considered a good pick. His game count in his 3 seasons to date is: 7, 14, 9. You don't want a player ending up on something like 18/108! That PIT60's down to a 99 season, and that means you are giving up too many points to the stronger Midfields, and haven't really gotten too much of a bargain anyway. The second hurdle is, does North have the game to be able support a 110 Mid? Let's look at recent history:
2020: Anderson 15/105, Dumont 17/101, Higgins 17/95, Simpkin 17/93
2019: Cunnington 22/102, Higgins 17/95
2018: Higgins 20/103, Cunnington 22/96
That's every North Mid that has played more than 10 games, and averaged 90+ in the past 3 seasons. It's not very inspiring. Even with the gap left by Higgins leaving, LDU is a player I'm really hoping to avoid. When push comes to shove, if he has played out of his skull in the pre-season, I will definitely be tempted. I'm just hoping to resist that temptation, as he looks like a scoring or game count trap, or both!

Fisher looks like a trap to me. He seems to be going backwards, rather than Fwds, and didn't really play much of a Mid role last season. Is he going to be a small Forward trap, that gets minimal on-ball time, but gives you that odd 110 or 120 to give you hope, and make you hang in there? I think so. I feel Carlton's list has gone beyond him, as far as being a high rotation Mid goes.
2018: 3.3 Clearances/game, 1.0 RB50/game, 2.7 I50/game
2019: 3.0 Clearances/game, 1.0 RB50/game, 2.8 I50/game
2020: 0.9 Clearances/game, No RB50's at all, 3.3 I50/game
Clearances down, no RB50's means he's not getting up the ground at all. I really think as Cartlon's list has strengthened his potential for Mid time has lessened. He's a no from me.

Thanks Rowsus. Some real points to think about. Deep down I know you are correct about LDU but when they are your own team it can be hard to let them go.

Almost forgot.... thanks for the like if the profile pic. Looks like both my teams will be starting from the bottom next season

Rowsus · 7 Feb 2021

Mudflap said:

Defenders
The players highlighted were also top 3 the previous season.
We have a lot of new members, so for those unfamiliar with PIT60, here's a quick explanation.
If a player plays 18 games in a regular 22 game season, and averages 100, then his average is 100, his total is 1,800 and his PIT60 is:
(18 x 100 + 4 x 60) / 22 = 92.7. We replace his 4 missing games with a Rookie score valued at 60 points, which is probably a touch generous. This gives you the value of his Place In your Team.

So it looks like on average 1 of the top 3 Defs from the previos season, make the list the next season.
Lloyd has made the list 3 seasons in a row. Over the history of SC this is pretty rare.

Rowsus · 7 Feb 2021

Midfielders
It can be all 3, as we saw 2016, or virtually none, as we saw in 2019.
In general, I would expect at least 1, and maybe 2.
Any DPP players have been left out the Mid summary, and will be included in the other position they are eligible for.

Dangerfield made it 4 years running. In recent years, no one else has managed 3 in succession.

Rowsus · 7 Feb 2021

Rucks

It's a probably a misnomer to use PIT60 scores for Rucks, as there have been a few years where there was no Rookie Ruck coverage.

It used to be a SC "rule", that Rucks never backed it up the next season. In the early part of the table, we can see that largely held true. Then, suddenly, in the last 3 seasons, they have become the most consistent and reliable line!
The question needs to be asked, do we revert to the old ways this season, and we see a new wave come through, or do the new, modern ways hold true? Answer that, and you have step 2 of your team selection completely sorted!

Rowsus · 7 Feb 2021

Forwards
The worst kept secret in SC in displayed nicely in this table. The best players to pick in your Fwd line are the ones that have been freshly granted M/F status. Preferably ones that aren't getting old, and have started playing more Fwd because they are getting too slow to play Mid only.

Rowsus · 7 Feb 2021

Mudflap said:

For the most part, the top 6 scored a little higher across the board in 2020. I think this fits expectations, as the better players were playing a higher TOG%, due to the shorter quarters.
While it was a worthwhile exercise to see the results, I think the only thing we can take from it, is that there will be a small correction at the top end, due to their TOG% likely dropping back to "normal" numbers.

gutsroy · 7 Feb 2021

Not really sure where to place this; it's clearly not on Rowsus's level in terms of advice, more just looking something based on a post by Grainfedbeef in another thread to see if it makes sense. Feel free to move / delete as appropriate and apologies in advance in that case.

Paraphrasing a bit, the basic gist seemed to be that it is better to accept the outlay for the previous years' top scorers (so M1-M3, D1-D3, F1-F3, and I guess essentially R1, R2 given the gulf to the pack of late) all else being equal because if you lock them in, you get their production and can speculate on an (M4-M8) / (D4-D6) /(F4-F6) type from a larger pool of options losing enough value to be a cost-efficient upgrade target to fill out your squad rather than having placed all your eggs in the basket of very specific topliners having to experience a similar drop to become reachable.

Thought it would be interesting to have a look and see how this has panned out in recent years in a generalized (i.e. fast) way.

Only had 2015-2019 data, so it's not all-encompassing, but in terms of ranks year to year, plotting the rank of the top 30 scorers from year n (I didn't have full position data across the years, so I couldn't just take F1 - F6 etc. without doing that manually) vs their rank in year (n+1) - and omitting players who had no value change over rds 1-13 of the following season (reasoning: simply applied screen for long-term injury), what it looked like was as shown below.

The % of players from the top 10 retaining that status the following year wasn't that high, around the 25% mark.
The % of players from the band (11-20) retaining their rank in that band or pushing into the top 10 was considerably higher.
(The rank data were based purely on yearly starting price with no manual adjustments for injury discount, i.e. they're not perfect.)

Then had a look at price differentials in year (n+1) for players based on rank in year n:
The price differential was based on (minimum price reached between rd 1 and rd 13 in year (n+1), based on the reasoning that coaches would look to bring the player in at their base price over that run in an ideal world and would ideally look to complete their side by rd 14-odd.
The result is below for bands (1-10), (11-20), (21-30). Ignore the regression line in quantitative terms, I just wanted to see in terms of +/-.)
It looked like there was a pretty reasonable chance of a player in the (1-10) tier shedding 140k+, certainly higher than in the other bands.
But in general, there were significant numbers of players in bands (11-20) and (21-30) shedding something in the 100-150k range.

Here, you see the average result across the years per rank (again, some higher losses amongst ranks 1-10) - I guess it's noticeable that the spread is higher in the top band, but that's logical enough, it's basically just the price formula equivalent of gravity:

Same thing in % terms, some higher % drops / larger spread for the top band:

Looking at the average price differential, that top band overall sheds value at an above average rate (but to be honest, not quite as markedly as I would have thought / hoped). You can see a number of bars clearly above the average in the band 1-10.

Then had a quick look at the scoring output in year n+1 of players by rank in year n (again, banded, so 1-10, 11-20, 21-30 etc.)
It was interesting that the top 10 from year n overall seemed to produced slightly less scores in the 115+ range than players in the band (11-20), but ideally captainable scores at a much higher clip in year n+1 (around 40% more often in relative terms). Both bands gapped the rest of the field on that front (I guess, as expected), bands 21-30, 31-40 and 41-50 are a fair bit behind the top 20.

There are a lot of factors not accounted for here (also things like the change back to longer quarters, or changes in other rules like kicking in etc.), but for me at first blush based on a really simplified look:

(i) The loss of value of the topliners was there but was not as pronounced compared to the next tiers as I would have thought
(ii) The topliners did tend to yield a higher % of topline captainable scores (which I guess is the argument many use - you're not buying one of them, you're buying two).
(iii) It is definitely possible to pick up fallen topliners at a good discount, the trick is knowing which ones, I guess...
(iv) To do this more properly, you'd have to look at stuff like average score as a % of top score in the line to see rate of drop-off, pool of hopefuls for those M3-M8 type spots etc.

Might have missed something / have plenty of flaws in the thinking, so grain of salt etc., but figured this would be a place where folks might be able to point out flaws etc. Either way, was good Spotfire practice for an hour or so an a more interesting topic than work applications.

GrainFedBeef · 7 Feb 2021

gutsroy said:

Gutsroy - this is impressive stuff and probably above my pay grade to fully comprehend all the working (read I am not smart enough to interpret all the data!).

Couple of thoughts here if Rowsus is reviewing this:

1) I did some simple return on invested capital calculation comparing GnR teams and then including midpricers. Clearly the midpricer can lift the ROIC early in the season as they will give a better yield than a real premium, however, if the mid pricer was not a keeper then the ROIC fell behind over time given the trade needed (as that trade can be used to generate greater gains during the season). If the mid pricer failed it was very detrimental to the final team ROIC. ROIC is just points yielded as a % of investment.

2) It works best the more $$ you put into few players, hence picking the most expensive premiums.

3). The real life side now kicks in. It does require the premium to give an expected yield and not drop off. So I do take into consideration Rowsus like #10104 where not all players back up.

4) It does need the necessary rookies to fill the remaining slots.

5). To point 3, picking the 2nd tier of premiums if we assume for instance that D5/6 could easily be 5-6 players, I target the one that has an injury during the year with a low score, dragging down their value. Whitfield, Stewart in 2020 fit this parameters, long term history and one off injury that would impact scoring once back. Duncan in the mids was so/so, doesn't have quite the history and hence saw a role change post injury I think (partly due to compressed schedule).

On point 5, this is why it is dangerous when picking your starting side it is flawed to target someone who will be an M8. There will likely be some injured player who you can pick up during the season for that role sub $500k. I would like to take credit for this, however, Rowsus pointed out this several years back.

Good to see point 1 and 2 held up about premiums generally holding up. Having read exactly 10104 posts by Rowsus over time (LOL) I do follow many of his workings such as being mindful of players who have had 20 point jump ups (think from below 102 prior year).

Such as, looking at the post above for defender, Laird, Lloyd met the definition of a starting team member as they have some longevity in top tier and I cannot see a change of role for them that is negative.

Note my focus is league so I am aiming to have highest scoring team over last 4 weeks. Hope this helps the discussion and thanks for the charts.

KittleIsGOAT · 7 Feb 2021

Hey mate - new to AFL SC this year. Just wondering if there are any fallen premium guns that are all but must haves.... and which guys are most likely to bounce back & be a lot better than last year? Cheers

Jurn Stern · 7 Feb 2021

wogitalia said:

Thanks for getting back to me in some good detail, I always like to understand how different people approach picking players, cheers.

I guess for the crux of my question I should have removed any player names, because it’s more about the concept than the individual cases that we talked about. I will show my working for the examples to see if it makes sense, or just sense in my brain. N.B. for the sake of simplicity, I will be making price guesstimates rather than using precise numbers.

The dream is that each premium upgrade will be using two rookies, both who have near maxed out their price (say $300k for a 60 ave rookie) to go one down (to a new $123k rookie) and one up (to in this case, a max $477k premium). Using this model, the 1 up and 1 down strategy is already looking slightly fanciful, as even though we do get some players who score sub-10 in a game a drop below that $477k mark, I’d say most of us have approximately $500-550k as a premium target in mind when we are looking to make upgrades (we need almost $340k maxed price per rookie to afford $550k in a 1 up, 1 down). So let’s say we are getting $340k from our rookies (70 ave), and we’ll start with 6 rookies (for now).

—————— UPGRADE WEEK 1 ——————

TEAM A: With 1 down, you get $217k in the bank, allowing you to go 1 up to a $557k premium ($217k+$340k). Great work Team A for adding premiums to your side, you should be hoping for a 110 average from that player.
460 points for the round for you.

TEAM B: You could also go 2 down with your trades, and get $434k in the bank. No added premiums for you this week.
Still 420 points this round.

—————— UPGRADE WEEK 2 ——————

TEAM A: You know the drill. 1 up, 1 down. You’ve now added two premiums to your squad. On ya!
500 points, nicely done.

TEAM B: You use one of your trades to put that bank to work, and afford an ultra premium up to the value of $774k (no players are priced this highly), and you’d be hoping for 150 points a week at this crazy price. You use your additional trade to send another of your $340k rookies down, and bank $217k cash.
500 points for you.

—————— UPGRADE WEEK 3 ——————

TEAM A: 1 up, 1 down.
You’ve turned six rookies, into three premiums and three rookies in your squad. 540 points a round.

TEAM B: You’re now on the 2 down, 1 up cycle. You sent 1 down last week, so you only need 1 more this week to free up enough upgrade cash. With 1 down, you get back up to $434k in the bank, allowing you to go 1 up to a $774k premium.
You’ve turned six rookies into two ultra premium players and four rookies. 580 points a round for you.

——————————

Now, these are over simplifications. No one has ever played a full season and averaged 150ppg. It’s much more likely these ultra premiums we’d be targeting are the 130+ average types, just leaving extra cash in the bank. It’s also unlikely that many rookies are reaching the $340k mark by the time you look to move them on.

I was trying to (and am still trying to) understand if there is any real value added, starting ultra premiums with the reason that you’ll end up using a 2 down, 1 up to get them. That’s the Team A mindset, we’ve started the ultra premiums and can enjoy 1 up, 1 down.

It’s worth remembering that if you feel 1 up, 1 down is the right way to go, then you likely started with not just the 6 rookies we mentioned to start the example, but an extra 2 ultra premiums and 1 more rookie. You are starting the must have ultra premiums to enable 1 up, 1 down.

So that would mean your opponent (Team B), is starting with 6 rookies and 3 premiums. They used the money at the start to have more premiums in their starting squad.

Now for the disclaimer part. These numbers clearly aren’t real. Rookies rarely go from $123k to $340k, ultra premiums don’t average 150 and don’t cost $774k. I’m just simply exploring the concept of why using more than just two trades to reach an ultra premium is bad. I don’t think it‘s bad to use more than two trades to get a player, and I don’t think it’s bad to start those ultra premiums. I don’t think that there is 1 correct answer now, only with the hindsight we’ll have at the end of 2021.

My closing point on the whole Gawn vs Preuss thing is this: both are right in the different eyes, and both are wrong in different eyes. I’m starting on with Preuss and without Gawn, as I believe Pruess will be a great mid-pricer, and Gawn will come down a lot in price. Others believe Gawn will hover around the same price, be the best captain option all year, and Preuss will fail. I don’t think the Gawn people are wrong for their thinking, nor do I think the Preuss people are, just different, but it’s fun to work through these problems with a lot of like minded people.

Now, Rowsus, turn all this into something incredibly useful and we’ll all be very thankful haha

Darkie · 7 Feb 2021

Fantastic discussion above, and loving the stats work both from Rowsus and others!!

wogitalia · 7 Feb 2021

gutsroy said:

Magnificent post!

Jurn Stern said:

Top stuff. I actually think 1 up 1 down is mostly an unrealistic pipe dream, 2.3 trades per upgrade is around the ball park and even then it's difficult and requires a lot of luck elsewhere. Say for example the LTI that you cop is late or out of game on a peak priced player that enables you to generate cash from it, as opposed to early in the game doing the opposite, that's the kind of little thing that can shape seasons.

I think the Preuss vs Gawn thing is a weird misdirection. Ultimately that discussion is Preuss vs other rookies and whether you can spend his 180k premium on other rookies in a better way. I don't think Preuss is a midprice pick, he's a pure cash cow with only an absolute pipe dream scenario of being a keeper (Preuss 110+ and all of Grundy, Gawn, Goldy, NicNat, ROB, English et al <115).

Preuss at 95 is a 123k rookie at 61. Their onfield values are equal here assuming you use the 180k to match the 34 points it's worth. Does that 180k allow you to do more? Is Preuss JS and role worth paying a premium (no different to a Rowell or Anderson last year who had a premium).

Ultimately it's all about valuations. If you think Gawn is a 120 guy, I don't think there is any real case for starting him. If you think he's a 130+ guy, then captaincy value and the difficulty that trading for him entails, presents value to o***et the drop he will still have. Gawn at 700k would still be a genuine obstacle. This goes for all picks. If you think Heppell will average 100, you should pick him, if you think he will average 90 I think it would take a very weak rookie class to justify it. Harmes at 100 would be a lock, at 85 it's a nothing pick. Ziebell at 85 is a good pick, at 95 he's a lock and at 75 he's out.

Cricket98 · 7 Feb 2021

Hi Rowsus,

Would love your thoughts on the mids that you're looking at in the sub 600k range. I personally am planning on going M1/2 Macrae & Oliver, and then M3-4-5 "value" options. (Cripps, TKelly, Taranto etc.) Would also love to hear your thoughts on TKelly coming into 2021, as I remember you being very big on him coming into 2020, and put some very compelling arguments/statistics forward about him. Looking forward to your insight over the next few weeks

Mr Young · 7 Feb 2021

Far out gutsroy. I need a good night's sleep and then a lie down before going through those graphs but I see the data is strong with you.

Impressive.

KLo30 · 7 Feb 2021

gutsroy said:

Not really sure where to place this; it's clearly not on Rowsus's level in terms of advice, more just looking something based on a post by Grainfedbeef in another thread to see if it makes sense. Feel free to move / delete as appropriate and apologies in advance in that case.

Paraphrasing a bit, the basic gist seemed to be that it is better to accept the outlay for the previous years' top scorers (so M1-M3, D1-D3, F1-F3, and I guess essentially R1, R2 given the gulf to the pack of late) all else being equal because if you lock them in, you get their production and can speculate on an (M4-M8) / (D4-D6) /(F4-F6) type from a larger pool of options losing enough value to be a cost-efficient upgrade target to fill out your squad rather than having placed all your eggs in the basket of very specific topliners having to experience a similar drop to become reachable.

Thought it would be interesting to have a look and see how this has panned out in recent years in a generalized (i.e. fast) way.

Only had 2015-2019 data, so it's not all-encompassing, but in terms of ranks year to year, plotting the rank of the top 30 scorers from year n (I didn't have full position data across the years, so I couldn't just take F1 - F6 etc. without doing that manually) vs their rank in year (n+1) - and omitting players who had no value change over rds 1-13 of the following season (reasoning: simply applied screen for long-term injury), what it looked like was as shown below.

The % of players from the top 10 retaining that status the following year wasn't that high, around the 25% mark.
The % of players from the band (11-20) retaining their rank in that band or pushing into the top 10 was considerably higher.
(The rank data were based purely on yearly starting price with no manual adjustments for injury discount, i.e. they're not perfect.)
View attachment 25918
Then had a look at price differentials in year (n+1) for players based on rank in year n:
The price differential was based on (minimum price reached between rd 1 and rd 13 in year (n+1), based on the reasoning that coaches would look to bring the player in at their base price over that run in an ideal world and would ideally look to complete their side by rd 14-odd.
The result is below for bands (1-10), (11-20), (21-30). Ignore the regression line in quantitative terms, I just wanted to see in terms of +/-.)
It looked like there was a pretty reasonable chance of a player in the (1-10) tier shedding 140k+, certainly higher than in the other bands.
But in general, there were significant numbers of players in bands (11-20) and (21-30) shedding something in the 100-150k range.
View attachment 25920

Here, you see the average result across the years per rank (again, some higher losses amongst ranks 1-10) - I guess it's noticeable that the spread is higher in the top band, but that's logical enough, it's basically just the price formula equivalent of gravity:
View attachment 25919
Same thing in % terms, some higher % drops / larger spread for the top band:
View attachment 25924

Looking at the average price differential, that top band overall sheds value at an above average rate (but to be honest, not quite as markedly as I would have thought / hoped). You can see a number of bars clearly above the average in the band 1-10.
View attachment 25921

Then had a quick look at the scoring output in year n+1 of players by rank in year n (again, banded, so 1-10, 11-20, 21-30 etc.)
It was interesting that the top 10 from year n overall seemed to produced slightly less scores in the 115+ range than players in the band (11-20), but ideally captainable scores at a much higher clip in year n+1 (around 40% more often in relative terms). Both bands gapped the rest of the field on that front (I guess, as expected), bands 21-30, 31-40 and 41-50 are a fair bit behind the top 20.
View attachment 25923

There are a lot of factors not accounted for here (also things like the change back to longer quarters, or changes in other rules like kicking in etc.), but for me at first blush based on a really simplified look:

(i) The loss of value of the topliners was there but was not as pronounced compared to the next tiers as I would have thought
(ii) The topliners did tend to yield a higher % of topline captainable scores (which I guess is the argument many use - you're not buying one of them, you're buying two).
(iii) It is definitely possible to pick up fallen topliners at a good discount, the trick is knowing which ones, I guess...
(iv) To do this more properly, you'd have to look at stuff like average score as a % of top score in the line to see rate of drop-off, pool of hopefuls for those M3-M8 type spots etc.

Might have missed something / have plenty of flaws in the thinking, so grain of salt etc., but figured this would be a place where folks might be able to point out flaws etc. Either way, was good Spotfire practice for an hour or so an a more interesting topic than work applications.

Great stuff!

A great compliment and/or addition to this https://supercoachscores.com/thread...last-years-points-to-predict-the-future.2065/

Rowsus · 8 Feb 2021

@Mudflap all 5 sections to your question have been updated now.
Posts #10104 to #10108

Rowsus · 8 Feb 2021

froffershanners said:

Hi froffer, thanks for the good words.
The stats don't back up Ryan playing a lockdown role last season, but they do indicate he stayed closer to home (less inside 50's last season). His Disp average was higher than in 2018, and if you make allowances for shorter quarters in 2020, he actually had career high disposals. 2019 ave 20.4, 2020 ave 18.6. I don't see those players coming back making much difference to him at all.
The key to Ryan seems to be winning and/or playing at home or neutral venues.
Career ave wins 110, Career ave losses 84, 2020 ave wins 115, 2020 ave losses 102.
Career ave home 98, career ave neutral 99, career ave away 86, 2020 H 121, N 104, A 85
Fremantles record last year was Home 3 wins, 4 losses, Neutral 4 wins, 3 losses, Away 0 wins, 3 losses.
Fremantle only played 3 "true" away games last season, and he averaged 85 in them. IF the Draw holds up this season, he will be playing a lot more away games in 2021. I think he's likely to be a streaky player this season, where he'll have stretches of higher averages, and stretches of lower averages, all dependent on how Fremantle are travelling.

froffershanners said:

Adams in the last 3 seasons has averaged 117 without Treloar, and 96 with Treloar.
The big thing you need to watch with Adams, is that he has only played 46 of a possible 61 games in that time!!!

froffershanners said:

I'm not sure how Dunkley's request to be traded at the end of last season has him sitting. We have no real way of knowing how that affects his head-space, or how the club see his role going into the future. The good thing is, he is available as a M/F this season, otherwise we wouldn't even consider him.
I do think Treloar will have some impact on Dunkley, but it's quite a safety net, being able to slot him in the Fwd's rather than the Mids. Looking at last season, and the Fwds who played 13 or more games: 6th best ave 101, 8th best ave 94, so if similar numbers occur this season, he should be an ok pick, even if you end up over paying for him a bit.

Jurn Stern · 8 Feb 2021

Question RE captain pick price

Every year we all aim to pick two captain options that we feel will be the two highest scoring players. They are usually two of the highest scoring (and most expensive) players from the prior year, and we are paying top dollar hoping that they maintain their average. This worked well with Grundy, Gawn, and Macrae for the past few years, Neale in 19/20, Titch in 17/18, Danger in 16/17/18.

This year though, we are seeing the two highest averaging options from 2020 (Gawn and Neale) being considered overpriced by approx 10 ppg (I’d assume that’s what most people think). There are a number of articles highlighting that the scaling distribution and total game time in 2020 resulted in higher scoring by top end players. This makes 2021 potential different to any other SC year when picking your starting squad.

With a reversion to more and longer games, is it a sound strategy to pay top dollar for your two captains, if you are assuming a 10 ppg drop?

Additional notes for my thinking. I’m assuming Gawn averages 128, Neale averages 123, Grundy averages 120, Macrae averages 118.

Opinion Questions For Rowsus

wogitalia

Rowsus

Statistician

Mudflap

Rowsus

Statistician

Rowsus

Statistician

Rowsus

Statistician

Rowsus

Statistician

Rowsus

Statistician

gutsroy

GrainFedBeef

KittleIsGOAT

Jurn Stern

Darkie

Leadership Group

wogitalia

Cricket98

Mr Young

KLo30

Leadership Group

Rowsus

Statistician

Rowsus

Statistician

Jurn Stern