Opinion Questions For Rowsus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
18 Sep 2014
Messages
848
Likes
493
AFL Club
Fremantle
The simple answer is yes. If you feel these are the two most reliable high scorers, then you pay premium on their price, and eat the value loss. Getting your Captain picks right is just that important! To say you don't want to pay the top dollar, means you are willing to compromise, on what is the first, and most important picks you make in your team.

I'll do a little exercise to demonstrate this point. I'll do it for 2019 and 2020.
Taking the 5 players with highest averages from the previous season, make the 10 possible combinations of two players.
We'll start with a budget of $1,500,000 and subtract the two players prices from that starting amount.
ie 2018 highest 2 averages were, and their 2019 opening prices $1,500,000 - Grundy $708,200 - Gawn $692,100 = $99,700.
So we have 10 "teams" of 2 players. We'll look at the first 8 Rounds of each season, and for each Round, the first player in the team to play that Round will be the VC, with the ability to take their score as C, if desired. We'll use 4 scoring levels as a trigger to take that VC score: 115, 120, 125, 130 and look at the result for all 10 teams, using those 4 trigger points. If the two players play against each other, the most expensive players is Captain. If a player misses a game, he will be replaced by the 6th highest averaging player from the previous season. To even out the the lower priced teams potential to score, we'll divide the remaining cash (ie. with Grundy/Gawn in 2019 the $99,700 shown above), by the MN for Rnd 1 of that season, and come up with the number of additional points each team will receive, based on how expensive their teams were. So the Grundy/Gawn combination in the 2019 table received an additional 18.4 points/Round, and the Neale/Fyfe comination (the 4th and 5th biggest averages from 2018) receive an additional 35.2 points/Round.
I hope that makes sense, sometimes I'm not good at explaining things.
So we have ten 2 players teams, and 4 VC trigger scores, that gives us 40 different results for each season.
The color blocking in the table is just to more easily show when combinations tied.

View attachment 26089

So we can see that the highest priced player (Grundy), and the 5th highest priced player (Cripps) when looped at 115, 120 & 125 points, totalled 3,306.7 points, compared to the worst combination of the 2nd highest (Gawn) and 4th highest player (Dangerfield) totalling 2,743.8 points. That's 509.6 points less, over a period of 8 Rounds. That's pretty enormous, when we are only considering the 5 highest priced players, and using only 2 of them!
The last 4 numbers in the table are what each loop trigger score totalled, across the 10 teams. Interestingly, the old traditional trigger score of 120 was the best performer, while the 130 trigger faired worst.

2020 gives us a similar result. The totals are a lot higher, given the higher scores recorded in 2020, and the difference between the top and the bottom combination is also larger.

View attachment 26090

Not unexpectedly, the Gawn/Neale combination was the top scorer, and scored the same, no matter which loop trigger score you used. This is due to them both posting so many 130+ scores. The Macrae/Fyfe combination, using the 125 & 130 trigger point fared worst, a whopping 735.3 behind Gawn/Neale!
The trigger points of 120, 125 & 130 were all very similar, once again, due to the number of really high scores recorded, while the 115 trigger point lagged behind, as you once again, might expect in a high scoring year.

The 2 tables demonstrate how crucial it is to get your starting Captain picks right. I really think the potential dollars lost mean next to nothing, if you are giving up 500 or 600 points across the first 8 Rounds.

It comes back to my old team selection process.
Start with your 2 or 3 Captain picks, and don't look at the price, as you just need to get it right!

As I said during the post, sometimes I'm not good at explaining things. If there is anything in here that doesn't make sense to anyone, please just ask, and I'll attempt to clarify it for you.
It makes total sense, and it’s probably what I’d been failing to comprehend fully in my early thoughts. The way you approached the answer was great too.

I guess I now boringly must pick Max Gawn. Bye Preuss, it was fun while it lasted.

Added this last bit in edit as I wanted to say this already one of my favourite posts of all time. Thanks again for you time and efforts.
 
Last edited:
Joined
21 Jan 2016
Messages
8,417
Likes
31,963
AFL Club
Collingwood
The simple answer is yes. If you feel these are the two most reliable high scorers, then you pay premium on their price, and eat the value loss. Getting your Captain picks right is just that important! To say you don't want to pay the top dollar, means you are willing to compromise, on what is the first, and most important picks you make in your team.

I'll do a little exercise to demonstrate this point. I'll do it for 2019 and 2020.
Taking the 5 players with highest averages from the previous season, make the 10 possible combinations of two players.
We'll start with a budget of $1,500,000 and subtract the two players prices from that starting amount.
ie 2018 highest 2 averages were, and their 2019 opening prices $1,500,000 - Grundy $708,200 - Gawn $692,100 = $99,700.
So we have 10 "teams" of 2 players. We'll look at the first 8 Rounds of each season, and for each Round, the first player in the team to play that Round will be the VC, with the ability to take their score as C, if desired. We'll use 4 scoring levels as a trigger to take that VC score: 115, 120, 125, 130 and look at the result for all 10 teams, using those 4 trigger points. If the two players play against each other, the most expensive players is Captain. If a player misses a game, he will be replaced by the 6th highest averaging player from the previous season. To even out the the lower priced teams potential to score, we'll divide the remaining cash (ie. with Grundy/Gawn in 2019 the $99,700 shown above), by the MN for Rnd 1 of that season, and come up with the number of additional points each team will receive, based on how expensive their teams were. So the Grundy/Gawn combination in the 2019 table received an additional 18.4 points/Round, and the Neale/Fyfe comination (the 4th and 5th biggest averages from 2018) receive an additional 35.2 points/Round.
I hope that makes sense, sometimes I'm not good at explaining things.
So we have ten 2 players teams, and 4 VC trigger scores, that gives us 40 different results for each season.
The color blocking in the table is just to more easily show when combinations tied.

View attachment 26089

So we can see that the highest priced player (Grundy), and the 5th highest priced player (Cripps) when looped at 115, 120 & 125 points, totalled 3,306.7 points, compared to the worst combination of the 2nd highest (Gawn) and 4th highest player (Dangerfield) totalling 2,743.8 points. That's 509.6 points less, over a period of 8 Rounds. That's pretty enormous, when we are only considering the 5 highest priced players, and using only 2 of them!
The last 4 numbers in the table are what each loop trigger score totalled, across the 10 teams. Interestingly, the old traditional trigger score of 120 was the best performer, while the 130 trigger faired worst.

2020 gives us a similar result. The totals are a lot higher, given the higher scores recorded in 2020, and the difference between the top and the bottom combination is also larger.

View attachment 26090

Not unexpectedly, the Gawn/Neale combination was the top scorer, and scored the same, no matter which loop trigger score you used. This is due to them both posting so many 130+ scores. The Macrae/Fyfe combination, using the 125 & 130 trigger point fared worst, a whopping 735.3 behind Gawn/Neale!
The trigger points of 120, 125 & 130 were all very similar, once again, due to the number of really high scores recorded, while the 115 trigger point lagged behind, as you once again, might expect in a high scoring year.

The 2 tables demonstrate how crucial it is to get your starting Captain picks right. I really think the potential dollars lost mean next to nothing, if you are giving up 500 or 600 points across the first 8 Rounds.

It comes back to my old team selection process.
Start with your 2 or 3 Captain picks, and don't look at the price, as you just need to get it right!

As I said during the post, sometimes I'm not good at explaining things. If there is anything in here that doesn't make sense to anyone, please just ask, and I'll attempt to clarify it for you.
Love all your work Rowsus!

RE: "..... If there is anything in here that doesn't make sense to anyone, please just ask, and I'll attempt to clarify it for you........"

(The theory is that people are either left-brained or right-brained, meaning that one side of their brain is dominant. If you’re mostly analytical and methodical in your thinking, you’re said to be left-brained. If you tend to be more creative or artistic, you’re thought to be right-brained.)

I'm so far right-brained that stats just go over my head, so I rely on the summaries at the end of the stats, and you Rowsus summarise very well.
 
Joined
16 Jun 2013
Messages
5,465
Likes
11,297
AFL Club
Adelaide
Love all your work Rowsus!

RE: "..... If there is anything in here that doesn't make sense to anyone, please just ask, and I'll attempt to clarify it for you........"

(The theory is that people are either left-brained or right-brained, meaning that one side of their brain is dominant. If you’re mostly analytical and methodical in your thinking, you’re said to be left-brained. If you tend to be more creative or artistic, you’re thought to be right-brained.)

I'm so far right-brained that stats just go over my head, so I rely on the summaries at the end of the stats, and you Rowsus summarise very well.
What sort of brain do you have if methodical and creative?
 
Joined
24 Mar 2015
Messages
4,154
Likes
14,751
AFL Club
North Melb.
That post back there @Rowsus on picking captains was just outstanding. I've wondered often what the points difference is actually like but have never crunched the numbers, or even settled on a decent methodology that takes into account the variables (starting cost/VC cutoff etc).

It shows more than anything how important it is to get those picks right and from R1, as you are never making those 500pts back: The midprice options that may net you (best case) 100k more team value from R10 onwards would only translate into 200 more points from there to the end, which doesn't catch you up if those midpricers have compromised your captain's picks.
 

Darkie

Leadership Group
Joined
12 Apr 2014
Messages
25,401
Likes
65,467
AFL Club
Collingwood
Outstanding stuff @Rowsus, that’s an amazing post on the importance of the captaincy!

One thing that I took from it that might be worth mentioning: the key thing this tells me is that it is critical to get your captain options right.

That’s not the same as stumping up for the top two players in the comp, necessarily.

In 2020, picking players 1 and 2 over players 4 and 5 would have netted you 23 points with most cuto***, or actually cost you 46 points with a 115 cutoff.

In 2019, picking players 1 and 2 would have scored you very close to 3140 depending on cutoff, with 4 and 5 scoring you 3130, 3090 or 3010. The gap is around 10, 50, 130 or 130 points.

Most of those gaps are fairly small in the scheme of the broader range of scores generated.

In both cases there were much better combos than number 1 and 2 - by 160 points in 2019, and 260 points in 2020.

To me the key conclusion here is not to pick the dearest players so that you have good captain options, but that you can comfortably afford to pay a bit more for the players you view as the best captain options for the upcoming season.

I currently have number 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 (Gawn, Neale, Oliver, Macrae and Grundy), so hopefully that combo gets it done! 🙂
 
Joined
18 Jul 2016
Messages
3,770
Likes
26,259
AFL Club
Sydney
The simple answer is yes. If you feel these are the two most reliable high scorers, then you pay premium on their price, and eat the value loss. Getting your Captain picks right is just that important! To say you don't want to pay the top dollar, means you are willing to compromise, on what is the first, and most important picks you make in your team.

I'll do a little exercise to demonstrate this point. I'll do it for 2019 and 2020.
Taking the 5 players with highest averages from the previous season, make the 10 possible combinations of two players.
We'll start with a budget of $1,500,000 and subtract the two players prices from that starting amount.
ie 2018 highest 2 averages were, and their 2019 opening prices $1,500,000 - Grundy $708,200 - Gawn $692,100 = $99,700.
So we have 10 "teams" of 2 players. We'll look at the first 8 Rounds of each season, and for each Round, the first player in the team to play that Round will be the VC, with the ability to take their score as C, if desired. We'll use 4 scoring levels as a trigger to take that VC score: 115, 120, 125, 130 and look at the result for all 10 teams, using those 4 trigger points. If the two players play against each other, the most expensive players is Captain. If a player misses a game, he will be replaced by the 6th highest averaging player from the previous season. To even out the the lower priced teams potential to score, we'll divide the remaining cash (ie. with Grundy/Gawn in 2019 the $99,700 shown above), by the MN for Rnd 1 of that season, and come up with the number of additional points each team will receive, based on how expensive their teams were. So the Grundy/Gawn combination in the 2019 table received an additional 18.4 points/Round, and the Neale/Fyfe comination (the 4th and 5th biggest averages from 2018) receive an additional 35.2 points/Round.
I hope that makes sense, sometimes I'm not good at explaining things.
So we have ten 2 players teams, and 4 VC trigger scores, that gives us 40 different results for each season.
The color blocking in the table is just to more easily show when combinations tied.

View attachment 26089

So we can see that the highest priced player (Grundy), and the 5th highest priced player (Cripps) when looped at 115, 120 & 125 points, totalled 3,306.7 points, compared to the worst combination of the 2nd highest (Gawn) and 4th highest player (Dangerfield) totalling 2,743.8 points. That's 509.6 points less, over a period of 8 Rounds. That's pretty enormous, when we are only considering the 5 highest priced players, and using only 2 of them!
The last 4 numbers in the table are what each loop trigger score totalled, across the 10 teams. Interestingly, the old traditional trigger score of 120 was the best performer, while the 130 trigger faired worst.

2020 gives us a similar result. The totals are a lot higher, given the higher scores recorded in 2020, and the difference between the top and the bottom combination is also larger.

View attachment 26090

Not unexpectedly, the Gawn/Neale combination was the top scorer, and scored the same, no matter which loop trigger score you used. This is due to them both posting so many 130+ scores. The Macrae/Fyfe combination, using the 125 & 130 trigger point fared worst, a whopping 735.3 behind Gawn/Neale!
The trigger points of 120, 125 & 130 were all very similar, once again, due to the number of really high scores recorded, while the 115 trigger point lagged behind, as you once again, might expect in a high scoring year.

The 2 tables demonstrate how crucial it is to get your starting Captain picks right. I really think the potential dollars lost mean next to nothing, if you are giving up 500 or 600 points across the first 8 Rounds.

It comes back to my old team selection process.
Start with your 2 or 3 Captain picks, and don't look at the price, as you just need to get it right!

As I said during the post, sometimes I'm not good at explaining things. If there is anything in here that doesn't make sense to anyone, please just ask, and I'll attempt to clarify it for you.
I liked the post already but this one deserves an extra level of awesome post reinforcement :)

It highlights how important the captains are but also highlights just how important it is to get the picks right, which is absolutely the harder part.

The difficulty in picking them is probably why you risk the fall on more than just two quite commonly. This year I'm finding my side consistently has Gawn, Neale, Grundy and an Oliver/Steele/Petracca/Macrae (sometimes two) in there. I also still consider Cripps an option as I wouldn't be picking him if I didn't think he bounces back and if he bounces back he's a captain option!

The value is bad to terrible on all those picks (except Cripps) but that's where I'd throw my blanket if trying to pick the top 2 scorers this season. With a Jelly/Fyfe/Titch side blanket if they stayed fit.
 
Joined
12 Jan 2014
Messages
3,760
Likes
11,757
AFL Club
West Coast
The simple answer is yes. If you feel these are the two most reliable high scorers, then you pay premium on their price, and eat the value loss. Getting your Captain picks right is just that important! To say you don't want to pay the top dollar, means you are willing to compromise, on what is the first, and most important picks you make in your team.

I'll do a little exercise to demonstrate this point. I'll do it for 2019 and 2020.
Taking the 5 players with highest averages from the previous season, make the 10 possible combinations of two players.
We'll start with a budget of $1,500,000 and subtract the two players prices from that starting amount.
ie 2018 highest 2 averages were, and their 2019 opening prices $1,500,000 - Grundy $708,200 - Gawn $692,100 = $99,700.
So we have 10 "teams" of 2 players. We'll look at the first 8 Rounds of each season, and for each Round, the first player in the team to play that Round will be the VC, with the ability to take their score as C, if desired. We'll use 4 scoring levels as a trigger to take that VC score: 115, 120, 125, 130 and look at the result for all 10 teams, using those 4 trigger points. If the two players play against each other, the most expensive players is Captain. If a player misses a game, he will be replaced by the 6th highest averaging player from the previous season. To even out the the lower priced teams potential to score, we'll divide the remaining cash (ie. with Grundy/Gawn in 2019 the $99,700 shown above), by the MN for Rnd 1 of that season, and come up with the number of additional points each team will receive, based on how expensive their teams were. So the Grundy/Gawn combination in the 2019 table received an additional 18.4 points/Round, and the Neale/Fyfe comination (the 4th and 5th biggest averages from 2018) receive an additional 35.2 points/Round.
I hope that makes sense, sometimes I'm not good at explaining things.
So we have ten 2 players teams, and 4 VC trigger scores, that gives us 40 different results for each season.
The color blocking in the table is just to more easily show when combinations tied.

View attachment 26089

So we can see that the highest priced player (Grundy), and the 5th highest priced player (Cripps) when looped at 115, 120 & 125 points, totalled 3,306.7 points, compared to the worst combination of the 2nd highest (Gawn) and 4th highest player (Dangerfield) totalling 2,743.8 points. That's 509.6 points less, over a period of 8 Rounds. That's pretty enormous, when we are only considering the 5 highest priced players, and using only 2 of them!
The last 4 numbers in the table are what each loop trigger score totalled, across the 10 teams. Interestingly, the old traditional trigger score of 120 was the best performer, while the 130 trigger faired worst.

2020 gives us a similar result. The totals are a lot higher, given the higher scores recorded in 2020, and the difference between the top and the bottom combination is also larger.

View attachment 26090

Not unexpectedly, the Gawn/Neale combination was the top scorer, and scored the same, no matter which loop trigger score you used. This is due to them both posting so many 130+ scores. The Macrae/Fyfe combination, using the 125 & 130 trigger point fared worst, a whopping 735.3 behind Gawn/Neale!
The trigger points of 120, 125 & 130 were all very similar, once again, due to the number of really high scores recorded, while the 115 trigger point lagged behind, as you once again, might expect in a high scoring year.

The 2 tables demonstrate how crucial it is to get your starting Captain picks right. I really think the potential dollars lost mean next to nothing, if you are giving up 500 or 600 points across the first 8 Rounds.

It comes back to my old team selection process.
Start with your 2 or 3 Captain picks, and don't look at the price, as you just need to get it right!

As I said during the post, sometimes I'm not good at explaining things. If there is anything in here that doesn't make sense to anyone, please just ask, and I'll attempt to clarify it for you.
Hi @Rowsus .Great post. Could I put to you that my take away from your post was how important it is to have the right "second fiddle" to the top premium scorers. In 2019 just having 1 and 2 wasn't enough. The key was having Cripps. Without Cripps the best ranking you could get was 8th and possibly 13th if you did not have premo number 3. In 2020 the situation was the same. No Neale means your best chance of a rank was 8th and immediately you are over 200pts behind the top ranking combo.

So for mine getting 1 and 2 is step one of the process. Starting or bringing in that premo that is going gang busters is the critical second step.

Hope that makes sense.
 
Joined
18 Mar 2012
Messages
2,908
Likes
2,565
AFL Club
Essendon
Happy 2021 old mate !
Just a quick one and its not the normal preseason question :p , when looking for breakout players or just players to go up another gear do you look for the 5th season or the 100 games played bracket or age ? which one is more important then the other if any ?
 

Rowsus

Statistician
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Messages
29,130
Likes
64,893
AFL Club
Melbourne
Happy 2021 old mate !
Just a quick one and its not the normal preseason question :p , when looking for breakout players or just players to go up another gear do you look for the 5th season or the 100 games played bracket or age ? which one is more important then the other if any ?
Hey buddy, welcome back.
I look for a player to have several of these, but not necessarily all of them.
Already shown the ability to post scores at or above the level you want them to achieve.
An improved role, through list changes and or injuries.
Has played in the 40 to 90 game area, though some do achieve it outside this area.
3rd, 4th or 5th season player.
Preferably from a team in the lower part of the ladder, but that team appears to be moving up.
Wasn't a mature age recruit. They find their level a bit quicker than young players.
Already has a decent score "supplement" from one or more of Tackles, CPR, Goals etc. the things that help bump scores.
Has room to improve TOG%, quite often their SC/100%TOG is already ok, they just need more TOG.
Doesn't already have a concerning injury history.
 

Diabolical

Leadership Group
Joined
17 Jun 2014
Messages
9,613
Likes
37,696
AFL Club
Essendon
Hej Rowsus,

I hope this finds you well and that weather is starting to turn a bit warmer for you at this time of year.

I would like to tap into your inner punter and find out when it may be time to bet against the masses.

I imagine that when choosing your captain and rookies, you just want the best available no matter how many teams they are in. However, I would like to know at what point would you bet against a popular player. Would the trigger ownership % to do this vary depending on the position in the team? For example would this be different for an M3 compared to a D1 or F1? Would it also be dependent on how many of the popular players you are already betting against in your starting team?

The non rookie highest ownerships >40% at present are:
Rowell 54%
Neale 53%
Lloyd 49%
Marshall 48%
Grundy 46%
Z Williams 42%
Laird 41%
As things stand, I currently only have two of them in my team, and I am wondering if I am being too POD, or should be more daring? I would appreciate your thoughts on this based on this years crop.

Mange tak
Diabolical

P.S. please excuse my attempted Danish!
 
Joined
4 Mar 2016
Messages
180
Likes
1,032
Hey buddy, welcome back.
I look for a player to have several of these, but not necessarily all of them.
Already shown the ability to post scores at or above the level you want them to achieve.
An improved role, through list changes and or injuries.
Has played in the 40 to 90 game area, though some do achieve it outside this area.
3rd, 4th or 5th season player.
Preferably from a team in the lower part of the ladder, but that team appears to be moving up.
Wasn't a mature age recruit. They find their level a bit quicker than young players.
Already has a decent score "supplement" from one or more of Tackles, CPR, Goals etc. the things that help bump scores.
Has room to improve TOG%, quite often their SC/100%TOG is already ok, they just need more TOG.
Doesn't already have a concerning injury history.
Hugh McCluggage (545k)
-9 scores 110+ last year, including a 131, 141, 155
-Zorko has said he'll play alot more forward and is coming into the twilight of his career, opening the door for more time inside.
-82 games, 5th season. Pick 3 in 2016 draft. 22 years old.
-In a good team that won't get a fixture gifted to them this year ://
-Durable, and has improved his SC average aswell as key statistics every season
-Kicked 7.20 in 2020, will hopefully return to accuracy closer to the 22.11 he kicked in 2019.
Averaged 113 from his first 5 in 2020, before getting injured twice in the Geelong game. From that point onwards he averaged 89.5, with his tackle numbers showing a dramatic decline.

Would love your thoughts on him. I'm not the type that generally likes to pick premium breakouts in the midfield but Clug ticks alot of boxes. Cheers
 

Rowsus

Statistician
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Messages
29,130
Likes
64,893
AFL Club
Melbourne
Hej Rowsus,

I hope this finds you well and that weather is starting to turn a bit warmer for you at this time of year.

I would like to tap into your inner punter and find out when it may be time to bet against the masses.

I imagine that when choosing your captain and rookies, you just want the best available no matter how many teams they are in. However, I would like to know at what point would you bet against a popular player. Would the trigger ownership % to do this vary depending on the position in the team? For example would this be different for an M3 compared to a D1 or F1? Would it also be dependent on how many of the popular players you are already betting against in your starting team?

The non rookie highest ownerships >40% at present are:
Rowell 54%
Neale 53%
Lloyd 49%
Marshall 48%
Grundy 46%
Z Williams 42%
Laird 41%
As things stand, I currently only have two of them in my team, and I am wondering if I am being too POD, or should be more daring? I would appreciate your thoughts on this based on this years crop.

Mange tak
Diabolical

P.S. please excuse my attempted Danish!
Hej Diabolical,
Du siger, at du forsøgte at skrive på danske, men jeg kan kunne se et ord! Et ord! Hold da kæft, mand. Hvis di forsøger at skrive dansk, kunne du i de mindste prove at skrive flere end et ord!!! :eek::p;)
(Hint, google translate will give you the gist, but google translate gives too literal a translation most of the time.)

The loose rule of thumb I uses is, if the players ownership % is higher than what I believe his chances of being a good pick are, I avoid him. I'm pretty tight on my definition, of a good pick, and very few players cross the 50% barrier, in my assessment as to them possibly being a good pick. You only have to see how many players look like good starting picks, when you look backwards at a season. It's a very small %, so people that hand out more than 4 or 5 "He's a 60+% chance of proving to be a good pick" are really being too generous, imo.
Remember, this what I think the chances of us reflecting back to Round 1, from Sept/Oct this year, of those players proving to be a pick, where I say, I'm happy I started him. For the most part, the players in your list would still want to be in my team at Round 23, to even be up for consideration as a good pick.

Rowell 54% - 20-25% - happy for his ownership % to rise for now, I won't touch him while he is 40% plus.
Neale 53% - 60% - in my team
Lloyd 49% - 52% - in my team, could fall out though
Marshall 48% - injured since you posted this.
Grundy 46% - 50% - currently in my team, but teetering on dropping out.
Z Williams 42% - 25% - can't be confident in him playing a 19/100 or 20+/98 season, which is what I think he needs to do.
Laird 41% - 52% - in my team.

So most of your list are currently in my team, not that that is any glowing endorsememnt. A couple of them could drop out, depending on how much more popular they become.
Everyone's assessment will be different of course. I challenge anyone who is handing out a number of 70 and 80% assessments, to write down your assessment for each of your starting non-Rookies, keep it somewhere safe, and look back on it at the end of the season, and see how you went!
 

Diabolical

Leadership Group
Joined
17 Jun 2014
Messages
9,613
Likes
37,696
AFL Club
Essendon
Hej Diabolical,
Du siger, at du forsøgte at skrive på danske, men jeg kan kunne se et ord! Et ord! Hold da kæft, mand. Hvis di forsøger at skrive dansk, kunne du i de mindste prove at skrive flere end et ord!!! :eek::p;)
(Hint, google translate will give you the gist, but google translate gives too literal a translation most of the time.)

The loose rule of thumb I uses is, if the players ownership % is higher than what I believe his chances of being a good pick are, I avoid him. I'm pretty tight on my definition, of a good pick, and very few players cross the 50% barrier, in my assessment as to them possibly being a good pick. You only have to see how many players look like good starting picks, when you look backwards at a season. It's a very small %, so people that hand out more than 4 or 5 "He's a 60+% chance of proving to be a good pick" are really being too generous, imo.
Remember, this what I think the chances of us reflecting back to Round 1, from Sept/Oct this year, of those players proving to be a pick, where I say, I'm happy I started him. For the most part, the players in your list would still want to be in my team at Round 23, to even be up for consideration as a good pick.

Rowell 54% - 20-25% - happy for his ownership % to rise for now, I won't touch him while he is 40% plus.
Neale 53% - 60% - in my team
Lloyd 49% - 52% - in my team, could fall out though
Marshall 48% - injured since you posted this.
Grundy 46% - 50% - currently in my team, but teetering on dropping out.
Z Williams 42% - 25% - can't be confident in him playing a 19/100 or 20+/98 season, which is what I think he needs to do.
Laird 41% - 52% - in my team.

So most of your list are currently in my team, not that that is any glowing endorsememnt. A couple of them could drop out, depending on how much more popular they become.
Everyone's assessment will be different of course. I challenge anyone who is handing out a number of 70 and 80% assessments, to write down your assessment for each of your starting non-Rookies, keep it somewhere safe, and look back on it at the end of the season, and see how you went!
Tak skal du have. Jeg sætter pris på at du tog dig tid til at besvare mit spørgsmål.

P.S. Jeg var stolt over, at jeg kendte et ord!
 

Rowsus

Statistician
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Messages
29,130
Likes
64,893
AFL Club
Melbourne
Hugh McCluggage (545k)
-9 scores 110+ last year, including a 131, 141, 155
-Zorko has said he'll play alot more forward and is coming into the twilight of his career, opening the door for more time inside.
-82 games, 5th season. Pick 3 in 2016 draft. 22 years old.
-In a good team that won't get a fixture gifted to them this year ://
-Durable, and has improved his SC average aswell as key statistics every season
-Kicked 7.20 in 2020, will hopefully return to accuracy closer to the 22.11 he kicked in 2019.
Averaged 113 from his first 5 in 2020, before getting injured twice in the Geelong game. From that point onwards he averaged 89.5, with his tackle numbers showing a dramatic decline.

Would love your thoughts on him. I'm not the type that generally likes to pick premium breakouts in the midfield but Clug ticks alot of boxes. Cheers
At $545k, if you are picking him, it should be with an assessment in mind, that you believe he's a very strong chance to finish M5/6 at the end of the season. Last season T Adams finished on 17/110 and was the 11th best PIT60 averaging Mid for the season. If this season goes along a similar line, it means you need McLuggage to be in that 110-112+ area for you to say, I did well picking him. If he falls in the 106-109 area, he probably fills a decent M8 for you, and you call it a draw. Anything 105 or lower, you probably made a loss. The problem also is, you don't want to be picking a player now, that you expect to be M7/8 at the end of the season.
If you think McLuggage can PIT60 110+, I say go for it. Even though he has only missed 1 game in the past 3 seasons, keep in mind, if he misses 2 games, he needs a 20/115 season to get a PIT60 of 110, and if he misses 3 games, he needs a 19/118 season to get there.
I can understand people taking a risk on him, but he's got a bit to do, in my books, to be considered to be a good pick in my book, so he won't be in my team. Having said that, I won't be floored, if it turns out he's this seasons Jack Steele.
Good luck.
 
Joined
1 Nov 2019
Messages
435
Likes
2,565
AFL Club
Richmond
Hi Rowsus,

I am not sure it has been discussed somewhere else - but how much to you value the effect of last year's short quarter PLUS the scaling mecanism ?

I believe we have observed a raise for most of the top player / premium which can be a direct consequence of this, and therefore there should be a correction ( 5,10,15,20 points?) on the top player's average, don't you think ?

I would like to find a way to approach it - is there a way to find the pre scaling scores from last year ?
Alternatively, do you think there is another way to do so ?
 

Darkie

Leadership Group
Joined
12 Apr 2014
Messages
25,401
Likes
65,467
AFL Club
Collingwood
Hi Rowsus,

I am not sure it has been discussed somewhere else - but how much to you value the effect of last year's short quarter PLUS the scaling mecanism ?

I believe we have observed a raise for most of the top player / premium which can be a direct consequence of this, and therefore there should be a correction ( 5,10,15,20 points?) on the top player's average, don't you think ?

I would like to find a way to approach it - is there a way to find the pre scaling scores from last year ?
Alternatively, do you think there is another way to do so ?
@Rowsus might have a better idea, but if you have Dream Team scores data, that would be one possibility. As you probably know, DT is purely based on perhaps 10 key stats, so if players have been scaled in SC, looking at their DT scores could help to strip this out, to the extent you wanted to do that.

You would need to adjust for reduced quarter lengths, which reduce a player’s number of raw stats (DT score) but do not change overall SC scores per game (because of the scaling mechanism).
 
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
3,146
Likes
3,903
AFL Club
Carlton
Hey Rows,

Hope all is well is this bizarre world we are living in at the moment.
My first question i have for this season is the Ruck strategy.
Whilst i would like Gawn as one of my first captain picks it chews up a lot of the budget.
I know we should expect to pay overs for our captains but i can’t help thinking he is way overs.
Are you currently running with Gawn ?
Or are you playing around with the ROB, English, Nankervis, McEvoy types? Not too mention Grundy.
Did Grundy just have a bad end to the year? Or is he on the downward slide.
With a plethora of defensive stocks I am contemplating McEvoy dpp in backline initially to see what eventuates in the Rucks a few games in. Just seeing what your thoughts are this year

cheers
 
Joined
22 Jun 2018
Messages
4,189
Likes
25,278
AFL Club
Essendon
What a great thread so full of good ideas.
One subject I have not seen is points value.
It looks like the scores are going to drop a bit this year. So does it matter if a Gawn or a Neale drops $80K or $100K if they are still the top scorers?
How much value is in the points?
What is the cost\value if someone can pick up one of these players $100K cheaper if they are are 300 or 400 points behind?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top