Analysis 2021: The Lachie Neale Conundrum

[Rowsus]

Roughly 50% of Coaches face a potentially season defining decision this week.
Hold Lachie Neale, cop a tremendous cash loss, and have faith that he turns it around.
Trade him now, before the price crash crash hits, and assess him later on, to see if he is worth trading back in.
While that sounds good, and black and white, there is an awful lot more grey in there, than those options portray. You can merely go by gut feel, which for most of you is simple to predict. If you're one that usually burns through trades like there is no tomorrow, you'll trade. If you value and horde your trades, you won't. You can call it gut feel if you like, but realistically, it is more following your usual trading patterns. The best predictor of future behavior, is past behavior!
When forced to make a tough decision like this in SC, you can either throw up your hands in frustration, and go with your first thought, which means you are about 90% likely to trade him out. Or, you can put a considered opinion in, as to what happens from here.
This thread is here to help those that are willing to put in a considered opinion, but are not sure what that opinion actually means.
Here's an example:

"I think Neale will continue to struggle a little for the next few Rounds, and maybe only average 90 in that period, but then I think he will get it back to 115 from that point of the season, until the end. Does mean trade or hold?!"

While history doesn't provide all the answers, it can help you set reasonable expectations.
How likely is Neale to bounce back to something worthwhile?
Let's look at recent seasons, to see what they suggest.

 

[Rowsus]

2020



The table above contains every player from the season 2020, that were priced over $500,000 at Round 1, or 92/game, that filled the following criteria. After Round 2 they had scored at 20% lower than what they were priced to, or 20+ points lower than what they were priced to.
Let's look at Macrae, and give some explanation.
Macrae started the season priced to 123.2
After Rnd 2 he scored a total of 196 points, and played 2 games.
This means he was scoring at 79.6% of what he was priced to score.
After Rnd 2 he played 15 games, and scored 1,861 points in those 15 games.
In those 15 games he scored at 100.7% of the 123.2 he was originally priced to score to.
Of the 16 players listed in the table, just looking at their averages, and not games played:
3 were disasters if you held them.
4 were disappointing.
9 bounced back to be ok holds.

 

[Rowsus]

2019



15 qualifiers in 2019.
6 disasters, 2 disappointing, 7 ok.

So across the 2 seasons we had 31 players that either or both dropped 20+% or 20+ points, on their expected scoring by Round 2, and then if you held them:
9 were disasters
6 were disappointing
16 bounced back ok.

 

[Rowsus]

Let's combine those 2 seasons (2019 = blue, 2020 = pink), but only look at the players priced at 105+ going into the season.



Now were getting a totally different picture.
12 players
2 disasters, 2 disappointing, 8 bounced back OK.
Interestingly enough, ALL the players priced to 110+ bounced back OK!!!

(It should be noted that what I call OK, and you call OK may differ.)

 

[Rowsus]

Now that we have looked at the history of players having a terrible 2 Round start, let's look at different scenarios for Neale from here.

Let me preface this by saying, if you think that there is no point in the season, that Neale will bounce back to 110+, from that point to the end, then reading this is a waste of time, and you should get him out of your team NOW!!!

One of the intangible things in analyses like these, is the concept of how well you spent the "loose change". Trade a $600k player down to $500k player, and you've got a $100k in loose change. How many points does that loose change produce? Conventionally, people say the MN will be around 5,100, so $100k in loose change will produce 100,000 / 5,100 = 19.6 points. I put to you this very rarely works out, and you are far better off being conservative. Mark your loose change at closer to $10,000/point, and in this example it will produce 10 points, and not 19.

There are an infinite different scenarios we could look at, but I'm going to limit this to 4.
The constant will be that you either trade Neale to Oliver, who will score at 115 from here, or you hold Neale.
Oliver $65,100 cheaper than Neale, so I'm going to allow 7 points/Round from that loose change, but you don't get to use it until Round 7.
So in all these scenarios, trading Neale to Oliver will mean that that place in your team will now score:
20 x 115 + 16 x 7 = 2,412 points from here.
I'm also going to value the early trade at 200 points. Some say 150, some say an early trade should be as much as 250.

 

[Rowsus]

Why is it important that we say Lachie Neale can bounce back to 110+?
Well, apart from the obvious, that actually happens to be tipping line.
Let's look at his season, and compare it to the Oliver + loose change, if he scores 110 in every game from here.



Neale scores 2,200 points from here, which is 212 points short of Oliver + LC. That's pretty much a line ball, toss of the coin decision, as to if it is worthwhile. I generally think line balls should be decided in the favour of "don't trade".
Those looking for Neale to get cheaper, and trade him back in, are looking at fools gold. Yes, they can trade him back in at say Round 10, and "save" $155,300, but they have used 2 trades to make that money, so they have only really profitted $77,650 per trade.

Net Results
Hold Neale = -212 points
Trade Neale out, he stays out = -1 trade + 212 points.
Trade Neale out, trade him back in = -2 trades + 147 points + $155,300

Why is it only +147 points?
Neale is back in your side now. There has only been 7 Rounds of Oliver outscoring Neale by 5 points, and 16 Rounds were your LC has made 7 points. You can't look at it as a whole season benefit, as you are not looking to upgrade this Round, but are forced to correct Neale instead.

It's also important to point out that the $155,300 is really only theoretical. You don't really pocket $155,300 as you have in essence used most of that "profit" when you traded in Oliver!

The trade Neale out, and back in scenario looks the worst, the other 2 are a toss up.

 

[Rowsus]

Let's say you think Neale will continue on below his usual level for a while longer, but then bounce back to something like his normal scoring.
You think he is underdone, and will only score at 90 from here for a number of Rounds, but then bounce back to 120/Round once he's match fit. How many Rounds of 90 can he have to reach the tipping point of around 2,200 points, and what happens to his price?



It turns out, that if you think this scenario applies, he can from a points only point of view have 6 Rounds of 90 from here, then revert to 120, and you are only 192 points behind Oliver + LC. You could trade him back in at Round 10, once you saw the 120 Round 9, and have made $223,300.

Net Results
Hold Neale = - 192 points
Trade Neale out, he stays out = -1 trade + 192 points
Trade Neale out, trade him back in = -2 trades + 257 points + $233,300

An argument could be made for all 3 scenarios. The last one looks best, but remember, this needs Neale to score at 90 for the next 6 weeks!!!!

 

[Rowsus]

Next scenario. You think Neale has turned a corner, but is not quite there yet. He will score at 100 for a number of Rounds, and because teams have figured him out, he will get to a stage where he can go at 115/Round. How many Rounds of 100 does he hhave, to reach the tipping point?



Turns out, the answer is he can have 6 scores of 100, if he is only going to bounce back to 115 at some point. You could trade him back in after Round 9, and make $187,800.

Net Results
Hold Neale = -202 points
Trade Neale, he stays out = -1 trade + 202 points
Trade Neale out, trade Neale back in again = -2 trades + 202 points + $187,800

 

[Rowsus]

Last scenario. You think Neale will eventually hit a point where he scores at 125 for the rest of the season. How many weeks at what lower score can he have to reach the tipping point?



It turns out he can have 6 more Rounds of 77, if he is going to bounce back to 125 again. You could trade him back in in Round 9, after his first 125 point, for a (theoretical) profit of $270,200.

Net Results
Hold Neale = -200 points
Trade Neale, he stays out = -1 trade + 200 points
Trade Neale out, trade him back in = - 2 trades + 330 points + $270,200

If you think this scenario looks realistic (it doesn't to me), the 3rd option wins hands down, as you trading in a 125 point player for only $451,600!!!

 

[Rowsus]

In summary, for those looking to trade Neale out, then potentially back in, you have to remember, you don't bank the dollars in the price difference between trade out, and trade in. That is purely theoretical dollars, and most of that "profit" is eaten by the Prem you replace Neale with. The real "win" in using the out and back in scenario, is trading in a high scoring player, at a good price. The problem is, Neale needs to have sustained period of low scores, for that to be a real win.

There are a million different scenarios between the ones I have put above, but hopefully the ones above have given you an idea, of how the scenario in your head might play out.

I hope this has helped some of you in your tough decision this week.

Good luck, I hope you jump the right way!

 

[Blaze]

Great stuff Rowsus....i am one of those trigger happy traders and if i didn't have other holes Oliver for Neale would be on the cards. I am hoping the fact that i have other more pressing problems means i keep Neale (against my instincts) and he goes bang for a 125 average for the next 4 weeks before all you non owner circling sharks out there have enough cash gen to pounce! .....you know who you are!

Come on Lachie....you can do it!!

 

[madmunza]

Prepared to ride it out as I know I will only be trading him back again. Cripps on the other hand is gone.

 

[Leroy]

I think what this analysis also illustrates is that the trade in target is super important as well. You've got to nail a 110+ pick or you are essentially downgrading from 'rest of season' Neale in term of points!

If you can trade out Neale to someone plenty cheaper than Oliver who may average nearly as much then you can tilt the trade out scenario more to your favour. Brayshaw or Walsh would be the (risky) options I think, netting $180k loose change, but what do they go from here?

 

[jaca]

I’m looking forward to trading him in.

 

[N29]

Outstanding analysis @Rowsus

I've been trending towards keeping Neale but I think this solidifies that position.

I do expect him to bounce back barring injury, maybe not to 125ppg but definitely to 110ppg+.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

I think what this analysis also illustrates is that the trade in target is super important as well. You've got to nail a 110+ pick or you are essentially downgrading from 'rest of season' Neale in term of points!

If you can trade out Neale to someone plenty cheaper than Oliver who may average nearly as much then you can tilt the trade out scenario more to your favour. Brayshaw or Walsh would be the (risky) options I think, netting $180k loose change, but what do they go from here?

This is a good point. I think peoples tendency would be to target someone who has has a good start with 2 big scores. Using Brayshaw as an example, is it realistic to assume that he will continue to keep scoring at this rate or has he just had 2 of his bigger scores for the year and will his remaining scores be at a lower average than expected?

 

[Shannon]

@Rowsus

Much kudos, seriously impressive research

 

[Spifflicator]

We are not worthy Rowsus, thank you for such great work.

 

[Courtesans]

Great stuff Rowan. I have Neale, Cripps and Taranto. I will hold them..a gut feel, what I would usually do. Rather get the rookies I missed and fight another day. Trust your premiums (supposed) as the adage goes. Gez you, Wogi and many others give so much.

 

[MarkM]

Great stuff Rowsus. Although I disagree with one point (which I've also read other people make in similar situations), is that trading Neale out and then back in again costs you 2 trades. It really only costs you 1 trade, although it is a bit more complicated than that.

Take 2 teams with the exact same midfield:
Neale, X, X, X, X ....

Team A trades Neale to Oliver, while team B doesn't. In round 7, team A upgrades a rookie and gets Neale back into their team, while team B upgrades a rookie to Oliver. Both teams now have the exact same midfield again:
Neale, Oliver, X, X, X ....

Team A used 2 trades to get to this point, while team B used 1 trade. Now you could argue the point that team B was able to gather more data on whether or not Oliver was actually a good player to trade in, or the increased risk of having to make another trade if Oliver copped an injury/suspension. But the flip side of that is that team A was able to gather more data on whether Neale was a good player to trade back in, or having to trade Neale out anyway if HE copped an injury/suspension.

I don't have Neale, but I would probably only be trading him out if I was going to immediately use the money gained by downgrading to a cheaper premium to fix another problem in my team.