Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 2,924
- Likes
- 267
- AFL Club
- Bulldogs
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 6,825
- Likes
- 10,214
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Hi Rowsus
This Q & A has got me to thinking about the value of holding cash at the start of the season. From what I have read, the prevailing wisdom seems to be that it is wasteful to have any more than say $100k/$150k at the start as it should all be working on the ground. I also note in your answer re Danger above that trying to trade him in at about round 4/5 is too early as you would need to trade down another premium.
However, if someone were to expect Danger to fall in price by say $50k, would it make sense to hold some cash to complete this trade early? I have read various coaches on this site say that a trade is worth about $200k. If this is right, should we only think about holding cash for an early trade if we expect a player value to fall significantly (say, close to $200k)?
In this instance, it may not apply to Danger as you have RAMP showing him hold his value, however there are bound to be some instances where this concept may apply. What are your thoughts?
Thanks
This Q & A has got me to thinking about the value of holding cash at the start of the season. From what I have read, the prevailing wisdom seems to be that it is wasteful to have any more than say $100k/$150k at the start as it should all be working on the ground. I also note in your answer re Danger above that trying to trade him in at about round 4/5 is too early as you would need to trade down another premium.
However, if someone were to expect Danger to fall in price by say $50k, would it make sense to hold some cash to complete this trade early? I have read various coaches on this site say that a trade is worth about $200k. If this is right, should we only think about holding cash for an early trade if we expect a player value to fall significantly (say, close to $200k)?
In this instance, it may not apply to Danger as you have RAMP showing him hold his value, however there are bound to be some instances where this concept may apply. What are your thoughts?
Thanks
Hi RB,
Firstly on keeping cash. There is nothing wrong with keeping a little cash in reserve. It can help if one of the Rookies you chose early was just the wrong choice, and you need to bring in that higher priced Rookie that has started 95, 98 and has a super low B/E. If it turns out your Rookie choices are ok, the cash makes your first upgrade a bit easier.
The theory of spending as much as your money as you can, is right ...... in theory! You just have to be sure you're not spending the money for the sake of spending it. If you've filled your round 1 side, and have say $130k left, I think you are better to sit on that $130k, unless you think you can make at least a 20-25/week improvement to your side by spending it. The most common mistake in spending this money is turning a Rookie into a Karnezis, because you've convinced yourself he can score 80/week. 9 times out of 10, when you "upgrade" that Rookie to a $230-$300k player, you will regret it, and think later, "I just should have kept the cash!"
On keeping cash in the hope that a Premium will fall $200k quickly. The analogy of a trade = $200k is about right, I certainly wouldn't burn an early trade to get $50k. But look how hard it is for a player to drop $200k. We'll use Ablett as an example, as the higher the Price, the bigger the potential to fall quickly.
These figures are only approximate, as we don't have the Magic Numbers for weeks in advance, but according to RAMP, for Ablett to fall $200k by the time he has played:
Round 7 - he'd need to score 88 every game to fall $202,400
Round 6 - he'd need to score 82 every game to fall $203,000.
Two things you can see straight away. First, it's really hard, even for the highest priced players, to fall $200k quickly. Secondly, do you really want to pay $490k for a player who has only scored at 88 for his last 7 games?
Firstly on keeping cash. There is nothing wrong with keeping a little cash in reserve. It can help if one of the Rookies you chose early was just the wrong choice, and you need to bring in that higher priced Rookie that has started 95, 98 and has a super low B/E. If it turns out your Rookie choices are ok, the cash makes your first upgrade a bit easier.
The theory of spending as much as your money as you can, is right ...... in theory! You just have to be sure you're not spending the money for the sake of spending it. If you've filled your round 1 side, and have say $130k left, I think you are better to sit on that $130k, unless you think you can make at least a 20-25/week improvement to your side by spending it. The most common mistake in spending this money is turning a Rookie into a Karnezis, because you've convinced yourself he can score 80/week. 9 times out of 10, when you "upgrade" that Rookie to a $230-$300k player, you will regret it, and think later, "I just should have kept the cash!"
On keeping cash in the hope that a Premium will fall $200k quickly. The analogy of a trade = $200k is about right, I certainly wouldn't burn an early trade to get $50k. But look how hard it is for a player to drop $200k. We'll use Ablett as an example, as the higher the Price, the bigger the potential to fall quickly.
These figures are only approximate, as we don't have the Magic Numbers for weeks in advance, but according to RAMP, for Ablett to fall $200k by the time he has played:
Round 7 - he'd need to score 88 every game to fall $202,400
Round 6 - he'd need to score 82 every game to fall $203,000.
Two things you can see straight away. First, it's really hard, even for the highest priced players, to fall $200k quickly. Secondly, do you really want to pay $490k for a player who has only scored at 88 for his last 7 games?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 6,825
- Likes
- 10,214
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Hi RB,
Firstly on keeping cash. There is nothing wrong with keeping a little cash in reserve. It can help if one of the Rookies you chose early was just the wrong choice, and you need to bring in that higher priced Rookie that has started 95, 98 and has a super low B/E. If it turns out your Rookie choices are ok, the cash makes your first upgrade a bit easier.
The theory of spending as much as your money as you can, is right ...... in theory! You just have to be sure you're not spending the money for the sake of spending it. If you've filled your round 1 side, and have say $130k left, I think you are better to sit on that $130k, unless you think you can make at least a 20-25/week improvement to your side by spending it. The most common mistake in spending this money is turning a Rookie into a Karnezis, because you've convinced yourself he can score 80/week. 9 times out of 10, when you "upgrade" that Rookie to a $230-$300k player, you will regret it, and think later, "I just should have kept the cash!"
On keeping cash in the hope that a Premium will fall $200k quickly. The analogy of a trade = $200k is about right, I certainly wouldn't burn an early trade to get $50k. But look how hard it is for a player to drop $200k. We'll use Ablett as an example, as the higher the Price, the bigger the potential to fall quickly.
These figures are only approximate, as we don't have the Magic Numbers for weeks in advance, but according to RAMP, for Ablett to fall $200k by the time he has played:
Round 7 - he'd need to score 88 every game to fall $202,400
Round 6 - he'd need to score 82 every game to fall $203,000.
Two things you can see straight away. First, it's really hard, even for the highest priced players, to fall $200k quickly. Secondly, do you really want to pay $490k for a player who has only scored at 88 for his last 7 games?
Firstly on keeping cash. There is nothing wrong with keeping a little cash in reserve. It can help if one of the Rookies you chose early was just the wrong choice, and you need to bring in that higher priced Rookie that has started 95, 98 and has a super low B/E. If it turns out your Rookie choices are ok, the cash makes your first upgrade a bit easier.
The theory of spending as much as your money as you can, is right ...... in theory! You just have to be sure you're not spending the money for the sake of spending it. If you've filled your round 1 side, and have say $130k left, I think you are better to sit on that $130k, unless you think you can make at least a 20-25/week improvement to your side by spending it. The most common mistake in spending this money is turning a Rookie into a Karnezis, because you've convinced yourself he can score 80/week. 9 times out of 10, when you "upgrade" that Rookie to a $230-$300k player, you will regret it, and think later, "I just should have kept the cash!"
On keeping cash in the hope that a Premium will fall $200k quickly. The analogy of a trade = $200k is about right, I certainly wouldn't burn an early trade to get $50k. But look how hard it is for a player to drop $200k. We'll use Ablett as an example, as the higher the Price, the bigger the potential to fall quickly.
These figures are only approximate, as we don't have the Magic Numbers for weeks in advance, but according to RAMP, for Ablett to fall $200k by the time he has played:
Round 7 - he'd need to score 88 every game to fall $202,400
Round 6 - he'd need to score 82 every game to fall $203,000.
Two things you can see straight away. First, it's really hard, even for the highest priced players, to fall $200k quickly. Secondly, do you really want to pay $490k for a player who has only scored at 88 for his last 7 games?
Hi Paul, it's a good question.
Unfortunately I don't know a site that gives a break up on how players gave up their free kicks, just how many they gave up.
Let's look at the players you mentioned. Format: Player - games played 2013 - frees for - frees against:
Cloke - 22 - 27 - 20
Jroo - 22 - 29 - 28
Hawkins - 22 - 26 - 18
Petrie - 22 - 44 - 12
The first thing we notice is, they get more free kicks, than they give away! While there is a perception this new interpretation will help the forwards, I can see it being a swings and roundabouts situation. They will gain as much as they lose, and given they are all on the positive side of the free kick count, I'd say the potential is there for them to lose more than they gain. Even though I'm sure it will happen 2 or 3 times this year, where a Forward takes a mark, and kicks a match sealing/winning goal, and opposition fans will scream "that would have been a free kick last season". That forward will get between 12 and 40 points for that effort. Those 2 or 3 isolated occassions aside, I think I'd largely ignore the new rule when assessing your SC Forwards. I can't see it making that much of a difference.
Unfortunately I don't know a site that gives a break up on how players gave up their free kicks, just how many they gave up.
Let's look at the players you mentioned. Format: Player - games played 2013 - frees for - frees against:
Cloke - 22 - 27 - 20
Jroo - 22 - 29 - 28
Hawkins - 22 - 26 - 18
Petrie - 22 - 44 - 12
The first thing we notice is, they get more free kicks, than they give away! While there is a perception this new interpretation will help the forwards, I can see it being a swings and roundabouts situation. They will gain as much as they lose, and given they are all on the positive side of the free kick count, I'd say the potential is there for them to lose more than they gain. Even though I'm sure it will happen 2 or 3 times this year, where a Forward takes a mark, and kicks a match sealing/winning goal, and opposition fans will scream "that would have been a free kick last season". That forward will get between 12 and 40 points for that effort. Those 2 or 3 isolated occassions aside, I think I'd largely ignore the new rule when assessing your SC Forwards. I can't see it making that much of a difference.
Hi RB,
Firstly on keeping cash. There is nothing wrong with keeping a little cash in reserve. It can help if one of the Rookies you chose early was just the wrong choice, and you need to bring in that higher priced Rookie that has started 95, 98 and has a super low B/E. If it turns out your Rookie choices are ok, the cash makes your first upgrade a bit easier.
The theory of spending as much as your money as you can, is right ...... in theory! You just have to be sure you're not spending the money for the sake of spending it. If you've filled your round 1 side, and have say $130k left, I think you are better to sit on that $130k, unless you think you can make at least a 20-25/week improvement to your side by spending it. The most common mistake in spending this money is turning a Rookie into a Karnezis, because you've convinced yourself he can score 80/week. 9 times out of 10, when you "upgrade" that Rookie to a $230-$300k player, you will regret it, and think later, "I just should have kept the cash!"
On keeping cash in the hope that a Premium will fall $200k quickly. The analogy of a trade = $200k is about right, I certainly wouldn't burn an early trade to get $50k. But look how hard it is for a player to drop $200k. We'll use Ablett as an example, as the higher the Price, the bigger the potential to fall quickly.
These figures are only approximate, as we don't have the Magic Numbers for weeks in advance, but according to RAMP, for Ablett to fall $200k by the time he has played:
Round 7 - he'd need to score 88 every game to fall $202,400
Round 6 - he'd need to score 82 every game to fall $203,000.
Two things you can see straight away. First, it's really hard, even for the highest priced players, to fall $200k quickly. Secondly, do you really want to pay $490k for a player who has only scored at 88 for his last 7 games?
Firstly on keeping cash. There is nothing wrong with keeping a little cash in reserve. It can help if one of the Rookies you chose early was just the wrong choice, and you need to bring in that higher priced Rookie that has started 95, 98 and has a super low B/E. If it turns out your Rookie choices are ok, the cash makes your first upgrade a bit easier.
The theory of spending as much as your money as you can, is right ...... in theory! You just have to be sure you're not spending the money for the sake of spending it. If you've filled your round 1 side, and have say $130k left, I think you are better to sit on that $130k, unless you think you can make at least a 20-25/week improvement to your side by spending it. The most common mistake in spending this money is turning a Rookie into a Karnezis, because you've convinced yourself he can score 80/week. 9 times out of 10, when you "upgrade" that Rookie to a $230-$300k player, you will regret it, and think later, "I just should have kept the cash!"
On keeping cash in the hope that a Premium will fall $200k quickly. The analogy of a trade = $200k is about right, I certainly wouldn't burn an early trade to get $50k. But look how hard it is for a player to drop $200k. We'll use Ablett as an example, as the higher the Price, the bigger the potential to fall quickly.
These figures are only approximate, as we don't have the Magic Numbers for weeks in advance, but according to RAMP, for Ablett to fall $200k by the time he has played:
Round 7 - he'd need to score 88 every game to fall $202,400
Round 6 - he'd need to score 82 every game to fall $203,000.
Two things you can see straight away. First, it's really hard, even for the highest priced players, to fall $200k quickly. Secondly, do you really want to pay $490k for a player who has only scored at 88 for his last 7 games?
Not sure if this has been posted anywhere yet, i have had a look around
JOSH CADDY, i saw something somewhere about his 2013 avg and his 2013 avg without sub effected games. Rowsus are you able to shed any light on those stats?
Personally im really warming to him as F4 for my starting team, hopefully more mid field time and NO sub roles for him this season.
Any other opinions on him are welcomed
JOSH CADDY, i saw something somewhere about his 2013 avg and his 2013 avg without sub effected games. Rowsus are you able to shed any light on those stats?
Personally im really warming to him as F4 for my starting team, hopefully more mid field time and NO sub roles for him this season.
Any other opinions on him are welcomed
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 19,855
- Likes
- 929
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I was going to go Mummy and Kreuzer as R1 and R2 with 2 rookie rucks (Appeness as 1 as FWD/RUC) and essentially Charlie Dixon as the FWD/RUC link to play R1 or R2 if Mummy or Kruezer out. However, in recent weeks with Zac Clarke and Griffen looking very unlikely to be in Freo rucking division for a few months, I'll have to re-visit Sandilands as being an option. I have to check out any loopholes to exploit if I see the risk is worth it.
Hi Siwel,
IDIG started a thread, where he did a mass of work to identify players being affected by subbed scores.
you can find it here: 2013 Multiple Subbed Players A bargain hunter's paradise
You should check it out, as it's a really useful piece of work.
I'll save you some work on Caddy.
I've seen his name mentioned a few times, but I must admit, I don't see what the attraction is.
He averaged around 71% TOG last season, including the subbed games. I'm just not sure his returns last season warrant the interest shown in him this season. I know he's in the right age group, and a 4th season player, but I would have liked to see more, before I took him at his awkward price.
IDIG started a thread, where he did a mass of work to identify players being affected by subbed scores.
you can find it here: 2013 Multiple Subbed Players A bargain hunter's paradise
You should check it out, as it's a really useful piece of work.
I'll save you some work on Caddy.
I've seen his name mentioned a few times, but I must admit, I don't see what the attraction is.
He averaged around 71% TOG last season, including the subbed games. I'm just not sure his returns last season warrant the interest shown in him this season. I know he's in the right age group, and a 4th season player, but I would have liked to see more, before I took him at his awkward price.
- Joined
- 24 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 60
- Likes
- 4
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Hi Rowsus - loving the analysis. Another question for you.
I'm wondering if it is possible to statistically isolate the effect of a "Win" for a team. For example, North Melbourne lost a number of close games last year, and typically any SC "scale up" in close games as we know goes to players from the winning team. If you believe North Melbourne had an extraordinary year last year (ie the number of their close game losses was at the end of the bell curve), and in any normal year would have won 3 of them, is there a way to "normalise" North players scores from 2013 with this assumption?
I'd imagine you'd need to determine the average and then variability/correlation around that average...
Sorry if confusing, just a random Monday thought bubble. Any thoughts?
I'm wondering if it is possible to statistically isolate the effect of a "Win" for a team. For example, North Melbourne lost a number of close games last year, and typically any SC "scale up" in close games as we know goes to players from the winning team. If you believe North Melbourne had an extraordinary year last year (ie the number of their close game losses was at the end of the bell curve), and in any normal year would have won 3 of them, is there a way to "normalise" North players scores from 2013 with this assumption?
I'd imagine you'd need to determine the average and then variability/correlation around that average...
Sorry if confusing, just a random Monday thought bubble. Any thoughts?
Well worded, and not confusing, and a very good question!
The simple answer is, no we have no way of calculating this. You'd need to have access to the scores at the final siren, then you could compare them to the final scores for the game, after VS/CD have done their "tweaking".
Just using some quick mental arithmatic to try and approximate it, you'd need to ignore the "Bartel 40 points for a late goal" factor, as you'd have no way of knowing who to give that to. So we are looking at how it affects the players in general, rather than specific high scoring adjustments. I can only guestimate what this may be worth, but from following SC for many years, I am confident it less than 10%, I'd hazard a guess at around 7-8% for the more "affected" players, down to 2-3% for the less affected players. For the sake of the exercise, let's say it is 10%, just to see the effect.
Let's assume you have a player averaging around 100/game, and he played 20 games for the season.
Obviously he has scored 2000 points for the season. We are assuming he lost 10% in 3 close games for being in losing teams, so we need to add 33 to his total. We are also assuming he will gain 10% in 3 close games for winning them next year, so we need to add another 30 to his total. Now his total is 2063 in 20 games, for an average of 103.2. It's really not much of a gain, and we were using a high percentage. I'm not sure I'd try and factor it into your selection thoughts.
Great question, Fluffy, have 140 rep points!
The simple answer is, no we have no way of calculating this. You'd need to have access to the scores at the final siren, then you could compare them to the final scores for the game, after VS/CD have done their "tweaking".
Just using some quick mental arithmatic to try and approximate it, you'd need to ignore the "Bartel 40 points for a late goal" factor, as you'd have no way of knowing who to give that to. So we are looking at how it affects the players in general, rather than specific high scoring adjustments. I can only guestimate what this may be worth, but from following SC for many years, I am confident it less than 10%, I'd hazard a guess at around 7-8% for the more "affected" players, down to 2-3% for the less affected players. For the sake of the exercise, let's say it is 10%, just to see the effect.
Let's assume you have a player averaging around 100/game, and he played 20 games for the season.
Obviously he has scored 2000 points for the season. We are assuming he lost 10% in 3 close games for being in losing teams, so we need to add 33 to his total. We are also assuming he will gain 10% in 3 close games for winning them next year, so we need to add another 30 to his total. Now his total is 2063 in 20 games, for an average of 103.2. It's really not much of a gain, and we were using a high percentage. I'm not sure I'd try and factor it into your selection thoughts.
Great question, Fluffy, have 140 rep points!
- Status