Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- 4 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 277
- Likes
- 22
Hey Rowsus, not sure if this has been covered, but are there any particular categories of stats which are notoriously difficult to repeat looking at season to season? For instance goals would seem to be easier to repeat for a key forward than a small forward, so is there a great concern for smaller players who seem to rely heavily on goals for points e.g Wingard?
Krk004 also asked about Chappy in the now closed forward thread so thought I would answer here.
So far all reports (including most importantly from fans who go to training as opposed to the fluff pieces) have been positive. Noone has mentioned an injury yet.
As a side note his girlfriend had a baby son today! So now the Bombers just have to squeeze 100 games out of Chappy
So far all reports (including most importantly from fans who go to training as opposed to the fluff pieces) have been positive. Noone has mentioned an injury yet.
As a side note his girlfriend had a baby son today! So now the Bombers just have to squeeze 100 games out of Chappy
I'll tackle the queries one player at a time.
Chapman. Yes, he's getting old(er), but he's just had a year "off" to freshen up. I've heard some reports that he feels his injury wasn't as bad as the Club thought it was, and he could/should have played more games. He's back playing under his "favourite" Coach, who rates him highly. I love the prospects of a player that has a good history, and is motivated to prove his old Club wrong. His game counts in the previous 3 seasons are all 20+. To become a keeper I need him to PIT70 around 95/game, his last 4 seasons averages have been: 96, 100, 101, 116. He's priced at about 87, so given his scoring history, low price, reuniting with his favourite Coach, and the "revenge" factor, he's a lock for me. The fact that he's "training the house down", and "never been fitter" is just gravy, and proof of his improved motivation.
Hurn. Long kickers of the ball have a built in "safety" factor. All kicks over 50 metres are deemed effective. Hurn is one of the better long kicks in the game. WC have a good early draw. I'm not one to get sucked into the "he's pencilled in for mor Mid time this season" type logic. Most of it is unsubstantiated, and I actually don't think Clubs think along those lines anyway! He's shown he can average in the 90's and he can sneek forward and kick a goal from outside 50.
Lobbe. I saw a few games last year, when Lobbe was in his hot streak, where he was just punishing some admittedly poor opposition Rucks. He looked really impressive, and being a young Ruck, ready to take the next step in 2014. I don't see a downside to him. I think he should at least maintain his price, remembering you need to average around 10% higher than last season to do that. If need be, I will upgrade him after the byes.
Pavlich. Super player, coming off a injury interupted 2012 preseason, and season. Discounted enough to say there is little risk in taking him. Motivated by a poor season and a GF loss, I can't see him losing Cash, and if I can fill 2 keeper spots with him and Chappy, I'm off to a flyer at their prices. It's hard to see either losing cash, if they come up short, and need upgrading.
Defenders. There is always something that sends alarm bells off in my head. If everybody is pushing up for the same horse in a big race, or the same players in SC, just stop! Unless it's Black Caviar, or Ablett, ask yourself "when people are in this "unified frenzy" for none elite champions, how often are they right?". My answer is, they get it right sometimes, but quite often there is a lot of disappointment. When the positional changes were announced, and we saw Bartel, McVeigh, Mitchell, and to a lesser extent Hodge, Kennedy and Walker all available as Defenders, the word "Lock" started getting thrown around more than a frisbee at a church picnic! Could they be the top 6 Defenders in 2014? Yes, they could. Is it more likely that at least 2 or 3 of them will fail to live up to expectations, and score at such a lower rate than last year, it causes their Coaches angst? Yes it is. Which of the 6 will fail? I don't know, but when you are talking about high priced Defenders, if you are not confident, you are better just to leave them out. I currently only have one of those 6 in my team.
Beams. I was expecting a Beams question. What I was trying to do was 2 things. Add some balance to the argument, where some people were saying things as far fetched as "he's a lock to bounce back to 120+", and a lot of others were just assuming he'd be a 115+ player. He's not a Pendlebury, Swan or Ablett yet. He doesn't have a history of maintaining a 110+ average, except for one 14 game streak in 2012. Having said all that, given his super low price, and his potential, I think it is best to start with him. Given his injury history, at the first sign of trouble, and it will come, I will be dumping him. Why take a player, you are fairly sure you will dump? Risk versus reward. At his price there is low risk, and great potential for reward. I don't think he will be a 115+ player this season, but I'm willing to start with him, and see where he goes.
Last edited:
Hi Rowsus.
I have only just discovered this website despite playing supercoach for a few years and the insights on here are amazing. I haven't been able to stop reading. I hope this isn't a stupid question from a novice! I have a question about loopholes that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere. With the apparent lack of a cheap Ruck it seems like a good idea to have a non playing R4 to use as a loophole. Is it too complicated to use the one player for a Captains loophole and a Ruck loophole? If so is it worth having 2 loophole players. There also seems to be a lack of cheap defenders this year so you could have an R4 and a D8 not playing with a D/M dual position on the mids bench for cover. I understand it reduces your insurance for injured players.
Lets say you use the D8 position twice during the year for cash cows to make $200k to $300k. Over the course of the season would you make more than this with the Captains loophole?
Any thoughts would be much appreciated.
I have only just discovered this website despite playing supercoach for a few years and the insights on here are amazing. I haven't been able to stop reading. I hope this isn't a stupid question from a novice! I have a question about loopholes that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere. With the apparent lack of a cheap Ruck it seems like a good idea to have a non playing R4 to use as a loophole. Is it too complicated to use the one player for a Captains loophole and a Ruck loophole? If so is it worth having 2 loophole players. There also seems to be a lack of cheap defenders this year so you could have an R4 and a D8 not playing with a D/M dual position on the mids bench for cover. I understand it reduces your insurance for injured players.
Lets say you use the D8 position twice during the year for cash cows to make $200k to $300k. Over the course of the season would you make more than this with the Captains loophole?
Any thoughts would be much appreciated.
Well said Rowsus and some good points there. Re Jack Martin, for me he is a lock Malcom Blight has said he had the best tapes he has ever seen and prob the best junior he has ever seen. He has come through the same path as Jaegar which i think will help him (being apart of the Suns set up for all that time and training with the main group). I can understand why people would be put off him due to his price. He has to be a lot better than other rookies who you can pick up for 100k less than him but im going to back him in and hopefully he starts like Judd did and makes 200k and allows an easy upgrade
Hi Rowsus - just working my way through some rookie research and would appreciate if you could explain the likely profit generated by rookies (on the basis that they score the same). Let's say, we compare Jack Martin ($222K) with Sheed ($167K) with Dumont ($117K). Recognise that this is a basic question but really want to understand the mechanics/formula for pricing and price rises, particularly as it applies to rookies. Many thanks in advance!
Last edited:
If it was based on those, Oakley-Nicholls would be the best player in the comp . But in all seriousness I don't think you can go past him. Should average 85+ and hit the 400k mark I reckon.
. But in all seriousness I don't think you can go past him. Should average 85+ and hit the 400k mark I reckon.
Hi freowho, welcome aboard. I'm glad you found us.
There are no stupid questions, so feel free to ask whatever you want.
It's perfectly acceptable to start with a R4 donut for loopholing purposes. Chances are we will all have a donut at R4 anyway, as it doesn't look likely many Ruck Rookies will play round 1. It nearly happens to most of us most years anyway. Look at Currie last year, he still had an ownership percentage right up there (around 25-30% from memory) in round 23. Of course, the major problem was, there was no value in trading him out, but you see what I mean. Just make sure if you go down this path, you choose the cheapest Ruck, with the most loopholing potential. Up to the byes, that appears to be King from Melbourne.
As to starting another DPP Floating Donut, I am personally against it. It was of great value last year, to those that started LOL Richo, and got some wonderful use out of him. The difference is this year, right now, we don't have confidence in the Rookies JS. You could afford the risk last year, when there was such depth in the Def Rookies ranks, and you were pretty confident your D5, 6 and 7 would play. This year I don't have that confidence. Maybe that will change after the NAB, but for now, I will be starting with King, unless 2 of Apeness, Thurlow and Nankervis get picked round 1, and will wait for the other loophole opportunities to appear, as players in my squad get dropped or injured.
One last point, don't get caught over estimating the money making ability of your Rookies, especially a D8 Rookie. Last year Goodes and Terlich made just over $300k, if you manged to keep them long enough, but there is no way you had them sitting at D8. D5 or D6 was much more likely. Laird eventually made $210k, and after him, it drops off a bit. The point is, your D8 will rarely make $200k, let alone $300k. It is more likely a long, slow $125-150k for your D8. Of course, this makes a decision to have a D/M Floating donut even cheaper, as you are losing less cash making potential. But unless we get our eyes opened by 2 or 3 Rookies in the NAB, right now I am worried about getting my D7 on the ground, and making enough money to do my upgrades in a timely fashion. If you have confidence your D7 will play, by all means, go for the D/M Floating Donut!
Good luck!
There are no stupid questions, so feel free to ask whatever you want.
It's perfectly acceptable to start with a R4 donut for loopholing purposes. Chances are we will all have a donut at R4 anyway, as it doesn't look likely many Ruck Rookies will play round 1. It nearly happens to most of us most years anyway. Look at Currie last year, he still had an ownership percentage right up there (around 25-30% from memory) in round 23. Of course, the major problem was, there was no value in trading him out, but you see what I mean. Just make sure if you go down this path, you choose the cheapest Ruck, with the most loopholing potential. Up to the byes, that appears to be King from Melbourne.
As to starting another DPP Floating Donut, I am personally against it. It was of great value last year, to those that started LOL Richo, and got some wonderful use out of him. The difference is this year, right now, we don't have confidence in the Rookies JS. You could afford the risk last year, when there was such depth in the Def Rookies ranks, and you were pretty confident your D5, 6 and 7 would play. This year I don't have that confidence. Maybe that will change after the NAB, but for now, I will be starting with King, unless 2 of Apeness, Thurlow and Nankervis get picked round 1, and will wait for the other loophole opportunities to appear, as players in my squad get dropped or injured.
One last point, don't get caught over estimating the money making ability of your Rookies, especially a D8 Rookie. Last year Goodes and Terlich made just over $300k, if you manged to keep them long enough, but there is no way you had them sitting at D8. D5 or D6 was much more likely. Laird eventually made $210k, and after him, it drops off a bit. The point is, your D8 will rarely make $200k, let alone $300k. It is more likely a long, slow $125-150k for your D8. Of course, this makes a decision to have a D/M Floating donut even cheaper, as you are losing less cash making potential. But unless we get our eyes opened by 2 or 3 Rookies in the NAB, right now I am worried about getting my D7 on the ground, and making enough money to do my upgrades in a timely fashion. If you have confidence your D7 will play, by all means, go for the D/M Floating Donut!
Good luck!
Hi GB,
I love a good, well performed player changing Clubs. Especially if they're coming off a "down" season. Highly motivated good players are always a good thing, and nothing motivates like shifting Clubs. Am I concerned over his 19, 16, 19, 17 game count in the last 4 years? Definitely. But given his averages before last season were 116, 111 and 108, and he's priced on last years 91, I am willing to lock him in. If he plays 18 games at an average of 105, his PIT70 average will be 98.6, and that will still get him in the top 8 - 10 PIT70 averages for a Forward for the year. If he had averaged/been priced at 105 I wouldn't touch him. Given we have the safety net of a nice discount on 3 of his past 4 years, and we/I assume he is highly motivated, I am prepared to lock him in. with Buddy, Chappy and Pav, I have 3 injury prone, underpriced Forwards I am hoping can hold themselves together, and score at 2012 and earlier levels. I fully understand that it is asking and expecting too much to get all 3 up as Keepers. I'll still count 2 successes as a win, and 1 as a loss, depending on how much cash the losses bleed.
I love a good, well performed player changing Clubs. Especially if they're coming off a "down" season. Highly motivated good players are always a good thing, and nothing motivates like shifting Clubs. Am I concerned over his 19, 16, 19, 17 game count in the last 4 years? Definitely. But given his averages before last season were 116, 111 and 108, and he's priced on last years 91, I am willing to lock him in. If he plays 18 games at an average of 105, his PIT70 average will be 98.6, and that will still get him in the top 8 - 10 PIT70 averages for a Forward for the year. If he had averaged/been priced at 105 I wouldn't touch him. Given we have the safety net of a nice discount on 3 of his past 4 years, and we/I assume he is highly motivated, I am prepared to lock him in. with Buddy, Chappy and Pav, I have 3 injury prone, underpriced Forwards I am hoping can hold themselves together, and score at 2012 and earlier levels. I fully understand that it is asking and expecting too much to get all 3 up as Keepers. I'll still count 2 successes as a win, and 1 as a loss, depending on how much cash the losses bleed.
Last edited:
Hi broges,
the mechanics for pricing is the same for everybody. Rookies and Premiums alike.
Here is the pricing formula (unless they've changed it for this year):
Price change = (weekly score - Break Even) x 440.
As we can see, if the player falls short of their B/E they lose money, and beat it, they increase in price.
This leads to the question, how do we calculate a players Break Even?
Break Even = ((3 x price)/MN) - score 1 - score 2
score 1 is the players most recent score, and score 2 is the score before that.
MN is the "Magic Number", a multiplying factor that slowly decreases as the season progresses. This year the MN has started at 5,394. This is found by dividing any given players opening price by their last years average. Make sure you use players with plenty of games played last season, and you'll see a consistency. Last year the MN started at 5,350. In the last 2 seasons the MN has dropped by around 7-8% after round 3. This means anyone scoring at exactly last years average for those 3 games will drop around 7 or 8% after round 3.
There is no way, to my knowlege, to calculate the MN weeks in advance. Some weeks it actually creeps up again, before falling again the next week. It does seem to follow a rough pattern though. It falls roughly 7% after round 3, and slowly drops from then to the end of the season, to be about 10% lower than it was in round 1.
As to the more specifics of your question, let's see how those players prices look with 3 different scores thrown in. Remember a couple of things. I can only guestimate the MN based on the last 2 years history. Secondly, though players prices are shown in multiples of $100, they and the B/E's are actually calculated down to decimal places. This can lead to what looks like small discrepancies, but actually are just "rounding" differences.
If they each score at 70/game for rounds 1 to 7:
Martin goes up to $321.0k (+$98.7k), Sheed goes up to $309.3k (+$142.0k), Dumont goes up to $298.5k (+$181.2k).
If they each score at 80/game for rounds 1 to 7:
Martin goes up to $360.1k (+$137.8k), Sheed goes up to $348.3k (+$181.0k), Dumont goes up to $337.6k (+$220.3k).
If they each score at 90/game for rounds 1 to 7:
Martin goes up to $399.2k (+$176.9k), Sheed goes up to $387.4k (+$220.1k), Dumont goes up to $376.7k (+$259.4k).
the mechanics for pricing is the same for everybody. Rookies and Premiums alike.
Here is the pricing formula (unless they've changed it for this year):
Price change = (weekly score - Break Even) x 440.
As we can see, if the player falls short of their B/E they lose money, and beat it, they increase in price.
This leads to the question, how do we calculate a players Break Even?
Break Even = ((3 x price)/MN) - score 1 - score 2
score 1 is the players most recent score, and score 2 is the score before that.
MN is the "Magic Number", a multiplying factor that slowly decreases as the season progresses. This year the MN has started at 5,394. This is found by dividing any given players opening price by their last years average. Make sure you use players with plenty of games played last season, and you'll see a consistency. Last year the MN started at 5,350. In the last 2 seasons the MN has dropped by around 7-8% after round 3. This means anyone scoring at exactly last years average for those 3 games will drop around 7 or 8% after round 3.
There is no way, to my knowlege, to calculate the MN weeks in advance. Some weeks it actually creeps up again, before falling again the next week. It does seem to follow a rough pattern though. It falls roughly 7% after round 3, and slowly drops from then to the end of the season, to be about 10% lower than it was in round 1.
As to the more specifics of your question, let's see how those players prices look with 3 different scores thrown in. Remember a couple of things. I can only guestimate the MN based on the last 2 years history. Secondly, though players prices are shown in multiples of $100, they and the B/E's are actually calculated down to decimal places. This can lead to what looks like small discrepancies, but actually are just "rounding" differences.
If they each score at 70/game for rounds 1 to 7:
Martin goes up to $321.0k (+$98.7k), Sheed goes up to $309.3k (+$142.0k), Dumont goes up to $298.5k (+$181.2k).
If they each score at 80/game for rounds 1 to 7:
Martin goes up to $360.1k (+$137.8k), Sheed goes up to $348.3k (+$181.0k), Dumont goes up to $337.6k (+$220.3k).
If they each score at 90/game for rounds 1 to 7:
Martin goes up to $399.2k (+$176.9k), Sheed goes up to $387.4k (+$220.1k), Dumont goes up to $376.7k (+$259.4k).
Hi rowsus, first time question, actually a follow on from the previous one.
How many more points would martin have to average to make the same amount of money as sheed and dumont?
Also not sure if it's been asked, sorry if it has.
Awesome work though, I love this thread and all your other ones. Thank you.
How many more points would martin have to average to make the same amount of money as sheed and dumont?
Also not sure if it's been asked, sorry if it has.
Awesome work though, I love this thread and all your other ones. Thank you.
Certainly some food for thought re Martin. I am currently swaying towards leaving Martin out and picking a cheaper rookie. I guess we need to weigh up where that extra cash will be spent - i.e. perhaps it can allow you to grab that extra premium. If the extra cash can't be used to facilitate this would we just be better off getting Martin due to his scoring and JS potential?
- Status