Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
I currently have him in expecting he'll be one of the most selected players giving some insurance should it not work but lately been thinking if he doesn't click the POD could help get a jump on the competition. However if you expect he'll be 100+ at the byes the risk suddenly goes the other way and not having him leaves me a little exposed. Thanks for your thoughts!
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 6,968
- Likes
- 11,084
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Hi Rowsus
I’m interested in your thoughts from a statistical viewpoint regarding the following:
The general consensus seems to broadly be that we wait for cash cows to rise in value and then use the proceeds to bring a “fallen premium” player into our teams (I know there are probably variations on this approach, but stick with me). This makes pretty good sense, however my question is this – how do we differentiate between a “good” fallen premium and a “bad” one?
For instance, last season a number of premiums (eg Danger, J Selwood, Swan etc..) had poor patches which resulted in their prices falling and thus creating the opportunity to buy premium players at a discount price. Most coaches who didn’t already have these players would have looked at this as a great opportunity, although those with them in their teams may have been nervous, but would have probably kept them in their teams on the basis that you should always “trust your premiums / guns to bounce back”. In respect to the players listed above, this was probably the right thing to do.
However, compare this situation to someone like Buddy (2013 version). He started the season priced above $600k and I’m guessing many coaches would class him as a premo/gun (although some may debate this point). Anyway, he dropped massively off the back of an ongoing run of poor performances and I’m sure I heard much advice throughout the season saying what a bargain he was and that people should get him into their teams. Perhaps at a certain price he was a good buy, but for those with him in their starting team it was a bit of a disaster.
Which brings me back to the original question – in the heat of battle, during the course of a season, how do we decide which fallen premo’s to hold and which to jump off? I know sideways trading is discouraged, so do we just have to stick with a poorly performing player and mark it down as a bad selection (or bad luck) or can we take decisive corrective action (if we identify the problem early enough)? On the other hand, how do we identify the correct fallen premo’s to buy and how to avoid the “fools gold”? Are there any statistical pointers we can look at to help get this decision right?
Thanks
I’m interested in your thoughts from a statistical viewpoint regarding the following:
The general consensus seems to broadly be that we wait for cash cows to rise in value and then use the proceeds to bring a “fallen premium” player into our teams (I know there are probably variations on this approach, but stick with me). This makes pretty good sense, however my question is this – how do we differentiate between a “good” fallen premium and a “bad” one?
For instance, last season a number of premiums (eg Danger, J Selwood, Swan etc..) had poor patches which resulted in their prices falling and thus creating the opportunity to buy premium players at a discount price. Most coaches who didn’t already have these players would have looked at this as a great opportunity, although those with them in their teams may have been nervous, but would have probably kept them in their teams on the basis that you should always “trust your premiums / guns to bounce back”. In respect to the players listed above, this was probably the right thing to do.
However, compare this situation to someone like Buddy (2013 version). He started the season priced above $600k and I’m guessing many coaches would class him as a premo/gun (although some may debate this point). Anyway, he dropped massively off the back of an ongoing run of poor performances and I’m sure I heard much advice throughout the season saying what a bargain he was and that people should get him into their teams. Perhaps at a certain price he was a good buy, but for those with him in their starting team it was a bit of a disaster.
Which brings me back to the original question – in the heat of battle, during the course of a season, how do we decide which fallen premo’s to hold and which to jump off? I know sideways trading is discouraged, so do we just have to stick with a poorly performing player and mark it down as a bad selection (or bad luck) or can we take decisive corrective action (if we identify the problem early enough)? On the other hand, how do we identify the correct fallen premo’s to buy and how to avoid the “fools gold”? Are there any statistical pointers we can look at to help get this decision right?
Thanks
Hi Rowsus, first time poster, long time fan of your elite work.
Are you able to do some comparison into which players had the biggest improvement in average from the second half of the season compared to the first?
Also as an extension of this, including scores in finals for relevant players as well?
I picked Ryan O'Keefe last season on the back of his performance in the back half of the 2012 season (from memory he averaged around 120 in the last 12 games, including finals) and was happy with what he produced. Turned out to be a reasonable POD (in 2% of teams at Rd 1)
Thanks!
Are you able to do some comparison into which players had the biggest improvement in average from the second half of the season compared to the first?
Also as an extension of this, including scores in finals for relevant players as well?
I picked Ryan O'Keefe last season on the back of his performance in the back half of the 2012 season (from memory he averaged around 120 in the last 12 games, including finals) and was happy with what he produced. Turned out to be a reasonable POD (in 2% of teams at Rd 1)
Thanks!
Hey Rowsus, just curious on what ramp throws up for Pertie if he averages 105.
Does Petrie go bananas after the bye? Noticed the Kangas play Melb x 2, Bris x 2, GWS, Saints and Bulldogs after their bye. As for teams that will finish above them on the laddrer in my opinion, they only play Geelong x 2 and the Hawks once in the same period. Their Finals run is GWS, Dogs, Crows, Demons cant really get much better.
Does Petrie go bananas after the bye? Noticed the Kangas play Melb x 2, Bris x 2, GWS, Saints and Bulldogs after their bye. As for teams that will finish above them on the laddrer in my opinion, they only play Geelong x 2 and the Hawks once in the same period. Their Finals run is GWS, Dogs, Crows, Demons cant really get much better.
Hi RB, good question.
What you are talking about here is "Tipping Points", and they are pretty much impossible to quantify before hand.
The reason they are nearly impossible to quantify before hand, is there are so many variables in the situation, you'd spend a year planning and writing them out. The main problem is you need to look not only both sides of the equation, ie I have player A and he's falling in price, when do I jump off? And I don't have player A, and I've got my eye on him to trade in. But you have to look at all the alternatives. If you are trading player A out, who is available, and in what sort of form are they. If you are looking at trading him in, will he bounce back? How much further will he fall? Are there better alternatives? Every situation throws up different circumstances, that need to be considered as a whole, rather than just isolating it down to player A.
I actually spent a big chunk of the off season researching this exact thing. I wanted to know, if there was a percentage price drop, or an actual price point, that once a player fell below that, they rarely bounced back. The bottom line is, the simple answer is no, there isn't. I'd love to be able to say "I found out, that once a player drops 25% in price, they rarely bounce back", but I can't. Each players Tipping Point needs to be assessed on the circumstances that prevail that week.
Let me give you an example of a Tipping Point I used in my team last season. Like a lot of Coaches every season, I had Ruck problems last season. The first one was Jacobs. He started off the season ok, with 102, 105, 106. Then trouble hit, his next 2 scores were 77 and 66! His opening price was $546.3k and he now sitting on $498.4k with a B/E of 154. I had seen a bit of his previous 2 games, and he just didn't seem to be getting to contests like he did in 2012. Was he carrying an injury? I saw him go to the bench late in round 5, and he looked pretty ginger sitting down. In my mind, he was gone from my side the minute I saw that. He was facing Hawthorn in round 6, and I didn't like his prospects of bouncing back against them. IF there was a suitable replacement available he has reached his Tipping Point. The point where you trade him out now, or you are nearly stuck with riding him out. Even if he managed to score 100, he'd lose around $23,800 in price, and have a B/E of 118 the next week. It seemed more likely, the way he was moving, that he'd score another score around 70. That would see him drop around $37,000 and have a B/E of 140. He was potentially in freefall price wise. Who was available going to round 6? I didn't think I could risk him having two more sub 100 scores, and dropping to around $420k. There wouldn't be much of anyone available at that price, so I'd need to do 2 trades to fix the Jacobs problem. I could straight swap to Griffen or Roughead, though I wasn't in love with either of them. Imagine how bad the choices would be if I waited a week! Luckily for me, Gawn had just played his 2nd game. with scores of 97 and 66 he was priced at $115.9 and had a B/E of -97. I actually was of the opinion he would score at a similar level to Jacobs in the coming weeks, and rather than bleed cash, would make money. You can see what I mean about him being at the Tipping Point. Act this week, and have the choice of Griffen or Roughead, or get some cash with Gawn. If I wait one more week, Gawn's bubble was gone, and if I wanted to sideways I could only pick between Bellchambers and Hale! I went with Gawn. I made $382.5k on the deal, which I used the next week to upgrade a Rookie to Swan (from memory). Jacobs next scores were: 66, 75, 101 and 36. Once that 36 had cycled through his pricing, he had bottomed out at $383,2 in round 11. Meanwhile, Gawn scored 53, 88, 18, 39 and his price had risen to a paultry $236.1k. Fortunately, I avoided his 18 and 39 scores, as I had brought NicNat in 2 weeks later, and Gawn was now on my bench. Boy! I used a lot of trades on Rucks last season! While I played Gawn, he scored exactly the same as Jacobs, but I made enough money to get Swan. So I guess it was a win.
The bottomline is, he hit his Tipping Point, sell him, or ride him out. The Coaches that held him past that week were pretty much stuck with him! Or they had to use 2 trades to fix him. It is impossible to quantify the Tipping Point to a percentage or formula. What if Gawn wasn't on the bubble? What if it wasn't Roughead and Griffen that were available to sideways to, but Bellchambers and Hale? Each circumstance has to be weighed up on the available alternatives.
As to trading in fallen Premiums, and knowing which ones to avoid, that is a similar situation. You need to identify why their price has fallen. In 2011 Watsons price fell midseason as he carried a niggle for a few weeks. There is also the famous 2 seasons in a row concussion price drops for Priddis. Sometimes it can just be the draw, and that player has just come through a tough patch. If you can identify a decent reason, then it's all systems go. If you can't, you need to look at the alternatives, and weigh up the risk versus reward. You can't identify why he has dropped, so what are the chances he'll bounce back? Generally, if you can't identify the reason for the drop, I'd only back players with a proven history to bounce back. One breakout season is not a proven history.
I hope this answers your question properly. It's a very long answer if it hasn't. I can't tell you how many hours I used in Novemeber and December trying to make this a quantifiable problem!
What you are talking about here is "Tipping Points", and they are pretty much impossible to quantify before hand.
The reason they are nearly impossible to quantify before hand, is there are so many variables in the situation, you'd spend a year planning and writing them out. The main problem is you need to look not only both sides of the equation, ie I have player A and he's falling in price, when do I jump off? And I don't have player A, and I've got my eye on him to trade in. But you have to look at all the alternatives. If you are trading player A out, who is available, and in what sort of form are they. If you are looking at trading him in, will he bounce back? How much further will he fall? Are there better alternatives? Every situation throws up different circumstances, that need to be considered as a whole, rather than just isolating it down to player A.
I actually spent a big chunk of the off season researching this exact thing. I wanted to know, if there was a percentage price drop, or an actual price point, that once a player fell below that, they rarely bounced back. The bottom line is, the simple answer is no, there isn't. I'd love to be able to say "I found out, that once a player drops 25% in price, they rarely bounce back", but I can't. Each players Tipping Point needs to be assessed on the circumstances that prevail that week.
Let me give you an example of a Tipping Point I used in my team last season. Like a lot of Coaches every season, I had Ruck problems last season. The first one was Jacobs. He started off the season ok, with 102, 105, 106. Then trouble hit, his next 2 scores were 77 and 66! His opening price was $546.3k and he now sitting on $498.4k with a B/E of 154. I had seen a bit of his previous 2 games, and he just didn't seem to be getting to contests like he did in 2012. Was he carrying an injury? I saw him go to the bench late in round 5, and he looked pretty ginger sitting down. In my mind, he was gone from my side the minute I saw that. He was facing Hawthorn in round 6, and I didn't like his prospects of bouncing back against them. IF there was a suitable replacement available he has reached his Tipping Point. The point where you trade him out now, or you are nearly stuck with riding him out. Even if he managed to score 100, he'd lose around $23,800 in price, and have a B/E of 118 the next week. It seemed more likely, the way he was moving, that he'd score another score around 70. That would see him drop around $37,000 and have a B/E of 140. He was potentially in freefall price wise. Who was available going to round 6? I didn't think I could risk him having two more sub 100 scores, and dropping to around $420k. There wouldn't be much of anyone available at that price, so I'd need to do 2 trades to fix the Jacobs problem. I could straight swap to Griffen or Roughead, though I wasn't in love with either of them. Imagine how bad the choices would be if I waited a week! Luckily for me, Gawn had just played his 2nd game. with scores of 97 and 66 he was priced at $115.9 and had a B/E of -97. I actually was of the opinion he would score at a similar level to Jacobs in the coming weeks, and rather than bleed cash, would make money. You can see what I mean about him being at the Tipping Point. Act this week, and have the choice of Griffen or Roughead, or get some cash with Gawn. If I wait one more week, Gawn's bubble was gone, and if I wanted to sideways I could only pick between Bellchambers and Hale! I went with Gawn. I made $382.5k on the deal, which I used the next week to upgrade a Rookie to Swan (from memory). Jacobs next scores were: 66, 75, 101 and 36. Once that 36 had cycled through his pricing, he had bottomed out at $383,2 in round 11. Meanwhile, Gawn scored 53, 88, 18, 39 and his price had risen to a paultry $236.1k. Fortunately, I avoided his 18 and 39 scores, as I had brought NicNat in 2 weeks later, and Gawn was now on my bench. Boy! I used a lot of trades on Rucks last season! While I played Gawn, he scored exactly the same as Jacobs, but I made enough money to get Swan. So I guess it was a win.
The bottomline is, he hit his Tipping Point, sell him, or ride him out. The Coaches that held him past that week were pretty much stuck with him! Or they had to use 2 trades to fix him. It is impossible to quantify the Tipping Point to a percentage or formula. What if Gawn wasn't on the bubble? What if it wasn't Roughead and Griffen that were available to sideways to, but Bellchambers and Hale? Each circumstance has to be weighed up on the available alternatives.
As to trading in fallen Premiums, and knowing which ones to avoid, that is a similar situation. You need to identify why their price has fallen. In 2011 Watsons price fell midseason as he carried a niggle for a few weeks. There is also the famous 2 seasons in a row concussion price drops for Priddis. Sometimes it can just be the draw, and that player has just come through a tough patch. If you can identify a decent reason, then it's all systems go. If you can't, you need to look at the alternatives, and weigh up the risk versus reward. You can't identify why he has dropped, so what are the chances he'll bounce back? Generally, if you can't identify the reason for the drop, I'd only back players with a proven history to bounce back. One breakout season is not a proven history.
I hope this answers your question properly. It's a very long answer if it hasn't. I can't tell you how many hours I used in Novemeber and December trying to make this a quantifiable problem!
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 6,968
- Likes
- 11,084
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Thanks Rowsus. This is a great answer and really helpfull because I now know that there probably isn't a "formula" which can be applied to this question because you spent so much time trying to find one and couldn't. However, while there is no formula, your answer above does provide a logical framework to think about this issue which I will be able to apply in practice.
I guess at the end of the day, being able to make good decisions in this context will be dependent on some logical thinking, research and good footy knowledge (and gut feel).
I guess at the end of the day, being able to make good decisions in this context will be dependent on some logical thinking, research and good footy knowledge (and gut feel).
At 105 average:
Pre-bye: 102.4
Post-bye: 106.3
Finals run: 124.5
EDIT: Note the highest score the RAMP churns out for Petrie at any one time is 132 and we both know his ceiling is much higher than that. Could easily smash 106.3 post-bye, especially as he averaged something ridiculous like 128 during wins last year.
Pre-bye: 102.4
Post-bye: 106.3
Finals run: 124.5
EDIT: Note the highest score the RAMP churns out for Petrie at any one time is 132 and we both know his ceiling is much higher than that. Could easily smash 106.3 post-bye, especially as he averaged something ridiculous like 128 during wins last year.
I think you are on the money with a framework over formula. As Rowsus said, each situation has so many variables depending on price, available options etc that even a reasonably solid formula would be detrimental in situations that went against you!
It might sound corny but the best assist with these decisions for mine is the SCS community, as you not only get insightful opinions to weigh up, but often from people going through the same dilemma!
Maybe a formula could read:
SCS community x (Rowsus + Jay) - hard luck story of the year/list of never ever players?
(Apologies to anyone offended by any horrible maths errors there!)
It might sound corny but the best assist with these decisions for mine is the SCS community, as you not only get insightful opinions to weigh up, but often from people going through the same dilemma!
Maybe a formula could read:
SCS community x (Rowsus + Jay) - hard luck story of the year/list of never ever players?
(Apologies to anyone offended by any horrible maths errors there!)
I'm good thanks yakka, how are you?
There's no formula as such. freowho has directed you to a thread that has a table on Smith. It's a good start. but there are some things that won't fit into the table format. You have suggested one, age. I also like to look for opportuniy, such as who left the Club, who is starting late off a dodgy pre-season. The ability to score high, and the abilty to maintain form/scores over a period of time. There are quite a number things really, and good old gut feel. Unfortunately, no formula. But quite a few follow a similar template, like the outlined above.
Good luck, if you find one, let us know.
There's no formula as such. freowho has directed you to a thread that has a table on Smith. It's a good start. but there are some things that won't fit into the table format. You have suggested one, age. I also like to look for opportuniy, such as who left the Club, who is starting late off a dodgy pre-season. The ability to score high, and the abilty to maintain form/scores over a period of time. There are quite a number things really, and good old gut feel. Unfortunately, no formula. But quite a few follow a similar template, like the outlined above.
Good luck, if you find one, let us know.
Hi Capper, thanks for the nice words.
I am a believer that looking at players improving in the 2nd half of the season can be an indicator they are underpriced for the next season, but each case needs to be weighed on it's own merits.
Here are some for you to contemplate. I will use rounds 1 - 13, 14 - 23 as the break up point.
Defenders:
Rance - 12/971 then 10/947 and 93 in the final.
Dunn - 8/552 then 10/931 no finals.
Ellis - 10/773 then 10/860 and 55 in the final.
Murphy - 9/849 then 10/1033 no finals.
Mids:
Selwood J - 12/1314 then 10/1291 and 91, 129 and 105 in the finals.
Libba - 12/1158 then 10/1192
Cooney - 10/933 then 8/939
Rockliff - 11/1092 then 10/1211
Bastinac - 12/1017 then 10/1030
Rucks:
Mumford 10/787 then 9/960 and 40, 103 and 104 in finals.
Lobbe 9/665 then 10/971 and 118, 105 in finals.
Forwards:
Henderson R 7/456 then 7/738 no final
I'm sure there are others, but I hope that helps
I am a believer that looking at players improving in the 2nd half of the season can be an indicator they are underpriced for the next season, but each case needs to be weighed on it's own merits.
Here are some for you to contemplate. I will use rounds 1 - 13, 14 - 23 as the break up point.
Defenders:
Rance - 12/971 then 10/947 and 93 in the final.
Dunn - 8/552 then 10/931 no finals.
Ellis - 10/773 then 10/860 and 55 in the final.
Murphy - 9/849 then 10/1033 no finals.
Mids:
Selwood J - 12/1314 then 10/1291 and 91, 129 and 105 in the finals.
Libba - 12/1158 then 10/1192
Cooney - 10/933 then 8/939
Rockliff - 11/1092 then 10/1211
Bastinac - 12/1017 then 10/1030
Rucks:
Mumford 10/787 then 9/960 and 40, 103 and 104 in finals.
Lobbe 9/665 then 10/971 and 118, 105 in finals.
Forwards:
Henderson R 7/456 then 7/738 no final
I'm sure there are others, but I hope that helps
I've actually had Hickey in and out of my side a few times.
I'm not quite sure what to make of him. I am confident, unless something dramatic has happened in their pre-season, he is well in front of Longer, which is why I'm bemused when I see people trying to save $34k by taking Longer instead!
The interesting thing with Hickey's TOG, is that it is actually pretty high! That's what is putting me off him.
His stats last year were: K 43, M 42, H 82, Di 125, CM 11, HO 145
His TOG%'s were: 57, 82, 75, 77, 86, 92, 83, 76, 89, 86, 91, 79 - Ave 81.1%!
You are generally looking at about 85% TOG average for a Ruckmen. At 85% his average stats per game last year were:
K 3.8, M 3.7, H 7.2, Di 10.9, CM 1.0, HO 12.6.
I know he's young, but I kind of hoped for more, or that his TOG was less to explain it. I will probably go without him, but I can understand people using him as a Stepping Stone.
I'm not quite sure what to make of him. I am confident, unless something dramatic has happened in their pre-season, he is well in front of Longer, which is why I'm bemused when I see people trying to save $34k by taking Longer instead!
The interesting thing with Hickey's TOG, is that it is actually pretty high! That's what is putting me off him.
His stats last year were: K 43, M 42, H 82, Di 125, CM 11, HO 145
His TOG%'s were: 57, 82, 75, 77, 86, 92, 83, 76, 89, 86, 91, 79 - Ave 81.1%!
You are generally looking at about 85% TOG average for a Ruckmen. At 85% his average stats per game last year were:
K 3.8, M 3.7, H 7.2, Di 10.9, CM 1.0, HO 12.6.
I know he's young, but I kind of hoped for more, or that his TOG was less to explain it. I will probably go without him, but I can understand people using him as a Stepping Stone.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 930
- Likes
- 276
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Hey Rowsus
I was thinking about last years Cookie Cutter team and how well it started off the season. Top 3,000 week 1 and up to top 300 week 2. It was a very strong side and was in a very strong position early on until trading let the team down I believe. I am not criticising the trading as that was your whole point of the exercise to keep the team a certain way.
What I was thinking was, was it an anomaly that the most popular players started so well or would this most likely happen more seasons than not?
If you took that cookie cutter team and then traded in a different way picking up bargains as they came up as instead of the most popular players how well could a team go? I am not suggesting you take on this exercise was more thinking about for less serious players rather than trying to pick break out players etc. just pick your team with the most popular players possible and you might be off to a good start.
What do you think? Is there any way to go back over previous seasons to see who was most popular players at season start and see what that team would have scored in the first week or two?
I was thinking about last years Cookie Cutter team and how well it started off the season. Top 3,000 week 1 and up to top 300 week 2. It was a very strong side and was in a very strong position early on until trading let the team down I believe. I am not criticising the trading as that was your whole point of the exercise to keep the team a certain way.
What I was thinking was, was it an anomaly that the most popular players started so well or would this most likely happen more seasons than not?
If you took that cookie cutter team and then traded in a different way picking up bargains as they came up as instead of the most popular players how well could a team go? I am not suggesting you take on this exercise was more thinking about for less serious players rather than trying to pick break out players etc. just pick your team with the most popular players possible and you might be off to a good start.
What do you think? Is there any way to go back over previous seasons to see who was most popular players at season start and see what that team would have scored in the first week or two?
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 19,074
- Likes
- 80,339
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Hi Rowsus
After last night's game and the release of the SC scores it's clear that they are skewed as a result of Collingwood playing 26 players and Geelong playing 25.
Is there some sort of a formula that could be used to accurately assess what score each of the players got if there were 22 players a side?
After last night's game and the release of the SC scores it's clear that they are skewed as a result of Collingwood playing 26 players and Geelong playing 25.
Is there some sort of a formula that could be used to accurately assess what score each of the players got if there were 22 players a side?
- Status