Opinion Questions For Rowsus

[Shaahorn]

Hey Rowsus (and anybody else who cares to answer),

After reading over your ruck share trade theory I was wondering wether it would be worth it running a 1/2/1 ruck strategy.

Without looking into it too much it would seem that NicNat would be my premium pick, then select two of Sandilands/McIntosh/Grundy/Hickey/Longer and King as the rookie.

Whilst it would seem a waste to have potentially $360k of ruck on the bench I could use King as a loophole and potentially take the best score out of the 2 mid-pricers each week whilst both potentially make me $100-$150k each.

Get to the byes and bank both mid-price players for a premium (it is about Rd 8 you said you should have a decent grasp on who will be top 3 rucks for the season) & a rookie (who looks like he could potentially play later on in the year).

You have probably covered off on this (that is possibly why I am thinking about it) but I couldn't seem to find it.

 

[JT23]

Hey Rowsus (and anybody else who cares to answer),

After reading over your ruck share trade theory I was wondering wether it would be worth it running a 1/2/1 ruck strategy.

Without looking into it too much it would seem that NicNat would be my premium pick, then select two of Sandilands/McIntosh/Grundy/Hickey/Longer and King as the rookie.

Whilst it would seem a waste to have potentially $360k of ruck on the bench I could use King as a loophole and potentially take the best score out of the 2 mid-pricers each week whilst both potentially make me $100-$150k each.

Get to the byes and bank both mid-price players for a premium (it is about Rd 8 you said you should have a decent grasp on who will be top 3 rucks for the season) & a rookie (who looks like he could potentially play later on in the year).

You have probably covered off on this (that is possibly why I am thinking about it) but I couldn't seem to find it.

Work through the Rucks thread Shaahorn and you will see extensive talk around this concept, discussions as to why it may or may not be a clever option and some alternative ways of creating back-up solutions.

 

[Rowsus]

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?

They are skewed by more than the number of players. The total points given was only 2887, instead of the usual 3300.
There is no exact formula you can use, but here is an approximate. Keep in mind you should bump up the higher scoring players more than the lower scoring players.

You can adjust the Collingwood players up by 26/22 x 3300/2887 = 35%
The Geelong players can be adjusted up by 25/22 x 3300/2887 = 30%

This will give you a total of more than 3300, but that is to be expected as you are making an allowance for there being more than 22 players.

 

[Rowsus]

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 actually do think it was an anomoly that so many popular players did so well in rounds 1 and 2. There is no way to check this, as the ownership figures aren't recorded anywhere (to my knowledge).
Mathematically, it actually has to perform reasonably well, as it has SO many players in common with 80% or more other teams.
You could do worse than start with the Cookie cutter team, and adjust it prior to round one.
For example, looking at last years round 1 team, there is no way I would have had LeCras, Rowe and Varcoe. The rest I could find some sort of argument for. So I could have started with 27/30 and seen what I could with the other 3. To be honest, it would have worked out a lot better if I had done that for my own team!

 

[Rowsus]

Hey Rowsus (and anybody else who cares to answer),

After reading over your ruck share trade theory I was wondering wether it would be worth it running a 1/2/1 ruck strategy.

Without looking into it too much it would seem that NicNat would be my premium pick, then select two of Sandilands/McIntosh/Grundy/Hickey/Longer and King as the rookie.

Whilst it would seem a waste to have potentially $360k of ruck on the bench I could use King as a loophole and potentially take the best score out of the 2 mid-pricers each week whilst both potentially make me $100-$150k each.

Get to the byes and bank both mid-price players for a premium (it is about Rd 8 you said you should have a decent grasp on who will be top 3 rucks for the season) & a rookie (who looks like he could potentially play later on in the year).

You have probably covered off on this (that is possibly why I am thinking about it) but I couldn't seem to find it.

Hey Shaahorn,
your NicNat and King, plus 2 of these 4 players is exactly one of the structures I am considering, even though there are some good arguments against it. As JT23 points out, you will find these in the Ruck thread. I am like a lot of Coaches, and probably yourself. I can't Lock my Ruck combination until I know what NicNat is doing. If he's fit, firing and flexible, he's a lock. If he's not, I don't want to touch him. I need to see one good NAB game from him, or I have to risk leaving him out.
Bottom line, is yes, history would say it is crazy to start both Minson and Goldy, so a 1-2-1, or 1-1-2 if we can get a playing Rookie appears the best approach.
Good luck

 

[Prochard]

Hey Rowsus,
What do u think about midpricers in general? What is the recommended number of midpricers you should have in ur team? With the increased cost of rookies, does it make midprice options much more viable than before?


thanks

 

[Mudflap]

Rowsus (or others). Could you possibly make any argument for selecting Dangerfield as a MID? I am considering this move.

I have selected a super strong midfield (Ablett, Pendles, Danger, Rockliff, Ziebell, Beams, Murphy and X Ellis). I "budget" up to 3 trades for FIX UPS and expect to downgrade one of my mids after week 2 for the best performing mid rookie.

With this in mind having Danger in as a mid allows me to select another speculative forward (possibly Caddy) which would mean that if my 7 main mids all fired in week 1 and 2 and I didnt want to trade any of them out I have the option of swapping Danger forward (for my worst per forming speculative forward) and trading that player down for the best mid rookie already have).

Maybe I am thinking too hard on Danger (and tactics in general) and I should just take him as a forward?

 

[PC]

Maybe I am thinking too hard on Danger (and tactics in general) and I should just take him as a forward?

This.

 

[Rowsus]

Hey Rowsus,
What do u think about midpricers in general? What is the recommended number of midpricers you should have in ur team? With the increased cost of rookies, does it make midprice options much more viable than before?


thanks

Hey Pro,
there is no right number to have, though having more than 10 might be a wrong number. The thing to keep in mind, when selectiing Midpricers, is they are the selections you are most likely to get wrong! Prems are Prems because they have a good history (not a 1 year spike!), Rookies can be gotten wrong, but once selected in their AFL team, you are still more likely to get them right, than getting a Midpricer right. The problem is over half the players available are Midpricers, but in any given year only 10-12 are worthwhile. That's about 12 out of more than 400! You can see how hard it is to get them right. The other problem is, you need around a 60% strike rate with your Midpricers just to break even, so if you have 5, you need 3 to be ok just to break even on the Coaches with none. They certainly can be useful, when you find the right one, as it saves you money and a trade. I just wouldn't speculate on too many, unless you are confident in them.
On your last point, we may all have to sneak one or two of the really low priced ones into our team, if the selected Rookie numbers drop. I think it is possible we will find enough Rookies, somehow. They always seem to come up, even though we can't see them now.

 

[Rowsus]

Rowsus (or others). Could you possibly make any argument for selecting Dangerfield as a MID? I am considering this move.

I have selected a super strong midfield (Ablett, Pendles, Danger, Rockliff, Ziebell, Beams, Murphy and X Ellis). I "budget" up to 3 trades for FIX UPS and expect to downgrade one of my mids after week 2 for the best performing mid rookie.

With this in mind having Danger in as a mid allows me to select another speculative forward (possibly Caddy) which would mean that if my 7 main mids all fired in week 1 and 2 and I didnt want to trade any of them out I have the option of swapping Danger forward (for my worst per forming speculative forward) and trading that player down for the best mid rookie already have).

Maybe I am thinking too hard on Danger (and tactics in general) and I should just take him as a forward?

Hi Mudflap, welcome aboard.
I can't think of any good reason to select Danger in the Mids, unless 5 REALLY good Forward Rookies pop up in the next month. By stacking your Mids so deep you are depriving yourself of space for some good money making Rookies. At the moment it's difficult to see how you can raise enough cash out of the other 3 lines, to do all the all the upgrades you need to do.

 

[Goodie's Guns]

Hi Rowsus,

My current DEF line-up is: Mitchell (MID), Hibberd, Simpson, Hurn, + Rookies

My question to you is Hurn worth the amount of money that he is priced at?? $472,000

Cheers Goodie

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus,

My current DEF line-up is: Mitchell (MID), Hibberd, Simpson, Hurn, + Rookies

My question to you is Hurn worth the amount of money that he is priced at?? $472,000

Cheers Goodie

I guess i have to answer yes, as he currently sits in my team!

 

[BigRuss]

I guess i have to answer yes, as he currently sits in my team!

What avg/games do you have him pegged for Rowsus? Sits at D3 for me also.

 

[Rowsus]

What avg/games do you have him pegged for Rowsus? Sits at D3 for me also.

I have him marked as 19 games at around 94. RAMP has him scoring 5 x 100+'s scores and 2 x <70's before the byes, to ave 98 going into the break.

 

[Paul23]

Hey Rowsus was wondering if you think that Franklin leaving affects Roughead positively by being a target more often or whether you believe it makes it harder for him with the best defender. Similarly does Podsiadly leaving give Hawkins more supply or just make it difficult for him with tougher defenders.
Thanks!

 

[Juzzo]

Rowsus,
I expect a lot of coaches will have Zeibell in their team after his first NAB game. My concern is that if he is tagged his fitness may let him down (not being able to break tag). Of the other North midfielders, which one or more would you go with?

Cheers
Juzzo

 

[Rowsus]

Hey Rowsus was wondering if you think that Franklin leaving affects Roughead positively by being a target more often or whether you believe it makes it harder for him with the best defender. Similarly does Podsiadly leaving give Hawkins more supply or just make it difficult for him with tougher defenders.
Thanks!

There are two ways to view structures like Roughy/Buddy or Hawkins/Pods - one is symbiotic the other is competitive.
With Roughy and Buddy I've read a lot about how some people think with Buddy gone, Roughy will draw the best Defender. Imagine if you were Coaching against Hawthorn. Would you be tossing up do I put player A on Buddy or Roughie? Buddy needs an opponent that is fast, and with a good tank. Can leap to spoil from behind. That is quick to change direction at speed. Roughie needs a bigger stronger body for "muscle" contests, preferably taller with longer arms. How many Defenders do you know that fit both those descriptions? I think Buddy being gone has no effect on which opponent Roughie draws. I think while in every Forward line there are players competing for supply, that the Buddy/Roughie situation was more symbiotic. They helped each other more than Hawkins and Pods helped each other. Buddy's speed, and movement up the ground created more space for Roughie. With Hawkins and Pods, you had 2 similar players in physical characteristics. It was easier for the "spare" Defender to be the third man in contests involving Hawkins and Pods, than it was for him to cover both Buddy and Roughie. That made the Hawkins/Pods relationship more competitive.
The funny thing is, I think both teams will at least attempt to keep their structure/game plan. Gunston becomes Buddy, Kersten/Vardy/HMac become Pods. The real question becomes, who replaces Gunston? Gunston doesn't have all the toys or party tricks Buddy has, but he's a pretty good replacement. I think the bigger question on Roughie is actually McEvoy. McEvoy replacing Bailey is a bigger dynamic change for Roughie than Buddy going (imo). Bailey played 16 games (H&A) with an average TOG% of 66.9%, that multiplies out to, that Bailey was present on the field for a total equivalent to 10.7 games. I can see McEvoy playing 21 games at a TOG% of around 82%, that comes out at 17.2 games. He will be in Roughies area, or forcing Hale into Roughies area, a lot more than Bailey was. Nearly 60% more! I'd love access to figures that broke Roughies stats down to with Bailey on the ground, with both Bailey and Hale on the ground, and without Bailey on the ground. The best we can do, is look at the games were Bailey didn't play. This isn't a totally accurate disection as there is a different dynamic involved if say Ceglar replaces Bailey, than McEvoy replacing Bailey, but it's the best I can do.
Roughie: 22 games at 98.5.
When Bailey missed: 117, 101, 112, 67, 113, 118. - Ave 104.7, but more importantly, 5 games above average, 4 of them well above!
The 3 games Buddy missed produced: 130, 69, 113 - Ave 104.0, with 2 well above average.
I guess the last line will counter my final opinion, but I think Buddy leaving will have little affect on Roughie, and McEvoy arriving could indirectly impact him more. I think Pods leaving will have little affect on Hawkins, as they will just replace Pods with Kersten or Hmac.

 

[Aneil915]

Rowsus,
I expect a lot of coaches will have Zeibell in their team after his first NAB game. My concern is that if he is tagged his fitness may let him down (not being able to break tag). Of the other North midfielders, which one or more would you go with?

Cheers
Juzzo

Juzzo, try the Can Statistics Find The Next Breakout Player? Thread. There is a lot of discussion from Rowsus in there about this.

 

[Juzzo]

Thanks Aneil915, will have a look.

 

[Rowsus]

Rowsus,
I expect a lot of coaches will have Zeibell in their team after his first NAB game. My concern is that if he is tagged his fitness may let him down (not being able to break tag). Of the other North midfielders, which one or more would you go with?

Cheers
Juzzo

If you look at post #1 in Can Statistics Find The Next Breakout Player, you will see I rate Ziebell highly, but rate Cunnington as being better, just. I am fairly convinced Cunnington can take a step, but I am a little worried he might start slow for the first 6 rounds, then take off.