Opinion Questions For Rowsus

[Juzzo]

Thanks Rowsus.
I appreciate your masses of work on this site, hopefully your info can help me be a better SCer.

Juzzo

 

[Krieks]

Hey Rowsus I know I've bugged a few times with random questions and ideas.. Last one I promise then I'll give you a break!

I'm tossing up a bit of a left field strategy of not spending my full salary cap, but carrying a bank of $200-250k into the season. I'm fairly happy with the balance of my squad, with maybe straight swaps between rookies (and a couple of prems) to go as the team settles towards round 1. My theory here is that if I have a small kitty I can effectively get a half jump on an upgrade ahead of some teams, and get a player who has either performed well and looking a likely top 8, or a player who's dipped in price early and good value.

Using my mids as an example, if I have 4 premiums and 6 rookies I can't really use the $200k to turn a rookie into a premium. But if I wait till 1 rookie gets up in value, I can upgrade him quicker than I otherwise could have. The obvious downside is that I could lose points on the teams who have spent their full salary cap but I'm thinking it could be worth it rather than end up with a risky mid pricer I'm not sure can out perform a rookie by much. While it will probably eventually come down to the rookies available and my confidence in them, I'd really like to know your thoughts on this as a strategy (be as brutally honest as you'd like if its insane!).

Thanks!

 

[Manikato1]

I'm tossing up a bit of a left field strategy of not spending my full salary cap, but carrying a bank of $200-250k into the season.

Krieks, I agree with keeping a good lump of cash in the kitty. Not sure about $250k but I'll be keeping 150 to 200k. Yes you could use the extra 100k to upgrade a player and get 10 or 15 pts per game. But the number of times in the past few seasons I have wanted to upgrade or do a correctional trade early on and fell short by 5 or 10k because I put it all on the field at the start really started giving me a bad case of the Edgar Britts. And in the end if you are forced into a trade you don't want and miss out on a player that goes big you lose a lot more than the 15pts per game for the 100k you spent.

Last season I held back 100k and that worked a lot better. The flexibility of having the cash and being able to sit back and see who to bring in early in the season knowing I had the cash to do it without rearranging my team to get what I wanted worked for me so I'm going with that strategy again.

 

[mpollock]

Hi Rowsus

Was wanting to get your take from a numbers perspective about the impact of starting only three premium mids compared to starting 4 or 5. My team currently has Ablett, Pendles, Beams and then midfield rookies (e.g Martin/C.Beams etc).

I have hear lots of people saying while you will make good money, you will get to far behind from the start and you need another mid premium or two. I want to establish if there is any mathematical grounds for these comments or if it is in fact just a myth ..

In my forward line for example I have Franklin, Gunston, JJK as my F3,4,5. My back line has Enright, Suckling as D4,5. I also have a ruck combo of Minson/Sandi. This gives you an idea on my structure compared to someone who may start a midfield of Ablett, Pendles, Watson, Barlow, Beams + rookies for example. And then go lighter in the forward line with M.Clark, Billings, Rohan.

Obviously there are a million factors here but i am sure there is a way to sort of work this out based on what premium mids v premium forwards and backs normally average - and then factor in the same in terms of rookies. The other key factor would need to be how many viable back/forward rookies/cheap players there are this year compared to last.

Hope this makes sense (it is pretty late) .. appreciate you thoughts anyway and those of anyone else of course

 

[Rowsus]

Hey Rowsus I know I've bugged a few times with random questions and ideas.. Last one I promise then I'll give you a break!

I'm tossing up a bit of a left field strategy of not spending my full salary cap, but carrying a bank of $200-250k into the season. I'm fairly happy with the balance of my squad, with maybe straight swaps between rookies (and a couple of prems) to go as the team settles towards round 1. My theory here is that if I have a small kitty I can effectively get a half jump on an upgrade ahead of some teams, and get a player who has either performed well and looking a likely top 8, or a player who's dipped in price early and good value.

Using my mids as an example, if I have 4 premiums and 6 rookies I can't really use the $200k to turn a rookie into a premium. But if I wait till 1 rookie gets up in value, I can upgrade him quicker than I otherwise could have. The obvious downside is that I could lose points on the teams who have spent their full salary cap but I'm thinking it could be worth it rather than end up with a risky mid pricer I'm not sure can out perform a rookie by much. While it will probably eventually come down to the rookies available and my confidence in them, I'd really like to know your thoughts on this as a strategy (be as brutally honest as you'd like if its insane!).

Thanks!

Hey Krieks, you can "bug" me as much as you like. That's what this thread is for.
It can be a good idea to have some cash up your sleeve, for the reasons you stated. I certainly prefer that, over using the money just because you can. If you feel using that money won't bring a proportional improvement to your team, then you are best to keep it. $200-$250 is a lot, but if you are happy with your team, and can't see, say a 20 point improvement by using $100k of it, then there is nothing wrong with your strategy.

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus

Was wanting to get your take from a numbers perspective about the impact of starting only three premium mids compared to starting 4 or 5. My team currently has Ablett, Pendles, Beams and then midfield rookies (e.g Martin/C.Beams etc).

I have hear lots of people saying while you will make good money, you will get to far behind from the start and you need another mid premium or two. I want to establish if there is any mathematical grounds for these comments or if it is in fact just a myth ..

In my forward line for example I have Franklin, Gunston, JJK as my F3,4,5. My back line has Enright, Suckling as D4,5. I also have a ruck combo of Minson/Sandi. This gives you an idea on my structure compared to someone who may start a midfield of Ablett, Pendles, Watson, Barlow, Beams + rookies for example. And then go lighter in the forward line with M.Clark, Billings, Rohan.

Obviously there are a million factors here but i am sure there is a way to sort of work this out based on what premium mids v premium forwards and backs normally average - and then factor in the same in terms of rookies. The other key factor would need to be how many viable back/forward rookies/cheap players there are this year compared to last.

Hope this makes sense (it is pretty late) .. appreciate you thoughts anyway and those of anyone else of course

Hi mp,
there seems to be a bit of discussion about this in the forum at the moment. Mathematically there is no basis to think you will score lower in the early rounds with less Mid Prems in your team. It's how well you use the money that will determine that, not where you use it. It's definitely a swings and roundabout situation. Look at it in simple terms. If your bench has say $960k sitting on it, that means you have $9,040,000 on the ground. If we for arguments sake say you have 8 Rookies on the ground, that cost $1,240,000 and 14 Premiums/Midpricers that cost $7,800,000. If we put a random return on the rookies as say $2,700/point, and we know the other players started at close to $5,400/point (Let's pretend you have no discounted players like Beams or Thomas, just for the exercise). Then your scoring looks like this:

$1,240,000/$2,700 + $7,800,000/$5,400 = 459 + 1,444 (+120 for Captain) = 2023.

Surely everyone can see, it doesn't matter where, or how, you apportion the $1,240k and the $7,800k, Forward, Mid or Ruck, the equation is the same. This of course assumes everything is "equal" right now. Some will argue that some of the Mid Rookies will return at a higher rate, than say the Def Rookies. They may be right, but for the moment, that is speculation. (... and if they did, your tactic is better than the other peoples)
Without anyone going to extreme examples, just to prove me wrong, your first round and early scores are only dependant on how well you spend your money, not where you spend it.

 

[tracygrims]

Hi Rowsus and enlightened contributers,

Do you think players some players are really injury prone or do you think they just have had a string of bad luck?
Could regression towards the mean be applied in some cases?
Does number of games played in previous seasons really predict how many a player will play in the following season?


tak på forhånd

 

[mpollock]

Hi mp,
there seems to be a bit of discussion about this in the forum at the moment. Mathematically there is no basis to think you will score lower in the early rounds with less Mid Prems in your team. It's how well you use the money that will determine that, not where you use it. It's definitely a swings and roundabout situation. Look at it in simple terms. If your bench has say $960k sitting on it, that means you have $9,040,000 on the ground. If we for arguments sake say you have 8 Rookies on the ground, that cost $1,240,000 and 14 Premiums/Midpricers that cost $7,800,000. If we put a random return on the rookies as say $2,700/point, and we know the other players started at close to $5,400/point (Let's pretend you have no discounted players like Beams or Thomas, just for the exercise). Then your scoring looks like this:

$1,240,000/$2,700 + $7,800,000/$5,400 = 459 + 1,444 (+120 for Captain) = 2023.

Surely everyone can see, it doesn't matter where, or how, you apportion the $1,240k and the $7,800k, Forward, Mid or Ruck, the equation is the same. This of course assumes everything is "equal" right now. Some will argue that some of the Mid Rookies will return at a higher rate, than say the Def Rookies. They may be right, but for the moment, that is speculation. (... and if they did, your tactic is better than the other peoples)
Without anyone going to extreme examples, just to prove me wrong, your first round and early scores are only dependant on how well you spend your money, not where you spend it.

Thanks mate. That is what i was thinking. I guess as always it is about finding value and counterbalancing that against risk ..

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus and enlightened contributers,

Do you think players some players are really injury prone or do you think they just have had a string of bad luck?
Could regression towards the mean be applied in some cases?
Does number of games played in previous seasons really predict how many a player will play in the following season?


tak på forhånd

Hi tracy,
unfortunately I think both scenarios apply, which makes it very difficult to decide which side of the fence to come down on, for some players. I use a sort of return to statistical mean during the season to help my trade decisions (as does anyone shopping for fallen Premiums.) I don't think there is any way to determine, statistically, which catagory a player should fall into. If Morabito is a string of bad luck, about to regress to the mean, then he must be due to play around 200 consecutive games!
Some players you can apply "logic" to, in assuming they will miss games. We can be pretty certain Sandi will miss games, even if fit, as he will likely get managed. That of course falls outside the area you are asking about.
I guess the bottomline is, physiologically we are all different, and not everybody's genetics or physical make-up is suited to the high stress levels on your body AFL football can bring. I just wish we could determine which players that applied to.

Det var så lidt.

 

[Goodie's Guns]

Hi Rowsus,

Just wondering what your thoughts are on Kade Simpson?? I've pretty much had him locked in since about halfway through last year when I work out that he was going to get DEF categorised, but am now just re-thinking the move a little. Not keen on McVeigh or Bartel, do like Hanley but his fixture is a little worrying in a Lions team that will continue to struggle presumably. I think Simpson will be a consistent scorer, going at somewhere near 95-100 as an average with the odd larger 120+ score. Thoughts??

My current DEF is: Mitchell, Hibberd, Simpson, Hurn + rookies

Cheers Goodie

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus,

Just wondering what your thoughts are on Kade Simpson?? I've pretty much had him locked in since about halfway through last year when I work out that he was going to get DEF categorised, but am now just re-thinking the move a little. Not keen on McVeigh or Bartel, do like Hanley but his fixture is a little worrying in a Lions team that will continue to struggle presumably. I think Simpson will be a consistent scorer, going at somewhere near 95-100 as an average with the odd larger 120+ score. Thoughts??

My current DEF is: Mitchell, Hibberd, Simpson, Hurn + rookies

Cheers Goodie

I pretty much agree with everything you said.
I would be fairly surprised if he doesn't finish top 8-10 on the Defenders PIT65 list.

 

[PowerBrokers]

Hi Rowsus,

I've been lurking these forums for the past 2 weeks, and I just have to say that I am blown away with the insight, depth and sheer scale of your statistical analysis!
You are an amazing resource!

Beginning my question, I've been looking at the past 3 Supercoach winners and have noticed something in their round-by-round results.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can see not a single winner has scored the highest round score.
Why is this?

My thoughts are consistency over form as a general rule, however if someone scores a freak 2,800 shouldn't that rocket them towards the top?

Take Dimmawits for example. His highest pure score was 2,543 in the last round, however this was only the 12,786th ranked score for that week! More so, his highest ranked round score was only 392!

This question isn't related to strategy as such, just an observation I've made.

 

[AngryAnt]

G'day Rowsus, love your work!

Would you please be able to statistically show if Matthew Boyd negatively affects Ryan Griffen's scoring, perhaps using data from the past two years? Boyd was out for a lot of last season and whilst I haven't gone back through all the games, I suspect that Boyd does negate some of Griffen's scoring when he does play.

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus,

I've been lurking these forums for the past 2 weeks, and I just have to say that I am blown away with the insight, depth and sheer scale of your statistical analysis!
You are an amazing resource!

Beginning my question, I've been looking at the past 3 Supercoach winners and have noticed something in their round-by-round results.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can see not a single winner has scored the highest round score.
Why is this?

My thoughts are consistency over form as a general rule, however if someone scores a freak 2,800 shouldn't that rocket them towards the top?

Take Dimmawits for example. His highest pure score was 2,543 in the last round, however this was only the 12,786th ranked score for that week! More so, his highest ranked round score was only 392!

This question isn't related to strategy as such, just an observation I've made.

Hi PowerBrokers,
the thing to keep in mind is that the weekly winner is largely a raffle. Most weeks the winner of that prize will have someone like Geary at D5, and he happened to score 142 that week. Geary will quickly fall back to his 70,s the next week, and that Coach will revert back to losing 50-100 on the good teams again. The overall Winner is more about building a solid consistent team. Yes, that gives them plenty of weeks (maybe 3 to 6) in the season where they might have a weekly top 2-3000 finish, but they are missing that freakish score or 2, from players you just don't expect. There's not many weeks that most, or all, the popular Premiums fire at once, and when they do, you get rounds like round 23 last season. 2400 was a good score on paper in round 23 last season, but lots of people lost Grand Finals with that sort of score, there were BIG scores everywhere that week.

 

[tracygrims]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can see not a single winner has scored the highest round score.
Why is this?

Clearly there is a correlation between scoring high in any one round and being the winner. But lets suppose there wasn't for a second.

The chance of the yearly winner to actually win the round in Rd1 is 1/300,000 odd. For any round it is 23/300,000 and over the past 10 years of supercoach it is 230/300,000
or
0.000076

 

[Rowsus]

G'day Rowsus, love your work!

Would you please be able to statistically show if Matthew Boyd negatively affects Ryan Griffen's scoring, perhaps using data from the past two years? Boyd was out for a lot of last season and whilst I haven't gone back through all the games, I suspect that Boyd does negate some of Griffen's scoring when he does play.

Hi Angry, thanks for the kind words.
I thought I'd do a thorough comparison for you, and even factor in games where Boyd might have played limited minutes. The only problem is, that prior to 2013, Boyd hasn't had a game with less than 80% TOG since round 2, 2007, where he had 70% TOG. That's reliability right there! As he has only missed 2 games in 2010, and 9 games last year, for a total of 11 missed in the last 7 seasons, we can only really look at 2013.
All of Boyds games in 2013 were 77+%TOG. He missed rounds 1, 2, 3, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20. So lets pull Griffens season apart.

Griffen 20/2327 ave 116.35. (with Boyd missing 9/1085 ave 120.56, when Boyd plays 11/1242 ave 112.91)
Wins 8/927 ave 115.88 (wins with Boyd missing 4/535 ave 133.75, wins when Boyd plays 4/392 ave 98.00)
Losses 12/1400 ave 116.67 (losses with Boyd missing 5/550 ave 110, losses when Boyd plays 7/850 ave 121.43)

So it looks like Griffen might score a little higher in wins, when Boyd doesn't play, but in general, Boyd has little affect on Griffens score.

 

[broges]

Hi Rowsus - lots of discussion about T Mitchell tonight in GWS v Swans game. What is the likelihood of him beating the 2nd year blues? Am aware that certain players have beaten the trend (e.g. Wingard) but also very aware of what happened to 'the magician' Zorko. Do you have any analysis about top performing rookies around their 1st/2nd/3rd years? Thanks in advance! If you have already answered this question, happy to be pointed to that thread.

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus - lots of discussion about T Mitchell tonight in GWS v Swans game. What is the likelihood of him beating the 2nd year blues? Am aware that certain players have beaten the trend (e.g. Wingard) but also very aware of what happened to 'the magician' Zorko. Do you have any analysis about top performing rookies around their 1st/2nd/3rd years? Thanks in advance! If you have already answered this question, happy to be pointed to that thread.

Hi broges,
I think the 2nd year blues in most cases is just a case of people setting their expectations of a certain player too high. I don't have any stats to back it up, but I believe a lot of it is even subconscious on our part. Tom Mitchell averages 86 last season, when he cost us $114k. Everyone's happy. This season he costs $460k, and if he scores at 88 people will say "2nd year blues". Players progress as an AFL player rarely matches their price rises in SC, or the rise in our expectations. Quite often it is a season or two behind. Anyone expecting Mitchell to be a good SC selection this year is expecting too much I think. Not many players score at a Keeper level in their 2nd season of football.

 

[Zim^zuM]

Hi PowerBrokers,
the thing to keep in mind is that the weekly winner is largely a raffle. Most weeks the winner of that prize will have someone like Geary at D5, and he happened to score 142 that week. Geary will quickly fall back to his 70,s the next week, and that Coach will revert back to losing 50-100 on the good teams again. The overall Winner is more about building a solid consistent team. Yes, that gives them plenty of weeks (maybe 3 to 6) in the season where they might have a weekly top 2-3000 finish, but they are missing that freakish score or 2, from players you just don't expect. There's not many weeks that most, or all, the popular Premiums fire at once, and when they do, you get rounds like round 23 last season. 2400 was a good score on paper in round 23 last season, but lots of people lost Grand Finals with that sort of score, there were BIG scores everywhere that week.

People get to score one week, 97,654th the next. 76,534 the following. That's why. I know an abysmal fantasy player who top scored one week last year in sports bet.

 

[broges]

Hi broges,
I think the 2nd year blues in most cases is just a case of people setting their expectations of a certain player too high. I don't have any stats to back it up, but I believe a lot of it is even subconscious on our part. Tom Mitchell averages 86 last season, when he cost us $114k. Everyone's happy. This season he costs $460k, and if he scores at 88 people will say "2nd year blues". Players progress as an AFL player rarely matches their price rises in SC, or the rise in our expectations. Quite often it is a season or two behind. Anyone expecting Mitchell to be a good SC selection this year is expecting too much I think. Not many players score at a Keeper level in their 2nd season of football.

Thanks Rowsus. Guess that means 'buyer beware' for 2nd year! Just wondered if wingard was the exception to the rule. Sadly, sounds like that is the case.