Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2013
- Messages
- 232
- Likes
- 10
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I agree, it's hard to imagine him not being in, or around, the top 10 Defenders, IF he can stay on the park. It's that big "if" that I keep tripping over, though. 
First I am querying your tables Rowsus. According to my stats Shaw's PIT65 for '09 was 1965, '10 was 1909, '11 was 1933, none of which were in your tables, either as a defender or as a 'new' defender in '12. But after looking into it a bit further, I realised that you just left him out, because he did not make the top 10 either at the beginning or the end of the season.
I am not sure how to quantify my thoughts on Shaw:
1. shifted clubs
a) being unhappy before => possible plus
b) wants to prove himself at his new club => plus
c) most experience defender will make him opposition target for lockdown forward => minus
d) inexperienced co-players may look for him to get the pill out of defence => plus
e) being in a weaker team will mean the sherrin in more often in the defensive 50, especially towards the end of the quarter = plus
2. History
a) right side of 30 (28 years, 3 month) => plus
b) 173 games => plus
c) Average-games-PIT average-PIT; Career: 96.9-173-92.9-2,180 broken into last 8 seasons (newest first) 96.9-19-92.6-2,036, 101.2-18-94.6-2,082, 100.9-14-87.8-1,933, 90.2-18-86.8-1,909, 94.7-18-89.3-1,965, 91.5-18-86.7-1,907, 106.3-22-106.3-2,339, 100.7-21-99.1-2,180 => good enough?
BTW: Interesting trivia: His career average is the same as his last year average
Questions are:
What is his likely PIT for 2014.
Going with his three year average it is likely to be in the low 2000s.
Is his PIT for 2014 going to be in the top 10?
His three year average puts him into position 9 or 10, so unless 1c) (opp tagger) gets the better of him I think the answer is yes.
Is he a 'safe' pick?
Considering that even in his worst season (2010) he was only 102 points out of top 10 and 203 points out of top 6 I would say yes.
Based on Rowsus' earlier analyses, I would say he would have been a decent round 1 premium defender. Now it is probably better to wait and hope to pick him up as a fallen premium. However again I think he has the proven track record that if he drops down to about $400k he should be an almost automatic buy.
Rowsus' new toy will make that analyses and the 'break even buying price' much easier and clearer.
Hi Rowsus (aka the Oracle), the community is definitely keeping you busy! Can you pls direct me to a page that explains your RAMP and PIT concepts well?
Many thanks
Can you pls direct me to a page that explains your RAMP and PIT concepts well?Many thanks
RAMP - several years ago, I got tired of how ridiculous SC Gold's player score predictions could be. Some of them were off the chart. Predicting things like player A, who had never scored over 140, and only had a few scores over 120, would score 178. Things like that got up my nose. Totally useless. I can't remember the player in that example, but I do remember they scored a 93 that week! They seemed totally random. I decided I could do better myself, so I wrote an Excel sheet with a simplish formula to predict scores. It beat SC Gold in about 60% of predictions that first season. I have tinkered, and improved since that time. I will note, SC Gold have definitely improved in that time, too. I haven't run a comparison recently to see who is better. I also had a program I had written to predict Brownlow results, with some success. That too has been tinkered and improved over the seasons. I put them both under the heading of RAMP. RAMP has had many different meanings over the seasons. Rowsus Assessing Many Players was one of the first ones.
I made a slightly simpler version of RAMP this season, and made it available to SCS members. To date 112 have members have been sent a copy. It's not the full version I use, and has none of the Brownlow elements in it. If you want a copy, then just pm me your email address.
PIT - These came about because I wanted a way to answer the questions like, who was better value in SC, Buddy who played 17 games at 108, or Knackers who played 21 games at 98? The argument always raged back and forth, so I came up with own system. The PIT system. It stands for Place In Team, and it means what is that Place In your Team worth. The basic concept is to replace missed games with Rookie scores. I use 65 in Def, 70 in Fwd, 75 in Ruck and 80 in Mid. The good thing about this system is, that everyone can decide their own levels. Because players end up with a season score that is based on 22 games, it doesn't matter if you compare averages, or aggregates, the answer is the same. So in the example given:
Buddy 17 x 108 + 5 x 70 = 2186 - PIT70 score 2186, PIT70 average 99.36
Knackers 21 x 98 + 1 x 70 = 2128 - PIT70 score 2128, PIT70 average 96.73
To me it seems the only fair system of comparing a player with a good average, but many games missed, and a player that doesn't score as high, but rarely misses a game.
I hope this explains it well enough. Don't hesitate to ask further questions if you want/need to.
i have stuck with this rule for my team set up and it worked so far with both laidler and langdon onfield my team set up is -
2-1-5 (1 over 500k)
5-2-3
0-2-2 (sandi a keeper until ross'd at end of season)
5-1-2 (higgins being the 1 so he could be classed as rookie at 240k)
in my team i see 13 keepers and maybe 15 with a 10-10-10 bye structure most will think i dont have enough cash gen from mid rookies and it would be nice to have 1 more (daisy could be one by rnd3)
So far 2 of the big new defenders have not reached their BE and with bartel playing fwd i can see him averaging a 95 at best which good for a defender but maybe not to start at 570k'ish even mitchell i would be surprised if he stays over the 100av. hes sc scores having been slowly dropping over the last few season all 4 are great backman to have but maybe not at thier top price .
wont know until the byes really if going with only 1 def over 500k is a postive move or not hopfully it is
2-1-5 (1 over 500k)
5-2-3
0-2-2 (sandi a keeper until ross'd at end of season)
5-1-2 (higgins being the 1 so he could be classed as rookie at 240k)
in my team i see 13 keepers and maybe 15 with a 10-10-10 bye structure most will think i dont have enough cash gen from mid rookies and it would be nice to have 1 more (daisy could be one by rnd3)
So far 2 of the big new defenders have not reached their BE and with bartel playing fwd i can see him averaging a 95 at best which good for a defender but maybe not to start at 570k'ish even mitchell i would be surprised if he stays over the 100av. hes sc scores having been slowly dropping over the last few season all 4 are great backman to have but maybe not at thier top price .
wont know until the byes really if going with only 1 def over 500k is a postive move or not hopfully it is
Like that structure Maso. I also really like the only start 1 Def $500k+ rule from Johnno.
Hopefully I have learnt something from you guys at SCS this year, my structure is:
3-1-4 (1 over $500k)
5-0-5
1-1-2 (Sandi rule as Maso has said)
4-1-3
13 keepers + Sandi, with a 9-10-11 bye structure.
I think quite a few people will fall into a mid pricer trap this year, and find under performing players in their team and no cash gen - won't be pretty...
Question for Rowsus (after hijacking his thread!) - do you think there is a risk of a mid pricer trap this year?
Hopefully I have learnt something from you guys at SCS this year, my structure is:
3-1-4 (1 over $500k)
5-0-5
1-1-2 (Sandi rule as Maso has said)
4-1-3
13 keepers + Sandi, with a 9-10-11 bye structure.
I think quite a few people will fall into a mid pricer trap this year, and find under performing players in their team and no cash gen - won't be pretty...
Question for Rowsus (after hijacking his thread!) - do you think there is a risk of a mid pricer trap this year?
The bigger the Rookie scare coming into the season, the bigger the chance of a Mid price trap happening. This year is the biggest since 2009.
and just to play along with the Hijack, my team is currently
5-1-2 4 over $500k, but 3 of them are less than $20k over $500k
3-0-7
0-2-2 Jacobs/Sandi
5-1-2
and just to play along with the Hijack, my team is currently
5-1-2 4 over $500k, but 3 of them are less than $20k over $500k
3-0-7
0-2-2 Jacobs/Sandi
5-1-2
Last edited:
Hi Rowsus,
Just a quick hyperthetical for you.
I was one that did not start Beams and his 130 on the weekend has me spooked.
Currently have a 3-7 midfield Ablett, Pendles, Murphy, Aish, Tyson, Michie, Polec, Ellis, (Dunston, Crouch)
And a 5-1-2 forward line, Danger, Martin, Roughhead, Pavlich, Mitchell, Higgins, (Impey, Kennedy-Harris)
I have scored OK with out Beams this week being 11 + C for 1418.
I am considering for this week droping Roughhead for Caddy making Danger, Martin, Pavlich, Mitchell, Caddy, Higgins, (Impey, Kennedy-Harris)
This would leave me 320k in the bank.
Then next week I would go Aish to Beams.
So that would leave me with
Ablett, Pendles, Murphy, Beams, Tyson, Michie, Polec, Ellis, (Dunston, Crouch)
and
Danger, Martin, Pavlich, Mitchell, Caddy, Higgins, (Impey, Kennedy-Harris).
The main thing that has me considering this is the popularity of Beams and how not starting him and him going on to average 110+ and how much of a disadvantage this would place me at.
What are you thoughts?
Thanks in advance.
(If any body else has an opinion on this move I would appreciate yor feedback aswell).
Just a quick hyperthetical for you.
I was one that did not start Beams and his 130 on the weekend has me spooked.
Currently have a 3-7 midfield Ablett, Pendles, Murphy, Aish, Tyson, Michie, Polec, Ellis, (Dunston, Crouch)
And a 5-1-2 forward line, Danger, Martin, Roughhead, Pavlich, Mitchell, Higgins, (Impey, Kennedy-Harris)
I have scored OK with out Beams this week being 11 + C for 1418.
I am considering for this week droping Roughhead for Caddy making Danger, Martin, Pavlich, Mitchell, Caddy, Higgins, (Impey, Kennedy-Harris)
This would leave me 320k in the bank.
Then next week I would go Aish to Beams.
So that would leave me with
Ablett, Pendles, Murphy, Beams, Tyson, Michie, Polec, Ellis, (Dunston, Crouch)
and
Danger, Martin, Pavlich, Mitchell, Caddy, Higgins, (Impey, Kennedy-Harris).
The main thing that has me considering this is the popularity of Beams and how not starting him and him going on to average 110+ and how much of a disadvantage this would place me at.
What are you thoughts?
Thanks in advance.
(If any body else has an opinion on this move I would appreciate yor feedback aswell).
First ask yourself Deeman1, why didn't I go with Beams in the first place?
If you have a reasonable answer, and any answer other than 'Beams who?' is reasonable (I will also accept 'I used a player name dartboard to pick my team'), then you have your answer imo
Remember, if you have done any preseason research then there are reasons why your start team looks the way it does.
Just my 2 cents.
Disclaimer - the thoughts, opinions, feelings, strategies of PeptideCourage are usually wrong and will probably lead to poor SC performance!
If you have a reasonable answer, and any answer other than 'Beams who?' is reasonable (I will also accept 'I used a player name dartboard to pick my team'), then you have your answer imo
Remember, if you have done any preseason research then there are reasons why your start team looks the way it does.
Just my 2 cents.
Disclaimer - the thoughts, opinions, feelings, strategies of PeptideCourage are usually wrong and will probably lead to poor SC performance!
Hi Deeman1,
I hate answering a question with another question, but why didn't you start with Beams? Not in a smart Alec way, but what were your reasons? I'm guessing you weren't convinced he will either play enough games, or get 110+ average. Ok, nothing wrong with that, but you must have conceded somewhere in your mind that he would get some good scores somewhere/sometime. This just might have been one of them! you knew you were swimming against the flow leaving him out. It was a calculated risk. One score, that wasn't totally unexpected shouldn't have you second guessing your well thought out plan.
Your plan is basically Roughie + Aish out for Beams + Higgins via 1 trade.
You plan to bring in Higgins, even though you had decided against him as well.
My thoughts are most 2nd guesses are wrong. Think strongly on why you left both Beams and Higgins out.
Think through the different scenarios from here.
Beams and Higgins going big, how happy will you be?
Roughie going big, and Caddy performing to a near Keeper level, while not totally unexpectedly BOTH Higgins and Beams crash out in the 2nd quarter in round 2, sitting on 18 and 25! How ****ed off will you be?
I think Beams is good value, and also a risk. I think you had good reasons for leaving him and Higgins out. It's hard to recommend against those thoughts after only one game.
ps - never let popularity persuade your decisions! History will show the more popular a choice is, the more profit there is to be made by heading in a different direction!
pps - I have Beams, Roughie and Caddy, but not Higgins.
I hate answering a question with another question, but why didn't you start with Beams? Not in a smart Alec way, but what were your reasons? I'm guessing you weren't convinced he will either play enough games, or get 110+ average. Ok, nothing wrong with that, but you must have conceded somewhere in your mind that he would get some good scores somewhere/sometime. This just might have been one of them! you knew you were swimming against the flow leaving him out. It was a calculated risk. One score, that wasn't totally unexpected shouldn't have you second guessing your well thought out plan.
Your plan is basically Roughie + Aish out for Beams + Higgins via 1 trade.
You plan to bring in Higgins, even though you had decided against him as well.
My thoughts are most 2nd guesses are wrong. Think strongly on why you left both Beams and Higgins out.
Think through the different scenarios from here.
Beams and Higgins going big, how happy will you be?
Roughie going big, and Caddy performing to a near Keeper level, while not totally unexpectedly BOTH Higgins and Beams crash out in the 2nd quarter in round 2, sitting on 18 and 25! How ****ed off will you be?
I think Beams is good value, and also a risk. I think you had good reasons for leaving him and Higgins out. It's hard to recommend against those thoughts after only one game.
ps - never let popularity persuade your decisions! History will show the more popular a choice is, the more profit there is to be made by heading in a different direction!
pps - I have Beams, Roughie and Caddy, but not Higgins.
First ask yourself Deeman1, why didn't I go with Beams in the first place?
If you have a reasonable answer, and any answer other than 'Beams who?' is reasonable (I will also accept 'I used a player name dartboard to pick my team'), then you have your answer imo
Remember, if you have done any preseason research then there are reasons why your start team looks the way it does.
Just my 2 cents.
Disclaimer - the thoughts, opinions, feelings, strategies of PeptideCourage are usually wrong and will probably lead to poor SC performance!
If you have a reasonable answer, and any answer other than 'Beams who?' is reasonable (I will also accept 'I used a player name dartboard to pick my team'), then you have your answer imo
Remember, if you have done any preseason research then there are reasons why your start team looks the way it does.
Just my 2 cents.
Disclaimer - the thoughts, opinions, feelings, strategies of PeptideCourage are usually wrong and will probably lead to poor SC performance!
Sorry Rowsus, I am already planning to start Higgins so the trade off would be:
Roughhead + Aish 4 Beams + Caddy
The main reason I did not start Beams was for structure reasons and the fact that the forwardline rookies are so thin on the ground. I'm not sure that my plan was so well thought out in the first place. I also now have concerns that I will be able to generate enough cash to find another 5 premium midfielders, atleast if I have both Murphy and Beams in M3 and M4, I would only have to bring in 4 others under the assumtion that Beams and Murphy are 'Keepers'.
Yes I agree it comes down to risk. But the question then becomes which risk is bigger:
Not having Beams, (when most other teams do) and him going on to play 20+ games at 110+ or having Beams and him getting injured and then having to deal with the problem along with everybody else. To me the risk of not having him and him going bang is greater than having him and him going bang, as at least with the second everybody is in the same boat.
LOL, you were supposed to answer my question not give me new one.
Edit, now that I look at the teams above believe that the second team of:
Ablett, Pendles, Murphy, Beams, Tyson, Michie, Polec, Ellis, (Dunston, Crouch)
and
Danger, Martin, Pavlich, Mitchell, Caddy, Higgins, (Impey, Kennedy-Harris).
Is the better structure.
Roughhead + Aish 4 Beams + Caddy
The main reason I did not start Beams was for structure reasons and the fact that the forwardline rookies are so thin on the ground. I'm not sure that my plan was so well thought out in the first place. I also now have concerns that I will be able to generate enough cash to find another 5 premium midfielders, atleast if I have both Murphy and Beams in M3 and M4, I would only have to bring in 4 others under the assumtion that Beams and Murphy are 'Keepers'.
Yes I agree it comes down to risk. But the question then becomes which risk is bigger:
Not having Beams, (when most other teams do) and him going on to play 20+ games at 110+ or having Beams and him getting injured and then having to deal with the problem along with everybody else. To me the risk of not having him and him going bang is greater than having him and him going bang, as at least with the second everybody is in the same boat.
LOL, you were supposed to answer my question not give me new one.
Edit, now that I look at the teams above believe that the second team of:
Ablett, Pendles, Murphy, Beams, Tyson, Michie, Polec, Ellis, (Dunston, Crouch)
and
Danger, Martin, Pavlich, Mitchell, Caddy, Higgins, (Impey, Kennedy-Harris).
Is the better structure.
Last edited:
First ask yourself Deeman1, why didn't I go with Beams in the first place?
If you have a reasonable answer, and any answer other than 'Beams who?' is reasonable (I will also accept 'I used a player name dartboard to pick my team'), then you have your answer imo
Remember, if you have done any preseason research then there are reasons why your start team looks the way it does.
Just my 2 cents.
Disclaimer - the thoughts, opinions, feelings, strategies of PeptideCourage are usually wrong and will probably lead to poor SC performance!
If you have a reasonable answer, and any answer other than 'Beams who?' is reasonable (I will also accept 'I used a player name dartboard to pick my team'), then you have your answer imo
Remember, if you have done any preseason research then there are reasons why your start team looks the way it does.
Just my 2 cents.
Disclaimer - the thoughts, opinions, feelings, strategies of PeptideCourage are usually wrong and will probably lead to poor SC performance!
I'm not sure now if my Preseason research was adequate, lol and not suer if the structure was right either, lol.
Cheers for your response.
- Status