Discussion 2019: Super Early Player & SC Game Change Discussion

[Connoisseur]

Will be very interesting to see how Carlton manage Cripps's workload in 2019.

2018 Time on Ground: 89.45%

131 players averaged over 20 disposals and E Curnow, R Gray, L Hunter, M Hurley, T Mitchell, H Shaw, J Sicily, K Simpson and Z Tuohy were the only players with a higher TOG than Cripps.

Also Cripps had a 59.36% contested possesion rate.

Whereas Oliver's time on ground was 82.91% with a contested possession rate of 55.18.

Games with 90 or more TOG% in 2018:
Cripps: 12
Oliver: 1

 

[Manikato1]

https://supercoachscores.com/threads/2014-chasing-last-years-points.926/

I think the regression of players who improved 20+ points is close to a golden rule. There will always be exceptions and good luck to those who want to back players in but the odds are against and the price means the upside is far outweighed by downside, even factoring in c scores, IMHO.

If so then this makes for an interesting list for next season. Players in that group include Sicily, Gawn, Hogan, Grundy and Lloyd to name a few of the more likely favoured selections for next year. There are also quite a few that are hard to get a line on because they are second or third season players and so sharp natural improvement in some is not unexpected. Refer to the list produced by Vin.gill

https://supercoachscores.com/threads/2018-season-top-20-most-and-least-improved-players.3909/

 

[Prochard]

Will be very interesting to see how Carlton manage Cripps's workload in 2019.

2018 Time on Ground: 89.45%

131 players averaged over 20 disposals and E Curnow, R Gray, L Hunter, M Hurley, T Mitchell, H Shaw, J Sicily, K Simpson and Z Tuohy were the only players with a higher TOG than Cripps.

Also Cripps had a 59.36% contested possesion rate.

Whereas Oliver's time on ground was 82.91% with a contested possession rate of 55.18.

Games with 90 or more TOG% in 2018:
Cripps: 12
Oliver: 1

Interesting, that does seem quite high for a non-KPP/Ruck player

 

[Bomber18]

My understanding of the 102/20ppg+ rule was that it applies only to players breaking the 102 avg mark for the first time (so doesn't apply to
Macrae or Cripps). The 102/20ppg+ players generally don't improve their average again in the following year so offer little value and pose more risk as starting selections. There are exceptions but Kelly, Crouch and Oliver were these guys last year. Oliver was the only one who bettered his average and I'll put that down to him being a golden exception to every rule as he also broke out in his second year. From memory, this rule generally holds true for mid/fwds and mids and only a small handful improve on their average after a breakout season.

I am a fan of the rule as a general guide.

 

[Prochard]

My understanding of the 102/20ppg+ rule was that it applies only to players breaking the 102 avg mark for the first time (so doesn't apply to
Macrae or Cripps). The 102/20ppg+ players generally don't improve their average again in the following year so offer little value and pose more risk as starting selections. There are exceptions but Kelly, Crouch and Oliver were these guys last year. Oliver was the only one who bettered his average and I'll put that down to him being a golden exception to every rule as he also broke out in his second year. From memory, this rule generally holds true for mid/fwds and mids and only a small handful improve on their average after a breakout season.

I am a fan of the rule as a general guide.

Elliot Yeo, Zac Merrett, Marcus Bontempelli, Adam Treloar, Jackson Macrae, Tom Mitchell, Lachie Neale, Matt Crouch, Josh Kelly, Clayton Oliver

All players that have baced up a 20+ point increase, around 100 points, and have at least somewhat maintained if not surpassed their previous years results.

There're way, way, way too many "outliers" for this rule, all of the above choices you can almost just remember on the top of your head.

May be easier finding players that actually does perform in line with this "rule"

 

[Rowsus]

Elliot Yeo, Zac Merrett, Marcus Bontempelli, Adam Treloar, Jackson Macrae, Tom Mitchell, Lachie Neale, Matt Crouch, Josh Kelly, Clayton Oliver

All players that have baced up a 20+ point increase, around 100 points, and have at least somewhat maintained if not surpassed their previous years results.

There're way, way, way too many "outliers" for this rule, all of the above choices you can almost just remember on the top of your head.

May be easier finding players that actually does perform in line with this "rule"

Didn't really want to get involved in this conversation, but here goes anyway:
Yeo beat the rule: 75.2 - 102.1 - 107.9
Merrett didn't beat the rule: 88.5 - 111.5 - 109.2
Bontempelli beat the rule: 78.6 - 103.2 - 107.7
Treloar didn't beat the rule: 87.0 - 107.5 - 106.8
Macrae didn't beat the rule: 94.1 - 106.9 - 127.1 has never qualified for the rule before - - - but has to try this season!
Mitchell didn't beat the rule: 83.8 - 104.5 - 104.0
Neale has never had a 20+ increase. His best is 17.1 when 87.2 - 104.3
Crouch never qualified for the rule, as his 20+ increase season only took him to 92.8
Kelly didn't beat the rule: 87.1 - 114.3 - 113.8
Oliver beat the rule: 70.3 - 111.5 - 114.7

So for all the 10 outliers, you just pulled off the top of your head, only 3 of them in fact beat the rule.
You are welcome to dismiss it, of course, but the bottom line is somewhere around 85% of players that have a 20+increase that take them to 102 or higher, score lower the next season.
If you are going to poo-hoo things, it would be nice if you actually took the time to check your facts first, before calling them irrelevant.

20+ rule is more about players receiving opposition attention I reckon. Don’t think there’s much relevance to this.

 

[Prochard]

Didn't really want to get involved in this conversation, but here goes anyway:
Yeo beat the rule: 75.2 - 102.1 - 107.9
Merrett didn't beat the rule: 88.5 - 111.5 - 109.2
Bontempelli beat the rule: 78.6 - 103.2 - 107.7
Treloar didn't beat the rule: 87.0 - 107.5 - 106.8
Macrae didn't beat the rule: 94.1 - 106.9 - 127.1 has never qualified for the rule before - - - but has to try this season!
Mitchell didn't beat the rule: 83.8 - 104.5 - 104.0
Neale has never had a 20+ increase. His best is 17.1 when 87.2 - 104.3
Crouch never qualified for the rule, as his 20+ increase season only took him to 92.8
Kelly didn't beat the rule: 87.1 - 114.3 - 113.8
Oliver beat the rule: 70.3 - 111.5 - 114.7

So for all the 10 outliers, you just pulled off the top of your head, only 3 of them in fact beat the rule.
You are welcome to dismiss it, of course, but the bottom line is somewhere around 85% of players that have a 20+increase that take them to 102 or higher, score lower the next season.
If you are going to poo-hoo things, it would be nice if you actually took the time to check your facts first, before calling them irrelevant.

I mentioned "All players that have baced up a 20+ point increase, around 100 points, and have at least somewhat maintained if not surpassed their previous years results."

Is it not a bit irrational to label Treloar as a victim of this rule when all he lost was 0.5 points on his average?

The reason why I overlooked those 0.5-1 point differences is because of this. You can't say oh Treloar/Mitchell/Kelly went backwards by 0.5 points, so therefore the rule is solid and applies to them.

No-one is calling out your stats, just relax for a bit lol. We were, or at least I was, only challenging the idea that inside mids can't backup their improvements because their bodies can't hold up.

 

[Rowsus]

The rule never even mentioned inside Mids, and only stated they would in likelihood drop in scoring.
You named 10 players "off the top of your head", and 7 of those 10 didn't break the rule.
It's really as simple as that.

 

[Prochard]

The rule never even mentioned inside Mids, and only stated they would in likelihood drop in scoring.
You named 10 players "off the top of your head", and 7 of those 10 didn't break the rule.
It's really as simple as that.

Ok now you're just taking things out of context, read the last page, we were clearly discussing pizza's idea and the "rule" in conjunction.

Also, there's no such thing as a "rule" in supercoach selection, except for like: you can have 30 players in a team... You mentioned that 85% of players fit your criteria. Look I'm not sure if this is accurate, nor will I have the time to check if it is. But let's just assume it is, a "rule" that only satisfies 85% of the cases, does that even count as a rule?

The game is constantly developing, scoring criterias offered by Heraldsun alter every year. To have cases such as Treloar/Mitchell dropping by 0.5 points to support the "rule", when it could easily be due to Heraldsun twitching one or two little scoring behaviour up...

I dont know, but that sounds quite unconvincing to me.

If you really wan't to argue that for players that average 102+ for the first time to worsen in performance, and not back up their previous season, at least remove the linecalls in your data.

 

[Prochard]

A more convincing trend (if data supports it) would be:

For players who enjoyed a 20% improvement in scoring, and exceeded 100 points in a season (not sure why the 102 in the first place tbh),

There is a statistical significance of at least 95% that the player decreased in average by at least 10% in the following season.

In the world of econometrics, the 95% significance interval is pretty much the absolute lowest people take to conclude that one observation is caused by this specific factor.

 

[Rowsus]

As usual, it is pointless discussing things with you, as you continually misquote, mislead, and in general be a pill.

If you spent just 5 mins reading the original thread, you wouldn't have written half of what you have written, referring to it.

The fact that you just stated that:

A more convincing trend (if data supports it) would be:

For players who enjoyed a 20% improvement in scoring, and exceeded 100 points in a season (not sure why the 102 in the first place tbh),

There is a statistical significance of at least 95% that the player decreased in average by at least 10% in the following season.

In the world of econometrics, the 95% significance interval is pretty much the absolute lowest people take to conclude that one observation is caused by this specific factor.

When the rule states BOTH a 20+ increase, and a 102+ average, makes your assertion that it should be a 20% increase moot.
As to around 85% not being relevant enough you, I couldn't really care if it is, or it isn't. If you can't see a trend in those numbers, I suggest you drop economics, and maybe take up the fine arts, or music, something more in keeping with how your logic and observation levels seems to function.
As to needing 95% to attribute something to a specific factor, I suggest you discuss that with one of your Professors, because I think you will find that is not accurate. Sure there are and can be other contributing factors, but that cuts both ways, for both players who met the rule, and players that broke the rule! Secondly, this is AFL and SuperCoach, not economics.
Have you ever heard of the rule "i before e, except after c"?
Funnily enough, there are more words in the English language that break that rule, than keep it, so it has a less than 50% strike rate, but is still considered and used as a rule by many.
Read it, or understand it, or leave it alone.

 

[Prochard]

As usual, it is pointless discussing things with you, as you continually misquote, mislead, and in general be a pill.

If you spent just 5 mins reading the original thread, you wouldn't have written half of what you have written, referring to it.

The fact that you just stated that:



When the rule states BOTH a 20+ increase, and a 102+ average, makes your assertion that it should be a 20% increase moot.
As to around 85% not being relevant enough you, I couldn't really care if it is, or it isn't. If you can't see a trend in those numbers, I suggest you drop economics, and maybe take up the fine arts, or music, something more in keeping with how your logic and observation levels seems to function.
As to needing 95% to attribute something to a specific factor, I suggest you discuss that with one of your Professors, because I think you will find that is not accurate. Sure there are and can be other contributing factors, but that cuts both ways, for both players who met the rule, and players that broke the rule! Secondly, this AFL and SuperCoach, not economics.
Have you ever heard of the rule "i before e, except after c"?
Funnily enough, there are more words in the English language that break that rule, than keep it, so it has a less than 50% strike rate, but is still considered and used as a rule by many.
Read it, or understand it, or leave it alone.

If you can't even be civilised enough to have a proper discussion in order to defend your findings without personal attacks, then I must admit it is a waste of time having this conversation.

I'll be the bigger man and leave.

 

[Rowsus]

If you can't even be civilised enough to have a proper discussion in order to defend your findings without personal attacks, then I must admit it is a waste of time having this conversation.

I'll be the bigger man and leave.

On behalf of many here, I can only state, we wish you took that option more often!

 

[pizza safety]

Ok now you're just taking things out of context, read the last page, we were clearly discussing pizza's idea and the "rule" in conjunction.

Also, there's no such thing as a "rule" in supercoach selection, except for like: you can have 30 players in a team... You mentioned that 85% of players fit your criteria. Look I'm not sure if this is accurate, nor will I have the time to check if it is. But let's just assume it is, a "rule" that only satisfies 85% of the cases, does that even count as a rule?

The game is constantly developing, scoring criterias offered by Heraldsun alter every year. To have cases such as Treloar/Mitchell dropping by 0.5 points to support the "rule", when it could easily be due to Heraldsun twitching one or two little scoring behaviour up...

I dont know, but that sounds quite unconvincing to me.

If you really wan't to argue that for players that average 102+ for the first time to worsen in performance, and not back up their previous season, at least remove the linecalls in your data.

To be clear I was never saying that all inside mids don't back it up, I was saying that I didn't think Cripps (who is an inside mid) and Macrae (who is inside and outside) would back it up.

In justifying the Cripps thing I said I feel he's at his peak of scoring and I think players do generally tend to fall back or stagnate after seasons as good as his. To be more specific I also don't see much on his stats sheet that I can see going up in a future season. His CP numbers look maxed out and he's not a guy who gets a lot of outside ball. He did start to get more outside ball as the year went on (but not more contested footy) and also started to kick more and this probably had an impact on his scoring, but I'm not convinced that will continue. His kicking could improve next year and it did to an extent this year, but I'm not sure if it will again next year. More to the point whilst I think he probably averages about 115 I can also see him getting very close to his average or even doing slightly better than it, but I also think he performs better post-bye so I will instead plan to trade him in. My argument was that J Kelly, Neale and Oliver offer better value to me because I can see them beating him and they will all be 30-45k cheaper, which is a lot of cash saved in a starting side. Same goes for Macrae and he is just way too unaffordable with other options available. I was super hot on Cripps last year due to his price but I'm all about picking players I can see taking another step in scoring according to value, as well as picking players who are very safe to stay very close to their average, as well as pods that make sense. I just don't think Cripps falls into any of those categories. Neale averaged 118 post R5 after coming off a bad preseason following a groin injury from mid the 2017 season and could possibly combine his improved efficiency in 2017 and 2018 with his high disposal numbers of 2016 in 2019. Kelly and Oliver still have heaps of potential and room to improve their averages (Oliver has a tank that's building, he's a better kick than Cripps and kicking more could net him more points; whilst Kelly had pretty low disposals and CP's last year per his average).

In reference to my comment about inside mids I was justifying why Cripps's game style might make him more prone to getting banged up and I mentioned that the fluctuation in averages of JPK and Selwood "could occur" due to them being banged up during specific seasons, but I don't have any evidence of that, it was merely just a hypothesis made in defence of my concern that Cripps will get banged up. This is more of a secondary concern with Cripps that I mentioned than my main reason for not picking him. We did see him play in Sydney with a mattress on his leg after all haha. These concerns are completely overblown by some but are still pertinent. I also said nobody can know why people's scores fluctuate but it's a possibility. Logically inside mids will get more knocks, almost by default, but they don't necessarily do as many hamstrings, groins, ACL's and PCL's as a consequence.

In any case I expect Neale and Oliver (if his shoulders are sweet, both are cooked at the moment) to back it up so I'm not generalising my point to all inside mids, they are necessary to scoring well in supercoach, so refusing to pick them would be madness.

Three players who I feel might be overpriced but I feel are worth risking is Grundy (just based on the eye test, his talent and the fact there could be daylight between the top 2 rucks and the rest), Yeo (due to his high ceiling from relatively low disposal numbers) and Dunkley (massive finish and high ceiling), the last of whom you could also argue is underpriced. We shall see.

Lastly, I'm also not saying picking Cripps or Macrae is a terrible call and I expect both to be top 10 mids by seasons end and this is just my viewpoint on the issue.

 

[stephen]

Sorry all. I actually only have one golden rule and I broke it by writing that post.

 

[Bermi]

To be clear I was never saying that all inside mids don't back it up, I was saying that I didn't think Cripps (who is an inside mid) and Macrae (who is inside and outside) wouldn't back it up.

In justifying the Cripps thing I said I feel he's at his peak of scoring and I think players do generally tend to fall back or stagnate after seasons as good as his. To be more specific I also don't see much on his stats sheet that I can see going up in a future season. His CP numbers look maxed out and he's not a guy who gets a lot of outside ball. He did start to get more outside ball as the year went on (but not more contested footy) and also started to kick more and this probably had an impact on his scoring, but I'm not convinced that will continue. His kicking could improve next year and it did to an extent this year, but I'm not sure if it will again next year. More to the point whilst I think he probably averages about 115 I can also see him getting very close to his average or even doing slightly better than it, but I also think he performs better post-bye so I will instead plan to trade him in. My argument was that J Kelly, Neale and Oliver offer better value to me because I can see them beating him and they will all be 30-45k cheaper, which is a lot of cash saved in a starting side. Same goes for Macrae and he is just way too unaffordable with other options available. I was super hot on Cripps last year due to his price but I'm all about picking players I can see taking another step in scoring according to value, as well as picking players who are very safe to stay very close to their average, as well as pods that make sense. I just don't think Cripps falls into any of those categories. Neale averaged 118 post R5 after coming off a bad preseason following a groin injury from mid the 2017 season and could possibly combine his improved efficiency in 2017 and 2018 with his high disposal numbers of 2016 in 2019. Kelly and Oliver still have heaps of potential and room to improve their averages (Oliver has a tank that's building, he's a better kick than Cripps and kicking more could net him more points; whilst Kelly had pretty low disposals and CP's last year per his average).

In reference to my comment about inside mids I was justifying why Cripps's game style might make him more prone to getting banged up and I mentioned that the fluctuation in averages of JPK and Selwood "could occur" due to them being banged up during specific seasons, but I don't have any evidence of that, it was merely just a hypothesis made in defence of my concern that Cripps will get banged up. This is more of a secondary concern with Cripps that I mentioned than my main reason for not picking him. We did see him play in Sydney with a mattress on his leg after all haha. These concerns are completely overblown by some but are still pertinent. I also said nobody can know why people's scores fluctuate but it's a possibility. Logically inside mids will get more knocks, almost by default, but they don't necessarily do as many hamstrings, groins, ACL's and PCL's as a consequence.

In any case I expect Neale and Oliver (if his shoulders are sweet, both are cooked at the moment) to back it up so I'm not generalising my point to all inside mids, they are necessary to scoring well in supercoach, so refusing to pick them would be madness.

Three players who I feel might be overpriced but I feel are worth risking is Grundy (just based on the eye test, his talent and the fact there could be daylight between the top 2 rucks and the rest), Yeo (due to his high ceiling from relatively low disposal numbers) and Dunkley (massive finish and high ceiling), the last of whom you could also argue is underpriced. We shall see.

Lastly, I'm also not saying picking Cripps or Macrae is a terrible call and I expect both to be top 1 mids by seasons end and this is just my viewpoint on the issue.

Thanks Pizza Safety for your 'to be clear' explanation, as I found it very useful.
As Rowsus correctly said above, regarding economics and fine arts, they don't mix well with me, as I labour when there are too many stats to absorb. I clearly understood what you said though.

In Supercoach there are way too many variants from year to year (actually week to week ) so I don't take stats too seriously. Decisions have to be based on something, so I can see that Stats plays a role in that.

 

[pizza safety]

Thanks Pizza Safety for your 'to be clear' explanation, as I found it very useful.
As Rowsus correctly said above, regarding economics and fine arts, they don't mix well with me, as I labour when there are too many stats to absorb. I clearly understood what you said though.

In Supercoach there are way too many variants from year to year (actually week to week ) so I don't take stats too seriously. Decisions have to be based on something, so I can see that Stats plays a role in that.

Haha there certainly is, I tend to combine stats with common sense and my understanding of footballers, stats on their own won't tell you a lot. Sometimes gut feel gets a decision over the line but I only find that useful when it's a very close call

 

[freowho]

I love the stats but I'm not in love with the stats. When I read a good bit of research that says in the last 10 years only a small percentage of players have improved the year after a 20point jump to get past a 102 average, I don't think that I won't pick any of those players but I will think that I need to have a very good reason to pick them.
Grundy falls into this category for me. Rucks history would suggest stay away but we don't have a lot of history without the third man up, he has now played at a premium level with another ruckman in the team, he is yet to enter the peak age zone for ruckmen and he is a viable captain each week.

 

[pizza safety]

I love the stats but I'm not in love with the stats. When I read a good bit of research that says in the last 10 years only a small percentage of players have improved the year after a 20point jump to get past a 102 average, I don't think that I won't pick any of those players but I will think that I need to have a very good reason to pick them.
Grundy falls into this category for me. Rucks history would suggest stay away but we don't have a lot of history without the third man up, he has now played at a premium level with another ruckman in the team, he is yet to enter the peak age zone for ruckmen and he is a viable captain each week.

I'm also keen on Grundy as an exception to the rule for exactly the reasons you've mentioned and because there might easily be daylight between him and Gawn and the next ruckman. It's not a position where you can pick a cheaper player and see them sneak into the top 6-8 for that position and therefore be worth having, there is only two players, thus why rucks are tricky. The winner is pretty likely to make the right decision with the rucks.

 

[Manikato1]

Interested to see Melbourne have elevated Corey Maynard to the senior list. Mature aged player who played NBL before switching to AFL. Played one game last year but then had hip surgery and that was it. If the price is right will follow with interest. Mature aged players on a roll in recent seasons.