Opinion Mid-Price Madness: It's a fine line between pleasure and pain

[freowho]

This is one of the best articles I have read on this site. Thanks for putting it together. Rowsus you have a new challenger!

Unlike the Sydney midfield supercoachscores has unlimited points.

 

[KLo30]

Well done klo it's one of the best write ups that I have seen. U make it sound so easy. I am sorry in advance if people have discussed the structure of your teams but it's one of the burning questions for me. Last year some or most went with mid price players in the backline. I was one of them and it didn't work out. I am wondering if it's best to have a 3 premium def structure followed by
4 premiums midfield and 2 mid pricers
2 premium rucks or 1 mid pricer such as leuy
3-4 premium forward line depending on the cash flow.

Imo Libba and crouch look like the stand out mid pricers this year but I could be wrong. Is it best to fit them in or just fit one of them in.

If you are going to pick a mid-pricer, whether they be defenders, mids, rucks or forwards, you should have a compelling case underlying your selection. That compelling case should hold up to critical analysis, and not just gut instinct, as the percentage of mid-price success stories is quite low. (Rowsus did an excellent analysis on mid-price defenders not long ago, link)

Such criteria would include, but not be limited to: Long term injuries (to others), position change (back pocket to wing), role change (lock down tag to pure mid), sustained 2nd half of season scoring run, heavily discounted on return from LTI (eg. Sandilands)............

The next criteria to consider is what the potential point differential would be if the selection doesn't pan out. In the midfield a premium would score 110+ whilst the midpricer churns out 85-90, and immediately you are down 20-25+ points, making the midfield a poor place to attempt this strategy. Whilst in defence a premium 95 and midpricer 80, and you are down 15 points. In addition, there are many more midfielders likely to get off to a 110-115+ start to the season than there are defenders who are likely to go 95+, making defenders the safer option when employing the mid-price strategy.

Additionally, the price differential to upgrade is much smaller with defenders than midfielders making upgrading easier and hence mitigating the risk factor.

Whatever the structure of your team you need to have plans in place to improve regardless of the how well you start. Most of us spend our time devising a plan on when we are going to cull our rookies to complete our teams in the quickest time possible and give little time and thought to devising get out strategies when our mid-price punts, and/or supposed keepers, don't pan out as hoped. Pearcey's journey last year is a good example of quick movement early. link

I know I didn't specifically answer your question but I hope this gives you help devising your team structure.

 

[KLo30]

Copied for ease of access.

20-02-2015 - Hondo

Rowsus I'm curious about what history says about $300k defenders breaking out? With all the focus on them this season it struck me as a useful guider for us.

21-02-2015 - Rowsus

Hondo, in 2013 there were 70 Defs priced between $275k and $350k, only 41 of them were selected in Rnd 1, and seeing as we are looking at this from a selection point of view, let's just concentrate on those 41, as you wouldn't have picked the other 29 in your starting team. Just like defining Premiums, defining breakouts is up to the individuals, so let's just look at some numbers.
7 of the 41 played 22 games that season, 5 played 21, 2 played 20 and 4 played 19.

The highest averaging players were:
Henderson 14/85
Ellis 20/82
Dunn 18/82
McKenzie E 21/81
No other players reached 80/game.

The highest aggregate players were:
McKenzie E 1701 error, McKenzie wasn't this high, but refer to coming thread.
Patful 1650
Otten 1650
Ellis 1640
Carlisle 1596
No other players cracked 1500 points.

My own conclusion is, that none of the players achieved a breakout, as none of them achieved a Keeper level.

In 2014 there were 60 Defs priced between $275k and $350k, only 38 were selected to play round 1.
13 played 22 games, 1 played 21 games, 5 played 20 games and 2 played 19 games.

The highest averaging players were:
Jaensch 22/90
Everitt 17/82
Guthrie 22/80
no other players averaged 80/game.

The highest aggregate players were:
Jaensch 1980
Guthrie 1760
Rampe 1672
Grundy 1672
Suckling 1617
Picken 1540
no other players cracked 1500 points

To my way of thinking, only Jaensch achieved a breakout, as no other players scored at a level you'd be happy to Keep.

So in the last 2 seasons, 79 Defs have been selected to play in Round 1 that were priced between $275k and $350k. 39 of them have played in 19 or more games for the season. Only one achieved a 90/game average, and 6 of them an average between 80 and 85. Only one achieved a season total of 1800 point or more, which should be around the very minimum you'd accept from your D6, depending on circumstances.

In 2015 there are 57 Defs priced between $275k and $350k. If anyone can beat the odds, and find a Keeper/breakout player amongst them, then good luck to them!

* - note - some of the aggregate figures might be slightly out, as they were arrived at by multiplying a rounded off score/game average, by the number of games played. Sorry.

 

[Drew]

So what do you think of Seedsman Klo? New club, new opportunities, and perhaps a bit of mid time if you can take what is reported this time of year seriously.

 

[KLo30]

2015:
56 Defenders between $275-350K
7 Didn't play a game

Top 10 Average
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 496"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Sprice[/TD]
[TD]Club[/TD]
[TD]Games[/TD]
[TD]Fprice[/TD]
[TD]SC Total[/TD]
[TD]SC Ave[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Rory Laird[/TD]
[TD]317800[/TD]
[TD]ADE[/TD]
[TD]21[/TD]
[TD]449500[/TD]
[TD]1970[/TD]
[TD]93.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Sam Gilbert[/TD]
[TD]293800[/TD]
[TD]STK[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]431500[/TD]
[TD]886[/TD]
[TD]80.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Garrick Ibboston[/TD]
[TD]342900[/TD]
[TD]FRE[/TD]
[TD]22[/TD]
[TD]387700[/TD]
[TD]1769[/TD]
[TD]80.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Zach Tuohy[/TD]
[TD]324900[/TD]
[TD]CAR[/TD]
[TD]22[/TD]
[TD]379200[/TD]
[TD]1745[/TD]
[TD]79.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Jarryn Geary[/TD]
[TD]332400[/TD]
[TD]STK[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]398700[/TD]
[TD]1562[/TD]
[TD]78.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Clancee Pearce[/TD]
[TD]278900[/TD]
[TD]FRE[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]336300[/TD]
[TD]1327[/TD]
[TD]78.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Jason Johannisen[/TD]
[TD]344500[/TD]
[TD]WBD[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]422000[/TD]
[TD]1550[/TD]
[TD]77.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Ricky Henderson[/TD]
[TD]319800[/TD]
[TD]ADE[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]373900[/TD]
[TD]1156[/TD]
[TD]77.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Taylor Duryea[/TD]
[TD]335400[/TD]
[TD]HAW[/TD]
[TD]18[/TD]
[TD]321600[/TD]
[TD]1346[/TD]
[TD]74.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Jackson Thurlow[/TD]
[TD]305000[/TD]
[TD]GEE[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]295700[/TD]
[TD]1335[/TD]
[TD]70.3[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

Top 10 by aggrregate
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 496"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Sprice[/TD]
[TD]Club[/TD]
[TD]Games[/TD]
[TD]Fprice[/TD]
[TD]SC Total[/TD]
[TD]SC Ave[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Rory Laird[/TD]
[TD]317800[/TD]
[TD]ADE[/TD]
[TD]21[/TD]
[TD]449500[/TD]
[TD]1970[/TD]
[TD]93.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Garrick Ibboston[/TD]
[TD]342900[/TD]
[TD]FRE[/TD]
[TD]22[/TD]
[TD]387700[/TD]
[TD]1769[/TD]
[TD]80.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Zach Tuohy[/TD]
[TD]324900[/TD]
[TD]CAR[/TD]
[TD]22[/TD]
[TD]379200[/TD]
[TD]1745[/TD]
[TD]79.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Jarryn Geary[/TD]
[TD]332400[/TD]
[TD]STK[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]398700[/TD]
[TD]1562[/TD]
[TD]78.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Jason Johannisen[/TD]
[TD]344500[/TD]
[TD]WBD[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]422000[/TD]
[TD]1550[/TD]
[TD]77.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Josh Bruce[/TD]
[TD]294000[/TD]
[TD]STK[/TD]
[TD]22[/TD]
[TD]251400[/TD]
[TD]1502[/TD]
[TD]68.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Taylor Hunt[/TD]
[TD]290300[/TD]
[TD]RIC[/TD]
[TD]22[/TD]
[TD]344500[/TD]
[TD]1476[/TD]
[TD]67.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Jeremy Laidler[/TD]
[TD]316000[/TD]
[TD]SYD[/TD]
[TD]21[/TD]
[TD]338600[/TD]
[TD]1455[/TD]
[TD]69.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Taylor Duryea[/TD]
[TD]335400[/TD]
[TD]HAW[/TD]
[TD]18[/TD]
[TD]321600[/TD]
[TD]1346[/TD]
[TD]74.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Jackson Thurlow[/TD]
[TD]305000[/TD]
[TD]GEE[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]295700[/TD]
[TD]1335[/TD]
[TD]70.3[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

Only Rory Laird fits the criteria of breakout and/or keeper status.

So what do you think of Seedsman Klo? New club, new opportunities, and perhaps a bit of mid time if you can take what is reported this time of year seriously.

Given that there have been 2 defenders achieve an acceptable level of aggregate and average in the last 3 years, I give the 60 players in Seedsman's category this season very little chance of being a keeper. Furthermore, they need to score at or around the keeper level to generate the minimum acceptable cash generation to be consider a stepping stone, which makes for an unacceptable risk picking from within the $275-350K group.

 

[Drew]

Given that there have been 2 defenders achieve an acceptable level of aggregate and average in the last 3 years, I give the 59 players in Seedsman's category this season very little chance of being a keeper. Furthermore, they need to score at or around the keeper level to generate the minimum acceptable cash generation to be consider a stepping stone, which makes for an unacceptable risk picking from within the $275-350K group.

Thanks mate, food for thought, quality analysis as usual!

 

[Nathan]

Why 275-350k for the mid price analysis?

I haven't seen many if any teams with defenders in this price range.

 

[KLo30]

Why 275-350k for the mid price analysis?

I haven't seen many if any teams with defenders in this price range.

It originates from the question asked by Hondo in Questions for Rowsus about $300K defenders. $275-350K ranges either side of this price and eliminates those at the high end of the rookie price range and stops before the lower end of some people's range from where they select defenders. ie. The no over $500K defender selection rule, which pushes acceptable choices (for this rule) below $400K. It was especially so given last years perceived dearth of defender rookies.

 

[KLo30]

Well done klo it's one of the best write ups that I have seen. U make it sound so easy. I am sorry in advance if people have discussed the structure of your teams but it's one of the burning questions for me. Last year some or most went with mid price players in the backline. I was one of them and it didn't work out. I am wondering if it's best to have a 3 premium def structure followed by
4 premiums midfield and 2 mid pricers
2 premium rucks or 1 mid pricer such as leuy
3-4 premium forward line depending on the cash flow.

Imo Libba and crouch look like the stand out mid pricers this year but I could be wrong. Is it best to fit them in or just fit one of them in.

Sorry Adrenaline, I missed replying to your question.

If you evaluate the winners of the last 6 years or so you'll find that they overwhelmingly went 13-14 keepers and one flyer, which quite often didn't pan out. Either a 3-5-1-4, 3-5-2-3 or 3-5-2-4 structure.

Personally, I think Libba, Crouch and JOM are traps but can understand those taking Libba with the view that he is a M8 or M9 bench cover. It also depends on whether you are selecting all pure premiums/fallen premiums or taking the chance on a Wines taking the next step. Taking one of Libba or Crouch would be my advice unless you are extremely bullish on both and don't have a Wines type in any of your lines.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

Sorry Adrenaline, I missed replying to your question.

If you evaluate the winners of the last 6 years or so you'll find that they overwhelmingly went 13-14 keepers and one flyer, which quite often didn't pan out. Either a 3-5-1-4, 3-5-2-3 or 3-5-2-4 structure.

Personally, I think Libba, Crouch and JOM are traps but can understand those taking Libba with the view that he is a M8 or M9 bench cover. It also depends on whether you are selecting all pure premiums/fallen premiums or taking the chance on a Wines taking the next step. Taking one of Libba or Crouch would be my advice unless you are extremely bullish on both and don't have a Wines type in any of your lines.

kLo - Just to clarify this last statement. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have a Wines type on any line at all OR don't have a Wines type as well as to a Libba type at the same time?

 

[KLo30]

kLo - Just to clarify this last statement. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have a Wines type on any line at all OR don't have a Wines type as well as to a Libba type at the same time?

I was trying to convey the principle of minimising risk. Take a chance on one flyer, or at most, two calculated risks. As per the previous structures of past winners.

Wines, Swallow (2014), Hannebery (2015) are calculated risks given their histories. Crouch and JOM have to exceed their histories, and Libba has to overcome a knee reco and match his 106-110 previous two seasons, and therefore are more the flyer types. And don't get me wrong, they have great potential.

It just equates to the likelihood of picking a race winner, running double and quadrella.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

^^ thanks for that - very helpful

 

[GrainFedBeef]

I was trying to convey the principle of minimising risk. Take a chance on one flyer, or at most, two calculated risks. As per the previous structures of past winners.

Wines, Swallow (2014), Hannebery (2015) are calculated risks given their histories. Crouch and JOM have to exceed their histories, and Libba has to overcome a knee reco and match his 106-110 previous two seasons, and therefore are more the flyer types. And don't get me wrong, they have great potential.

It just equates to the likelihood of picking a race winner, running double and quadrella.

Given Crouch and JOM are still being managed and that JOM can only run in a straight line, not sure either of these players will be in anyone's team come season start.

Spot on KLO, I had Swallow in 2014 and was a fairly low risk pick and didn't need to do much to be a keeper. Expecting any mid spec buy to be a keeper is fraught with danger given the hurdle that is needed. Libba looks the only chance. Likely to have Libba and Wines which is enough risk for me as if either settle around 100-105, they will have done alright but not elite keepers, nor likely to be traded out.

Depending how deep I go in midfield, I will likely only have space for 2 more premiums to bring in and will be hoping that my other keepers perform within expectations otherwise will be leaking serious points in mids.

 

[Obie]

Awesome statistical work there. A very timely reminder to stick rigidly to guns and rookies. Mid price is just so hard to pull off. One might come off but you lose your advantage of that with a couple of others that do not come off.
Have often flirted with the idea of the best credentialed mid pricer on each line (D/M/F) and then sideways to the early flier as the cash is available without two trades or hurting your structure.

 

[davo]

Nice work klo i think crouch is definitely a risk worth taking will fill the void left by danger and is a supercoach beast if fit is a lock for me can't wait to see him play

 

[Darkie]

I noticed two things of significant interest (at least to me!) in this table.

- Of the four rookies priced around $200k, only Cripps was a real "must have" type. Brayshaw and Sheed were both okay, but Brayshaw was very slow and Sheed didn't top out that high. Hartung was quite good but not outstanding. I've been using "placeholders" for a couple of top end rookies to ensure I don't overspend elsewhere and miss a must have, but Cripps was obviously a real stand-out for a rookie-priced player (both in an SC and an AFL sense), so even expecting one of his type to pop up this year might be excessive - provisioning for two or more might be unnecessary. You could argue that the point that dearer rookies are not necessarily better cash cows is an extension of the point behind the whole thread

- A player's first price jump appears to be a good indicator of his overall cash generation ability. The players who jumped more than $50k in their first price rise averaged an overall increase of $227k until their "green week" in this table. Those who didn't jump $50k in their first rise only made $176k on the same basis. Clearly there is a modest look-ahead bias here (we don't know their third score, which helps determine the first price jump, when we make the decision to pick them - although we do know the breakeven going into that game), and filtering on those who jump a lot early is going to naturally lead to somewhat higher overall cash generation (these players get a "head start" because of heir bigger first jump). With that acknowledged, the gap in overall cash generation is wide, typically helping delineate between marginal to good cash cows (around $150-175k) and the stand-outs (over $200k). You'd want to be careful about how the breakeven will track in games 4 and 5 (so 70, 90, 110SC is a better scoring profile than 110, 90, 70), but this rule of thumb is something I will keep in mind.

 

[Courtesans]

Awesome statistical work there. A very timely reminder to stick rigidly to guns and rookies. Mid price is just so hard to pull off. One might come off but you lose your advantage of that with a couple of others that do not come off.
Have often flirted with the idea of the best credentialed mid pricer on each line (D/M/F) and then sideways to the early flier as the cash is available without two trades or hurting your structure.

Too true.

 

[MC's Mix]

I noticed two things of significant interest (at least to me!) in this table.

- Of the four rookies priced around $200k, only Cripps was a real "must have" type. Brayshaw and Sheed were both okay, but Brayshaw was very slow and Sheed didn't top out that high. Hartung was quite good but not outstanding. I've been using "placeholders" for a couple of top end rookies to ensure I don't overspend elsewhere and miss a must have, but Cripps was obviously a real stand-out for a rookie-priced player (both in an SC and an AFL sense), so even expecting one of his type to pop up this year might be excessive - provisioning for two or more might be unnecessary. You could argue that the point that dearer rookies are not necessarily better cash cows is an extension of the point behind the whole thread

- A player's first price jump appears to be a good indicator of his overall cash generation ability. The players who jumped more than $50k in their first price rise averaged an overall increase of $227k until their "green week" in this table. Those who didn't jump $50k in their first rise only made $176k on the same basis. Clearly there is a modest look-ahead bias here (we don't know their third score, which helps determine the first price jump, when we make the decision to pick them - although we do know the breakeven going into that game), and filtering on those who jump a lot early is going to naturally lead to somewhat higher overall cash generation (these players get a "head start" because of heir bigger first jump). With that acknowledged, the gap in overall cash generation is wide, typically helping delineate between marginal to good cash cows (around $150-175k) and the stand-outs (over $200k). You'd want to be careful about how the breakeven will track in games 4 and 5 (so 70, 90, 110SC is a better scoring profile than 110, 90, 70), but this rule of thumb is something I will keep in mind.

A great post mate, however we need to remember that the sub rule has now been abolished, meaning if a rookie is named, he plays the whole game, providing more scoring opportunity. Some of the more expensive rookies this year (Hopper/Francis etc) arguably have better JS and therefore potentially more opportunity to make some cash!

 

[freowho]

A great post mate, however we need to remember that the sub rule has now been abolished, meaning if a rookie is named, he plays the whole game, providing more scoring opportunity. Some of the more expensive rookies this year (Hopper/Francis etc) arguably have better JS and therefore potentially more opportunity to make some cash!

I would have thought the rookies with better job security won't be affected and those who were fringe and likely to get vested like Gregson, Sinclair, Lonie etc would benefit more than the bigger name rookies like Mills, Hopper, Parish etc.

 

[MC's Mix]

I would have thought the rookies with better job security won't be affected and those who were fringe and likely to get vested like Gregson, Sinclair, Lonie etc would benefit more than the bigger name rookies like Mills, Hopper, Parish etc.

I guess it all depends on how each club uses the new rule. Some clubs may have 'gifted' a few green vests to players who may not otherwise have been selected. The benefit for us is that the uncertainty of the green (but more often the red) vest is gone. If they get a game, they get a whole game.