Analysis PIT Averages: Durability v Higher Ceiling III

Bomber18

Moderator
Joined
11 Nov 2012
Messages
14,308
Likes
6,895
AFL Club
Essendon
#1
I present the third installment in the much anticipated :p PIT Averages series (Durability v Higher Ceiling I and Durability v Higher Ceiling II available here). For those who haven't heard the term before, PIT (or Points in Team) was first coined by SCS statistician Rowsus to highlight the importance of aggregates over average when choosing players in your side. Generally, my main takeaway from this analysis has been to pick only durable premium players (20 - 22 game players) in your starting side UNLESS they have a much higher ceiling than the 8th best option (eg: Def/Fwd 105+ or Mids 118+). You could make exceptions to the ceiling rule depending on discounts.

In last years' analysis, I suggested that a PIT108 for midfielders, PIT90-95 for defenders and PIT95 for forwards would be acceptable from your starters. Let's see how the 2018 data stacked up against those calls. As in the previous years, I've used a 70 average for mids and a 60 average for forwards & backs (to account for rookies covering their missed games). * denotes a missed game.

Mid only
1548480933012.png

From 2017, only Danger, Titch and Oliver remained in the top 8 for 2018 (with Dusty sneaking in at 12th). Neale continued the trend of one of the names listed 9-12 the previous year, pushing into the top 8 for the next year (joining Libba 14, JPK 15, Treloar 16, and Sloane 17). Uncanny trend, can Dusty help it continue in 2019?

Although we want a 110+ avg from our starting mids, in recent history, a PIT108 has been enough (looking at the mids listed 8-12 in most years). However, last year, even a PIT105 would've been good enough for your 8th mid (did anyone expect to see Joel Selwood or Ward here?). There was some preseason concern in 2018 that Cogs would be a poor pick as he could get stuck in that 105-108 range and lose points against mids that go 110+. However, a PIT107 was definitely good enough from him as a starter in the end. I think a 108 avg @ 21-22 games is usually good enough for a starter mid.

Defenders
1548489515498.png


There was a big shuffle in the defence from 2017 to 2018 (as there usually is). Laird and Simpson were the only main success stories of defenders who remained as top 12 defenders from 2017 (with McGovern and Hurley just sneaking in). In the preseason, I suggested a PIT90-95 would be acceptable, but I think the defenders did quite well last year overall so a PIT95 would be what you're after in defence as a minimum. It will be very interesting to see the results of the defenders at the end of the season, especially those that take kick ins. The pass mark for defence could even be PIT100 with the rule changes but still a lot to play out.

Forwards
1548480042878.png
The forwards of 2018 all performed strongly last season with 9 players achieving a PIT95. A better effort than 2017, where only 4 reached PIT95. Interestingly enough, this season all the top 12 forwards from last year are still available in the forward line this season - I don't think that's ever happened before! I think accordingly, a PIT95 would still be the minimum acceptable score from the forwards this season given that all the forwards from last year are still available.
Also, Westhoff has been a long time favourite of the PIT averages. He's appeared in the top 12 fwds in 5 of the last 6 years, and in 2018 he finally topped the averages! You'd think he'd be a strong chance to be there again this season, more a question of where.

That sums up my thoughts on the tables. Special thanks to @benderiffic for requesting the updated analysis for 2018 - good to hear that people are finding this useful!
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Bomber18

Moderator
Joined
11 Nov 2012
Messages
14,308
Likes
6,895
AFL Club
Essendon
#3
This year, I think you could make a case for starting $550k mids like Zerrett, Dusty and M.Crouch or Zorko at $520k based on the "PIT108 is enough" or "PIT105 is not the end of the world" line of thinking. You would need to be very certain they play 22 games or close to it though, as picking an M7-M8 type mid who doesn't play 22 games probably makes the selection a failure. I had Parker all year last season for his 103 avg, and it wasn't THAT bad until he missed the last game and cost me a donut (giving him a PIT<100 in my side....).

You probably need some sort of balance to make sure you don't have too many M8 types. But guys like Gibbs 2016, Murphy 2017 and Cogs 2018 show that these discounted guys can be better selections than the top 8 from the year before. Treloar was pretty good too in 2018 before his injury. Just need to pick the right guys (Parker wasn't that guy in 2018...).
 

Santoz

250 Games Club
Joined
2 Mar 2014
Messages
1,636
Likes
631
AFL Club
Essendon
#4
I present the third installment in the much anticipated :p PIT Averages series (Durability v Higher Ceiling I and Durability v Higher Ceiling II available here). For those who haven't heard the term before, PIT (or Points in Team) was first coined by SCS statistician Rowsus to highlight the importance of aggregates over average when choosing players in your side. Generally, my main takeaway from this analysis has been to pick only durable premium players (20 - 22 game players) in your starting side UNLESS they have a much higher ceiling than the 8th best option (eg: Def/Fwd 105+ or Mids 118+). You could make exceptions to the ceiling rule depending on discounts.

In last years' analysis, I suggested that a PIT108 for midfielders, PIT90-95 for defenders and PIT95 for forwards would be acceptable from your starters. Let's see how the 2018 data stacked up against those calls. As in the previous years, I've used a 70 average for mids and a 60 average for forwards & backs (to account for rookies covering their missed games). * denotes a missed game.

Mid only
View attachment 6378

From 2017, only Danger, Titch and Oliver remained in the top 8 for 2018 (with Dusty sneaking in at 12th). Neale continued the trend of one of the names listed 9-12 the previous year, pushing into the top 8 for the next year (joining Libba 14, JPK 15, Treloar 16, and Sloane 17). Uncanny trend, can Dusty help it continue in 2019?

Although we want a 110+ avg from our starting mids, in recent history, a PIT108 has been enough (looking at the mids listed 8-12 in most years). However, last year, even a PIT105 would've been good enough for your 8th mid (did anyone expect to see Joel Selwood or Ward here?). There was some preseason concern in 2018 that Cogs would be a poor pick as he could get stuck in that 105-108 range and lose points against mids that go 110+. However, a PIT107 was definitely good enough from him as a starter in the end. I think a 108 avg @ 21-22 games is usually good enough for a starter mid.

Defenders
View attachment 6381


There was a big shuffle in the defence from 2017 to 2018 (as there usually is). Laird and Simpson were the only main success stories of defenders who remained as top 12 defenders from 2017 (with McGovern and Hurley just sneaking in). In the preseason, I suggested a PIT90-95 would be acceptable, but I think the defenders did quite well last year overall so a PIT95 would be what you're after in defence as a minimum. It will be very interesting to see the results of the defenders at the end of the season, especially those that take kick ins. The pass mark for defence could even be PIT100 with the rule changes but still a lot to play out.

Forwards
View attachment 6372
The forwards of 2018 all performed strongly last season with 9 players achieving a PIT95. A better effort than 2017, where only 4 reached PIT95. Interestingly enough, this season all the top 12 forwards from last year are still available in the forward line this season - I don't think that's ever happened before! I think accordingly, a PIT95 would still be the minimum acceptable score from the forwards this season given that all the forwards from last year are still available.
Also, Westhoff has been a long time favourite of the PIT averages. He's appeared in the top 12 fwds in 5 of the last 6 years, and in 2018 he finally topped the averages! You'd think he'd be a strong chance to be there again this season, more a question of where.

That sums up my thoughts on the tables. Special thanks to @benderiffic for requesting the updated analysis for 2018 - good to hear that people are finding this useful!
Hey mate, your PIT Forward averages seems to missing Sam Menegola in 2017. Should be around the 94 mark somewhere. I know we want to keep him a POD & all, but Cats fans would pick you up on it soon enough anyway ;)
 

Bomber18

Moderator
Joined
11 Nov 2012
Messages
14,308
Likes
6,895
AFL Club
Essendon
#5
Hey mate, your PIT Forward averages seems to missing Sam Menegola in 2017. Should be around the 94 mark somewhere. I know we want to keep him a POD & all, but Cats fans would pick you up on it soon enough anyway ;)
Hey mate, thanks for the pickup! Happy to be corrected by others, but I'm pretty sure Menegola was MID only in 2017. @Rowsus @THCLT @KLo30 @Connoisseur - it'd be great to get confirmation from your own databases when possible. :)

The past stats database on SC Gold unfortunately hasn't got the correct positions of the previous years so I've been relying on Old Ocker's database (from the Jock Reynolds site) for the positions in past years (prior to 2018). That has him down as MID only for 2017.

I was actually more concerned about getting the 2018 data wrong because I had been relying on memory and articles of the DPP changes to confirm the 2018 positions.
 

Yikes

Well-known member
Joined
26 Dec 2018
Messages
182
Likes
141
AFL Club
GWS Giants
#6
I present the third installment in the much anticipated :p PIT Averages series (Durability v Higher Ceiling I and Durability v Higher Ceiling II available here). For those who haven't heard the term before, PIT (or Points in Team) was first coined by SCS statistician Rowsus to highlight the importance of aggregates over average when choosing players in your side. Generally, my main takeaway from this analysis has been to pick only durable premium players (20 - 22 game players) in your starting side UNLESS they have a much higher ceiling than the 8th best option (eg: Def/Fwd 105+ or Mids 118+). You could make exceptions to the ceiling rule depending on discounts.

In last years' analysis, I suggested that a PIT108 for midfielders, PIT90-95 for defenders and PIT95 for forwards would be acceptable from your starters. Let's see how the 2018 data stacked up against those calls. As in the previous years, I've used a 70 average for mids and a 60 average for forwards & backs (to account for rookies covering their missed games). * denotes a missed game.

Mid only
View attachment 6378

From 2017, only Danger, Titch and Oliver remained in the top 8 for 2018 (with Dusty sneaking in at 12th). Neale continued the trend of one of the names listed 9-12 the previous year, pushing into the top 8 for the next year (joining Libba 14, JPK 15, Treloar 16, and Sloane 17). Uncanny trend, can Dusty help it continue in 2019?

Although we want a 110+ avg from our starting mids, in recent history, a PIT108 has been enough (looking at the mids listed 8-12 in most years). However, last year, even a PIT105 would've been good enough for your 8th mid (did anyone expect to see Joel Selwood or Ward here?). There was some preseason concern in 2018 that Cogs would be a poor pick as he could get stuck in that 105-108 range and lose points against mids that go 110+. However, a PIT107 was definitely good enough from him as a starter in the end. I think a 108 avg @ 21-22 games is usually good enough for a starter mid.

Defenders
View attachment 6381


There was a big shuffle in the defence from 2017 to 2018 (as there usually is). Laird and Simpson were the only main success stories of defenders who remained as top 12 defenders from 2017 (with McGovern and Hurley just sneaking in). In the preseason, I suggested a PIT90-95 would be acceptable, but I think the defenders did quite well last year overall so a PIT95 would be what you're after in defence as a minimum. It will be very interesting to see the results of the defenders at the end of the season, especially those that take kick ins. The pass mark for defence could even be PIT100 with the rule changes but still a lot to play out.

Forwards
View attachment 6372
The forwards of 2018 all performed strongly last season with 9 players achieving a PIT95. A better effort than 2017, where only 4 reached PIT95. Interestingly enough, this season all the top 12 forwards from last year are still available in the forward line this season - I don't think that's ever happened before! I think accordingly, a PIT95 would still be the minimum acceptable score from the forwards this season given that all the forwards from last year are still available.
Also, Westhoff has been a long time favourite of the PIT averages. He's appeared in the top 12 fwds in 5 of the last 6 years, and in 2018 he finally topped the averages! You'd think he'd be a strong chance to be there again this season, more a question of where.

That sums up my thoughts on the tables. Special thanks to @benderiffic for requesting the updated analysis for 2018 - good to hear that people are finding this useful!
A lot of us had an extra premium towards the end of the season. For players like Fyfe who usually misses games later on, using 70 as a replacement score wouldn’t be realistic right? Assuming a 70 player as a backup heavily weighs the analysis towards durable players. And if the injury is early and 3 weeks or more you just trade him out, regardless I wouldn’t use 70 anyhow.
 

Santoz

250 Games Club
Joined
2 Mar 2014
Messages
1,636
Likes
631
AFL Club
Essendon
#7
Hey mate, thanks for the pickup! Happy to be corrected by others, but I'm pretty sure Menegola was MID only in 2017. @Rowsus @THCLT @KLo30 @Connoisseur - it'd be great to get confirmation from your own databases when possible. :)

The past stats database on SC Gold unfortunately hasn't got the correct positions of the previous years so I've been relying on Old Ocker's database (from the Jock Reynolds site) for the positions in past years (prior to 2018). That has him down as MID only for 2017.

I was actually more concerned about getting the 2018 data wrong because I had been relying on memory and articles of the DPP changes to confirm the 2018 positions.
Ah yep cheers. That makes sense (y)
 

Bomber18

Moderator
Joined
11 Nov 2012
Messages
14,308
Likes
6,895
AFL Club
Essendon
#8
A lot of us had an extra premium towards the end of the season. For players like Fyfe who usually misses games later on, using 70 as a replacement score wouldn’t be realistic right? Assuming a 70 player as a backup heavily weighs the analysis towards durable players. And if the injury is early and 3 weeks or more you just trade him out, regardless I wouldn’t use 70 anyhow.
I think the LTI point is definitely the main criticism of this sort of analysis. You could probably get a 115 avg out of a mid position starting Fyfe and say trading to a Beams. The main exception to the durability rule is if that player has a much higher ceiling than the 8th-9th best player. That would probably still make them a worthwhile starter and be worth the LTI trade. Fyfe has usually been best example of this. Sicily probably in a similar boat for this season. However, I think it is still useful to point out which players are more durable over the years, which can help in selecting your starting team.

The extra premium cover point is a good one too but probably complicates the analysis. I'm not sure it's as easy to account for by just increasing your PIT rookie number. You'd probably have poorer rookie scores less than 70 on field if your premium misses games early on (as you're still upgrading your side). LTIs would just be traded out so it'd be unlikely that coaches would be relying on an extra premium for 4 week injuries. Ability to get that extra premium may also change on a yearly basis. For simplicity, PIT70 works but you can definitely make your own adjustments when comparing a player's PIT70 average against their season average.

All good points though (y)
 

pizza safety

Well-known member
Joined
15 Oct 2018
Messages
1,849
Likes
3,784
AFL Club
Essendon
#13
This year, I think you could make a case for starting $550k mids like Zerrett, Dusty and M.Crouch or Zorko at $520k based on the "PIT108 is enough" or "PIT105 is not the end of the world" line of thinking. You would need to be very certain they play 22 games or close to it though, as picking an M7-M8 type mid who doesn't play 22 games probably makes the selection a failure. I had Parker all year last season for his 103 avg, and it wasn't THAT bad until he missed the last game and cost me a donut (giving him a PIT<100 in my side....).

You probably need some sort of balance to make sure you don't have too many M8 types. But guys like Gibbs 2016, Murphy 2017 and Cogs 2018 show that these discounted guys can be better selections than the top 8 from the year before. Treloar was pretty good too in 2018 before his injury. Just need to pick the right guys (Parker wasn't that guy in 2018...).
They are all examples but it’s tough picking which one will rebound. This year you have Sloane, Zorko, Merrett, Crouch and Dusty. Tough to know which ones really represent value but I think the last 3 have less down side.
 

Darkie

Moderator
Joined
12 Apr 2014
Messages
6,585
Likes
4,348
AFL Club
Collingwood
#14
Excellent info, as always thanks Bomber.

I always give durability fairly significant weight in my thinking, but this has me thinking a bit more about Laird, Neale, Oliver and Hurley.

One factor to remember in interpreting this is that you may have someone scoring better than 70 at M9 or better than 60 at F7/D7 ... but they can only cover one spot per week. If you completely ignore durability and pick injury prone players, there is an increased risk that you need more than one rookie replacement on a given line and have a very weak scorer coming on, or even end up taking a donut if you don't trade.
 

Leroy

100 Games Club
Joined
24 Mar 2015
Messages
1,131
Likes
1,068
AFL Club
North Melb.
#15
They are all examples but it’s tough picking which one will rebound. This year you have Sloane, Zorko, Merrett, Crouch and Dusty. Tough to know which ones really represent value but I think the last 3 have less down side.
Heh I have all 5 of those!

I'm assuming I'll just trade the ones that aren't great picks but that's probably just setting me up to run out of trades again.

I still maintain you need some luck to win the thing so why not play for some luck - if it works wooee, if not, it'll be the same as most years 😄
 

freowho

Dual Best & Fairest
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
3,722
Likes
1,155
AFL Club
Fremantle
#16
Heh I have all 5 of those!

I'm assuming I'll just trade the ones that aren't great picks but that's probably just setting me up to run out of trades again.

I still maintain you need some luck to win the thing so why not play for some luck - if it works wooee, if not, it'll be the same as most years 😄
I've always been on the luck bandwagon but I don't think those players have the upside you're looking for. Most of the luck past winners have had has been more to the tune of a 30 point increase in average. The luck you really want is something like Swallow moving to the midfield, Laird not being a lock down back pocket anymore or Fyfe becoming a midfielder because Freo copped a heap of injuries. The prospectus has an interview with the guy who won AFL Fantasy two years in a row. He traded Wingard in after a 40 and an average of 60 for the first half of the year. Didn't even wait to see if he had turned the corner, just traded him in on hope. Your keepers should be solid picks so you can try your luck on the fringes with D6, M8 and F6. If you really like to take a risk then maybe D5, M7 and F5 are up for grabs as well but all the other spots should be solid. The 5 guys mentioned aren't priced low enough to be "the lucky picks" so I think you need to pick them believing they are "solid" keepers. From what we know they are mostly going to be playing the same role they have played the last few years and 3 of them are closer to the end of their career than they are to the start.
Even if they all work out, which would be a great result, I don't think the seperation they give you is the worth the risk of them all being M8's.
 

blue dreamer

Michael Tuck Club
Joined
21 Mar 2012
Messages
2,498
Likes
673
AFL Club
Carlton
#17
I've always been on the luck bandwagon but I don't think those players have the upside you're looking for. Most of the luck past winners have had has been more to the tune of a 30 point increase in average. The luck you really want is something like Swallow moving to the midfield, Laird not being a lock down back pocket anymore or Fyfe becoming a midfielder because Freo copped a heap of injuries. The prospectus has an interview with the guy who won AFL Fantasy two years in a row. He traded Wingard in after a 40 and an average of 60 for the first half of the year. Didn't even wait to see if he had turned the corner, just traded him in on hope. Your keepers should be solid picks so you can try your luck on the fringes with D6, M8 and F6. If you really like to take a risk then maybe D5, M7 and F5 are up for grabs as well but all the other spots should be solid. The 5 guys mentioned aren't priced low enough to be "the lucky picks" so I think you need to pick them believing they are "solid" keepers. From what we know they are mostly going to be playing the same role they have played the last few years and 3 of them are closer to the end of their career than they are to the start.
Even if they all work out, which would be a great result, I don't think the seperation they give you is the worth the risk of them all being M8's.
Easier to trade on hope when you can't run out of trades though.
 

Bomber18

Moderator
Joined
11 Nov 2012
Messages
14,308
Likes
6,895
AFL Club
Essendon
#18
Excellent info, as always thanks Bomber.

I always give durability fairly significant weight in my thinking, but this has me thinking a bit more about Laird, Neale, Oliver and Hurley.

One factor to remember in interpreting this is that you may have someone scoring better than 70 at M9 or better than 60 at F7/D7 ... but they can only cover one spot per week. If you completely ignore durability and pick injury prone players, there is an increased risk that you need more than one rookie replacement on a given line and have a very weak scorer coming on, or even end up taking a donut if you don't trade.
Simpson's another one (although you have already been thinking about him). He's in that Westhoff basket of making the PIT averages very consistently over the years. Considering that he had a PIT95 in 2013 as a MID only (when he actually played in defence), you could suggest that he's been in the top 6 PIT averages for defenders for 5 out of the last 6 years (just missing out in 2015 with a PIT89.7). Turning 35 is the only concern though.

Good point about multiple premiums potentially missing in a week. 70 is probably not that worst approximation of rookie cover for games missed, all things considered.
 
Last edited:

Connoisseur

Rising Star Winner
Joined
3 Jul 2017
Messages
4,297
Likes
9,205
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#20
Enright seemed to post good scores even after he was well into his 80s, so there is every chance Simpson can keep moving his zimmer frame effectively :sneaky:
C Enright:
2016 Avg: 101 from 21
DOB: 14/9/81
Age in 2016: 34-35

K Simpson:
2018 Avg: 105 from 21
DOB: 5/5/84
Age in 2019: 34-35

Age factor is over-exaggerated and the position where it would have the least concern/risk is in defence due to their outside style.
 
Top