Hi Rowsus,
I really enjoy your stats work, but am interested to know how you address a situation where the qualitative disagrees with the quantitative. Specifically Buddy Franklin. The stats say he is a great underpriced premium, but looking at his preseason performance suggests otherwise. I think it was you who suggested that the quad injury is a big red flag, and he has clearly been managed this preseason.
Is he still a good buy at that price? Stats say yes, observation says no
Further impacting the decision is that all the other options are uninspiring.
My Forwardline, like many others, is:
Dangerfield, Martin, Pavlich, ?, Caddy, Higgins, rookie, rookie
2 x premium
1 x fallen premium
1 x improvement + role change = projected points increase
1 x high rookie priced burnman risk with high job security & decent scoring potential
Another rookie? I dont like more than 2 fwd rookies at this stage, and I dont like the high rookie options (Rohan/Bennedy)
Another nearly-premium? I'm not sure about gambling on one of Parker/Titchell/Wingard to back up last years efforts
Another full premium? I have no idea which premium forwards will be in the top 6 beyond Martin and Danger
Or Buddy?
Is there one option 'less bad' than the rest, or more statistically likely to yield a good outcome?
Or is it all down to a shot in the dark now?
Hi RocketPip,
really good question, but hard to nail down an exact answer for you, particularly statistically.
There is no doubt backing players to maintain last years level, or return to previous levels (as long as they weren't too far back!), has a statistically better history, than trying to find players to take their game to a new level.
The funny thing with Buddy is we tend to look at him differently, because he is Buddy. Imagine we were looking at Fred Nerk, and Fred was priced the same as Buddy is today. If we picked Fred in our initial team, and he averaged 95 for the season, we'd say "good job, I filled my F4/5 cheaply". Given Buddy's history, it's hard not to feel it should have been better, and it was even a mini-fail if he does the same thing. We that feel that way need to move past it, and assign our expectations to the dollar value attached.
As to assessing the qualitative against the quantitative, there is no specific way to do that. Buddy looks bigger than we have seen him, and he's not moving how we know he can move. His speed and agility used to look effortless, and now it looks a little laboured. You touched on the quad injury. Yes, it is a
red flag to me, every single time. Think Zaharakis 2012, he was listed as 3-4 for about 8-9 weeks! Think Beams last season. Before round 1 we were expecting/hoping he'd be back round 4 or 5. Nope! They were players that they could afford to be patient with. We don't know what the situation with Buddy is, but possibly he is carrying a niggle, and they are playing him anyway. When you commit $10 million dollars, with a strategy of "We'll make half of it back on the extra bums on seats when he plays", he better play! Maybe, and I have no idea I'm just spitballing here, it's a case of them knowing there is an injury there, and they've been told there is no prognosis. He could be better in 2 weeks, he could be better in 12 weeks. But the injury is unlikely to get worse by playing him. Either way, I'm believing my eyes, from the little I've seen of him this preseason, and reading between the lines of how much he's been out on the ground, that things aren't 100% right. That being the case, I'm backing my qualitative over the quantitative,
in this case. Every case needs to be taken on it's own merits, and you need to weigh up the pros and cons for yourself. I weighed it up, and said from what I've seen and read, the risk is too great. Even if he pumps out a big score round 1, I will cop it on the chin, and see what happens in the next few weeks after that, before I decide if I was right or wrong.
If you decide to dump him it is hard to know who is best ot replace him. Parker or Mitchell actually need to take a step up if you take them. Last years scores won't cut it. Wingard's scores would be ok, if he could repeat them. Roughies scores from last year are good enough, too. I tossed up between Parker and Mitchell for days, and ended up dumping them both for Roughie. He's a risk too, but if he stays fit, he should be good enough to hold a season long top 10-12 Fwd spot. Maybe even F3. History would say Roughie and Wingard are the safer options, followed by Buddy, then Parker/Mitchell. Existing or most current form, over returning to previous level, over setting new levels. But temepred with believing and analysing what you see in front of you.
