Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
Hey Mike,
you are not alone with that problem. I recently ditched Bartell for the reasons you stated.
I have had Howe in and out of my team, and being a lower priced player, I wanted to see a positive NAB lead. I didn't get one, so he's out for me now. My opinion is, he needs to average 75 to be a break even pick, and 80+ to be considered a good pick. That way he'll make you $100k+, and be an easy upgrade for you.
you are not alone with that problem. I recently ditched Bartell for the reasons you stated.
I have had Howe in and out of my team, and being a lower priced player, I wanted to see a positive NAB lead. I didn't get one, so he's out for me now. My opinion is, he needs to average 75 to be a break even pick, and 80+ to be considered a good pick. That way he'll make you $100k+, and be an easy upgrade for you.
As always, happy to help Ad.
Hall is a tricky one. His history, and his poor DE% mean that his scoring will be pretty volatile. I think Gray has safer assurance of Mid time, assuming his performances live up to expectation. Hall's seems dependant on which players come back when, though I'm pretty sure he's made his case, and will get a piece of the action, even when they're all back. Because Hall is the more volatile, he is more likely to get off the leash, and produce something ridiculous, and totally unpredictable. If one of them was to go nuts, and somehow average 108+ for the season, it's more likely to be Hall. If someone is going to crash, and hit the wall, and give us a 85- season, it's more likely to be Hall. So it comes down to, are you a risk taker, or would you prefer something a bit safer? Given there is an implied risk with both of them, maybe the one to go with, would be the one with the more potential for upside, even though he also has the more potential for downside too. I will qualify that by saying, if you already have say 3 risky picks in your team, Gray might be the better, safer pick, but if not, I'd go Hall.
Hall is a tricky one. His history, and his poor DE% mean that his scoring will be pretty volatile. I think Gray has safer assurance of Mid time, assuming his performances live up to expectation. Hall's seems dependant on which players come back when, though I'm pretty sure he's made his case, and will get a piece of the action, even when they're all back. Because Hall is the more volatile, he is more likely to get off the leash, and produce something ridiculous, and totally unpredictable. If one of them was to go nuts, and somehow average 108+ for the season, it's more likely to be Hall. If someone is going to crash, and hit the wall, and give us a 85- season, it's more likely to be Hall. So it comes down to, are you a risk taker, or would you prefer something a bit safer? Given there is an implied risk with both of them, maybe the one to go with, would be the one with the more potential for upside, even though he also has the more potential for downside too. I will qualify that by saying, if you already have say 3 risky picks in your team, Gray might be the better, safer pick, but if not, I'd go Hall.
Hey mate
here is the break up over the last 3 seasons:
2015
22/114.5 - SCG 8/127.6 (wins 6/126.0, losses 2/132.5) - ANZ 3/115.3 (wins 2/122.0, losses 1/102.0)
2014
16/101.0 - SCG 5/80.8 (wins 4/84.3, losses 3/67.0) ----- ANZ 3/140.0 (wins 1/159.0, losses 2/130.5)
2013
21/95.3 -- SCG 9/95.0 (wins 7/92.3, losses 2/104.5) ---- ANZ 2/82.0 (wins 1/85.0, losses 1/79.0)
Small sample pools, and as we might expect, not something we should consider. After all, the grounds are very similar in dimensions.
here is the break up over the last 3 seasons:
2015
22/114.5 - SCG 8/127.6 (wins 6/126.0, losses 2/132.5) - ANZ 3/115.3 (wins 2/122.0, losses 1/102.0)
2014
16/101.0 - SCG 5/80.8 (wins 4/84.3, losses 3/67.0) ----- ANZ 3/140.0 (wins 1/159.0, losses 2/130.5)
2013
21/95.3 -- SCG 9/95.0 (wins 7/92.3, losses 2/104.5) ---- ANZ 2/82.0 (wins 1/85.0, losses 1/79.0)
Small sample pools, and as we might expect, not something we should consider. After all, the grounds are very similar in dimensions.
Last edited:
Always happy to help, Mudflap. Thanks for the numbers you have given us here.
With 13 to 14 less stoppages*, the good/better rucks will have a 5 - 10 point/game drop.
This is based on:
The good/better Rucks contesting 60-80% of the contests in a day, and winning H2A's 12 - 20% of the contests they attend. Of course, the numbers vary from ruck to Ruck, game to game, and even weather conditions.
* in theory less stoppages lead to more ball movememnt, which leads to more goals being kicked. This might claw back 3 to 5 more centre bounces to partly make up for the lost stoppages.
As to the second part of your question. It has been proven by a couple of our smarter members, that the scoring attributed to each stat is rubbery. This is also backed up by just casual observation. where a H2A in theory scores 5 points, it can depend on the location of the contest, and the state of the game. It might possibly for example score as low as 2, or as high as 10, but for the sake of your question, let's assume 5 points/H2A. Clearances themselves don't actually attract any points, but the attached disposal does. Quite often this involves a contested possession. Let's for the sake of argument, attach 4 points to a clearance.
Goldstein - 128.8 - H2A's 14.1, clearances 3.6 - all other points Ave 43.9/game. (54.7% from HO's)
Martin - 110.8 - H2A's 8.1, clearances 4.8 - all other points Ave 51.1/game (36.6% from HO's)
Sandilands - 107.8 - H2A's 13.5, clearances 2.3 - all other points Ave 31.1/game (62.6% from HO's)
Jacobs - 108.0 - H2A's 12.5, clearances 2.6 - all other points Ave 35.1/game (57.9% from HO's)
Mumford - 105.7 - H2A's 12.4, clearances 3.2 - all other points Ave 30.9/game (58.7% from HO's)
Naitanui - 103.9 - H2A's 10.8, clearances 4.0 - all other points Ave 33.9/game (52.0% from HO's)
Gawn - 102.1 - H2A's 11.9, clearances 2.8 - all other points Ave 31.4/game (58.3% from HO's)
Blicavs - 104.3 - H2A's 4.3, clearances 3.6 - all other points Ave 68.4/game (20.6% from HO's)
With 13 to 14 less stoppages*, the good/better rucks will have a 5 - 10 point/game drop.
This is based on:
The good/better Rucks contesting 60-80% of the contests in a day, and winning H2A's 12 - 20% of the contests they attend. Of course, the numbers vary from ruck to Ruck, game to game, and even weather conditions.
* in theory less stoppages lead to more ball movememnt, which leads to more goals being kicked. This might claw back 3 to 5 more centre bounces to partly make up for the lost stoppages.
As to the second part of your question. It has been proven by a couple of our smarter members, that the scoring attributed to each stat is rubbery. This is also backed up by just casual observation. where a H2A in theory scores 5 points, it can depend on the location of the contest, and the state of the game. It might possibly for example score as low as 2, or as high as 10, but for the sake of your question, let's assume 5 points/H2A. Clearances themselves don't actually attract any points, but the attached disposal does. Quite often this involves a contested possession. Let's for the sake of argument, attach 4 points to a clearance.
Goldstein - 128.8 - H2A's 14.1, clearances 3.6 - all other points Ave 43.9/game. (54.7% from HO's)
Martin - 110.8 - H2A's 8.1, clearances 4.8 - all other points Ave 51.1/game (36.6% from HO's)
Sandilands - 107.8 - H2A's 13.5, clearances 2.3 - all other points Ave 31.1/game (62.6% from HO's)
Jacobs - 108.0 - H2A's 12.5, clearances 2.6 - all other points Ave 35.1/game (57.9% from HO's)
Mumford - 105.7 - H2A's 12.4, clearances 3.2 - all other points Ave 30.9/game (58.7% from HO's)
Naitanui - 103.9 - H2A's 10.8, clearances 4.0 - all other points Ave 33.9/game (52.0% from HO's)
Gawn - 102.1 - H2A's 11.9, clearances 2.8 - all other points Ave 31.4/game (58.3% from HO's)
Blicavs - 104.3 - H2A's 4.3, clearances 3.6 - all other points Ave 68.4/game (20.6% from HO's)
Last edited:
Hi Drew, I'm going ok, I hope you are too.
Here's what I wrote about M Crouch a bit over a week ago.
He's definitely well priced, but he's not for me. Too many convictions, where "good" games, and high possession counts didn't translate into good SC scores. He probably needs to average around 100 to be considered a good pick, and while I believe that's within his capabilities, I don't want to take the risk on him doing it. He did well in the NAB, but NAB's are notorious for little or no tagging.
Here's what I wrote about M Crouch a bit over a week ago.
He's definitely well priced, but he's not for me. Too many convictions, where "good" games, and high possession counts didn't translate into good SC scores. He probably needs to average around 100 to be considered a good pick, and while I believe that's within his capabilities, I don't want to take the risk on him doing it. He did well in the NAB, but NAB's are notorious for little or no tagging.
Yes, he picked up a week when he did what appeared to be a retaliation for Cameron's bump on Mathieson. If you like Zorko, it should make him a great POD, as most will dump him now, and you'd only be without him that one week! 
I suspect that means you have more time, Row, but you could still easily spend it doing any number of non-SC things, or simply tinkering with your own side, with no benefit to anyone else
I noticed that you are expecting lower scoring from Rocky than most - are you expecting him to play more forward, eg?
I noticed that you are expecting lower scoring from Rocky than most - are you expecting him to play more forward, eg?
Hi Rowsus,
Every morning I read all the new posts in SCS but "Questions For Rowsus" always first ! Thanks for all your fine efforts.
Wanted to pick up on your Daniel Howe response. You say you wanted to see more from him in the NAB, but going over his stats he looked alright to me. Where he let himself down was in disposal efficiency. With 17 disposals, 5 CPs, 4 tackles and 3 inside 50s average, an improvement in DE from 61% to say 70%+ would easily put him over the SC 100 level for TOG I would have thought. So the question becomes do you think he is capable of improving his DE ? In a team like the Hawks I would imagine low DE would come under very close scrutiny.
Every morning I read all the new posts in SCS but "Questions For Rowsus" always first ! Thanks for all your fine efforts.
Wanted to pick up on your Daniel Howe response. You say you wanted to see more from him in the NAB, but going over his stats he looked alright to me. Where he let himself down was in disposal efficiency. With 17 disposals, 5 CPs, 4 tackles and 3 inside 50s average, an improvement in DE from 61% to say 70%+ would easily put him over the SC 100 level for TOG I would have thought. So the question becomes do you think he is capable of improving his DE ? In a team like the Hawks I would imagine low DE would come under very close scrutiny.
Hi Rowsus, first time posting here. Love your work.
I would love to know what are your thoughts and some of the emerging Doggies palyers like Johannisen, Hunter, and Stevens?
I tend to think that with so many decent scoring player in the Doggies team (Bont, Macrae, Libba, Wallis, Boyd, Picken, Dahlhaus, Suckling, etc...) it might be a little hard to share the points around ...
I would love to know what are your thoughts and some of the emerging Doggies palyers like Johannisen, Hunter, and Stevens?
I tend to think that with so many decent scoring player in the Doggies team (Bont, Macrae, Libba, Wallis, Boyd, Picken, Dahlhaus, Suckling, etc...) it might be a little hard to share the points around ...
Hey Rowsus,
Agree with jones above, love waking to reading your posts.
I wonder if you have the stats of midfielders in '12, '13 and '14 by total points (couldn't find them on the internet).
Who were the top 10 midfielders (inc. DPPs) on total points (inc those with a PIT average) in '12, '13 and 14'?
Might be a bit of work but appreciated!
Agree with jones above, love waking to reading your posts.
I wonder if you have the stats of midfielders in '12, '13 and '14 by total points (couldn't find them on the internet).
Who were the top 10 midfielders (inc. DPPs) on total points (inc those with a PIT average) in '12, '13 and 14'?
Might be a bit of work but appreciated!
- Status