Opinion Questions For Rowsus

[Slammer]

Hey Rows,

From memory you are not one to spend big upfront on defenders.
So how to you see the likes of Hibberd, Laird etc. ?
Do you have a golden rule eg. No defender above $500k
Also are you considering H. Shaw?
Not set in stone but I sort of have a rule that anyone over 28 I practically leave alone.
Not sure on the stats but I am guessing likelihood of getting injured is higher

 

[THCLT]

Love the new avatar...

 

[Ratzondix]

Loved the Warnie story.

 

[Rowsus]

G'day Row, first Q of the season for you if you don't mind.

Of all the non rookie players valued between 220-345k from the Fwd/Mid/Bck positions you have looked into this season,
who do you think are the best options both in value but primarily in scoring/keeper potential?

I can understand if you have a sneaky POD you don't want to divulge also but who are some of the other top options?

I ask because i have O'Meara at the moment but due to my teams flexibility i can start a player up to 345K on on line and swing to cover easily.

Hope you have the time to answer, ty in advance, Rob.

G'day GoGeta,
I actually don't hold any expectation, that any player in that price range will reach a good Keeper status.
There's a few I'm entertaining from a Stepping Stone point of view though. Leaving out the obvious ones, then in price order:
Ellis, McCartin, Ellis-Yolman, Bowes, Dickson, Kolodjashnij, Young, Tomlinson.

 

[Rowsus]

Ok Rowsus, you got your calculator. Obviously some of the detail will be lost in the small thumbnail logo, but the calculator image should still be obvious.
Just curious, if you want to make public, what was that mistake you made at the Adelaide Casino???

View attachment 3667

Thanks Bermi,
after 5 years of Dermi, I have my new avatar.

 

[Rowsus]

G’day Rowsus,

I hope you are well and that your SC team is coming along nicely.

I appreciate the time you put into helping all of us on this site day after day, year after year! This is my first question for the year as I am starting to get a bit more serious with my planning - apologies if you have answered it before and I have skipped over it - I selfishly struggle focussing on one team without putting in so much time into research for others like you do!!

I’d like to know how you see the big 3 - Danger, Dusty & Titch fitting into your starting team? All 3 are a very high chance of being in the top 5 or so again with their proven reliability, meaning it would be shear bad luck to an unfortunate injury that stops that happening.

By my maths we have 8 options available to us - start all 3, choose 1 of the 3, choose a combination of 2 out of the 3, or choose not to start any. Which options should we be narrowing our thoughts to?

I am seeing a few teams starting all 3. I just can’t justify spending over 20% of my salary cap on 3 players - However the near guaranteed 500 point head start each week with one of them as captain does sound appealing!

There are a number of teams with a combination of 2 of them. This makes sense if people are starting their teams by picking their C + VC then the rest of their team from there. I can see why people are foregoing Titch given he can be brought in after his bye. I can also see why people are foregoing Danger due to his price, and foregoing Dusty after coming off such a stellar year.

I am also seeing a similar amount of teams choosing just one of them. This also makes sense given the perceived value available in the midfield this year. My current team version only has Titch in it mainly due to his bye, but I would be just as comfortable with either of the other two.

One thing I am not seeing much of is teams without all of them, and I am wondering if this is because it is too dangerous to forego them all or if we are allowing ourselves to be railroaded with our thinking? Given the high ownership of Fyfe & Gawn, most teams would have a viable C & VC option from 2 players who appear fit and ready to go and have the proven ability to go massive! Therefore we should start looking at value to build our team from there.

I hope I haven’t waffled too much, and I would very much appreciate your thoughts on this.

G'day Diabolical,
I'm actually struggling more than usual this year, to finalise my team. Too many players I don't want to leave out, and more that I just want to squeeze in!
While Gawn and Fyfe are the most popular players, I don't think too many people see them as their go to C/VC options, particularly Gawn.
The maths would have us believe, that 24% of teams have none of Danger, Dusty or Titch, but the logic is flawed. A Team without say Danger is more likely to have Martin, than any random team. My guess would be more like 3 or 4% of teams have none of them, and those are teams that aren't showing much thought or experience, I would think.
Your maths is right, there are 8 options, and I agree with your logic, that starting all 3 stretches the dollars a bit too far. You are either left with throwing 3 or 4 Stepping Stone hail mary's, or only starting 11, maybe 12, Keepers. Where do those teams find 18 Rookies!
I have both Gawn and Fyfe, but they are not in my immediate C/VC plans. I have taken Dusty, Mitchell and Sloane as my early C/VC strategy. Sloane's high ceiling (he was 2nd to Danger on the 130+ scores list last season with 9 scores), makes him a great VC option, and the other two have draws that fit nicely as C choices, if Sloane fails.
It would certainly seem to be dangerous to start without all 3. You nearly need one of them to fail, completely, for that strategy to work, otherwise you might use 1/4 of your trades just trying to get them in!
If anyone was of the opinion that Gawn, Fyfe, and one those 3 constituted a good, healthy C/VC plan, then I would advocate getting as many value Keepers into your team as you can. To push home any advantage that might eventuate, if that plan looked like working, you would need to be able use a number of trades to get the other two, or press home your advantage, by completing your team as quickly as possible, and hoping one or both of the missing 3 fail.

 

[Diabolical]

G'day Diabolical,
I'm actually struggling more than usual this year, to finalise my team. Too many players I don't want to leave out, and more that I just want to squeeze in!
While Gawn and Fyfe are the most popular players, I don't think too many people see them as their go to C/VC options, particularly Gawn.
The maths would have us believe, that 24% of teams have none of Danger, Dusty or Titch, but the logic is flawed. A Team without say Danger is more likely to have Martin, than any random team. My guess would be more like 3 or 4% of teams have none of them, and those are teams that aren't showing much thought or experience, I would think.
Your maths is right, there are 8 options, and I agree with your logic, that starting all 3 stretches the dollars a bit too far. You are either left with throwing 3 or 4 Stepping Stone hail mary's, or only starting 11, maybe 12, Keepers. Where do those teams find 18 Rookies!
I have both Gawn and Fyfe, but they are not in my immediate C/VC plans. I have taken Dusty, Mitchell and Sloane as my early C/VC strategy. Sloane's high ceiling (he was 2nd to Danger on the 130+ scores list last season with 9 scores), makes him a great VC option, and the other two have draws that fit nicely as C choices, if Sloane fails.
It would certainly seem to be dangerous to start without all 3. You nearly need one of them to fail, completely, for that strategy to work, otherwise you might use 1/4 of your trades just trying to get them in!
If anyone was of the opinion that Gawn, Fyfe, and one those 3 constituted a good, healthy C/VC plan, then I would advocate getting as many value Keepers into your team as you can. To push home any advantage that might eventuate, if that plan looked like working, you would need to be able use a number of trades to get the other two, or press home your advantage, by completing your team as quickly as possible, and hoping one or both of the missing 3 fail.

Thanks Rowsus!
That makes me feel better as you have confirmed my thoughts, so glad I might be on the right track. I will keep tinkering with plans to start one or two of them.
P.S. love the new avatar Bermi created .... as an Essendon supporter I did find Dermie hard to look at each day

 

[Bermi]

Thanks Bermi,
after 5 years of Dermi, I have my new avatar.

I'm pleased you like it Rowsus.
Great story, that 23, it obviously brought Warnie luck on the field

 

[Rowsus]

Hey Rows,

From memory you are not one to spend big upfront on defenders.
So how to you see the likes of Hibberd, Laird etc. ?
Do you have a golden rule eg. No defender above $500k
Also are you considering H. Shaw?
Not set in stone but I sort of have a rule that anyone over 28 I practically leave alone.
Not sure on the stats but I am guessing likelihood of getting injured is higher

Hey Slammer,
excluding the odd one that looked like a really good chance to be a 105+ type, I don't understand paying top dollar for a Def that looks a 97-100 type. Most of them will be around 15-20% cheaper at some stage, as Defs generally have a high Standard Deviation in their scoring. There's no doubt, we have to overpay for some of our starting team, but whether it is a Def, or a Mid, we really should try and discipline ourselves to only over pay for D or F 1/2, or M 1-4 types.
I'm trying to limit myself to only one of the Hibberd/Laird types, and at this stage it is Hibberd. Outside of D1 and possibly if one looks really solid D2, I won't go over $500k.
I've had Shaw in and out (currently out) of my team. I actually draw the line when they get to 29+. It's not that I won't pick a 29+ player, just I need a really good reason to do it. That's partly why Shaw is currently out of my team. I did a study a few years ago, that tended to show they missed an extra 2 games/season, as they crossed the 29 barrier. We do need to take into account, that things are quite different these days, in the way the game is played, and the way players are managed. And that's the key word, "managed". While certain types of older players are more likely to be injured, most of the others are more likely to be managed than a 21 - 28 year old. It seems to be less likely to be injured, as you get older, you need to be that "wirey" type of player. I guess the lower muscle mass means they get lesser soft tissue injuries.

 

[Rowsus]

Love the new avatar...

love the new avatar Bermi created .... as an Essendon supporter I did find Dermie hard to look at each day

Bermi did a great job, didn't he?!
I wouldn't have a clue how you do that sort of thing!

 

[PC]

Bermi did a great job, didn't he?!
I wouldn't have a clue how you do that sort of thing!

Yep, it suits you Rowsus

 

[jarrad_]

in regards to your post above about shaw being over 29


is there an exception to your rule for him considering his role?

 

[THCLT]

Bermi did a great job, didn't he?!
I wouldn't have a clue how you do that sort of thing!

Yep, it suits you Rowsus

Got his colours.
We all know his prowess as a stats guru.
His 2 favourite country to live in, Australia on top of Denmark.

...And Bermi's onto something here as he's going to be the top dog for SC 2018!

 

[Drew]

Thanks Bermi,
after 5 years of Dermi, I have my new avatar.

Good that 23, Michael Jordan, Andrew Mcloud, Shane Warne and of course my own birthday! Nice to see it's been good to you Rowan!

 

[anfa18]

Hey again

Wondering what your thoughts and expectations are on the 3 main Sydney mids and weather or not any of them are worth starting based on their value? JPK, Parker and Hannebery all seemed down last season, I have a feeling one of them could explode this year, but i'm not sure which one is the most likely.

 

[Cattleherder]

The Ablett effect

No.
At his price, I believe the risk is too great. SC is a game of finite and restricted scoring. If you put 2 of the greatest points pigs of all time in the one team, something has to give. Add in Selwood and Duncan, and the pie gets sliced even smaller.

Hello Rowsus.
My first post for the year and I trust you are well. I hope the "Beast from the East" has bypassed Denmark.

I have a nagging query regarding the effect of Ablett on the rest of the Geelong Mids. It is true that SC has finite scoring, but most of the commentary I have seen assumes that Ablett will take points off his team-mates and not the opposition. Surely the reverse will be true, or else what is the point in having him? Geelong clearly expects his presence to result in higher scoring and more time in possession, not just a redistribution of the existing pie. As this is a stats orientated thread, let me try to justify the argument:
Motlop Out, Ablett in
Let us make the reasonable assumption that Ablett replaces the loss of Motlop, as they both are Mid/Forward types. Last year Motlop averaged 73.4 ppg and Ablett 114.8, a difference of 41.4 ppg. So if Ablett by his presence in the team picks up Motlop's points he needs a further 41 ppg from the opposition to reach his average and leave the rest of the team's scoring unaffected. With over 3,000 points (?) available each game, this should be easy to do.

If you compare total points, then Motlop made 1,468 to Ablett 1,607, and difference of just 139 points. So Ablett only needs to pick up 139 points to achieve the status quo from last year. Once again, this should be achievable without plundering his team-mates points.

The loaves and fishes (there is no i in team)
While he has declined to be in the leadership group, he has indicated in the Saturday Age that he intends to be a leader in instructing and passing on his knowledge to the other players. Will this result in them being worse players with lower SC scores? I suppose time will tell.

My view is that the scoring of the core group - Danger, Jelwood, Duncan, Menagola - should be unaffected by and will perhaps even benefit from Ablett's presence, with some of the other developing players perhaps having less time in the mid and forward line. I have Dangerfield and Menagola in my team.

 

[Slammer]

Thank you for your responses Rows.
This year I finding it very tough in finalising positions.
One thing I do notice is there is not a lot of talk this year regarding
Set and forget Rucks. It all seems to be about fitting in a Lycett or a Nic Nat into their side.
I consider this high risk this year so currently I have a set and forget combo.
Just wondering which way you are leaning to.

 

[Rowsus]

in regards to your post above about shaw being over 29


is there an exception to your rule for him considering his role?

Nope. No exception for Shaw.
He was in my team, but age was one of the determining factors that bounced him back out again.

 

[Rowsus]

Got his colours.
We all know his prowess as a stats guru.
His 2 favourite country to live in, Australia on top of Denmark.

...And Bermi's onto something here as he's going to be the top dog for SC 2018!

I wish!

 

[Rowsus]

Good that 23, Michael Jordan, Andrew Mcloud, Shane Warne and of course my own birthday! Nice to see it's been good to you Rowan!

8 & 23 have been very good to me, including one night at the casino, when the croupier managed to spin 8, 8, 23, 8, 8, 23 in consecutive spins for me!

8 is next to 23 on the wheel.