- Joined
- 8 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 6,968
- Likes
- 11,084
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
- Likes
- 11,150
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The discrepancy in individual players being up and down may render any aggregate number fairly useless. As shown by Rowsus work, across mids (top 10), rucks (top 2) the best players can change regularly every season ex a handful of mids.
The reason $$ spent at the start of the season in mids is generally better are the deviation from prior year ave seems to be less than fwds and defs and fwd and defs can be more inconsistent from week to week leading to better buying opportunities (greater fall in prices).
Hope this helps. Dont have the stats to back this up, just my experience. Rowsus as always will have greater insights.
The reason $$ spent at the start of the season in mids is generally better are the deviation from prior year ave seems to be less than fwds and defs and fwd and defs can be more inconsistent from week to week leading to better buying opportunities (greater fall in prices).
Hope this helps. Dont have the stats to back this up, just my experience. Rowsus as always will have greater insights.
Last edited:
I can't bring myself to pick any of those players at the moment. Hibberd has ASADA and i won't add him until results are known. Smith is a 1 time premium at this stage and i'm not sure he can back it up. Simpson has age to contend with and you previously told me to stay clear of him lol. Malceski is at a new club and i see his average dropping slightly. Shaw will likely miss games and his PIT60 won't be fantastic.
I really don't know what to do or which players i feel confident in at the moment. I guess it's lucky there is still a good amount of time before round 1.
I really don't know what to do or which players i feel confident in at the moment. I guess it's lucky there is still a good amount of time before round 1.
Mudflap, I don't have all the figures at hand, and to be honest, I'm not sure the answer is worth the 10-15 hours of work to find out.
The answer does seem obvious, but I don't have figures to back it up. Mids are the highest scoring area on the ground, as such they have the greatest potential for growth. Add into that, that is more likely that younger players on the rise will get position shifts from being rated as Fwds or Defs, to now being rated as Mids. Also, older Mids can slowly become Def only or in fewer cases Fwd only. It all points to the greatest value per dollar, when looking at opening prices is in the Mids. I agree with what was said about you shouldn't look at averages to work this sort of thing out. I think PIT scores/averages are much better to evaluate this sort of thing.
Having given that answer let me tackle the $1.5m left to spend query. If I had that much left to spend, and I needed 2 Mids and 2 Defs, and I was trying to maximise the points across the 4 players, I'd buy the 2 cheapest Def players I could, that are actually playing, and then 2 Mid Prems. So in round figures, 2 x $600k Mids, and 2 x $150k Defs. If I am forced to stick to the 2 x $500k and 2 x $250k scenario, I'm not sure there is an advantage of one over the other. You could make one argument, that 2 $500k Mids have more upside (potentially) to outscore their price/previous seasons average, but against that, 2 $500k Defs are more likely to be top performers on their line. So I guess the answer is, value wise, spend $500k on the Mids, but the risk is bigger, safety wise, spend $500k on the Defs.
Sorry I couldn't give you a quantified answer, I usually try to, if I can.
The answer does seem obvious, but I don't have figures to back it up. Mids are the highest scoring area on the ground, as such they have the greatest potential for growth. Add into that, that is more likely that younger players on the rise will get position shifts from being rated as Fwds or Defs, to now being rated as Mids. Also, older Mids can slowly become Def only or in fewer cases Fwd only. It all points to the greatest value per dollar, when looking at opening prices is in the Mids. I agree with what was said about you shouldn't look at averages to work this sort of thing out. I think PIT scores/averages are much better to evaluate this sort of thing.
Having given that answer let me tackle the $1.5m left to spend query. If I had that much left to spend, and I needed 2 Mids and 2 Defs, and I was trying to maximise the points across the 4 players, I'd buy the 2 cheapest Def players I could, that are actually playing, and then 2 Mid Prems. So in round figures, 2 x $600k Mids, and 2 x $150k Defs. If I am forced to stick to the 2 x $500k and 2 x $250k scenario, I'm not sure there is an advantage of one over the other. You could make one argument, that 2 $500k Mids have more upside (potentially) to outscore their price/previous seasons average, but against that, 2 $500k Defs are more likely to be top performers on their line. So I guess the answer is, value wise, spend $500k on the Mids, but the risk is bigger, safety wise, spend $500k on the Defs.
Sorry I couldn't give you a quantified answer, I usually try to, if I can.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 3,858
- Likes
- 1,652
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Hi Rowsus,
Has there been any analogy done on scoring impact on Kade Simpson with Andrew Walker in the side?
Would be interested to know what they average when they play together or when either one is missing.
Considering both, Simpson keeps on keeping on, Not sure if i can trust Walkers body but he's good while it lasts
Thanks in Advance
Has there been any analogy done on scoring impact on Kade Simpson with Andrew Walker in the side?
Would be interested to know what they average when they play together or when either one is missing.
Considering both, Simpson keeps on keeping on, Not sure if i can trust Walkers body but he's good while it lasts
Thanks in Advance
I hear what you're saying, and have the same hesitations, hence the problems everyone is having with the Def line this season. I still think the safer option is to try and weed out one ot two from a pool of players, that recent history says are 50-60% successful, than load up on 4 to 5 players from pools that have 10 - 30% success rate.
Personally, if there were 2 or 3 players that had a solid history of 20+ games/ season, and regularly scored in the 90-92 area, I would happily pay overs for them this season, just to save the worry and angst. A 92 player is priced at $494,500 this year, I'd happily pay $525k for them, just to get past the problem!
Personally, if there were 2 or 3 players that had a solid history of 20+ games/ season, and regularly scored in the 90-92 area, I would happily pay overs for them this season, just to save the worry and angst. A 92 player is priced at $494,500 this year, I'd happily pay $525k for them, just to get past the problem!
Hey Pro,
Mumford - has the draw to post some monsters early, but will miss more games than most of the top Rucks. Hard to take, unless you have some cover going into Rnd 1, and even then, the price is a bit off putting.
Greene - will be a good player, but I am worried that his high scores came when GWS' Mids were missing at least 1, and sometimes 2 from their high end Mid rotation. Adding Griffen in makes that problem something even more to worry about.
Griffen - I don't want to touch him. Back problems are quick to flare up again, and he's not really a 110+ player. He made that area once, but on the back of some stats I don't think he can replicate, and he's nearly 30 now. I doubt he will produce a 20+ game at 110+/game ever again.
Dangerfield - will in all likelihood outscore his price, but contract problems, new Coach, history of throwing in low scores early in the season all add up to, I want to keep an eye on him, before comitting to him.
Greenwood - In simple terms, his Dis tally is usually good, but his SC score doesn't correspond. This can be brought about about by a combination of factors. Being a ball magnet is no promise of good SC scores. With his unkown role at Collingwood, I would like to see him post more games with 4.5-5+ SC points/disposal, like some of the better scorers can do 6-10 times a season. Until he shows he has overcome that hurdle, I'll pass on him.
Sidebottom - Priced to his historical max, but still potentially has upside. I wouldn't talk anyone out of starting him.
Cotchin - until he starts getting more possessions in the centre, and forward of centre, and stops kicking short and sideways, he may never regularly be a 110+ player again.
Mumford - has the draw to post some monsters early, but will miss more games than most of the top Rucks. Hard to take, unless you have some cover going into Rnd 1, and even then, the price is a bit off putting.
Greene - will be a good player, but I am worried that his high scores came when GWS' Mids were missing at least 1, and sometimes 2 from their high end Mid rotation. Adding Griffen in makes that problem something even more to worry about.
Griffen - I don't want to touch him. Back problems are quick to flare up again, and he's not really a 110+ player. He made that area once, but on the back of some stats I don't think he can replicate, and he's nearly 30 now. I doubt he will produce a 20+ game at 110+/game ever again.
Dangerfield - will in all likelihood outscore his price, but contract problems, new Coach, history of throwing in low scores early in the season all add up to, I want to keep an eye on him, before comitting to him.
Greenwood - In simple terms, his Dis tally is usually good, but his SC score doesn't correspond. This can be brought about about by a combination of factors. Being a ball magnet is no promise of good SC scores. With his unkown role at Collingwood, I would like to see him post more games with 4.5-5+ SC points/disposal, like some of the better scorers can do 6-10 times a season. Until he shows he has overcome that hurdle, I'll pass on him.
Sidebottom - Priced to his historical max, but still potentially has upside. I wouldn't talk anyone out of starting him.
Cotchin - until he starts getting more possessions in the centre, and forward of centre, and stops kicking short and sideways, he may never regularly be a 110+ player again.
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 750
- Likes
- 29
Rowsus, a question which I think you've touched on before last year but I can't actually find the thread in question (something with Liberatore) - what's the data on those that rise in average by a large amount (we'll say min 20ppg) and how they back it up the season after?
For example, looking at last year, for those that have played at least 8 games in both 2013 and 2014, there were 26 players who's average jumped by over 20ppg, but 19 players who were above 80ppg (so aiming for relevancy). The list includes those you'd expect: Sandi, Jacobs, Gray, Rockcliff, Treloar, Wines, Swallow etc.
Interested to know the stats for 2012 and 2013, which I don't have, and see what happened back then with those who rose so high.
For example, looking at last year, for those that have played at least 8 games in both 2013 and 2014, there were 26 players who's average jumped by over 20ppg, but 19 players who were above 80ppg (so aiming for relevancy). The list includes those you'd expect: Sandi, Jacobs, Gray, Rockcliff, Treloar, Wines, Swallow etc.
Interested to know the stats for 2012 and 2013, which I don't have, and see what happened back then with those who rose so high.
I think you are referring to the chasing last years points threads Rowsus makes.
Here is last years thread:
http://www.supercoachscores.com/threads/926-2014-Chasing-Last-Years-Points
Plus here was the 2013 thread:
http://www.supercoachscores.com/threads/229-Chasing-last-years-points
Here is last years thread:
http://www.supercoachscores.com/threads/926-2014-Chasing-Last-Years-Points
Plus here was the 2013 thread:
http://www.supercoachscores.com/threads/229-Chasing-last-years-points
Hi Btj,
Dimma asked me a similar question back in April 2014.
Here is my answer to Dimma from back then.
So at the end of 2013 the score was Simpson leading Walker 49-1-27. In 2014 Simpson lead Walker with 7-1-6, bringing their total in the last 6 seasons to Simpson winning 56-2-33.
If we line up their last 9 seasons each, highest to lowest giving us 18 seasons, it now looks like this:
W S S S S S S S S W S W W W W W W W
Where can you get bets like this on? Simpson won on all 3 easily, meaning I would have collected my bet. Keep in mind, Walker was the more popular player early in 2014, because he was coming off his spike season. Simpson won: most games 22 to 14, most points 2099 to 1231, better average 95.4 to 87.9
All of this doesn't specifically answer your question though.
In the last 3 seasons:
Simpson has played 14 games without Walker. Simpson 14/98.1
They have played 49 games together. Simpson 49/93.4, Walker 49/94.8
Walker has played 1 game without Simpson. Walker 1/4.0 (TOG 12%)
Simpsons average without Walker is close enough to his average with Walker, given the limited sample sizes. I wouldn't read too much into Walker beating Simpson on averages, just, when they play together. Simpson is well in front over their careers, and this sample includes Walker's spike year, which is unlikely to be repeated.
Dimma asked me a similar question back in April 2014.
Here is my answer to Dimma from back then.
To be honest, I'm not in the A Walker fan Club. I took him in about round 4 last season, and rode him out to the end of the season, but I'm happy enough to avoid him this season. I have seen nothing to make me think anything other than last season was a spike. Before last season he had had only two 80+ seasons: 2008 - 81, 2011 - 83. Even his 2008 season might have been boosted by the fact he only played 7 games. He's currently averaging 82 this season, I will not at all be surprised if he finishes the season in the 80-85 range. His history would tend to indicate that's where his level is. To trade him in at his $498,200 price tag, you'd want around a 95-100 return. I'm not saying he can't or won't do that, just I'd be personally surprised if he managed it.
Simpson has beaten Walker every single season, bar last season. Since 2006 he has missed 3 games (Walker has missed 51 in that time!) and has only had 2 seasons under 93!!! (2007 - 89, 2008 85). (edit - keep in mind this was written April 2014). In other words, if we line up the 2 players last 8 seasons in order, giving us 16 seasons to look at, Walker has the best season, with his last seasons 106, then all 8 of Simpsons last 8 seasons are better than Walker's 2nd best season. Simpson is priced $30k cheaper than Walker, and I honestly would be happy to back him at $1.50 to play more games, score more points, and average more points than Walker this season. Simpsons last 5 seasons read: 94, 100, 95, 94, 95. Just what we want from a D4.
To me it looks simple, Simpson, but I have been proven wrong before!
Good luck
Edit - one last piece of persuasion for those not yet convinced. Here is their head to head records, where they played in the same games together for the last 5 seasons:
[table="width: 580, class: grid, align: center"]
[tr]
[td]Year[/td]
[td]Games[/td]
[td]Simpson[/td]
[td]Draw[/td]
[td]Walker[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2013[/td]
[td]21[/td]
[td]9[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]12[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2012[/td]
[td]14[/td]
[td]10[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]4[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2011[/td]
[td]22[/td]
[td]13[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[td]8[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2010[/td]
[td]15[/td]
[td]13[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]2[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2009[/td]
[td]5[/td]
[td]4[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Total[/td]
[td]77[/td]
[td]49[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[td]27[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
So Simpson has outscored Walker in 49 of the 77 games they have played together in the last 5 seasons! (and leads him 3 to 1 this season, to make it 52 out of 81 the last 5.05 seasons!)
Simpson has beaten Walker every single season, bar last season. Since 2006 he has missed 3 games (Walker has missed 51 in that time!) and has only had 2 seasons under 93!!! (2007 - 89, 2008 85). (edit - keep in mind this was written April 2014). In other words, if we line up the 2 players last 8 seasons in order, giving us 16 seasons to look at, Walker has the best season, with his last seasons 106, then all 8 of Simpsons last 8 seasons are better than Walker's 2nd best season. Simpson is priced $30k cheaper than Walker, and I honestly would be happy to back him at $1.50 to play more games, score more points, and average more points than Walker this season. Simpsons last 5 seasons read: 94, 100, 95, 94, 95. Just what we want from a D4.
To me it looks simple, Simpson, but I have been proven wrong before!
Good luck
Edit - one last piece of persuasion for those not yet convinced. Here is their head to head records, where they played in the same games together for the last 5 seasons:
[table="width: 580, class: grid, align: center"]
[tr]
[td]Year[/td]
[td]Games[/td]
[td]Simpson[/td]
[td]Draw[/td]
[td]Walker[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2013[/td]
[td]21[/td]
[td]9[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]12[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2012[/td]
[td]14[/td]
[td]10[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]4[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2011[/td]
[td]22[/td]
[td]13[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[td]8[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2010[/td]
[td]15[/td]
[td]13[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]2[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2009[/td]
[td]5[/td]
[td]4[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Total[/td]
[td]77[/td]
[td]49[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[td]27[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
So Simpson has outscored Walker in 49 of the 77 games they have played together in the last 5 seasons! (and leads him 3 to 1 this season, to make it 52 out of 81 the last 5.05 seasons!)
If we line up their last 9 seasons each, highest to lowest giving us 18 seasons, it now looks like this:
W S S S S S S S S W S W W W W W W W
Where can you get bets like this on? Simpson won on all 3 easily, meaning I would have collected my bet. Keep in mind, Walker was the more popular player early in 2014, because he was coming off his spike season. Simpson won: most games 22 to 14, most points 2099 to 1231, better average 95.4 to 87.9
All of this doesn't specifically answer your question though.
In the last 3 seasons:
Simpson has played 14 games without Walker. Simpson 14/98.1
They have played 49 games together. Simpson 49/93.4, Walker 49/94.8
Walker has played 1 game without Simpson. Walker 1/4.0 (TOG 12%)
Simpsons average without Walker is close enough to his average with Walker, given the limited sample sizes. I wouldn't read too much into Walker beating Simpson on averages, just, when they play together. Simpson is well in front over their careers, and this sample includes Walker's spike year, which is unlikely to be repeated.
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 262
- Likes
- 177
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Hey Row,
Do you think it is too much or unwise to start with 5 $600k+ midfielders? It leaves one line obviously much weaker but im not unhappy with how the whole side looks.
I feel a lot safer picking a $600k mid and a forward rookie than i do picking a $550k forward and mid rookie. Just not sure if it is putting too many eggs in one basket.
Thanks!
Do you think it is too much or unwise to start with 5 $600k+ midfielders? It leaves one line obviously much weaker but im not unhappy with how the whole side looks.
I feel a lot safer picking a $600k mid and a forward rookie than i do picking a $550k forward and mid rookie. Just not sure if it is putting too many eggs in one basket.
Thanks!
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 3,858
- Likes
- 1,652
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Cheers for the answer on Simpson and Walker Rowsus.
Got another question for you.
Do you think Andrew Swallow can get up to a 110 ppg av this season?
Im asking as at 500k hes a cheap M5 starting option im looking for atm.
If he could av 110ppg he would make a good M8 for most of the year and
ultimately be switched to M9 by finals time.
With more help around him could he ultimately take the leap up 15ppg on last
year given that last season he was coming back from his achillies snapping.
Thanks Row BTJ
Got another question for you.
Do you think Andrew Swallow can get up to a 110 ppg av this season?
Im asking as at 500k hes a cheap M5 starting option im looking for atm.
If he could av 110ppg he would make a good M8 for most of the year and
ultimately be switched to M9 by finals time.
With more help around him could he ultimately take the leap up 15ppg on last
year given that last season he was coming back from his achillies snapping.
Thanks Row BTJ
Happy to help, Btj.
I deleted my first response, as it is early in the morning here, and I was talking about D Swallow, and not A Swallow.
I think A Swallow will be a good pick this season, but will probably come up just short of the 110 area. I'm not precluding the possibility he could make it 110 though. I like that he and Goldstein featured high on the best "Ruck hitout to own player" list, off a limited number of games. I also like his Contested Possession rate.
Unless you can do some amazing cash generating, or settle for some slightly dodgy coverage in either your F5-7 and/or your D5-7 areas, I would be surprised if you can carry a $500k player through to sit at M9 late in the season, especially one that may be scoring at 110. The only other way you can achieve this, is if one your cheap recruits turns into a real find late in the season, like Miles last year, but even then it is hard to picture a 110 player sitting at M9.
I deleted my first response, as it is early in the morning here, and I was talking about D Swallow, and not A Swallow.
I think A Swallow will be a good pick this season, but will probably come up just short of the 110 area. I'm not precluding the possibility he could make it 110 though. I like that he and Goldstein featured high on the best "Ruck hitout to own player" list, off a limited number of games. I also like his Contested Possession rate.
Unless you can do some amazing cash generating, or settle for some slightly dodgy coverage in either your F5-7 and/or your D5-7 areas, I would be surprised if you can carry a $500k player through to sit at M9 late in the season, especially one that may be scoring at 110. The only other way you can achieve this, is if one your cheap recruits turns into a real find late in the season, like Miles last year, but even then it is hard to picture a 110 player sitting at M9.
- Status