Opinion Questions For Rowsus

Zim^zuM · 22 May 2021

Thank you

Powell and warner both help my bye numbers. Keeping them and taking the price hit is purely based on the byes for me. After these trades I only have 13 trades.

wogitalia · 2 Jun 2021

I'm pretty confident in my own numbers but wouldn't mind a 2nd opinion and figure a few are in the same scenario...

What's the reasonable return needed from a NicNat/Darcy type for a trade of Grundy to be worth it assuming Grundy is out for the 2 games as expected?

Cheers as always mate, love your work

Rowsus · 3 Jun 2021

wogitalia said:

It's one of those questions, that at first glance seems simple enough, but when you start to think of the possibilities, it becomes quite complicated.
As always, with complicated questions, it comes down to what your goals are, and how you are placed.
The year Impromptu won SC he traded Sandilands around his bye. Out for his bye, and back in again. 98% of the time a very wasteful move, but it's quite possible, it was a big factor in him winning!
It's also one of those ironic situations, where someone travelling (really, really) well, can call the move a success, with a smaller return, than someone travelling moderately well. Or put in other words, potentially a 130 point injection is worth more to someone at the pointy end, and carrying sufficent trades, than 170 points might mean to someone ranked 10,000th.
So let's look at some simple scenarios, even though it won't cover everyone's perspective.

If you are currently looking at multiple donuts, exacerbated by Grundy missing until Rnd 15+, then using Grundy to NicNat has the potential yield 250 points (110 v Carl, bye, 140 v Rich). For most people, that would be a happy result. Once again, depending on position/goals 200 points might be the Mendoza Line in this situation.
You might elect to trade Grundy to Reeves (+$503,800) or CCJ (+$466,500) and hopefully get 2 scores from them, and potentially get TWO upgrades from the loose change! How do we make an equation to decide what you need from that scenario? It's almost impossible. You might potential be replacing Grundy 125, Rookie A 60, Rookie B 60 with Rookie C 70, Prem D 110, Prem E 100. So replacing 245 points with 280 points, which hopefully gets you 420 points by seasons end. That's 140 points/trade. Good short term fix, but once again, depending on your position, a poor long term result for 3 trades. You probably want closer to 600 points, which means a net return of around 50/week. If you can get to the 110 and 100 point Prems by trading out current 40-45 point Rookies, then you'll turn it into a success. The problem is, will you have enough cash to do that? Probably not!

If you are well placed, and depending on selections, not looking at donuts, then bringing in a NicNat pushes your worst Rookie off the field, and gives you NicNat. Lets call that a (110 + 140) - (40 + 40) = 170 point win. Line ball call. A great success, if you are playing for Leagues, and it grabs you an important win or two. Probably a good success if you are at the pointy end, and you want to keep in touch over the byes. A slightly disappointing result, if you are placed 10,000th, and want to make a late run at the top 2,000. You probably want more than 170 from a Round 12 trade, if you are to achieve that. A poor result, if you lose your League games anyway, and you burnt a very valuable trade, better used in the finals.

The other problem, in determining whether this can be successful or not, is whether you intend to trade Grundy back in. His current BE is 162. If he is still a bit hampered when he comes back, and scores around 100 against Freo in Rnd 15, then he drops $27k, and faces a new BE of around 180 against St Kilda. While this is a component of the success of the move, there are too many possibilities to list here, as to what is required for success or not.

For those contemplating trading Grundy down to a Rookie, it should be noted, that both Reeves and CCJ have exceptionally fortuitous Draws for such a move!
Reeves: bye, Syd, Ess
CCJ: Ess, bye, WC.
Ess are giving up more 110+ Ruck scores than anyone other team this season, and Syd are in the top 3 in the same catagory. Reeves in particular, looks to have the potential to post 2 good Rookie scores over the byes!

Summary.
Pointy end, I'd do it.
Potential close match ups, in your most important League, I'd do it.
Not looking at multiple donuts, and your Ranking isn't that great, I'd take the risk and pass, and see what happens.
Looking at multiple donuts, and already have a poorish Ranking? Get a coin out!

<actus · 3 Jun 2021

Rowsus said:

It's one of those questions, that at first glance seems simple enough, but when you start to think of the possibilities, it becomes quite complicated.
As always, with complicated questions, it comes down to what your goals are, and how you are placed.
The year Impromptu won SC he traded Sandilands around his bye. Out for his bye, and back in again. 98% of the time a very wasteful move, but it's quite possible, it was a big factor in him winning!
It's also one of those ironic situations, where someone travelling (really, really) well, can call the move a success, with a smaller return, than someone travelling moderately well. Or put in other words, potentially a 130 point injection is worth more to someone at the pointy end, and carrying sufficent trades, than 170 points might mean to someone ranked 10,000th.
So let's look at some simple scenarios, even though it won't cover everyone's perspective.

If you are currently looking at multiple donuts, exacerbated by Grundy missing until Rnd 15+, then using Grundy to NicNat has the potential yield 250 points (110 v Carl, bye, 140 v Rich). For most people, that would be a happy result. Once again, depending on position/goals 200 points might be the Mendoza Line in this situation.
You might elect to trade Grundy to Reeves (+$503,800) or CCJ (+$466,500) and hopefully get 2 scores from them, and potentially get TWO upgrades from the loose change! How do we make an equation to decide what you need from that scenario? It's almost impossible. You might potential be replacing Grundy 125, Rookie A 60, Rookie B 60 with Rookie C 70, Prem D 110, Prem E 100. So replacing 245 points with 280 points, which hopefully gets you 420 points by seasons end. That's 140 points/trade. Good short term fix, but once again, depending on your position, a poor long term result for 3 trades. You probably want closer to 600 points, which means a net return of around 50/week. If you can get to the 110 and 100 point Prems by trading out current 40-45 point Rookies, then you'll turn it into a success. The problem is, will you have enough cash to do that? Probably not!

If you are well placed, and depending on selections, not looking at donuts, then bringing in a NicNat pushes your worst Rookie off the field, and gives you NicNat. Lets call that a (110 + 140) - (40 + 40) = 170 point win. Line ball call. A great success, if you are playing for Leagues, and it grabs you an important win or two. Probably a good success if you are at the pointy end, and you want to keep in touch over the byes. A slightly disappointing result, if you are placed 10,000th, and want to make a late run at the top 2,000. You probably want more than 170 from a Round 12 trade than 170, if you are to achieve that. A poor result, if you lose your League games anyway, and you burnt a very valuable trade, better used in the finals.

The other problem, in determining whether this can be successful or not, is whether you intend to trade Grundy back in. His current BE is 162. If he is still a bit hampered when he comes back, and scores around 100 against Freo in Rnd 15, then he drops $27k, and faces a new BE of around 180 against St Kilda. While this is a component of the success of the move, there are too many possibilities to list here, as to what is required for success or not.

For those contemplating trading Grundy down to a Rookie, it should be noted, that both Reeves and CCJ have exceptionally fortuitous Draws for such a move!
Reeves: bye, Syd, Ess
CCJ: Ess, bye, WC.
Ess are giving up more 110+ Ruck scores than anyone other team this season, and Syd are in the top 3 in the same catagory. Reeves in particular, looks to have the potential to post 2 good Rookie scores over the byes!

Summary.
Pointy end, I'd do it.
Potential close match ups, in your most important League, I'd do it.
Not looking at multiple donuts, and your Rankingisn't that great, I'd take the risk and pass, and see what happens.
Looking at multiple donuts, and already have a poorish Ranking? Get a coin out!

Very interesting read. Thanks @wogitalia and @Rowsus.

I am lucky enough to be at the pointy end so far this year, but I’ve got one further complicating factor which is that I’m strong in bye R12 and R14 and pretty weak in R13, the round NicNat misses. So he helps me in the rounds I’m already strong and doesn’t help me when I’m weak.

Rowsus · 3 Jun 2021

<actus said:

NicNat was just the obvious example to use.
Of Rnds 12 and 14, which Round looks like being your weakest?
I'd trade Grundy someone in that round.
Conversely, you could look at the byes as a block for the Prems currently in your team. It doesn't matter which one is weak, as the Prems will all play 2 games across the block anyway. If NicNat doesn't force a donut in Rnd 13, he might still be your best option!

wogitalia · 4 Jun 2021

<actus said:

Assuming you have Gawn, do you intend to get Reeves? If so it actually ends up better off than Grundy in that you'll have two rucks in all 3 bye rounds, they dove-tail very nicely.

Thanks @Rowsus as comprehensive as ever!

Finding myself in the very interesting position... I'm nowhere near the pointy end unfortunately (last two weeks were the death knell for my side) and don't care about league results but that 40k from the trade to NicNat actually makes the difference between getting Dangerfield and Lloyd/Mills as my final 2 upgrades or having to sacrifice at least one of them or Miller next week as an option or all 3...

I wouldn't be getting Grundy back unless he capitulates from here to the point where I can generate ~70k from NicNat back to him and realistically I'm done by r15 so he wouldn't have time.

I assume given that your conclusion is roughly "it's a close call either way" that an extra week missed by Grundy would probably ice the deal (although depends how good Reeves cover is). NicNat matching Grundy from here would also, I assume, ice the deal.

Other kicker for me is that the rookie that is being replaced is Treacy (assuming he plays). If Parks and Treacy both made the 22 I'd probably hold off, if both don't then I'm replacing a donut and it becomes a lot easier call, replacing Treacy could easily be 100+ this week (Poulter, Bianco, RCD, Murphy and Jordon also on field, good odds of a bad score there!).

Cheers again bud, love the work!

<actus · 4 Jun 2021

Rowsus said:

- R12 is strong with only 4 premiums missing (or 5 with Grundy out).
- R13 is weak - 9 premiums out (10 with Grundy)
- R14 decent - 6 out (or 7 with Grundy).

My rookie situation is actually better than a lot of the other highly ranked teams - Highmore, Mansell and FinMac are the only non players I have at the moment.

I do think for teams that are OK in R13 Grundy —> Nic Nac is a strong play. I think for my team I’m better to sideways one of my non playing rookies and upgrade another of them (probably to Steele). Then use trades next week to trade player that have their bye round to (hopefully better) players that have already had their bye. Daniher —> Whitfield, that sort of thing. Doing this I can get to 19 round 13 players (more if Fin Mac and / or Max Holmes play R13). Getting Nic Nat would mean I probably only get to 18 R13 players and risk a donut if I have an unexpected out.

Edit: if the Rich v WCE game gets pushed forward a week that probably helps me a fair bit.

Wheedus · 5 Jun 2021

Bear in mind that NN’s bye may shift to R14 as the proposals to shift games all seem to involve WC

d-buzzz · 14 Jun 2021

Hey Rowsus!
I hope you’ve been well. Not sure why this thread isn’t active these days, it’s what I’ve always religiously followed on this site.

Anyway, I hope you’re still happy to take on questions!
my question:
Why is there so much love for Kyle Langford? Is he a trap or is he the real deal? I know nothing about him and just looking at previous scores:

2015 - 8 games - 34ave
2016 - 17 games - 62ave
2017 - 6 games - 58ave
2018 - 16 games - 80ave
2019 - 17 games - 73ave
2020 - 16 games - 81ave
2021 - 12 games - 87ave (3 round average of 117.3)

2 out of 3 posts in the round 14 trades seem to have Langford in. I’ve read he is attending more center bounces and a new role. I’ve read that he looks like an “easy” top 6 forward from now til end of the season. He has 3 100+ scores and to me it seems more like a hot streak. I’m not convinced.
I still need to upgrade 3 forwards and danger and Bolton will be occupying 2 so have 1 more spot to fill.

what is your opinion on Langford? Is he someone we should consider jumping on?

mike89 · 14 Jun 2021

d-buzzz said:

My position is probably somewhat unique, but here's why I'm jumping on: I actually have six playing forwards next week already, and two upgrades left to make - a MID and a FWD, and I've already identified Duncan as the one I want next week (unlikely to be moved off this unless he gets injured). Therefore in order to make this upgrade useful I need a FWD with DPP (either in MID or I can also use Laird to play them in DEF this week if necessary) that is also playing next week.

Quick filter for the teams actually playing this round gives just 35 players that have played at all this season who meet that criteria (some of whom are DPP in the rucks and therefore useless) and less than half of those played their team's last game. Sorting by average gives the following hierarchy:
Dunkley (LTI)
Zorko (suspended)
Langford
Bailey
I Smith
SPP
Dangerfield
Duryea
Phillips
and if you're doing worse than Phillips you're obviously not up for consideration.

So like, obviously Dangerfield is an option, but he costs $75k more right now, has a lot more cash to lose and is just coming off an injury, so might not even be relevant anyway, but a definite watch. After that the only real contender is Zac Bailey and if the posts I've seen on the forum about his form are any indication, that's a ride I'm not sure I want to take when I'm already holding Cameron.

McGrath out effectively for the season is a win for Langford's role... feels like I could do a whole lot worse. When he scrubs out a 55 on Sunday you can blame me!

Rowsus · 17 Jun 2021

d-buzzz said:

Hey d-buzzz,
still happy to take questions.
I think @mike89 has gone a very long way to answering your question.
The problem the whole season has been "who do you pick in the Forward line?". That has only been made worse, by this 5 game Round.
The question probably comes down to goals and opinions.
I use very similar thinking, to what you showed on Langford in your question. I'm a great believer in, that outside of a one off spike season, a leopard doesn't change his spots. That theory has been tested a little this season, with likes of Ziebell and Impey, and possibly even Hall. I think it's possible in the Ziebell and Impey cases we might start to see some sort of correction happen.
Ziebell was still averaging 122 after Round 8, but has only gone 4/95 since. That is much more in line with what me might expect from him. His price has dropped $78,000 since it's peak.
Impey was still averaging 98 after Round 8, but has gone 4/72 since, and dropped $45,000 since his peak price.
These are two players that over-performed expectations, and people probably had pencilled in at Round 8 as season long Keepers.
Now people are asking themselves, can I afford to keep them? Who do I get to replace them? The bottom line is, we could ask people to name who will be the top PIT60 Forwards from Round 15 to Round 23, and I'd be super surprised if anyone got more than 4 right in their 6 picks.
In a long winded way, hence the interest in Langford! People are clutching at straws, and Langford might potentially be able to do in the 2nd half of the season, what Ziebell and Impey did in the first half of the season.
I'm not totally convinced, but I wouldn't be surprised if he looks good over the next 3 or 4 Rounds.

This brings us to the opening part of the answer, opinion and goals.
If your goal is Leagues, Langford potentially fills a pretty good opportunity to get some points over your opponents in the coming weeks. I'd be be watching for signs of him reverting to his old ways though.
If your goal is Ranking it comes down to your opinion. Will Langford, with an extra game over those players having a bye this week, outscore those players from now to the end? If he goes say 10/90 from here, and scores around 900 points, then if you are waiting for a player having his bye this Round, that player need to score 9/100 to match Langford, if Langford saves you a donut, or around 9/96 if Langford doesn't save you a donut.

The bottom line is, we are all guessing at the moment, as to who will be best to fill our F5 or 6 with. Langford has the 2nd best 3 Round average of the players playing this week, and the 5th best average of the players playing this week, that have played every game. I can certainly understand the interest he is generating, especially as he is at 1.4% ownership, but I'm with you, and I won't be taking him. I'd rather take a risk on a younger player on the rise, or an older player with a slightly better history.

I'm just not sure who that is yet!

d-buzzz · 17 Jun 2021

Rowsus said:

Hey d-buzzz,
still happy to take questions.
I think @mike89 has gone a very long way to answering your question.
The problem the whole season has been "who do you pick in the Forward line?". That has only been made worse, by this 5 game Round.
The question probably comes down to goals and opinions.
I use very similar thinking, to what you showed on Langford in your question. I'm a great believer in, that outside of a one off spike season, a leopard doesn't change his spots. That theory has been tested a little this season, with likes of Ziebell and Impey, and possibly even Hall. I think it's possible in the Ziebell and Impey cases we might start to see some sort of correction happen.
Ziebell was still averaging 122 after Round 8, but has only gone 4/95 since. That is much more in line with what me might expect from him. His price has dropped $78,000 since it's peak.
Impey was still averaging 98 after Round 8, but has gone 4/72 since, and dropped $45,000 since his peak price.
These are two players that over-performed expectations, and people probably had pencilled in at Round 8 as season long Keepers.
Now people are asking themselves, can I afford to keep them? Who do I get to replace them? The bottom line is, we could ask people to name who will be the top PIT60 Forwards from Round 15 to Round 23, and I'd be super surprised if anyone got more than 4 right in their 6 picks.
In a long winded way, hence the interest in Langford! People are clutching at straws, and Langford might potentially be able to do in the 2nd half of the season, what Ziebell and Impey did in the first half of the season.
I'm not totally convinced, but I wouldn't be surprised if he looks good over the next 3 or 4 Rounds.

This brings us to the opening part of the answer, opinion and goals.
If your goal is Leagues, Langford potentially fills a pretty good opportunity to get some points over your opponents in the coming weeks. I'd be be watching for signs of him reverting to his old ways though.
If your goal is Ranking it comes down to your opinion. Will Langford, with an extra game over those players having a bye this week, outscore those players from now to the end? If he goes say 10/90 from here, and scores around 900 points, then if you are waiting for a player having his bye this Round, that player need to score 9/100 to match Langford, if Langford saves you a donut, or around 9/96 if Langford doesn't save you a donut.

The bottom line is, we are all guessing at the moment, as to who will be best to fill our F5 or 6 with. Langford has the 2nd best 3 Round average of the players playing this week, and the 5th best average of the players playing this week, that have played every game. I can certainly understand the interest he is generating, especially as he is at 1.4% ownership, but I'm with you, and I won't be taking him. I'd rather take a risk on a younger player on the rise, or an older player with a slightly better history.

I'm just not sure who that is yet!

thanks for your detailed response!
You’ve answered my question and at the same time given me other things to think about and consider too. I play for leagues only but think I’d rather take a risk on someone like R Gray.
I’ll be skipping on Langford so good luck to those who jump on!

Rumbler · 14 Jul 2021

Hey Rows! How are ya?!
I'm undecided on who to get for my last forward spot. De Goey vs. Marshall for F6? Or someone else?
Current forwards I have are Zorko, Dangerfield, Dusty, Ziebell & Hall. Can get anyone worth up to 600k but I want to save most of that cash to bring in Steele/Dunkley/Bont before league finals start.

Rumbler · 28 Jul 2021

Sup @Rowsus !

Hoping you get a chance to see this before the start of this round! League finals are here and as usual I would love your wisdom!!
Preparing for a qualifying final in my main league. Aiming to win this week so I can have the week off and not need to make trades the following round.

Currently only 5 trades left and 174k in the bank.
Need to get in a midfielder as my final upgrade to get a "complete" team and I'm undecided on who to bring in.
Tossing up between Bont & Steele.

Option 1:
Highmore --> Durham
Bianco --> Bont
This would leave me with only 30k but will have Brambl as cover on mids bench.

Option 2:
Highmore --> Durham/Parker
Bramble --> Bont
This would leave me with about 138k (if I take Durham) or 100k (if I take Parker) and will have Bianco & Parker as midfield cover. The extra cash could help later on to sideways trade Bolton if he keeps getting low scores.

Option 3:
Highmore --> Durham/Parker
Bramble --> Steele
This would leave me with hardly any cash but Steele is big time and I'm gutted I couldn't get him earlier in the season when he was so much cheaper.

Which option do you think is best here? Will have 3 trades left after this so is it better to cash in Bramble now or leave him as good bench cover? Also, who out of Durham or Parker has better JS?

Currently leaning towards option 2 but kinda worried Bont's scoring may be effected with Dunkley/Treloar coming back.

Thanks as always mate! 🙏

p.s. @Darkie superstitions tag as usual!

Rowsus · 30 Jul 2021

Rumbler said:

Hey Rumb,
well done on another top 4 finish.
I probably need a little more info to give a complete answer (your POD's v opponents POD's + your current bench coverage).
With the info at hand, I'd suggest it is important to try and keep Bramble. He's not only good coverage, but he does present an opportunity to loop a Mid. My suggestion would be to bench one of your early mids, that your opponent has as well. If he scores poorly, use Bramble leaving your opponent with that poor score. Bramble is a much better tool to do this than Bianco.
With that in mind, option 1 appeals to me most.
Good luck!

Rumbler · 30 Jul 2021

Rowsus said:

Thanks Rows!
Here's the matchup below. My team on the left, his on the right. Pretty sure he's going to trade Fyfe (and Jordon too). Not sure who he's going to bring in.

Without making any trades, I'm projected 2482 and he's projected 2253. For simplicity's sake, I've kept VC and C as the same as him.

Rowsus · 30 Jul 2021

Rumbler said:

Depending on his trade ins, you looks safe-ish. I'd stick with option 1, and keep Bramble.

Rumbler · 31 Jul 2021

Rowsus said:

Hey mate just an update, with the uncertainty surrounding the GWS vs. PORT, GC vs. DEES and SYD vs. ESS fixtures currently, I traded out Nathan Murphy (instead of Bianco) for Bont. Kept Bianco as he's playing and can be used for defense cover if Whitfield/Ridley miss games due to postponements. Literally zero cash left now though.

Rumbler · 12 Aug 2021

@Rowsus Ahhhhhhh! So much for "luxury trades"...!

Would love to have your opinion for the prelim match-up below please 🙏
Only have 3 trades and $700 cash left.

Opponent apparently has "no trades left". Lloyd injured and Greene suspended for him. Looks like he has Brockman and Bianco as cover.

I have Brayshaw suspended, Lloyd injured and a massive question mark over Dangerfield.
What's the best play here?! Thinking to use Durham/Bianco to cover Lloyd? Or trade Lloyd?

Trade Brayshaw to who? Really want to bring in Steele but that would take two trades.

Alternatively, one option is to leave Bramble as (E) on the bench and see what he scores. If it's a mediocre score then would need to trade Brayshaw. But what about Lloyd? Would it be worth trading Dangerfield even if he plays?
Really unsure about how to approach this hahah!!

Rowsus · 13 Aug 2021

Rumbler said:

Honestly, it looks like only bad luck can beat you this week.
My plan of attack would be to look at your likely opponent for next week, and plan your tradesaround that match up, not this one.
Most of your POD's play before his, so you can get a good idea of your tracking.
Given you are/might be focusing on next week, I'd avoid trading the likes of Lloyd, unless it looks absolutely necessary. Luckily Freo and Syd play late, so keep at least one trade to be used Sunday, just in case.

Good luck!

Opinion Questions For Rowsus

Zim^zuM

wogitalia

Rowsus

Statistician

<actus

Rowsus

Statistician

wogitalia

<actus

Wheedus

d-buzzz

mike89

Rowsus

Statistician

d-buzzz

Rumbler

Rumbler

Rowsus

Statistician

Rumbler

Rowsus

Statistician

Rumbler

Rumbler

Rowsus

Statistician