Opinion Questions For Rowsus

[Krieks]

I have considered sitting Thurlow at R3, as there appears to be no suitable DPP link. I'm just worried that his scores will be low, and he is a huge vest risk, which means his cover value is not great. Still better than a donut, and might save you trading Sandi out if he is confirmed as missing 1 week, but still not great.

Thurlow is looking a likely pinch hitter but reading this gave me a thought.. how long are we expecting to need cover for?? Thurlow at R3 is good for a few weeks.. but if Sandi goes down round 6-7 would he have made enough to have been worth it? Or is he worth keeping if scoring well? As appealing as he is I can't justify building a team around covering him for 22 weeks.. So maybe he has to go? If he doesn't rise in price enough to be upgraded then you're left with a sideways to an unappealing choice at a time when premiums are the go. Ahh damn him being made of tissue paper! Maybe at best an early season hold till his bye?

So many questions! (dw Rowsus not expecting them answered!!)

 

[Rowsus]

I have a question for the Guru, Rowsus.

Is it better to have a punt on a 'breakout' in the fwd line and hope for a keeper (say Dahlhaus, Darling, Pav, Zorko, Gunston etc)?
OR
Knowing that there is a hole in a team due to injuries (lets call them Geelong), go for a cheaper player that may take up the slack? (thinking Caddy, Gurthrie, Varcoe, Thurlow etc)

Cheers in advance.

First let me say, I think that young whippersnapper from Freo, Pav, is a great chance to breakout this season!

I have no doubt trying to find the player to "fill the hole" has a much better strike rate, than trying to find a breakout player. You already know the opportunity exists, and someone has to fill it. With breakout players you are hoping they can take a step, and maybe surpass an existing, perhaps aging player. Of course, if you were to draw this out as a Venn diagram, you would find the 2 fields overlap, where opportunity can arise when SC relevant players retire or change Clubs, and create a "fill the hole" situation.

 

[PC]

Yeah, thanks for the thoughts.

By 'breakout', I meant price breakout above his start price for this season, but I think you knew that

I think I have my answer on the question - now, can I fit both a 'breakout' punt and a 'fill a hole player' in my team?!

 

[Rowsus]

Thurlow is looking a likely pinch hitter but reading this gave me a thought.. how long are we expecting to need cover for?? Thurlow at R3 is good for a few weeks.. but if Sandi goes down round 6-7 would he have made enough to have been worth it? Or is he worth keeping if scoring well? As appealing as he is I can't justify building a team around covering him for 22 weeks.. So maybe he has to go? If he doesn't rise in price enough to be upgraded then you're left with a sideways to an unappealing choice at a time when premiums are the go. Ahh damn him being made of tissue paper! Maybe at best an early season hold till his bye?

So many questions! (dw Rowsus not expecting them answered!!)

The thing we are all scared of, is Sandi going back to his 110+ days, and we don't have him. Those hoping/expecting mid to high 90's in selecting him are crazy to select him. His potential gain against the risk/compromise doesn't add up. The 3 previous seasons to 2013 were all 110+, and if he can get to the bye averaging 110, his price should be around $506k (according to RAMP). The thing is, if he can drag is body to the byes. scoring something like that, you just ride him out. Wait for the disaster to strike, then trade him out. We don't need cover for him once his price hits a point that you can make a reasonable replacement trade, without too much pain. At 110/game, that's about after round 6, when his price crosses the $450k barrier. At 100/game that doesn't happen until after round 8. The other problem, of course, is if he throws in a vested 40-50, and totally stalls his price rises. We are no closer to a solution!

 

[EGALegends]

Hi Rowsus,

I considered starting a thread for this question (apologies to all if there has been one!), but I particularly wanted your analysis of these figures. Given the amount of discussion about bye structure, in essence, my question is, "What exactly is an even bye structure, and how important is it"? I'm only interested in overall, not league games. Here is some relevant information from my team last year.

[table="width: 500, class: grid, align: center"]
[tr]
[td]Round[/td]
[td]Points[/td]
[td]Weekly Position[/td]
[td]Overall Position[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]After Rd 10[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]

21516​

[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]11[/td]
[td]

2166​

[/td]
[td]

324​

[/td]
[td]

9426​

[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]12[/td]
[td]

1859​

[/td]
[td]

114748​

[/td]
[td]

13687​

[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]13[/td]
[td]

1636​

[/td]
[td]

51190​

[/td]
[td]

13212​

[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]end of season, rd 23[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]

1250​

[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Given the scores for each bye round, and the weekly position, I think it is fair to say that I did not have an even bye structure! However, during the byes, I climbed over 8000 places in the overall, so I'm happy with the result. I did use 3 trades each week, but they were team improvement trades, not just to get a team on the park. The fact that my team continued to improve until the end of the year shows me that I didn't damage my team through the byes.

I've heard others say that an even bye structure is less important than just getting the right players, because if you have a down week because a number of players are out, you will have a corresponding good week when all those players are in. I contend that these figures support that theory.

The only real problem I can see with bye structure is if I have one week where I have too many players available in one position, e.g. 7 forwards available, because one of them cannot be counted. In this case, I potentially wouldn't be compensating fully for the down week where most of those players are not playing. This is the opposite of most of our analysis, where we worry that we have too many players out in one week.

I've had Murphy in my team all pre-season, instead of Beams, because I'm worried about having too many out in Rd 8. If those 2 players average the same, that is a good decision. If Beams averages 30 more than Murphy, it would be a bad decision. If Beams averages 5 more than Murphy, would it be a good decision because I have better bye structure, or would it be a bad decision because I cost myself 5 points per week?

Apologies for the length of the question , but I have seen other web-sites advocating an even bye structure as well, and I'm struggling to quantify the benefits.

 

[Krieks]

The thing we are all scared of, is Sandi going back to his 110+ days, and we don't have him. Those hoping/expecting mid to high 90's in selecting him are crazy to select him. His potential gain against the risk/compromise doesn't add up. The 3 previous seasons to 2013 were all 110+, and if he can get to the bye averaging 110, his price should be around $506k (according to RAMP). The thing is, if he can drag is body to the byes. scoring something like that, you just ride him out. Wait for the disaster to strike, then trade him out. We don't need cover for him once his price hits a point that you can make a reasonable replacement trade, without too much pain. At 110/game, that's about after round 6, when his price crosses the $450k barrier. At 100/game that doesn't happen until after round 8. The other problem, of course, is if he throws in a vested 40-50, and totally stalls his price rises. We are no closer to a solution!

Feels like running around in circles! If you happen to stumble across the magic answer don't hesitate to throw it my way!

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus,

I considered starting a thread for this question (apologies to all if there has been one!), but I particularly wanted your analysis of these figures. Given the amount of discussion about bye structure, in essence, my question is, "What exactly is an even bye structure, and how important is it"? I'm only interested in overall, not league games. Here is some relevant information from my team last year.

[table="width: 500, class: grid, align: center"]
[tr]
[td]Round[/td]
[td]Points[/td]
[td]Weekly Position[/td]
[td]Overall Position[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]After Rd 10[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]

21516​

[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]11[/td]
[td]

2166​

[/td]
[td]

324​

[/td]
[td]

9426​

[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]12[/td]
[td]

1859​

[/td]
[td]

114748​

[/td]
[td]

13687​

[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]13[/td]
[td]

1636​

[/td]
[td]

51190​

[/td]
[td]

13212​

[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]end of season, rd 23[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]

1250​

[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Given the scores for each bye round, and the weekly position, I think it is fair to say that I did not have an even bye structure! However, during the byes, I climbed over 8000 places in the overall, so I'm happy with the result. I did use 3 trades each week, but they were team improvement trades, not just to get a team on the park. The fact that my team continued to improve until the end of the year shows me that I didn't damage my team through the byes.

I've heard others say that an even bye structure is less important than just getting the right players, because if you have a down week because a number of players are out, you will have a corresponding good week when all those players are in. I contend that these figures support that theory.

The only real problem I can see with bye structure is if I have one week where I have too many players available in one position, e.g. 7 forwards available, because one of them cannot be counted. In this case, I potentially wouldn't be compensating fully for the down week where most of those players are not playing. This is the opposite of most of our analysis, where we worry that we have too many players out in one week.

I've had Murphy in my team all pre-season, instead of Beams, because I'm worried about having too many out in Rd 8. If those 2 players average the same, that is a good decision. If Beams averages 30 more than Murphy, it would be a bad decision. If Beams averages 5 more than Murphy, would it be a good decision because I have better bye structure, or would it be a bad decision because I cost myself 5 points per week?

Apologies for the length of the question , but I have seen other web-sites advocating an even bye structure as well, and I'm struggling to quantify the benefits.

Hi EGALegends,
I think the call for a balanced bye structure is a misnomer, and it should be better called a safe bye structure. Those advocating an even bye structure don't understand the mechanics of the situation.
It should really be as simple as this. Firstly, don't create an unsafe team structure, that overloads one by week, and causes a donut in that week. Secondly, where possible have round 9 and 10 bye Rookies your in your team. Every round 8 player in your team this season represents an unavoidable bye. You can't trade around it with one trade, as the player you bring in then faces a bye, that week, or in the next 2 weeks. You can trade around it using 2 trades, but that is just wasting trades. 6 of your round 9 and 10 bye players can avoid the bye, by becoming players that have had their bye. ie in round 9 turn 3, hopefully Rookies, into round 8 players, and in round 10 turn 3, hopefully Rookies into round 8 or 9 players. Hence the importance of having round 9 and 10 Rookies. I am sure you understood what I just wrote, before I wrote it. It was more for new readers/players. Don't worry too much about a balanced bye team, or an even bye team, just have a safe bye team. All Premiums in your team coming into the byes will miss a game and play two, it's unavoidable. If you are playing for overall, and not League, it doesn't matter if most of them miss in the one week, as long as you avoid a donut. Even if you are playing for League, a down week means a probable loss that week, but a stronger chance of victory in the other 2 weeks. Two out of three ain't bad. It looks like that's what happened to you last season, though many many Coaches had a bad round 13 last year.
In the end, it's best to not complicate it. Yes, in any given year, the best structure coming into the byes has slightly more week 2 and week 3 players, than week 1 players, but that's more to allow for the Rookies you want to trade out. If you have a team this year loaded with round 8 players, but you are confident you can avoid a donut even with an "uneven" or "inbalanced" structure, go for it. If you avoid the donut, and you are best suited with that structure, then that is the course to take!

 

[EGALegends]

Thanks Rowsus. Very succinctly put. I sort of did understand what you wrote, before you wrote it, but it seems clearer now that I've seen it written down.

I think I may just go and take Murphy out, and bring Beams in!

 

[Drew]

Hi Rowsus i was wondering what your thoughts were on starting with Whitfield this year? I realise from your breakout player thread it's too early to run that kind of analysis on the GWS players but i've been seriously considering Whitfield given the prospect of his and GWS's natural 3rd year progression coupled with their fairly soft early draw and the higher starting costs of the top end rookies.

I realise he's pretty awkwardly priced but with a 2013 average of only 73 i'm thinking he could bump his early average up to consistantly 90+ making some cash but more importantly giving valuable early points above what your run of the mill up and down cheap rookie will give you.

Any thoughts yourself or anyone has on this (or if i'm being a little silly) would be greatly appreciated.

Drew.

 

[bloke]

Hi Rowsus i was wondering what your thoughts were on starting with Whitfield this year? I realise from your breakout player thread it's too early to run that kind of analysis on the GWS players but i've been seriously considering Whitfield given the prospect of his and GWS's natural 3rd year progression coupled with their fairly soft early draw and the higher starting costs of the top end rookies.

I realise he's pretty awkwardly priced but with a 2013 average of only 73 i'm thinking he could bump his early average up to consistantly 90+ making some cash but more importantly giving valuable early points above what your run of the mill up and down cheap rookie will give you.

Any thoughts yourself or anyone has on this (or if i'm being a little silly) would be greatly appreciated.

Drew.

He's actually a 2nd year player, dont they tend to drop off a bit?

 

[Drew]

He's actually a 2nd year player, dont they tend to drop off a bit?

My bad you're right mate, still like him given it's GWS and the team as whole should be due some rapid improvement ala Gold Coast last year.

 

[tracygrims]

Priced at 73 and reaching 90 is not really good enough for a midfielder IMO. Daisy is also about 50k cheaper and has similar if not better prospects.

 

[Slammer]

I'm not sure you are going down a good road, if you are looking for players priced $200-$340k to get 75/week. It's not much more than Def Rookies get, for double the price. You will be using a lot money that could be better used elsewhere. Still here are all the players from last year, that were Defenders priced between $200k and $340k, and averaged 70-80 for the season.

Carlisle - 76 ave, priced at $338,600
Otten - 75 ave, priced at $276,500
Williams M - 75 ave, priced at $274,700
Roberton - 75 ave, priced at $254,100
Shaw M - 73 ave, priced at $317,600
Suban - 73 ave, priced at $276,400
Gilham - 72 ave, priced at $279,100
Murphy T - 71 ave, priced at $293,200

I understand where Mudflap is coming form with this but also understand your point too Rowsus.
Nothing wrong with targeting some mid pricers at the back, especially when they are generally up and down each week.
But I think you need to choose carefully and target value players that could score well enough to be a lock. eg. Possibly Swallow.
From what I have read I think Inpromptu is steering clear or Mitchell, Walker and McVeigh and looking for better value as it would then allow him to take a premo mid where you can always get good scores.
However surely having Mitchell and McVeigh as locks is like having a mid but as a defender.
It is a tough call whether to spend the $ down back on a Mitchell or a McVeigh or try and look for more value.
What do you think?

 

[Drew]

Priced at 73 and reaching 90 is not really good enough for a midfielder IMO. Daisy is also about 50k cheaper and has similar if not better prospects.

Daisy and Beams are in there also.

 

[freowho]

Don't worry too much about a balanced bye team, or an even bye team, just have a safe bye team. If you have a team this year loaded with round 8 players, but you are confident you can avoid a donut even with an "uneven" or "inbalanced" structure, go for it.

This is great advice, but I am worried if all my best players have the same bye I will miss out on double points from a good captain. Should I be worried about this Rowsus?

 

[bloke]

This is great advice, but I am worried if all my best players have the same bye I will miss out on double points from a good captain. Should I be worried about this Rowsus?

I hadn't even thought about captain during round 8. For me it will be Fyfe or Mitchell based on my current team. Is that worrying haha

 

[Rowsus]

This is great advice, but I am worried if all my best players have the same bye I will miss out on double points from a good captain. Should I be worried about this Rowsus?

Not at all. You get 2 bites at the cherry, and a couple of good prospects will raise their head. Don't forget, everyone else will be missing those same players you are missing too.

 

[bloke]

Not at all. You get 2 bites at the cherry, and a couple of good prospects will raise their head. Don't forget, everyone else will be missing those same players you are missing too.

How do you mean 2 bites at the cherry? Is there a different rule for byes?

 

[Rowsus]

How do you mean 2 bites at the cherry? Is there a different rule for byes?

Nope. Just the ordinary, everyday Captain's loophole.

 

[bloke]

Nope. Just the ordinary, everyday Captain's loophole.

Yeah that's what I thought you meant.