News The Anatomy Of A SC Average.
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
Yes!! 
I was waiting for player updates to this thread!
I'm a fan of your method of using your pre-season expectations of a player to inform their averages from here on in!
If this helps your Grundy analysis at all, average ruck contests attended by Grundy and Cox:
Tandem 2017: Cox 21; Grundy 60
Solo 2017: Cox 63; Grundy 76
Tandem 2018: Cox 22; Grundy 67
Solo 2018 Cox N/A; Grundy 77
Split for Grundy:Cox in 2018 so far, R1 - 46:29; R2 - Grundy 77; R3 - 72:16; R4 - 83:20
I was waiting for player updates to this thread!
I'm a fan of your method of using your pre-season expectations of a player to inform their averages from here on in!
If this helps your Grundy analysis at all, average ruck contests attended by Grundy and Cox:
Tandem 2017: Cox 21; Grundy 60
Solo 2017: Cox 63; Grundy 76
Tandem 2018: Cox 22; Grundy 67
Solo 2018 Cox N/A; Grundy 77
Split for Grundy:Cox in 2018 so far, R1 - 46:29; R2 - Grundy 77; R3 - 72:16; R4 - 83:20
Brodie Grundy. Let me preface this by saying, Rucks need to be treated differently to all your other selections. The fact that we only have 2 on-field means there is very little room for error. Generally, if you don't have 2 of the top 3 for the season in your team, you can leak up to 20/Round, or even more. The problem is exacerbated by the fact, that if you make a mistake with your say, M4, he easily slips to M7/8, and the problem is not so big. Make a mistake with your R2, and there is nowhere left for him to go!
Like most, I expected Grundy to make a small improvement on last seasons 97, just through natural progression for a young Ruck. The problem was, how much improvement, and how much would Cox hinder his scoring? I started the preseason expecting 101 from Grundy. Given the structure and personel changes we've seen at Collingwood so far this season, Cox spending less time in the Ruck than expected, and the possession gathering Grundy is showing, I have "manually" bumped this up to 105. This isn't something I do lightly, but as I said in the opening, Rucks are different to other positions, so we need to do what we can to get them right. So based on a "starting" expectation of 105, here is Grundy's table so far:
After Round 4 Grundy will be priced around $608,900. We can see he has overfilled his 2nd highest scoring bracket, as well as filling his highest scoring bracket. My adjustment, and remember, yours might be different to mine, is to shift the score from the highest bracket, and one of the scores from the 2nd highest, and put them in 105-115 and 116-126 brackets. This will require an adjustment to his expected average. This can be tricky to keep track of how you calculate it.
We started with an expected average of 105. That's a total of 2,310 points.
We're taking a score from the top 2 brackets, and the average expected scores for those brackets is 141 and 159.
We're moving them to brackets with an expected averages of 110 and 121.
Our adjustment starts at (actual location - new location) 141 + 159 - 110 - 121 = 69.
The 3 scores in those top 2 brackets should total 2 x 141 + 1 x 159 = 441, and they total 434, so as they are 7 short of where we expect them to be, we need to take 7 off our adjustment.
Total adjustment = 69 - 7 = 62. New expected season total 2,372 or an average of 107.8.
Grundy's table now looks like this:
We can see he is currently overpriced by 17/game on our adjusted expectation. For a player in any other position, you'd want to stay away. Even now, I wouldn't break structure to get him in. Those with Kreuzer (now priced at around $543,300) should seriously consider making the jump, while the difference is a "low" $67,000. Kreuzer's B/E is going to be around 173 this week, and Grundy's around 63. That means the price difference after next week, assuming both play, will be around:
$115,000 + (Grundy's score - Kreuzer's score) x 440.
You can see that is quickly getting out of reach!
Those of you without Kreuzer should keep in mind, that in the majority of seasons (but not all), we can identify who will be the top 2 or 3 Rucks by Rounds 6 to 8. The other positions can be a little more complicated than that.
Like most, I expected Grundy to make a small improvement on last seasons 97, just through natural progression for a young Ruck. The problem was, how much improvement, and how much would Cox hinder his scoring? I started the preseason expecting 101 from Grundy. Given the structure and personel changes we've seen at Collingwood so far this season, Cox spending less time in the Ruck than expected, and the possession gathering Grundy is showing, I have "manually" bumped this up to 105. This isn't something I do lightly, but as I said in the opening, Rucks are different to other positions, so we need to do what we can to get them right. So based on a "starting" expectation of 105, here is Grundy's table so far:
After Round 4 Grundy will be priced around $608,900. We can see he has overfilled his 2nd highest scoring bracket, as well as filling his highest scoring bracket. My adjustment, and remember, yours might be different to mine, is to shift the score from the highest bracket, and one of the scores from the 2nd highest, and put them in 105-115 and 116-126 brackets. This will require an adjustment to his expected average. This can be tricky to keep track of how you calculate it.
We started with an expected average of 105. That's a total of 2,310 points.
We're taking a score from the top 2 brackets, and the average expected scores for those brackets is 141 and 159.
We're moving them to brackets with an expected averages of 110 and 121.
Our adjustment starts at (actual location - new location) 141 + 159 - 110 - 121 = 69.
The 3 scores in those top 2 brackets should total 2 x 141 + 1 x 159 = 441, and they total 434, so as they are 7 short of where we expect them to be, we need to take 7 off our adjustment.
Total adjustment = 69 - 7 = 62. New expected season total 2,372 or an average of 107.8.
Grundy's table now looks like this:
We can see he is currently overpriced by 17/game on our adjusted expectation. For a player in any other position, you'd want to stay away. Even now, I wouldn't break structure to get him in. Those with Kreuzer (now priced at around $543,300) should seriously consider making the jump, while the difference is a "low" $67,000. Kreuzer's B/E is going to be around 173 this week, and Grundy's around 63. That means the price difference after next week, assuming both play, will be around:
$115,000 + (Grundy's score - Kreuzer's score) x 440.
You can see that is quickly getting out of reach!
Those of you without Kreuzer should keep in mind, that in the majority of seasons (but not all), we can identify who will be the top 2 or 3 Rucks by Rounds 6 to 8. The other positions can be a little more complicated than that.
Last edited:
Fantastic Rowsus. I started Lycett so I could wait and see who the top 2 rucks, outside of Gawn were looking to be. Hard to imagine Grundy maintaining midfielder possession rates, but a 102 average from here would be good enough and he may not come down in price much by rd 6-8 now. NicNat seems the alternative and is still priced at great value given his low TOG so far. Injury and SC Gods aside I’m starting to think either of these two would do with Martin a close 3rd.
Any others outside these 3 you’d be considering Rowsus or still too early to tell?
Any others outside these 3 you’d be considering Rowsus or still too early to tell?
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,916
- Likes
- 11,241
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Yes, great work by Rowsus and timely given those like us with Lycett. Grundy is overpriced, although with some of the teams he is up against, I do wonder whether he has a few more good scores in him and expectations gradually keep rising, maybe reducing some of that over priced factor.
The other one to think about is Callum Sinclair, been pretty solid in the sole ruck role for Sydney and priced similar territory to Nic Nat. Probably would have liked a better score vs Bulldogs given English rucking, although, Bulldogs mids can negate a ruck.
Thought Nic Nat TOG may have lifted with last night game, would have been good to see what return he could get over a longer game.
The other one to think about is Callum Sinclair, been pretty solid in the sole ruck role for Sydney and priced similar territory to Nic Nat. Probably would have liked a better score vs Bulldogs given English rucking, although, Bulldogs mids can negate a ruck.
Thought Nic Nat TOG may have lifted with last night game, would have been good to see what return he could get over a longer game.
Don't get sucked in by Sinclair. So far, he's lined up against:
WCE: Lycett and Naitanui in his 1st game back
PORT: Dixon and Westhoff (no Ryder)
GWS: Patton and Lobb
WBD: English
Aside from R1, no real challenges there, and no genuine 1st ruckmen.
Sydney's draw from now on until their R14 BYE includes: ADEL, GEEL, KANG, HAW, FREM, BRIS, CARL, STK, WCE. Several key ruckmen including Jacobs, Goldstein, McEvoy, Sandilands, Martin, Kreuzer and Naitanui (after a 1/2 season under his belt).
WCE: Lycett and Naitanui in his 1st game back
PORT: Dixon and Westhoff (no Ryder)
GWS: Patton and Lobb
WBD: English
Aside from R1, no real challenges there, and no genuine 1st ruckmen.
Sydney's draw from now on until their R14 BYE includes: ADEL, GEEL, KANG, HAW, FREM, BRIS, CARL, STK, WCE. Several key ruckmen including Jacobs, Goldstein, McEvoy, Sandilands, Martin, Kreuzer and Naitanui (after a 1/2 season under his belt).
Going to bump this thread with a question, but in reverse to the context - which is about trading players in.
Can these tables tell us when it's a good time to trade a player out?
Currently Laird is averaging 120+. His season averages the last few years have crept up to 100. I have him around 104 at best for the year which means --best case-- he goes at 100 from here. What does his price need to be to trade him out?
Next week I could trade him to Zerret, make $100k and possibly end up with a player who averages more from here on in. Or go wild and trade him to Daniher (stop me I'm mad) for nearly 200k and maybe 10ppg loss (if I'm feeling bullish on JD. I'm not that bullish yet).
So the question is: at what point is he a tradeable commodity vs a player who shouldn't leave your side?
Can these tables tell us when it's a good time to trade a player out?
Currently Laird is averaging 120+. His season averages the last few years have crept up to 100. I have him around 104 at best for the year which means --best case-- he goes at 100 from here. What does his price need to be to trade him out?
Next week I could trade him to Zerret, make $100k and possibly end up with a player who averages more from here on in. Or go wild and trade him to Daniher (stop me I'm mad) for nearly 200k and maybe 10ppg loss (if I'm feeling bullish on JD. I'm not that bullish yet).
So the question is: at what point is he a tradeable commodity vs a player who shouldn't leave your side?
Last edited:
Actually, it's about both. It can give a good guide when to trade out overpriced players, but there is certain criteria that make for the ideal situation to do it. Laird hasn't met those criteria yet. I will go over it in more detail later, when I'm not on my phone. Certainly my plan with this thread is to hopefully find 2 or 3 players during the season, that match really well with the trade out criteria.
Great thread Rows
I still believe it is Risk vs Reward however this approach seems to reduce the risk, in particular with Rucks.
Grundy is overpriced but NN is also an injury risk. Established vs possibility
Although Grundy is overpriced to now it seems that despite law of averages and drop in output, he will even out as top 3 Ruck.
NN can equal Grundys output over the year but we will be nervous he will break down again
Take NN and extra $100k with risk or Grundy with less Risk of injury
If you can be sure $100k will be put to good use then great but if NN you are back to square one minus another trade..
Decisions decisions... guess that what makes this game fun and frustrating 😎
I still believe it is Risk vs Reward however this approach seems to reduce the risk, in particular with Rucks.
Grundy is overpriced but NN is also an injury risk. Established vs possibility
Although Grundy is overpriced to now it seems that despite law of averages and drop in output, he will even out as top 3 Ruck.
NN can equal Grundys output over the year but we will be nervous he will break down again
Take NN and extra $100k with risk or Grundy with less Risk of injury
If you can be sure $100k will be put to good use then great but if NN you are back to square one minus another trade..
Decisions decisions... guess that what makes this game fun and frustrating 😎
Fantastic analysis as always Rowsus!
As a Kreuzer owner i've been tossing up all week between Nic Nat and Grundy, but I think i've settled on Grundy as my choice. Adam Simpson coming out during the week and complaining about the surface of Perth Stadium really got me worried about their potential to rest Nic Nat, especially when they get Vardy back to full fitness at some point and can afford to give him the odd week off.
I really do see Grundy potentially averaging 110+ from here on (and therefore averaging 115-120 for the year), especially when looking at his run leading into the bye rounds:
Essendon (TBC) - So a relatively touch match up
Richmond (Nank)- Can give up huge ruck scores
Brisbane (Stef)- Tough Match Up
Geelong (Stanley/Esava/Smith)- Should dominate this with ease regardless of who plays
St Kilda (Hickey)- Should dominate this with ease x2
WBD (English)- Should take advantage of the youngster, but if Roughead is back he's been known to give up big scores too
It wouldn't be unheard of for him to continue his high scoring form, at least until the byes, especially when u factor in that his high scores to date have come against some of the best ruckman in the league!
As a Kreuzer owner i've been tossing up all week between Nic Nat and Grundy, but I think i've settled on Grundy as my choice. Adam Simpson coming out during the week and complaining about the surface of Perth Stadium really got me worried about their potential to rest Nic Nat, especially when they get Vardy back to full fitness at some point and can afford to give him the odd week off.
I really do see Grundy potentially averaging 110+ from here on (and therefore averaging 115-120 for the year), especially when looking at his run leading into the bye rounds:
Essendon (TBC) - So a relatively touch match up
Richmond (Nank)- Can give up huge ruck scores
Brisbane (Stef)- Tough Match Up
Geelong (Stanley/Esava/Smith)- Should dominate this with ease regardless of who plays
St Kilda (Hickey)- Should dominate this with ease x2
WBD (English)- Should take advantage of the youngster, but if Roughead is back he's been known to give up big scores too
It wouldn't be unheard of for him to continue his high scoring form, at least until the byes, especially when u factor in that his high scores to date have come against some of the best ruckman in the league!
I would have happily listed Grundy and Deledio, but they might have fixed that for themselves!
Treloar, Fyfe, Laird, Witherden are probably priced high enough to not chase them this week or next, as might Westhoff be.
A few others are teetering on that "you'd want to be sure, when paying that much for them" border, too.
Treloar, Fyfe, Laird, Witherden are probably priced high enough to not chase them this week or next, as might Westhoff be.
A few others are teetering on that "you'd want to be sure, when paying that much for them" border, too.
The 104 starting expectation average was taken from Ricky Bobby's post in the Round 7 rade thread.
I moved the 59 from the lowest scoring bracket, to the centre 104-114 bracket, and adjusted his expectations accordingly.
While the 2nd table makes him look like a great buy, and he certainly represents value, I'd be cautious about trading in a player to your Midfield, that your upper expectation is that he fills M7/8. It's only Round 6, and usually someone you thought would be your M4/5 will "fall" to M7/8 anyway. I'm not sure you should be buying one, but rather just wait until one "demotes himself" to that position.
If you think you might struggle to fill your team, or just really need the value, he looks ok.
Keep in mind though, sometimes a bargain isn't a bargain, just because it's cheap.
You don't buy 6 cans of half priced cat-food because it's a bargain, if you don't have a cat!!!
- Joined
- 15 May 2012
- Messages
- 1,124
- Likes
- 566
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
The 104 starting expectation average was taken from Ricky Bobby's post in the Round 7 rade thread.
I moved the 59 from the lowest scoring bracket, to the centre 104-114 bracket, and adjusted his expectations accordingly.
While the 2nd table makes him look like a great buy, and he certainly represents value, I'd be cautious about trading in a player to your Midfield, that your upper expectation is that he fills M7/8. It's only Round 6, and usually someone you thought would be your M4/5 will "fall" to M7/8 anyway. I'm not sure you should be buying one, but rather just wait until one "demotes himself" to that position.
If you think you might struggle to fill your team, or just really need the value, he looks ok.
Keep in mind though, sometimes a bargain isn't a bargain, just because it's cheap.
You don't buy 6 cans of half priced cat-food because it's a bargain, if you don't have a cat!!!
Firstly, I absolutely love the cat food analogy. Now, JPK screams my 'usual' selection come this time of year. Has the runs on the board and his PIT average has been up there in years gone by. My current mids look like Danger, Fyfe, Dusty and Titch which look like a safe top 4 then I have Pendles and Selwood which look like being one step back.
Do you think getting JPK will fight for that m7-8 spot or do you think pendles and selwood will score well enough to not drop back.
Thanks in advance mate
Jackson Macrae
When making the adjustments, you first shift the scores, then you recalculate averages, then you re-label the points brackets if necessary, then lastly, you might need to shift some of the scores again, as you have relabelled the brackets.
As I said, we'll take an aggressive approach to his adjustment. We'll shift all of the 141, 142 & 189 back in his table.
The points we are shifting back total 472. The expected value of those points, based on the bracket average is 453, so the first adjustment is +19.
We have shifted an expected 453 points back to brackets with an expectation total of 318, so our second adjustment is +135
So we started with an expectation of 108 x 22 = 2,376 points + 19 + 135 = Adj Exp = 2,530 or 115/game.
When making the adjustments, you first shift the scores, then you recalculate averages, then you re-label the points brackets if necessary, then lastly, you might need to shift some of the scores again, as you have relabelled the brackets.
As I said, we'll take an aggressive approach to his adjustment. We'll shift all of the 141, 142 & 189 back in his table.
The points we are shifting back total 472. The expected value of those points, based on the bracket average is 453, so the first adjustment is +19.
We have shifted an expected 453 points back to brackets with an expectation total of 318, so our second adjustment is +135
So we started with an expectation of 108 x 22 = 2,376 points + 19 + 135 = Adj Exp = 2,530 or 115/game.
Jackson Macrae
So the final adjusted table looks like this:
With the adjustments we made, the 142 was deemed to be a 92, so can stay where it was. The 189 and the 141 where deemed to be 113's, so with the shift in bracket values, they had to shift up one bracket.
So what does it all mean? Well, the adjusted table has him scoring at 107 from here, up from the initial tables 97, and barring any further adjustments that need making. I don't want to pay nearly $630k for a 107 player (I already did that last week, with Dangerfield!), so I say you should use your money more wisely, and as an example, look at M Crouch.
Even if Macrae went somewhere around 110-111 from here, based on last years numbers, that would have him the 2nd highest scorer, with Dusty and Mitchell. While it is easy to picture that happening now, because of his stellar form, the reality is, that a very large majority of players in this sort of position early in the season, just don't finish it off from here. If you knew he would average 110 from here, would you still pay $630k? Some would, the majority wouldn't.
Verdict
Good luck to those that had him last week, and before, especially if you VC'ed him last week, but I think it is nearly financial suicide, to be chasing that 132 average now. Leave him, shop for better value, and be glad you did, when you have more money, to fill those last few spots in your completed team.
So the final adjusted table looks like this:
With the adjustments we made, the 142 was deemed to be a 92, so can stay where it was. The 189 and the 141 where deemed to be 113's, so with the shift in bracket values, they had to shift up one bracket.
So what does it all mean? Well, the adjusted table has him scoring at 107 from here, up from the initial tables 97, and barring any further adjustments that need making. I don't want to pay nearly $630k for a 107 player (I already did that last week, with Dangerfield!
), so I say you should use your money more wisely, and as an example, look at M Crouch.Even if Macrae went somewhere around 110-111 from here, based on last years numbers, that would have him the 2nd highest scorer, with Dusty and Mitchell. While it is easy to picture that happening now, because of his stellar form, the reality is, that a very large majority of players in this sort of position early in the season, just don't finish it off from here. If you knew he would average 110 from here, would you still pay $630k? Some would, the majority wouldn't.
Verdict
Good luck to those that had him last week, and before, especially if you VC'ed him last week, but I think it is nearly financial suicide, to be chasing that 132 average now. Leave him, shop for better value, and be glad you did, when you have more money, to fill those last few spots in your completed team.
Last edited:
Great posts Rowsus.
It is a long season and coin and trades are your only friends. Don't spend them all on the biggest and brightest thing you see - time brings tarnish to all things.
I had this lesson a couple of years back with SJ - paid 630k and thought it had to happen, he was 540k a few weeks later...
It is a long season and coin and trades are your only friends. Don't spend them all on the biggest and brightest thing you see - time brings tarnish to all things.
I had this lesson a couple of years back with SJ - paid 630k and thought it had to happen, he was 540k a few weeks later...