Keepers & Upgrades - Schedule Research

[brent-83]

If you are anything like me, I change my mind on a lot of my keepers throughout the pre-season. While I believe its the mid-rangers and trading that is the main cause of being successful in DT, I think there is a reasonable percentage of an advantage to be gained when mapping out your keepers + upgrade targets.

For example - I wanted Brent Harvey in my team as soon as I heard that he was available as a forward, as I love midfielders that are classified as forwards. Lakey91 put forward some good research to show that he has a slow start to the season and then builds up to the end of the year. This means I would not start with him and then grab him when he drops.

I then started to think, what if this year his schedule was far kinder than in previous years - such as a fast start (easy teams) early or more games against teams he averages highly against than those he doesn't do as well against and less games against teams he struggles against.

As a result of this I've started to look a lot heavier into the schedule of certain players to help me decide whether it would be more advantageous to get them early, or plan to strike later in the season when the time is ripe. I am not going to give out all my research, but I will provide an preview of my results and a conclusion.

Brent Harvey

Round 1-11
2009 Average based on prior results - 96.28
Plays 7 teams which he averages over 95.
Plays 3 teams he averages between 90-95.
Plays 1 team which he averages less than 90.

Round 12-22
2009 Average based on prior results - 93.71
Plays 7 teams which he averages over 95.
Plays 2 teams which he averages between 90-95.
Plays 3 teams which he averages less than 90.

Best Average Teams (av over 100)
Bulldogs - 2 games in 09
Melbourne - 2 games in 09
Richmond - 2 games in 09
Collingwood - 1 games in 09

Worst Average Teams (av less than 80)
West Coast - 1 game in 09
Geelong - 1 game in 09 (also this av was low to a horror 3 games in 07)
Sydney - 1 game in 09

Basically the research shows that he plays 1/3 of his games against teams he dominates while only 3 games against teams he struggles against. Furthermore it shows his schedule is VERY friendly with his worst average teams coming in round 6,14,20 meaning he should barely dip in price, if at all throughout the season. I'll be starting with him based on this research.

Focus: Do you take the schedule into account? Do you think its worth it or are all keepers similar as long as they are durable and consistant?

 

[Schulzenfest]

On this subject, Franklin plays 6 teams who he has average to poor scores against in the first 6 rounds and then plays Essendon. So I'm hoping to upgrade to him between Round 6 and 7.

 

[brent-83]

On this subject, Franklin plays 6 teams who he has average to poor scores against in the first 6 rounds and then plays Essendon. So I'm hoping to upgrade to him between Round 6 and 7.

I find Franklin a very interesting situation. With Franklin, I only really took into account his scores last year because it was really his breakout year. His worst round 4 round averages are 1-4 and 17-20 and his best are between 6-9 and 11-14. Ideally you would want to get him at round 6 but I find it hard to judge him, because if he improves his kicking some of those 40-60's last year turn into 80+'s.

 

[Lakey91]

Great post brent-83.

I think sometimes you can meet a midpoint though. Look at cox, he generally sets the wolrd on fire with his opening 5-10 rounds, often scoring very very highly, before generally tapering off as the seasons winds down (for WC anyway, for others it winds up ). IIRC, if cox performs to same standard against his first 7-10 teams of so, then he should average around 97 early. However, other research can show he starts well! So which do you trust more? what if cox starts well, against his 'bad' teams, and then goes on to average 110+? IMO this is a possible scenario.

Also must look into why he finishes the season slowly - does he play teams he struggles against?

A bit jumbled then, but im just trying to show how for someone like cox, research can be done proving BOTH sides of the coin. The key to assessing a player like this is being objective. If you research cox wanting to prove he starts season well so you should pick him, you will find that that is true. If you want to research cox to show his history against his first 7-10 teams is significantly poorer than his 2008 average that he is priced at, you will find that this is true. IMO, the key is to research BOTH the for and against of each argument/point, to gain a clearer understanding of a player, and thus make a more informed judgement.

 

[brent-83]

Great post brent-83.

I think sometimes you can meet a midpoint though. Look at cox, he generally sets the wolrd on fire with his opening 5-10 rounds, often scoring very very highly, before generally tapering off as the seasons winds down (for WC anyway, for others it winds up ). IIRC, if cox performs to same standard against his first 7-10 teams of so, then he should average around 97 early. However, other research can show he starts well! So which do you trust more? what if cox starts well, against his 'bad' teams, and then goes on to average 110+? IMO this is a possible scenario.

Also must look into why he finishes the season slowly - does he play teams he struggles against?

A bit jumbled then, but im just trying to show how for someone like cox, research can be done proving BOTH sides of the coin. The key to assessing a player like this is being objective. If you research cox wanting to prove he starts season well so you should pick him, you will find that that is true. If you want to research cox to show his history against his first 7-10 teams is significantly poorer than his 2008 average that he is priced at, you will find that this is true. IMO, the key is to research BOTH the for and against of each argument/point, to gain a clearer understanding of a player, and thus make a more informed judgement.

Does he set the world on fire in the first half though? Last year his worst scores came in round 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 22 (ranging from 68-83) whilst his best rounds 1,2,13,14,15,16 (115-157). He actually scored more points in the second half of the year as opposed to the first half, but there is a misconception that he sets the world on fire in the early season. That is why I've tried to throw the schedule into the mix as a third indicator of prospective performance.

EDIT - As for my stats, I see him having a stronger first half than second half but for those not starting with Cox - round 9 will be the best time to strike if the trends stay the same as from round 6-8 inclusive he plays 3 teams in a row he averages less than 90 against. His yearly average - should he average exactly what he has in the past two years v this years schedule will be around 103.

 

[LemmingMaster]

I think this kind of research can be handy for selections where you have two viable options.

Fisher v Goddard

Both roughly averaged the same last year and both look likely to either average the same or more.

Maybe the schedule might be a deciding factor.

 

[Lakey91]

Yeh i kind of agree that cox's 'great' starts to the years are a bit overplayed.

But:

in 2005, he averaged 101.56 over first 9, compared to year average of 95
in 2006, he averaged 117.7 over first 7, compared to average of 98.6
in 2006, his first 3 scores were 139, 140, and 139
in 2007, he didnt start that well, probably due to injury (missed first two games)
in 2008, he averaged 108 over first 10, slight improvement on year average of 106.7
in 2008, his first 2 scores were 121 and 140

Not crash hot, but yeh - first 2-3 games are often great though.

 

[Lakey91]

Decided to look into cox's end to the years:

2008, last 10 matches he averaged 111.8 compared to year average of 106.7
2007, last 13 matches he averaged 105.5 compared to year average of 100.5
2005, last 10 matches he averaged 96.7 compared to year average of 95 (not as significant)

Seems strong no? But now i can show he finishes slowly:

2008, last 5 matches he averaged 93.8 compared to year average of 106.7
2007, last 6 matches he averaged 94.2 compared to year average of 100.5
2006, last 4 matches he averaged 90.8 compared to year average of 98.6
2005, last 9 matches he averaged 93.9 compared to year average of 95.0 (not as significant)

I think, due to the fact the 'finishing strongly' averages are over 10-13 rounds, they hold more weight. But does this mean you shouldnt start with cox? And buy him later? Well, a lot of DTers can tell you this is hard to do and doesnt always pay off - but the stats show he finishes stronger than he starts!

See the dilema - have to look at both sides of coin, which may point to two completely different scenarios unfolding.

My take on this is, you can start with cox, but just dont make him captain in the last 5 rounds (shouldnt have to anyway as you should of at least one of ABC by then!).

 

[Outburst]

There are way too many variables..
Whether its a day/night match, how many days rest from the last game the player has had, they may get tagged, wether the game is rain affected or not, for me this is where the luck of the game comes into it and things like this you cant control.

 

[spuzzlord]

and sometimes players just hit a purple patch for 3 or 4 weeks which is more because they are mentally and physically feeling tip top rather then who they are playing. this sort of analysis can be helpful but care does have to be taken not to read too much into it.

 

[richskee]

How many keepers should a team have? I originally had about 11 and it took me 3 hours of changes to make it to 15. What would a successful dt'er have?

 

[Butane]

how many keepers should a team have? I originally had about 11 and it took me 3 hours of changes to make it to 15. what would a successful dt'er have?

30..

(Minimum 10 - all depends on how you define a keeper and what position they are in)

 

[brent-83]

and sometimes players just hit a purple patch for 3 or 4 weeks which is more because they are mentally and physically feeling tip top rather then who they are playing. this sort of analysis can be helpful but care does have to be taken not to read too much into it.

This would be true if you were looking in isolation, but funnily enough over the past two years its often players either struggle or dominate against the same teams.

 

[RPetterd15]

Well if you were to downgrade Cox near the end of the season who would you downgrade to. Hille seems to be the only ruckmen close enough to his high scores unless Simmonds plays well or Lade gets back into his good DT scores.

 

[RPetterd15]

I want to know about Ablett and Thomspon. who is better for the money. And at what time to get them.

 

[joffa_2]

The definition of a keeper (for most people, but varies) is someone that will stay in your team regardless barring injury. If you have a player in your team that is not a keeper, you should be aiming to upgrade that player. So if you were to only have 10 keepers that means you would have to upgrade 12 players that are on your field, so that's 12 trades gone. But then you also need to get money for those upgrades from trading rookies on your bench, so that is like another minimum 6 trades, that's 18 trades already gone. that doesnt leave you enough protect for injuries.
so i would say 14- 22

 

[kuzjuxcan]

For example - I wanted Brent Harvey in my team as soon as I heard that he was available as a forward, as I love midfielders that are classified as forwards. Lakey91 put forward some good research to show that he has a slow start to the season and then builds up to the end of the year. This means I would not start with him and then grab him when he drops.

hey mate.. nice research.. I have been in the same boat with harvey after reading those stats about harveys trend to be slow starter in the h&A season.. with his average dropping by 10 or so.. in first 1/4...

I like your research and I do think it will have some bearing on his DT outlook this year.. But I could've saved you alot of research by putting it in a more simple context with Harvey.. Like Cox hes the kinda player you need to look at from a overall perspective.. and not worry about all the nitty gritty stats...

To put it simply. The fact is that harvey was ranked Top #1 player with the most consistent DT scores last year in 2008. Above the likes of Joel Corey and Daniel Cross. These are the players you want in your side from the get go. as there less likely to have a major lull in their season and you would just be wasting a 1-2 trades to bring him in. The drop in price would not be worth it when you could use those two trades to make 100,000 together on cash cows..

Also the fact that he has been listed as mid/fwd this year.. You have to put him into perspective and compare him with the other FWD premium choices.. Like franklin, J brown, reiwoldt etc... who yo-yo in there DT scores.. as there DT output is heavily weighted on whether they kick goals or not.. and whether the teams doing well.. if they arent doing well they seem to be the first type of player to suffer with their DT averages.. They are confidence players.. who will at some point be a prime upgrade target.. These are the players you should target midseason and not harvey.. I picked up reiwoldt last year 2/3 into season for 350,000.. and look at him now.. top priced FWD... 440,000..

So the fact that can you put a consistent player like Harvey in your fwd line is gold and is a must in my book..He may drop in price a bit.. but meh... not enough to waste 2 trades on him. Same goes for Cox...forget wining about his price and trying to meek out a swifty trade in, saving 10,000 to 20,000.. take the hit like a man.. and enjoy the 20 PPG over other ruckmen and consistent scores with harvey throughout the season... Not to mention the Superman durability of both players, that should give you a solid 20+ games...

 

[brent-83]

hey mate.. nice research.. I have been in the same boat with harvey after reading those stats about harveys trend to be slow starter in the h&A season.. with his average dropping by 10 or so.. in first 1/4...

I like your research and I do think it will have some bearing on his DT outlook this year.. But I could've saved you alot of research by putting it in a more simple context with Harvey.. Like Cox hes the kinda player you need to look at from a overall perspective.. and not worry about all the nitty gritty stats...

To put it simply. The fact is that harvey was ranked Top #1 player with the most consistent DT scores last year in 2008. Above the likes of Joel Corey and Daniel Cross. These are the players you want in your side from the get go. as there less likely to have a major lull in their season and you would just be wasting a 1-2 trades to bring him in. The drop in price would not be worth it when you could use those two trades to make 100,000 together on cash cows..

Also the fact that he has been listed as mid/fwd this year.. You have to put him into perspective and compare him with the other FWD premium choices.. Like franklin, J brown, reiwoldt etc... who yo-yo in there DT scores.. as there DT output is heavily weighted on whether they kick goals or not.. and whether the teams doing well.. if they arent doing well they seem to be the first type of player to suffer with their DT averages.. They are confidence players.. who will at some point be a prime upgrade target.. These are the players you should target midseason and not harvey.. I picked up reiwoldt last year 2/3 into season for 350,000.. and look at him now.. top priced FWD... 440,000..

So the fact that can you put a consistent player like Harvey in your fwd line is gold and is a must in my book..He may drop in price a bit.. but meh... not enough to waste 2 trades on him. Same goes for Cox...forget wining about his price and trying to meek out a swifty trade in, saving 10,000 to 20,000.. take the hit like a man.. and enjoy the 20 PPG over other ruckmen and consistent scores with harvey throughout the season... Not to mention the Superman durability of both players, that should give you a solid 20+ games...

I agree, but I've done similar research on a number of players from every team. I was just using Brent Harvey as an example to illustrate my point.

 

[Lakey91]

Thought on harvey. I think he may be likely to score 80, 80, 80, 80 early, then 100, 100, 100, 100 later in the season. Would this make him more consistent, even though its not that close to his average?

 

[kuzjuxcan]

Thought on harvey. I think he may be likely to score 80, 80, 80, 80 early, then 100, 100, 100, 100 later in the season. Would this make him more consistent, even though its not that close to his average?

i got that info from the AFL prospectus.. Overall negative deviation from his finishing average.. I guess.. 80 isnt a massive deviation from his finishing average for the season.. Compared to a Franklin that can have a 140 DT game followed by a 45 and then a 100+ game... I could see that if harvey got 80s 80s, 80s in three games his price would go down quite a bit with his Starting average of 95.. So you could look at it that way..you could pick him up for under 400,000 at some point this season..

 

[lifelike_]

I wouldn't put it past Harvey to make a flying start to the year.

His record against Melbourne over the past couple of years has been good, he generally dominates against us and his numbers against Hawthorn over the past couple of years have also been impressive.

 

[Lakey91]

I wouldn't put it past Harvey to make a flying start to the year.

His record against Melbourne over the past couple of years has been good, he generally dominates against us and his numbers against Hawthorn over the past couple of years have also been impressive.

You can argue both sides of everything!

kuzjuxcan - what i meant was, harvey was consistent, just probably in fazes - 5 rounds of 80/80/80/80/80 then 5 rounds of 100/100/100/100/100. Thats something i think might happen off top of my head! Havent looked at any stats...