Round 3 VC/C

[SilverLion]

Danger into Bines

(Cripps if needed)

:-*

(Cripps wasn't needed)

[Keeper27]

Just as a quick calculation for fun, if you had Macrae as C every round he played last year, and each of those times you passed up a 128 VC score, you’d be 21 points down in total. I find it a bit poignant, as he averaged 127, so pretty much on the money.

cheers for that stat. just proves that anything over 125 is a lock

[Koop]

Normally I'd sit on a 130 (Gawn) any week of the year. Solid 260 and gives a solid foundation for a good weekend score.

This week is one of the VERY FEW times I'd ever pass it up, and I'll explain why I'm doing it for more my own sake than anything.

The way I see it is this, I've seen people make arguments about being conservative. If Macrae goes 110, you're losing 20 points, whereas if he goes 140 you're only gaining 10. I get that, and I'd agree 99% of the time that based on risk, chance & probability, it's the option you're better off taking.

Problem is, Macrae's ceiling doesn't cap at 140 against the GC, and hasn't for his entire career (the 189 last year in his uber-premo breakout year isn't an isolated score). He's gone 170+ twice, 150+ a further time and has a career average of 130.5 with a low-score of 93. That's ridiculous, you're not gambling at a jaw-dropping outlier score from a premo, with him against these guys it's almost the norm. At the ABSOLUTE worst you're losing 35 points vs. Danger, at average you're breaking even, and you have the very real potential to be 35-40 points up on the competition by the end of the weekend. That's huge.

There's also the small stat of not having dropped below a ton in Victoria since 2017, and averaging 135.3 in the state in 2018. (126.4 at Docklands)

I'm not saying you should take the risk, but if you're looking to get a leg up on the comp with calculated risks and get further up the rankings (risk it for the biscuit, if you will), this might be close to the most logical & 'safe' one you'll get all year. 

[Jalapeno]

Normally I'd sit on a 130 (Gawn) any week of the year. Solid 260 and gives a solid foundation for a good weekend score.

This week is one of the VERY FEW times I'd ever pass it up, and I'll explain why I'm doing it for more my own sake than anything.

The way I see it is this, I've seen people make arguments about being conservative. If Macrae goes 110, you're losing 20 points, whereas if he goes 140 you're only gaining 10. I get that, and I'd agree 99% of the time that based on risk, chance & probability, it's the option you're better off taking.

Problem is, Macrae's ceiling doesn't cap at 140 against the GC, and hasn't for his entire career (the 189 last year in his uber-premo breakout year isn't an isolated score). He's gone 170+ twice, 150+ a further time and has a career average of 130.5 with a low-score of 93. That's ridiculous, you're not gambling at a jaw-dropping outlier score from a premo, with him against these guys it's almost the norm. At the ABSOLUTE worst you're losing 35 points vs. Danger, at average you're breaking even, and you have the very real potential to be 35-40 points up on the competition by the end of the weekend. That's huge.

There's also the small stat of not having dropped below a ton in Victoria since 2017, and averaging 135.3 in the state in 2018. (126.4 at Docklands)

I'm not saying you should take the risk, but if you're looking to get a leg up on the comp with calculated risks and get further up the rankings (risk it for the biscuit, if you will), this might be close to the most logical & 'safe' one you'll get all year.

Thanks for this Koop. You have talked me into it

[jvalles69]

Normally I'd sit on a 130 (Gawn) any week of the year. Solid 260 and gives a solid foundation for a good weekend score.

This week is one of the VERY FEW times I'd ever pass it up, and I'll explain why I'm doing it for more my own sake than anything.

The way I see it is this, I've seen people make arguments about being conservative. If Macrae goes 110, you're losing 20 points, whereas if he goes 140 you're only gaining 10. I get that, and I'd agree 99% of the time that based on risk, chance & probability, it's the option you're better off taking.

Problem is, Macrae's ceiling doesn't cap at 140 against the GC, and hasn't for his entire career (the 189 last year in his uber-premo breakout year isn't an isolated score). He's gone 170+ twice, 150+ a further time and has a career average of 130.5 with a low-score of 93. That's ridiculous, you're not gambling at a jaw-dropping outlier score from a premo, with him against these guys it's almost the norm. At the ABSOLUTE worst you're losing 35 points vs. Danger, at average you're breaking even, and you have the very real potential to be 35-40 points up on the competition by the end of the weekend. That's huge.

There's also the small stat of not having dropped below a ton in Victoria since 2017, and averaging 135.3 in the state in 2018. (126.4 at Docklands)

I'm not saying you should take the risk, but if you're looking to get a leg up on the comp with calculated risks and get further up the rankings (risk it for the biscuit, if you will), this might be close to the most logical & 'safe' one you'll get all year.

Thanks for this Koop. You have talked me into it

You've talked me into it too...except I don't have Macrae. :/

[js19]

Normally I'd sit on a 130 (Gawn) any week of the year. Solid 260 and gives a solid foundation for a good weekend score.

This week is one of the VERY FEW times I'd ever pass it up, and I'll explain why I'm doing it for more my own sake than anything.

The way I see it is this, I've seen people make arguments about being conservative. If Macrae goes 110, you're losing 20 points, whereas if he goes 140 you're only gaining 10. I get that, and I'd agree 99% of the time that based on risk, chance & probability, it's the option you're better off taking.

Problem is, Macrae's ceiling doesn't cap at 140 against the GC, and hasn't for his entire career (the 189 last year in his uber-premo breakout year isn't an isolated score). He's gone 170+ twice, 150+ a further time and has a career average of 130.5 with a low-score of 93. That's ridiculous, you're not gambling at a jaw-dropping outlier score from a premo, with him against these guys it's almost the norm. At the ABSOLUTE worst you're losing 35 points vs. Danger, at average you're breaking even, and you have the very real potential to be 35-40 points up on the competition by the end of the weekend. That's huge.

There's also the small stat of not having dropped below a ton in Victoria since 2017, and averaging 135.3 in the state in 2018. (126.4 at Docklands)

I'm not saying you should take the risk, but if you're looking to get a leg up on the comp with calculated risks and get further up the rankings (risk it for the biscuit, if you will), this might be close to the most logical & 'safe' one you'll get all year.

Last 3 v GC
189
108
93
Average 130, but only 33% success rate of getting over 128...

Last year 9/19 were over 128 for Macrae, so still less than 50% success rate of beating the 128 VC

Sure, he's still the best bet of doing it this round, and it may pay off, but calling it 'logical and safe' all depends on how you interpret the numbers

[Koop]

Average 130, but only 33% success rate of getting over 128...

Last year 9/19 were over 128 for Macrae, so still less than 50% success rate of beating the 128 VC

Sure, he's still the best bet of doing it this round, and it may pay off, but calling it 'logical and safe' all depends on how you interpret the numbers

Fair comment, I'd say there's a fairly high likelihood of him landing within a 10 point swing either way (120-140) given his history, form and the like. Probably a better way of wording it is that he has a much higher chance of pulling out an outlier on the higher end of the scale this week than probably anyone else does this season by looking at history & form. That's probably a more succinct and correct way of wording it than just looking at averages & the like. 

[js19]

Average 130, but only 33% success rate of getting over 128...

Last year 9/19 were over 128 for Macrae, so still less than 50% success rate of beating the 128 VC

Sure, he's still the best bet of doing it this round, and it may pay off, but calling it 'logical and safe' all depends on how you interpret the numbers

Fair comment, I'd say there's a fairly high likelihood of him landing within a 10 point swing either way (120-140) given his history, form and the like. Probably a better way of wording it is that he has a much higher chance of pulling out an outlier on the higher end of the scale this week than probably anyone else does this season by looking at history & form. That's probably a more succinct and correct way of wording it than just looking at averages & the like.

Yeah, as a Dogs fan I hope he kills it, and also for my SC team, but not sure I can handle the extra stress on game day ;D

[IntegralX]

Normally I'd sit on a 130 (Gawn) any week of the year. Solid 260 and gives a solid foundation for a good weekend score.

This week is one of the VERY FEW times I'd ever pass it up, and I'll explain why I'm doing it for more my own sake than anything.

The way I see it is this, I've seen people make arguments about being conservative. If Macrae goes 110, you're losing 20 points, whereas if he goes 140 you're only gaining 10. I get that, and I'd agree 99% of the time that based on risk, chance & probability, it's the option you're better off taking.

Problem is, Macrae's ceiling doesn't cap at 140 against the GC, and hasn't for his entire career (the 189 last year in his uber-premo breakout year isn't an isolated score). He's gone 170+ twice, 150+ a further time and has a career average of 130.5 with a low-score of 93. That's ridiculous, you're not gambling at a jaw-dropping outlier score from a premo, with him against these guys it's almost the norm. At the ABSOLUTE worst you're losing 35 points vs. Danger, at average you're breaking even, and you have the very real potential to be 35-40 points up on the competition by the end of the weekend. That's huge.

There's also the small stat of not having dropped below a ton in Victoria since 2017, and averaging 135.3 in the state in 2018. (126.4 at Docklands)

I'm not saying you should take the risk, but if you're looking to get a leg up on the comp with calculated risks and get further up the rankings (risk it for the biscuit, if you will), this might be close to the most logical & 'safe' one you'll get all year.

Last 3 v GC
189
108
93
Average 130, but only 33% success rate of getting over 128...

Last year 9/19 were over 128 for Macrae, so still less than 50% success rate of beating the 128 VC

Sure, he's still the best bet of doing it this round, and it may pay off, but calling it 'logical and safe' all depends on how you interpret the numbers

RIP that theory then. That got debunked awfully fast.

[kilbluff1985]

previous years scores only matter if they were premos then to which Macrae wasnt

u just need to look and see how mids have done vs GC in recent weeks

[js19]

previous years scores only matter if they were premos then to which Macrae wasnt

u just need to look and see how mids have done vs GC in recent weeks

Only 3 players have cracked the 100 against GC first two rounds:
Hill 133
Fyfe 124
Steele 115

[Koop]

previous years scores only matter if they were premos then to which Macrae wasnt

u just need to look and see how mids have done vs GC in recent weeks

Come on KB, put some effort in champ, I know its hard buddy. Couldn't help yourself? Funny that.

A) Macrae was 100% a premo in 2017/18 (M/F in 2017), as well as going 100+ in 2014. I'd couple that with 2015's 99.5 and say he had premo status in those years. Although it depends on the yardstick you use to define a 'premium'. Either way, that's an ample showing of competent scoring over multiple years, (4 out of 5 years excl. debut year at 99+, 2 at 105+, the other 93) to use to gather reliable information on scoring history.

B) Mate they were playing the Saints and the bloody Dockers hahaha. They're not working restrictive miracles. The Suns inside game has never been their issue, but they've been killed literally everywhere else for so many years now. This was evident in their inability to take Hill (133) out of the game last weekend when he doing whatever the hell he wanted. Fyfe & Steele put out their usual premium scores while the rest of their extremely slow, one paced (St Kilda) or extremely young, mismatched & inexperienced (Freo) midfield put up their normal numbers, so I'm not sure what your point is. Macrae's ability to seagull as well as do the hard-stuff puts him in the Titch category of being a multi-faceted player to deal with, and a team without a proper outside setup (GC), Macrae is going to walk all over. The Dogs midfield aren't the best, but the normal guys will have a good day out tomorrow.

js raised a great counter-query with facts, which made me re-think and explain what I was trying to say in my original post. I dunno what this was but flower me you really actually need to engage your brain sometimes before trying to weigh in,  might be useful in more ways than one.

[Ringo]

previous years scores only matter if they were premos then to which Macrae wasnt

u just need to look and see how mids have done vs GC in recent weeks

Only 3 players have cracked the 100 against GC first two rounds:
Hill 133
Fyfe 124
Steele 115

This worth noting as well in consideration. Suns do not usually tag but implement a lot of run with roles. 

[_wato]

Meh lack of tons against GC is purely more because of Saints and Freo’s gameplan being less than exciting for fantasy more than anything. We are only two rounds in.

In preseason v GC, Dogs racked up 6 tons including Macrae’s 143 and Hunter’s 99, and Swans racked up 5 tons with plenty of guys in the 90’s.

[Woppa15]

I’ve got the V on Danger but I’m keen to give Macrae a crack at C. He loves Marvel and loves playing the Suns. But very hard to pass up Dangers 128.....
Normally i bank anything 125+ but my gut is telling me to ‘let it ride’