Nic Nat, time is running out..

[GCSkiwi]

I'm more worried that with NicNat playing he only averaged 98 last year.

The games that Cox did bad in last year while NicNat was playing were in rounds 15, 16, and 17. In these games he scored 83, 70, 70 respectively. IN THOSE SAME GAMES NicNat scored 79, 69, 78.

Yeh but NicNat was battling groin issues all year man so can't really compare to him

You're comparing the two to point out the drop in Cox's average, whats the difference? Can't have it both ways...

[GoLions]

I'm more worried that with NicNat playing he only averaged 98 last year.

The games that Cox did bad in last year while NicNat was playing were in rounds 15, 16, and 17. In these games he scored 83, 70, 70 respectively. IN THOSE SAME GAMES NicNat scored 79, 69, 78.

Yeh but NicNat was battling groin issues all year man so can't really compare to him

My point is that when NicNat does bad, Cox does bad. When he goes well, so does Cox. So if NicNat is fit and playing, he should score well, so Cox should score well. If he's out injured, well Cox seems to score even better with him gone. Unless they play NicNat injured, I can't see Cox averaging under 100.

[Ricochet]

I'm more worried that with NicNat playing he only averaged 98 last year.

The games that Cox did bad in last year while NicNat was playing were in rounds 15, 16, and 17. In these games he scored 83, 70, 70 respectively. IN THOSE SAME GAMES NicNat scored 79, 69, 78.

Yeh but NicNat was battling groin issues all year man so can't really compare to him

You're comparing the two to point out the drop in Cox's average, whats the difference? Can't have it both ways...

I'm suggesting that Cox at a 107 average may not be a solid pick because he average 98 with NicNat in the team last year. Plus that was with NicNat getting limited time in the middle due to his groins.

I'd also suggest NicNat is a good pick because he is severely underpriced for what he can average, due to his injury last year.

I can analyse Cox's scores and then disregard NicNat's scores because one ruckman's poor scoring was due to injury and one was due to another ruckman being in the team

[GoLions]

I'm not saying that 1 pick is better than the other. But Cox is hardly a risk at all, and NicNat is. So if NicNat doesn't play round 1, then Cox is a suitable replacement as he should kill it with NicNat out and still score well when he comes back. The top 5 rucks will likely be Goldy, Minson, Cox, NicNat, Leuey, so you can hardly say that Cox wouldn't be a solid pick, even if he does slightly worse with NicNat in the team.

In the last 9 years he has averaged under 98 once.

[Ricochet]

I understand what your saying mate and agree with parts.

Though my train of thought is this.

NicNat represents great value because he is priced at a 96ave but can easily hit 110+. He plays on Sunday and has a slight risk of being subbed. That's fine if he's sub or a late out we can just start Cox instead because he dominates without NicNat in the team. But what happens when NicNat is worked into full games from round 2/3 onwards. He is their #1 ruckman when fit now after all. Based on last years scoring Cox will drop back to a sub 100average. We can't have that from our R1 because a) he will drop 60k+ and b) we'll lose out on points. If we're paying top dollar for a ruckman then Goldy would be the answer, which is why i said its a shame WCE are playing on Sunday next week. Because if NicNat was a late out/sub then Goldy would be a better option than Cox (for the reasons I've given above).

Don't get me wrong Cox has been the best ruckman of his generation but age will catch up to him eventually. Which is another reason I cannot pay top dollar for him unless NicNat is out for a long period.

[GCSkiwi]

People are probably going to think I have a vendetta against you after the last few days - absolutely nothing personal against you Mr Ricochet, just arguing my view as you are doing yours :)

I'm suggesting that Cox at a 107 average may not be a solid pick because he average 98 with NicNat in the team last year.

I'm a scientist by trade and this is a great example of what we call a spurious conclusion in the presence of a confounding variable. If you administer maths tests to kids aged 5 to 10, and also measure their shoe size, you'll find that on average maths ability gets better as kids shoes get bigger. Ergo, having bigger feet makes a child better at maths. Wait...
I agree that Cox's average for the 11 games with NicNat in the team was 98 points per game. But if you're going to argue that NicNat takes points off Cox, then you have to compare their scores in individual games where they played together. And yep, NicNat beat Cox by 40 odd points in a couple. But then again, Cox beat NicNat by 30 odd points in a couple also. Yes NicNat scored more total points in that period, but to the tune of about 4ppg. I'll sacrifice that potential for the confidence of a set and forget ruckman. And for the trailing few games which hammered Cox's average, the net difference in their scores was 3 points to NicNat. I'm really, really not concerned by that. 

Plus that was with NicNat getting limited time in the middle due to his groins.

Perhaps a reasonable assumption but equally an unsupported one. If you know of somewhere that can give TOG stats I would genuinely appreciate it. But until then, I'm not reading into it.

I'd also suggest NicNat is a good pick because he is severely underpriced for what he can average, due to his injury last year.

Agree. But comes with an associated risk of the injury reoccurring or still holding him back. I'm playing cautious with my rucks and want to see him show the goods before I pick him.

I can analyse Cox's scores and then disregard NicNat's scores because one ruckman's poor scoring was due to injury and one was due to another ruckman being in the team

If you like. Fair enough. I disagree and think there's more than enough evidence of this being a misleading way to look at it. 2012's scores speak for themselves, Cox played 22 games and averaged 112. NicNat played 20 games and averaged 114. Several instances of them both going 120+ in the same game. Yep sure there were times when one scored low and another scored high, but they were pretty evenly distributed between the two of them. It's a bit like arguing that you shouldn't pick Swan because Pendles and Beams will take points off him. In some cases this will be true, it's inevitable. But on average it's not worth worrying about, and Swan will still score well. I agree with you saying age will catch up to Cox, and maybe this will be the season and I'll look like a chump in a few weeks. But as of right now, he is one of the most durable and consistently high scoring rucks there are, if not the only one.

[Doggoneit]

Like your argument GCSkiwi and I think makes a lot of sense

You have just convinced me that Goldy and Big Will are not as badly valued as I first thought.

[Ricochet]

People are probably going to think I have a vendetta against you after the last few days - absolutely nothing personal against you Mr Ricochet, just arguing my view as you are doing yours :)

Not at all mate. I welcome the discussion and agree with some of your points, but still not sure you see the line I am taking with it completely.

I'm suggesting that Cox at a 107 average may not be a solid pick because he average 98 with NicNat in the team last year.

I'm a scientist by trade and this is a great example of what we call a spurious conclusion in the presence of a confounding variable. If you administer maths tests to kids aged 5 to 10, and also measure their shoe size, you'll find that on average maths ability gets better as kids shoes get bigger. Ergo, having bigger feet makes a child better at maths. Wait...
I agree that Cox's average for the 11 games with NicNat in the team was 98 points per game. But if you're going to argue that NicNat takes points off Cox, then you have to compare their scores in individual games where they played together. And yep, NicNat beat Cox by 40 odd points in a couple. But then again, Cox beat NicNat by 30 odd points in a couple also. Yes NicNat scored more total points in that period, but to the tune of about 4ppg. I'll sacrifice that potential for the confidence of a set and forget ruckman. And for the trailing few games which hammered Cox's average, the net difference in their scores was 3 points to NicNat. I'm really, really not concerned by that. 

I'm not comparing NicNat to Cox to pick the winner. I'm comparing the two to show Cox's decrease in scoring which would lead to a decent loss in cash. Can you see that when two ruckmen share the ruck duties both of their time on ball is decreased and therefore time to score points decreases. This is why we see the decrease in Cox's average to 98. Its not to suggest that NicNat beats him all the time but to show that when Cox shares the ruck duties he has less time on ball which is shown by his decrease in scoring. The same goes for NicNat or any other ruckman that has to share ruck duties.

Plus that was with NicNat getting limited time in the middle due to his groins.

Perhaps a reasonable assumption but equally an unsupported one. If you know of somewhere that can give TOG stats I would genuinely appreciate it. But until then, I'm not reading into it.

Unsupported right now unless I can dig them up tomorrow but a well known fact he struggled with OP last year. When watching eagles games he spent a lot of time fwd and even sat out most of the second halves regularly heading to the rooms for jabs. You can ask most WCE supporters and they will also state this.

I'd also suggest NicNat is a good pick because he is severely underpriced for what he can average, due to his injury last year.

Agree. But comes with an associated risk of the injury reoccurring or still holding him back. I'm playing cautious with my rucks and want to see him show the goods before I pick him.

Thats fine and thats your strategy.

I can analyse Cox's scores and then disregard NicNat's scores because one ruckman's poor scoring was due to injury and one was due to another ruckman being in the team

If you like. Fair enough. I disagree and think there's more than enough evidence of this being a misleading way to look at it. 2012's scores speak for themselves, Cox played 22 games and averaged 112. NicNat played 20 games and averaged 114. Several instances of them both going 120+ in the same game. Yep sure there were times when one scored low and another scored high, but they were pretty evenly distributed between the two of them. It's a bit like arguing that you shouldn't pick Swan because Pendles and Beams will take points off him. In some cases this will be true, it's inevitable. But on average it's not worth worrying about, and Swan will still score well. I agree with you saying age will catch up to Cox, and maybe this will be the season and I'll look like a chump in a few weeks. But as of right now, he is one of the most durable and consistently high scoring rucks there are, if not the only one.

From 2011 his averages have decreased significantly. 122 in 2012 - 112 in 2011 - 107 in 2013. This drop off is largely due to one thing, being NicNat developing into the #1 ruckman at WCE and given more and more responsibility/time on ball. The more time NicNat spends on ball, the less time Cox has which is a direct relation to this 98 average. Don't get me wrong 112 was still a huge average with NicNat also playing but you must be able to see that Cox would not get the same time in the middle in 2014 as he did in 2012 (if NicNat is also playing).

[cortez]

Any news on how NicNat and Cox went in the intra club today? Or is it sti'll going/ hasn't started yet?

[RaisyDaisy]

Any news on how NicNat and Cox went in the intra club today? Or is it sti'll going/ hasn't started yet?

NicNat played 3 1/2 quarters last night and should be right for rd1

[LF]

http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,91929.0.html

[SydneyRox]

I am on the train.....

ALL ABOARD!!


;D

[auscoyote]

The coaches who picked lobbe instead will be spewing. I kept faith :)

[MelbEagle]

The coaches who picked lobbe instead will be spewing. I kept faith :)

+1

[no eye deer]

If NicNats in I'm going to have to find somewhere else to spend my spare 160 grand!