Goldy Vs Mummy

[quinny88]

They are the same price so I can do a straight swap this week but its now or never as Goldy has a BE of 142 and Mummy has a BE of -8.

I know people will say not to trade premiums but the fact is, I chose Goldy as a safe 110+ garuntee but his round 1 shoulder injury opened the door for Currie and now North look set to continue with that combination which is going to affect him all season.

Mumford has had some softer opponents so far and will get a real test against Minson this week but I dont have another week to make up my mind so its now or never

[tor01doc]

I would refer you to the Zorko debacle and the Caddy catastrophe.

Chasing points I reckon.

By the end of the year they will both be top few ruckmen so I suspect very little advantage.

[GCSkiwi]

I would refer you to the Zorko debacle and the Caddy catastrophe.

Chasing points I reckon.

+1 - Franklin to Zorko was one of the top 10 trades last week, thats gotta hurt.

If you're going to swap ruckmen, bring in Cox. I said it all preseason, no-one in the top 5 rucks apart from Cox has ever backed up season to season. He's the only one that has been a fixture in the top 5. And the whole "but NicNat will steal his points" argument wasn't supported in the 2012 season, isn't really supported by the few games NN played last year and isn't supported in 3 round thus far in 2014. Plus he's a straight swap for Goldy still.

But with that said, I think you should probably just stay on the Goldy train and accept it's not going to be going at the rate it was last year. Slow start for sure but I still think he'll be 105+ average for the year. However if you don't back him to turn it around then pull the trigger now. Those of us who held on to Buddy last year hoping for his great revival were never rewarded and he ended up not being valuable enough to trade. So if you really think Goldy is in for a <95 year, pull the pin on him now.

[Marcon]

Was faced with the exact same decision last week and decided to reluctantly pulled the trigger on him. We all picked him pre-season on the basis that he would play lone ruck and was fully fit. However, we have seen both of these variables compromised and it has really affected his "premium" status. While there was signs of his former self on the weekend, with Currie in the side i dont see him as a consistent scorer and this lead me to trade him out.

With respect to Mummy, even though he is in my team i am still not 100% sold on him. Yes he has pumped out some massive scores, but the opposition has really not been all that flash. That being said i expect him to average 105-110 from here on in.

My advice: If it truly is 50/50 then flip a coin and let fate decide for you, this is what i did.

[Samm79]

Tough one Quinny. Was an easier call to make 4 days ago with Mummy coming up against the Dees plus $110K for the trade.

Mummy, most likely will need to be traded at some stage this year if history is anything to go by, but he is averaging more than anyone so far, a fit mummy is an absolute gun so this is a tough one.

Who you would trade him to if this was to happen? There is no one really standing out... May be take sauce and pocket $100K? Cox is a legend, but unless NicNac gets injured I cannot see him averaging 100.

There is no obvious, or value proposition. For that reason, I think I'd hold the trade and back the guy who scored 98 last round and was a top 2 ruck last year.  I think Currie will go when at Tarrant comes back too.

[HotTiges]

I'm hoping goldy keeps dropping so I can get him for leunberger!

[GCSkiwi]

And the whole "but NicNat will steal his points" argument wasn't supported in the 2012 season, isn't really supported by the few games NN played last year and isn't supported in 3 round thus far in 2014. Plus he's a straight swap for Goldy still.

Who you would trade him to if this was to happen? There is no one really standing out... May be take sauce and pocket $100K? Cox is a legend, but unless NicNac gets injured I cannot see him averaging 100.

::) This is exactly what I mean. What grounds do you have to say that?

In 2010, Cox 22 games average 88, NicNat 22 games average 71
In 2011 Cox 22 games, average 122. NicNat 20 games average 94
In 2012 Cox 22 games, average 112. NicNat 20 games, average 114. Cox #1 ruck on total points
In 2013 Cox 22 games average 107. NicNat 11 games, average 96 (injury affected)

2014 to date:
round 1 Cox 115, NicNat 53
round 2 Cox 63, NicNat 104
round 3 Cox 122, NicNat 64

They day will come when Cox is no longer a dominant force but he hasn't failed to play 22 games and average 105+ in the last 3 years, and still managed to average 112 in the year when NicNat came to the fore and everyone suddenly lost interest in Cox. Coxy averaging bang on 100 from 3 games so far, NicNat a more modest 74. Only 3 games though.

And before anyone mentions it, yes so far they've seesawed, when one goes big the other drops, but if you look at their scores against each other over previous seasons the trend doesn't really hold, and when it does it falls pretty equally - Cox steals NicNats points as often as NicNat steals Cox's...

[Samm79]

Who you would trade him to if this was to happen? There is no one really standing out... May be take sauce and pocket $100K? Cox is a legend, but unless NicNac gets injured I cannot see him averaging 100.

::) This is exactly what I mean. What grounds do you have to say that?

In 2010, Cox 22 games average 88, NicNat 22 games average 71
In 2011 Cox 22 games, average 122. NicNat 20 games average 94
In 2012 Cox 22 games, average 112. NicNat 20 games, average 114. Cox #1 ruck on total points
In 2013 Cox 22 games average 107. NicNat 11 games, average 96 (injury affected)

2014 to date:
round 1 Cox 115, NicNat 53
round 2 Cox 63, NicNat 104
round 3 Cox 122, NicNat 64

They day will come when Cox is no longer a dominant force but he hasn't failed to play 22 games and average 105+ in the last 3 years, and still managed to average 112 in the year when NicNat came to the fore and everyone suddenly lost interest in Cox. Coxy averaging bang on 100 from 3 games so far, NicNat a more modest 74. Only 3 games though.

And before anyone mentions it, yes so far they've seesawed, when one goes big the other drops, but if you look at their scores against each other over previous seasons the trend doesn't really hold, and when it does it falls pretty equally - Cox steals NicNats points as often as NicNat steals Cox's...

A NicNac/Cox combo a couple of years ago made a lot of sense for the above reason, I was a massive fan.

In answering your question.

If my adding up from last years SC figures are correct, for 10 games last year when NicNac played Cox averaged 95.6. The year before when NicNac didn't play 2 games Cox averaged 138. I 'spose you can use the statistics to back up most points.

Cox one year older. Sinclair in the mix now too.

He may prove me wrong and average over 100, but I don't think that will be the case for the above reasons.

[Ricochet]

Yeh I won't go near Cox with both NicNat and Sinclair in the team

[GCSkiwi]

A NicNac/Cox combo a couple of years ago made a lot of sense for the above reason, I was a massive fan.

In answering your question.

If my adding up from last years SC figures are correct, for 10 games last year when NicNac played Cox averaged 95.6. The year before when NicNac didn't play 2 games Cox averaged 138. I 'spose you can use the statistics to back up most points.

Cox one year older. Sinclair in the mix now too.

He may prove me wrong and average over 100, but I don't think that will be the case for the above reasons.

Rico and I argued this to death in another couple of threads

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.

For those considering Cox... What about that Cox only averaged 98 with NicNat in the team last year?

Here are their scores playing together last year (Cox, NicNat):
96, 102
84, 142
108, 148
91,104
132, 109
115, 114
107, 73
83, 79
70, 69
70, 78

On average NicNat scored 6ppg better than Cox in that time true. But they went up and down together mostly, I would rather have the safety of Cox's record of playing full seasons

Fair enough on wanting a durable ruckman but 107 to 98 is a big drop off in average. Maybe look at Goldy instead. Durable and limited competition.

Yep reasonable point but that also implies that the 107 to 98 point drop off was solely because of NicNat entering the team. Doesn't take into account that they both scored poorly in rounds 15,16, and 17 against Adelaide, Freo and Sydney, and that if you don't include those games Cox's average only drops from 107 to 105 when playing with NicNat... On the other hand, Goldstein was a top ruck last year but prior to that he languished at 9th (I think), and in the last 2 years only 2 players have held a position in the top 5 - Cox and Roughy. Roughy no longer a ruck takes him out, but in 2012 the top 5 were Cox, Maric, NicNat, Jacobs and Roughy, in 2013 the top 5 were Minson, Goldy, Cox, Roughy, McEvoy - in 2012 Minson and Goldy were down the bottom end of the top 10 while McEvoy wasn't in it, and In 2013 Jacobs and Maric fell to 8th and 9th and obviously NicNat didn't register...

I'd love to have confidence picking Goldy or Minson, but Cox is the only one who backs it up with numbers...

Now, My comparison with Swan might look bad after his first few games so far but all those points still hold.

the threads are here for full context:
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,90249.msg1308312.html#msg1308312
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,91120.msg1306458.html#msg1306458

[GCSkiwi]

Yeh I won't go near Cox with both NicNat and Sinclair in the team

As in my previous post, Rico favours this view and people should read those threads for his view. Not saying his points are wrong, just that I don't agree they are as big of a worry as they're being made out to be :)

[Ricochet]

Haha that was a good discussion. Yep will be interesting to see how Cox goes with the extra ruckmen sharing the duties. But we can't really assess until later in the year

[GCSkiwi]

Haha that was a good discussion. Yep will be interesting to see how Cox goes with the extra ruckmen sharing the duties. But we can't really assess until later in the year

I think it was around then that I realised SC has become an addiction and I needed professional help ;)
But yeah the only way we'll know will be hindsight, such a pain!

[Ricochet]

Haha that was a good discussion. Yep will be interesting to see how Cox goes with the extra ruckmen sharing the duties. But we can't really assess until later in the year

I think it was around then that I realised SC has become an addiction and I needed professional help ;)
But yeah the only way we'll know will be hindsight, such a pain!

lol we're beyond the point of help mate

[Samm79]

Haha that was a good discussion. Yep will be interesting to see how Cox goes with the extra ruckmen sharing the duties. But we can't really assess until later in the year

I think it was around then that I realised SC has become an addiction and I needed professional help ;)
But yeah the only way we'll know will be hindsight, such a pain!

lol we're beyond the point of help mate

It is a really good discussion. There are many examples each year of trading player A over B for irrational, illogical reasons!

Not sure how we can justify taking out 3 rounds for no particular reason, just to improve an average though!

And yes, we are addicted, I have heard it a million times from my clinical psychologist wife!