NRL Fantasy 2022 Part 1 - fire up the spreadsheets

I think that a nice trap that many will miss, is Starling if he is named on the bench in round 1. Was getting 50+ minutes at the end of last season. Even if on the bench it is likely to be his role this season (similar to Grant last year).

In games off the bench with 50+ minutes, he averaged 44 last season, which makes him 10 points under-priced. Every chance that he gets the starting role at some point as well, which would increase his average to 54.

Currently owned by 4% and unlikely to increase if named on the bench (may even decrease). Likely to be a big regret for many this season.

Milchcow wrote:

They also say form is temporary, class is permanent.

Normally these sayings only come out after we've seen the scores, suggesting hindsight is the best method for selecting a team

a Time Stone would come in handy to work out the best team

checking best options:

Rabbits21 wrote:

NAS shouldn’t be allowed to play interstate he’s an anti vaxxer and now has pulled some BS exemption excuse out of his arse!

I’ll be booing him when we play them at home that’s for sure.

I've never been one to follow the rules of the gallactic empire myself either...

each to their own I say, if he chooses not to take it that's his choice, aren't we in a free country?

Hey guys, my mate (Blackwinx) has started a league and it’s struggling for numbers so I thought I’d post the code on here if anyones interested in joining, 45Y6Y72W (top tier troopers I think it’s called)

Talfal wrote:Hey guys, my mate (Blackwinx) has started a league and it’s struggling for numbers so I thought I’d post the code on here if anyones interested in joining, 45Y6Y72W (top tier troopers I think it’s called)

IN!

I'm all for taking down some troopers ;-)

Chewie wrote:

I've never been one to follow the rules of the gallactic empire myself either...

each to their own I say, if he chooses not to take it that's his choice, aren't we in a free country?

Fair enough you can have that view and I’ll have mine and I’ll leave it at that.

Trial game schedule has been released:

FULL SCHEDULE (all times AEDT):

8.10pm — Saturday February 12: NRL All Stars

6pm — Friday February 18: Roosters vs Raiders

8pm — Friday February 18: Tigers vs Sea Eagles

4pm — Saturday February 19: Storm vs Warriors

6pm — Saturday February 19: Rabbitohs vs Cowboys

8pm — Saturday February 19: Titans vs Broncos

4pm — Sunday February 20: Panthers vs Sharks

6pm — Sunday February 20: Eels vs Dragons

7pm — Monday February 21: Bulldogs vs Knights

6pm — Friday February 25: Sea Eagles vs Raiders

8pm — Friday February 25: Roosters vs Tigers

3pm — Saturday February 26: Warriors vs Titans

5pm — Saturday February 26: Panthers vs Eels

7pm — Saturday February 26: Rabbitohs vs Dragons

9pm — Saturday February 26: Cowboys vs Broncos

5.45pm — Sunday February 27: Storm vs Knights

7pm — Monday February 28: Sharks vs Bulldogs

mattnz wrote:I think that a nice trap that many will miss, is Starling if he is named on the bench in round 1. Was getting 50+ minutes at the end of last season. Even if on the bench it is likely to be his role this season (similar to Grant last year).

In games off the bench with 50+ minutes, he averaged 44 last season, which makes him 10 points under-priced. Every chance that he gets the starting role at some point as well, which would increase his average to 54.

Currently owned by 4% and unlikely to increase if named on the bench (may even decrease). Likely to be a big regret for many this season.

In games with less than 50 minutes (9 of his 14 bench appearances) he averaged less than 15, which would make him massively overpriced.

Its a bit of a risk to bank on him consistently getting big minutes every time (or enough of the time to make him worthwhile)

Milchcow wrote:

In games with less than 50 minutes (9 of his 14 bench appearances) he averaged less than 15, which would make him massively overpriced.

Its a bit of a risk to bank on him consistently getting big minutes every time (or enough of the time to make him worthwhile)

the 9 out of 14 has nothing to do with the consistency of his role. his first 8 bench appearances were less than 50 minutes and his last 5 (excluding the last game) were more than 50 minutes. His role should be fairly consistent it just depends on wether that is consistently good or consistently shit

Talfal wrote:Hey guys, my mate (Blackwinx) has started a league and it’s struggling for numbers so I thought I’d post the code on here if anyones interested in joining, 45Y6Y72W (top tier troopers I think it’s called)

I'm in bro. Cheers.

Milchcow wrote:

In games with less than 50 minutes (9 of his 14 bench appearances) he averaged less than 15, which would make him massively overpriced.

Its a bit of a risk to bank on him consistently getting big minutes every time (or enough of the time to make him worthwhile)

With Havili no longer there and Hodgson going by next season at the latest, it would be surprising for him not to be taking on a significant role, like he was late in the season.

my tv broke wrote:

Probably already had COVID like every other NRL player (i think they confirmed 80% already had), which means you're exempt, I think. I think that is what Matt is referring to re Novax

The plan for all players to cop the spicy cough in pre-season is working.

Be interesting to see where we're at in 6 months anyway. Probably forgotten all this.

Brave person to predict 6 months time. I think we could range from "everything is fine now" to "vaccines don't work on COVID variant omega ruh oh"

FalconSloth wrote:
the 9 out of 14 has nothing to do with the consistency of his role. his first 8 bench appearances were less than 50 minutes and his last 5 (excluding the last game) were more than 50 minutes. His role should be fairly consistent it just depends on wether that is consistently good or consistently shit

Agree, the interesting thing for me is that in that period where he was consistently getting 50+ minutes per game, Hodgson was playing 80 minutes, so it isn't a matter of reducing Hodgson's role, just getting more ball players on the park, the way that other teams are doing with locks coming on for similar timeframes like Peachey, Dylan Walker, Watson and Mann.

mattnz wrote:

Agree, the interesting thing for me is that in that period where he was consistently getting 50+ minutes per game, Hodgson was playing 80 minutes, so it isn't a matter of reducing Hodgson's role, just getting more ball players on the park, the way that other teams are doing with locks coming on for similar timeframes like Peachey, Dylan Walker, Watson and Mann.

Yeah, I've been thinking about the small roving ruck that teams have been putting up last year. I wonder how much difference the off-season to practice VlandysBall will make.

First, this role was a feature of some not very good teams. Raiders, Knights, Dragons, Titans.. sure, Manly did it but Des is weird and they were basically playing a hooker down anyway. Storm did it too? Maybe - but cheese is more of a genuine forward than watson or bird.

Second, it came about because of tiring big packs suprised by the game. Fitter, better players (Radley, Murray, Yeo, Brown) didn't need the spell, or their teams the help. The Warriors kinda did it with Aitken and they weren't swimming in options.

Third, it doesn't seem a dominant strategy for these players. Walker, Mann, Watson, Peachey, Hodgson - not the teams' biggest or most ruck-dominant defenders. The incentive may be for teams to put the other team on their back and slow play the ball (when the forwards are fit enough to do it).

Fourth, there's always teh moving-to-the-centres issue. Or into a backup half.

Fifth, look, maybe a summary. I do not think the good coaches (Bellamy, Wayne, Demetrious, whomever) are likely to look at a Manly side with Walker in 13 and go 'oooh, there's something to be careful of'! And good coaches get copied during the season - to the degree that covid and injuries allow.

Sixth, now ok the summary. I don't like their JS, raw skills or inter-game risks enough to touch the standard mobile locks. Except maybe Peachey because he's actually good. Ok, so is Watson.

A cricket commentator once said if the four best bowlers in the country cant get the job done, why does anything think a 5th will make a difference. Kinda reminds me of the extra ball player strategy. Seems a tactic from bad teams. Making up for lack of ability i guess

L-Jimmy wrote:


Yeah, I've been thinking about the small roving ruck that teams have been putting up last year. I wonder how much difference the off-season to practice VlandysBall will make.

First, this role was a feature of some not very good teams. Raiders, Knights, Dragons, Titans.. sure, Manly did it but Des is weird and they were basically playing a hooker down anyway. Storm did it too? Maybe - but cheese is more of a genuine forward than watson or bird.

Second, it came about because of tiring big packs suprised by the game. Fitter, better players (Radley, Murray, Yeo, Brown) didn't need the spell, or their teams the help. The Warriors kinda did it with Aitken and they weren't swimming in options.

Third, it doesn't seem a dominant strategy for these players. Walker, Mann, Watson, Peachey, Hodgson - not the teams' biggest or most ruck-dominant defenders. The incentive may be for teams to put the other team on their back and slow play the ball (when the forwards are fit enough to do it).

Fourth, there's always teh moving-to-the-centres issue. Or into a backup half.

Fifth, look, maybe a summary. I do not think the good coaches (Bellamy, Wayne, Demetrious, whomever) are likely to look at a Manly side with Walker in 13 and go 'oooh, there's something to be careful of'! And good coaches get copied during the season - to the degree that covid and injuries allow.

Sixth, now ok the summary. I don't like their JS, raw skills or inter-game risks enough to touch the standard mobile locks. Except maybe Peachey because he's actually good. Ok, so is Watson.

A telling stat is that Raiders won 4 of the 5 games that Starling played 50+ minutes off the bench.

Similarly in games that Walker played 40+ minutes off the bench, Sea Eagles were 7 from 7.

Smith / Grant was also highly effective for Storm.

Hard to say that it wasn't effective for their teams.

Not sure how relevant it’ll be, but Smith Shields gone for season with torn ACL

mattnz wrote:

A telling stat is that Raiders won 4 of the 5 games that Starling played 50+ minutes off the bench.

Similarly in games that Walker played 40+ minutes off the bench, Sea Eagles were 7 from 7.

Smith / Grant was also highly effective for Storm.

Hard to say that it wasn't effective for their teams.

No, it's very easy. Just don't cherrypick stats or over-attribute results.

Raiders: beat Dragons, Manly (w/o DCE or TT), Sharks, Eels (w/o Moses). Lost to Knights.
- It is hard to argue the 50 mins off the bench from a hooker was the reason the Raiders beat some poor teams.

Manly: Had TT and DCE at the peak of their games, hell TT at the peak of anyone's game maybe ever.
- It would be daft to say that Walker was the reason Manly won. Like, beyond silly.

Storm: were the best team in the comp. Could have run with John Howard at 14 and done fine.


Still seems a suboptimal tactic and makes for undesirable fantasy players. YMMV

L-Jimmy wrote:

No, it's very easy. Just don't cherrypick stats or over-attribute results.

Raiders: beat Dragons, Manly (w/o DCE or TT), Sharks, Eels (w/o Moses). Lost to Knights.
- It is hard to argue the 50 mins off the bench from a hooker was the reason the Raiders beat some poor teams.

Manly: Had TT and DCE at the peak of their games, hell TT at the peak of anyone's game maybe ever.
- It would be daft to say that Walker was the reason Manly won. Like, beyond silly.

Storm: were the best team in the comp. Could have run with John Howard at 14 and done fine.


Still seems a suboptimal tactic and makes for undesirable fantasy players. YMMV

Yeah why deal with hard stats that say the strategy was effective when implemented, and stick to the conjecture of your previous post that it isn't effective.

Mobile ball players in the middle are back, because it is effective in the fast modern game, even if that may not fit with your narrative.