Cow Talk R2 –> R3

Small or Far Away, Father Dougal on Cows

 

Hi Everybody!

Last week we talked about small data samples. This week we’re going to talk about slightly larger data samples.  This may be a week or two early, but why not get people thinking now? Also, since it is what I have been thinking about, it is this or something with no planning at all.

In which case I would recite an epic poem about pumpkins seeds! 

Exactly my point!

I have been thinking about this for a while, as in years, but I have been reluctant to discuss it because it is both obvious and sort of, well, odd.

You’re stalling. 

Yeah. Ok, so the top 10 scoring players from 2020 to 2025 have averaged…

Um, The top scorers of 2025? Really?

….Er..Yeah, sorry, um, I saved with start of supercoach season numbers

Try again. 

Ok, so the top 10 scoring players from 2019 to 2024 have averaged:

1	130.4
2	128.0
3	122.3
4	121.1
5	119.4
6	118.3
7	117.5
8	116.9
9	116.0
10	115.4

 

The only real outlier was Max Gawn in 2020, when he went for 139.9. So, obviously a higher than 130 score can happen, so maybe that makes the rest of this wrong, but I’m going on anyways. 

Well, it also means that the average without Gawn was just 128.5.  

And that was in just 14 games, from the 17 game season. So, not so bad. And nobody has averaged 130 since him. 

Thanks for the support!

Don’t get used to it.

Ok, so, If a player is going to be the top scorer this year, let’s say he’s gonna average 130. That’s just how it is. Could be less, but we’re going with a slightly optimistic 130. Now, let’s look at the current top ten averages, and see how they compare to the current averages. 

 

Rank	Player	2025 Average	Historical Average	Difference
1	Bailey Smith	147	130.4	16.6
2	Josh Dunkley	145	128.0	17.0
3	Jackson Macrae	144.5	122.3	22.2
4	Jarrod Witts	144	121.1	22.9
5	Dayne Zorko	137.5	119.4	18.1
6	Matt Rowell	137	118.3	18.8
7	Noah Anderson	136	117.5	18.5
8	Bailey Dale	134	116.9	17.1
9	Thomas Liberatore	131	116.0	15.0
10	Tristan Xerri	129	115.4	13.6

 

So, not much chance any of them hold their current averages, even if they are the top average this year. 

Right. Now, I feel like we all knew that. But if that is true that implies that, aside from Xerri, they all need to average below what they are currently to get to 130. And if they end up just at 10th and average 115, then they will have to average much less. And if one is just having a purple patch and goes for 110, then they have to average a lot less. It is not that likely that the current top ten are going to be the top ten at the end of the season, so we should expect a few to do worse. Heck, at least one will go under 110 I bet.  

 

Rank	Player	2025 Average	2025 Played	Average for 130	Average for 115	Average for 110
1	Bailey Smith	147	1	129.2	113.5	108.2
2	Josh Dunkley	145	2	128.6	112.1	106.7
3	Jackson Macrae	144.5	2	128.6	112.2	106.7
4	Jarrod Witts	144	1	129.4	113.7	108.5
5	Dayne Zorko	137.5	2	129.3	112.9	107.4
6	Matt Rowell	137	1	129.7	114.0	108.8
7	Noah Anderson	136	1	129.7	114.0	108.8
8	Bailey Dale	134	2	129.6	113.2	107.7
9	Thomas Liberatore	131	2	129.9	113.5	108.0
10	Tristan Xerri	129	2	130.1	113.7	108.2

 

Bont and Butters are coming back. 

Right, and someone, or probably someones, who had a bad game already will do well and move up the rankings. But, the real point is that the better someone does early, the worse they have to do later to make up for it. 

That sounds kinda wack.

It is at least kind of wack, and maybe a lot wack. But if I had written about this last year I’d have been right. If I had written about this the year before I’d have been right, and I’d have been right most every year where there were more than 17 games. Even in *that* season only two guys were over 130. So, it seems like a real thing. 

So, what does that mean as far as buying these guys goes?

Well, to start, if they have a good run of fixtures coming up, then they may keep it up for a while before they crash back down. So, Zorko, for example, may keep this up a while longer and make money, while scoring, but unless you think he’s going to beat his career high of 111 at the age of 36, well, I’d expect a drop. 

I can help!

Wow, ok, I am all curious.

Does this somehow involve pumpkin seeds?

Yes, and let me finish anyways please. 

Let’s imagine that each player gets a big pile of pumpkin seeds at the start of the season. The total number of seeds is the number of games they will play time their season average. So, if Xerri is going to average 130, he gets 130*23 Pumpkin seeds, so that’s, um, (frantic paw activity)  2,990 total seeds for the season! Each game he eats some of the seeds. Some games he is hungry more than others and so eats more seeds. That means that the average number of seeds left per match goes down when he pigs out and goes up when he diets. So since he has eaten 258 seeds so far and has 21 games left, he has 2,732 seeds left meaning he can have 130 seeds a game with an extra every now and then. 

Bailey Dale has never averaged over 102, but let’s pretend we feel like he can go up to 110 this year. That means he got a total of 2,530 pumpkin seeds and has eaten 268 of them. That means he has 2,262 seeds left for 21 games, which is 107.7 seeds a game. He may have pigged out the first two matches, but if he is a 110 seeds a match average player, then his early season gluttony means he is sure to eat less, since he only has so many seeds and once he is out, he is out! 

I suppose you know all about seating up all available pumpkin seeds. 

(Small tear) Yes, yes I do….

I hate that he made sense

I hate that he made sense and I understood his pumpkin seeds based analogy. 

It was your idea you know, he just explained it. 

What about the opposite? When someone does not eat enough of their seeds so they have more seeds per match the rest of the season?

Well, we call those guys “Fallen Premiums.” You know that they can average more than they have, so their price is low and they will average more than they cost to buy. 

So, if that logic is fine why is it wrong the other way?

….um….

Can we call them Floating Premiums? Like, the opposite of Fallen Premiums? And instead of buying the cheap you sell them expensive before they do worse?

Oh no, he’s been right twice now. Once more in the same post and the world ends!

Maybe put that “berry” in his mouth please?

(Muffled squeak)

Yeah, well, I feel like the hamster is right. We have no problem assuming a guy who is underperforming will do better the rest of the season, even if he might now, and so what can;t we assume someone who is overperforming isn;t about to crash and burn?

Like Tom Green last season?

Ohhh, yeah. He ate 421 pumpkin seeds in his first three games, and then 2,031 left for the rest of the season, and averaged 101.55 after that.  And since he was priced at 111 seeds/match, people who brought him in were not happy. 

Some people brought him in after his first price rise.  Even worse.

 Disappointing if you started with him, but not the end of the world. But, bringing him in, well, even if you expected him to average 120 for the season he only had enough seeds to average 117. Far from bad, but that would have been counting on a 13 seed/match increase. Possible but going from 106.6 to 120 at 23? Can happen, and maybe early signs showed it, and now I am just rambling. Sorry. 

Please stop using seeds in your examples. 

Oh god, he got me doing it

(Muffled joyful squeak)

I guess my point was that someone with an unsustainable average is not going to sustain it, and while we always might have underestimated the season average, history shows that there just are not going to be that many players with high averages. Only so many points to go around after all. So, it might be worth our time to identify “floating premiums” and not only be careful bringing them in, but also sell them when they are still at an elevated price. 

 

 

 Dodgy Advice: Another week of everything above. Um….Wait a week to bring in Bailey Smith if you don’t have him already. He could be a late out or play hurt and be subbed, and his price won’t go up until after his next match. So, just wait rather than risk all the stuff that could go wrong maybe?  

 

Remember the Cow Talk guarantee: “All predictions wrong or triple your money back!”  (Offer not valid if money is actually involved.)

I am time zonally challenged.  When Cow Talk goes live, I’m probably asleep, so replies from me may take a while.

Thanks for reading!