AFL Round 12 AGS Value Watchlist

Footylab verdict

Value (small). This one clears the “value” trigger because Footylab has him about 33% to snag a goal, while the $4.00 price implies 25%: that’s roughly an 8-point gap, comfortably past the 5-point threshold (but not the 10-point “strong” line). The numbers like the Swans’ scoring environment and the matchup, which is exactly what you want when you’re backing a non-forward to hit the scoreboard.

Footylab verdict

Value (small). Footylab lands him around a 44% anytime chance, while $2.65 implies about 38%: a 6.4-point edge, enough to tick over the 5-point value rule (not close to the 10-point “strong” tier). It’s a role-led play: the model is basically saying his involvement is good enough that a single major is more live than the market is pricing.

Footylab verdict

Value (small). Footylab has him at about 34% to kick one, and $3.50 implies 28.6%: a 5.5-point gap, just over the value trigger. This isn’t a “must-have” bet, but it’s a clean example of the market being a touch conservative on a player whose scoring profile has some pop.

How it gets there

The supporting shape is explosiveness plus a healthy base goal rate. That’s the combo that suits players who can turn a broken play into a goal, or punish a moment of lost defensive connection with a quick mark-and-finish.

Footylab verdict

Value (small). The model makes him a 31.9% chance, versus 26.7% implied by $3.75, a 5.2-point edge that sneaks past the value threshold. It’s not screaming “must play”, but it’s a fair price mismatch for a midfielder who can drift forward and make one count.

Game script angle

When the Dogs’ attack environment is rated well and the match context leans towards scoring opportunities, the “mid kicks one” lane opens up. You don’t need a heap of shots; you need one forward-half stoppage win, one chain where he’s the extra, one free out the back.

Footylab verdict

Fair (aligned). This one doesn’t hit the 5-point trigger either way: Footylab has him about 42.5% to score, and $2.65 implies roughly 37.7%, a 4.8-point gap. That’s close, but not enough to call it value under the rules.

What the numbers are saying

The broader setup is friendly: strong team scoring environment and a soft-looking opponent profile. That’s why his chance is healthy. But the market’s already priced a lot of that in, so you’re not getting a meaningful discount.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff (strong). This is miles past the 10-point “strong” threshold in the wrong direction: Footylab has him about a 65% chance, but $1.01 implies 99%. That’s a 34-point gap. He can be the best key forward in the country and it still doesn’t make a single goal a near-certainty.

Why the price is the problem

The model loves the underlying scoring profile: elite base goal rate, strong recent form, big role. None of that is the issue. The issue is that footy doesn’t hand out guarantees. A tag, a niggle, a wet ball, a teammate getting hot, or just one of those nights where the first shot misses and the second never comes.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff (strong). Same story: Footylab has him around 64.7%, while $1.02 implies 98%. That’s a 33-point gap, well beyond the 10-point “strong” ripoff line. The model respects the role and the Swans’ attacking conditions, but the market’s priced him like a formality.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff (strong). This is a hard no at the current quote: Footylab has him about 33% to score, while $1.17 implies 85.5%. That’s a 52-point gap, comfortably beyond the 10-point “strong” threshold.

Role and reality check

Yes, the scoring indicators are respectable: recent form, base goal rate, and contested scoring all rate well enough to keep him in the conversation. But nothing in that profile supports the idea he’s an eight-or-nine-times-out-of-ten anytime scorer.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff (strong). The model has him just under 50% to score, but $1.06 implies 94.3%: a 44-point gap, well into “strong” ripoff territory.

What’s actually being priced

His scoring profile is solid: strong base rate, good recent form, and a matchup that can allow key forwards to get chances. That’s why Footylab still has him around a coin-flip.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff (strong). Footylab rates him about 51%, while $1.11 implies 90.1%. That’s a 39-point gap, a clear “strong” ripoff call.

The trap with short AGS favourites

He’s rated well on the usual scoring levers: base goal rate, recent form, and a profile that can generate shots. So yes, he’s more likely than not to score.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff (strong). Footylab has him at 53%, but $1.10 implies 90.9%: a 37.8-point gap, firmly “strong” ripoff.

Why he still rates well

The model isn’t down on him as a scorer. The role/opportunity score is big, the base goal rate is strong, and the explosiveness profile suggests he can turn half-chances into majors.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff (strong). Footylab has him at about 43%, while $1.20 implies 83.3%. That’s a 40-point gap, an easy “strong” ripoff.

Matchup isn’t enough

There are some positives in the profile, including a decent base goal rate and an opponent weakness rating that suggests chances can be conceded. That’s why he’s not rated low.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff (strong). Footylab makes him a 51% chance, but $1.12 implies 89.3%: a 38-point gap, well beyond the 10-point “strong” line.

What the model likes

This is a proper scoring profile: excellent base goal rate, strong recent form, and a forward-type position profile that supports repeatable chances. If you’re just asking “can he score?”, the answer is obviously yes.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff (strong). Footylab has him around 52.6%, while $1.11 implies 90.1%. That’s a 37.5-point gap: a “strong” ripoff by the rules.

The football read

He’s rated well for opportunity and explosiveness, which is how smalls and mediums often get there: ground-ball wins, front-and-square crumbs, and one clean finish. That’s a real scoring path.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff (strong). Footylab has him at 32.1%, while $1.40 implies 71.4%. That’s a 39-point gap, a clear “strong” ripoff.

Where the mismatch comes from

His recent scoring and team environment are only middling in this slate, and the opportunity/role score isn’t screaming “forward who lives inside 50”. That’s consistent with a player who can pop up, but not one you should be pricing like a regular scorer.