DT Defenders 2010

[jjcs]

This is the biggest and most common fallacy I see in these parts.

You have a set number of dollars to spend.

Everyone's price is based on their average.

Therefore, you make your team better by spending dollars on players that are *underpriced*

It is proven year and year again that a team made of premiums and mid pricers can win this game without any trades, let alone with 20 trades.

There is a huge scope for improvement out there and to get 30 players that are all improving will do better than picking up the 500k+ guy that others get for 10% cheaper.

If you spend 1.2 mil on 2 players that average 120 and one that averages 50, you will not be ahead of the value picks of a player who get's 3 players who average 100.

It comes down to the improvement of the players that you pick. Not the price of the players that you pick.

Agreed. In DT, as in life, you get what you pay for.

I think people see Swan and go "ohh.. he scored 120, I must be losing points by not having him"

 

[ANGEL DARK]

This is the biggest and most common fallacy I see in these parts.

You have a set number of dollars to spend.

Everyone's price is based on their average.

Therefore, you make your team better by spending dollars on players that are *underpriced*

It is proven year and year again that a team made of premiums and mid pricers can win this game without any trades, let alone with 20 trades.

There is a huge scope for improvement out there and to get 30 players that are all improving will do better than picking up the 500k+ guy that others get for 10% cheaper.

If you spend 1.2 mil on 2 players that average 120 and one that averages 50, you will not be ahead of the value picks of a player who get's 3 players who average 100.

It comes down to the improvement of the players that you pick. Not the price of the players that you pick.

If you spend 1.2 mil on 2 players that average 120 and one that averages 50, you will not be ahead of the value picks of a player who get's 3 players who average 100.
Your point above is correct in a way but the point i am making is that the 2 premium players that average 120 can be relied upon cosistantly to give you that 120 each week where as how often are your 2 value picks going to give you an average of 100 a week to keep up with my premiums.
I would be very surprised if you can find 3 value picks who can average 100 each week as consistantly as the premiums do so over time the 2 premium 1 rookie option will usually win out over the 3 value picks.

 

[Walesy]

If you spend 1.2 mil on 2 players that average 120 and one that averages 50, you will not be ahead of the value picks of a player who get's 3 players who average 100.
Your point above is correct in a way but the point i am making is that the 2 premium players that average 120 can be relied upon cosistantly to give you that 120 each week where as how often are your 2 value picks going to give you an average of 100 a week to keep up with my premiums.
I would be very surprised if you can pick 3 value picks who can average 100 each week as consistantly as the premiums do so over time the 2 premium 1 rookie option will usually win out over the 3 value picks.

For 1.2 mil, you can pick three players whos current average is 90.

I ask you, can you pick three players, at around that price, who can improve by 30ppg between the three of them?

Cause if you don't think you can, you're doing it wrong.

 

[ANGEL DARK]

For 1.2 mil, you can pick three players whos current average is 90.

I ask you, can you pick three players, at around that price, who can improve by 30ppg between the three of them?

Cause if you don't think you can, you're doing it wrong.

I dont think your in a postion to be telling people whether they are doing things right or wrong as there are many different strategys that people have used over the years to win DT but take a look at the strategy used by previous winners before telling people they are right or wrong
If i go the 2 premium 1 rookie option i cant see my premiums improving by all that much but who cares if they are amongst the top scorers in the comp. All i am saying is that they are likely to be safe to maintain their average and if they do i am happy with that.
There is more risk involved in the likelyhood of you trying to find 3 players who can improve their avarage by 30ppg in the 400k price bracket than there is with the 2 premium 1 rookie option that i am proposing

 

[Dr Awkward]

But nobody is playing 2v2 here.

We've all got 30 players.

your Swan/Trengrove vs my Armatige/Masten suddenly means that our of the *next* 6 midfielders we pick, you can't pick Trengove anymore.

I still can.

No but Im not just talking about Trengove Im talking about all players.

So basically if you have something like Swan, Mitchell, Armitage, Masten, Trengove, Barlow, then IMO its is better to have it Swan, Mitchell Ablett Scully Trengove Barlow.

I dont think that midprice players in the midfield offer much to be honest.

 

[Walesy]

I dont think your in a postion to be telling people whether they are doing things right or wrong as there are many different strategys that people have used over the years to win DT but take a look at the strategy used by previous winners before telling people they are right or wrong
If i go the 2 premium 1 rookie option i cant see my premiums improving by all that much but who cares if they are amongst the top scorers in the comp. All i am saying is that they are likely to be safe to maintain their average and if they do i am happy with that.
There is more risk involved in the likelyhood of you picking 3 players who can improve their avarage by 30ppg in the 400k price bracket than there is with the 2 premium 1 rookie option that i am proposing

I wasn't saying your strategy is wrong, I was just asking if you could find 3 players priced around 400k that you believed would average 100 this year.

It's likely that the top end players go down in price. Not hold their average. According to history anyways.

So if you define "less risk" as choosing players that will 95 times out of 100 go down in average, on the hope that they hold their average, then all the power to you.

 

[WoGiTaLiA]

Value is important but not everything, there will be guys who lose value for you this year.

Goddard is the perfect example. He is unlikely to increase much, if at all, this year but he is also 10 points better than the other backs and unless you think he falls in the first 5 rounds badly he is worth having from round 1 because there is a limit on trades. You need to pick probably 14 guys at the start that are in your final team. I'm sure you could take a punt and try and land everyone who improves to that status but I think it is safer and far more likely that you land 14 if say 10 of those guys are sure things. That gives you 20 picks to try and find the other 4 keepers with the hope that the other 16 guys improve enough that you can round out the 22. The more keepers you can find the better. Right now my team has 13 guys that I have locked in as keepers, Premiums as you will. I have a further 4 guys that I hope to be keepers if things go well. That means that I have around 15 trades to upgrade between 9 and 5 players. Leaving 5 trades for injuries or just a player that falls to pieces on me and despite my best judgement falls out of premium status.

I find that a solid structure and it has some wiggle room and alternatives but I feel as though my team is fairly well set and I will most likely go with that structure at the end.

 

[Walesy]

No but Im not just talking about Trengove Im talking about all players.

So basically if you have something like Swan, Mitchell, Armitage, Masten, Trengove, Barlow, then IMO its is better to have it Swan, Mitchell Ablett Scully Trengove Barlow.

I dont think that midprice players in the midfield offer much to be honest.

But what about Mitchell, Selwood, Gibbs, Pendles, Ball, Trengove And spending less elsewhere?

No position is played out alone, you've got a whole team to fill, and your strategy effects all of it.

 

[Narkee]

But what about Mitchell, Selwood, Gibbs, Pendles, Ball, Trengove And spending less elsewhere?

No position is played out alone, you've got a whole team to fill, and your strategy effects all of it.

As long as you are finding value elsewhere, then it is all good.

 

[Walesy]

As long as you are finding value elsewhere, then it is all good.

That's assuming that all those players are fully priced and have no room for improvement.

 

[caddyhawk]

I ask you, can you pick three players, at around that price, who can improve by 30ppg between the three of them?

As long as one of them is Dustin Martin. He'll improve by 30ppg by himself alone at his price.

 

[54Dogs]

Thread has reached 1000 posts. Please move to part 2.