FanFooty Fanplanner 2009 (v2)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Research > Starting Squad > Trading > Luck.

Too hard to put it into percentage terms, but trading relies on your starting squad and your starting squad relies on your research. Pretty simplistic way at looking at it, but my brain's fried at the moment.

Luck's just an extra. It's more likely to have an impact earlier in the season. As the year goes on teams become more and more similar, so any 'luck', so to speak, is more likely to affect more people (if that makes any sense at all).
 

Log in to remove this ad.

lifelike_ said:
Research > Starting Squad > Trading > Luck.

Too hard to put it into percentage terms, but trading relies on your starting squad and your starting squad relies on your research. Pretty simplistic way at looking at it, but my brain's fried at the moment.

Luck's just an extra. It's more likely to have an impact earlier in the season. As the year goes on teams become more and more similar, so any 'luck', so to speak, is more likely to affect more people (if that makes any sense at all).
Click to expand...

Trading>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Starting Squad>Luck>>>>>Research
 
Taking luck out of the equation and focussing on what you can control we played around in NP with this for importance of each component:

Example team

This is a pretty stock standard BF DT for next year (ie run out of money by the time they select forwards!). Not a good team, but OK for illustrative purposes. We assume here that the players will score at their priced avg (price/MN).

Hodge (96.4)
Cornes (85.5)
Mattner (79.3)
Ibbotson (69.9)
Malceski (67.3)
Smith, JW (55.5)
Petterd (31.8)
91K Rookie
91K Rookie
Sum per week from BACKS: 486

Deledio (97.6)
Gibbs (87.3)
Lewis (83.1)
Cousins (52.9)
Hasleby (48.2)
Rich (27.6)
Sum per week from MIDS: 397

Cox (106.7)
McIntosh (66.9)
Sum per week from RUCKS: 174

Riewoldt (99.4)
Brown, NG (91.8)
Headland (59.3)
Lucas (50.2)
Higgins (43)
Yarran (25.5)
Ziebell (23.4)
Sum per week from FORWARDS: 393

(Assume Cox Capt)
WEEKLY SCORE: 1,556



If you choose a team where every player scores exactly what they are priced at, everybody has the same captain each week and everybody traded exactly the same then each team would be equal at years end so this needs to be the Base Starting Point and what I would focus on is how much improvement can be made from this point and what impact does each of the variables have.

I'll put down some numbers to explain from your example above:-


Initial Team

Allow 800K for bench rookies and target your starting team to achieve around 1900 ppw pre-trading.

I'll work on a standard DT team to keep things aligned. Initially, you have a starting lineup which if they all score to their average (assume Cox captain) will score 1556 ppw. Therefore 1556 x 22 weeks is your base starting point. Then base your expected scores for each player to come up with an expected score for the team pre-trade which in the example team is 1916 ppw therefore 1916 x 22 is the anticipated total weekly scores. The difference between the 2 is actually the value of your starting lineup.


Base starting Point : 1556 x 22 = 34,232
Expected Initial Value of Starting lineup: 1916 x 22 = 42,152
Value of starting lineup (Expected - Base) : 42,152 - 34,232 = 7,920 points


Assumption here is that every player will play 22 games and emergencies will never be used. This potentially brings a 4th variable in being durability of your team which will have a separate but related impact on total starting lineup score. I have left durability out of the calculation as it could impact both the base and expected value so would be best treated separately.

Captains

To find the base starting point here we need to make an assumption of the difference between a good and bad captain average. Based on some of the captain averages posted on this thread I would assume 100 is base and 115 is solid therefore multiplied by 22 weeks:

Base Starting Point : 100 x 22 = 2,200
Expected Value : 115 x 22 = 2530
Value of Captains : 330 points


Trades

Working with this as the final variable in the perfect world your trades would then need to do the rest to get you to the required 45,000 points as follows. Therefore trades would need to net you 2518 points to get you to 45,000. You can then use this figure to actually predict how much value in terms of points each trade should add to your team. Assume 5 trades for LTIs means that 15 trades need to make you 2518 points or 168 points per trade. With double trades obviously this becomes 336 points. Slightly off topic but looking at the trading period if a trade was made in the following weeks here's how many ppw it would need to improve your team by to get this number:

Rd 6 : 10 ppw
Rd 9 : 13 ppw
Rd 12 : 17 ppw
Rd 15 : 24 ppw

with double trades obviously twice this figure.

Summary

Anyway, back on track and summarising the above is the following:-



Base starting point from original team : 34,232 points

plus starting team improvements : 7,920 points

plus captains improvements : 330 points

plus trading improvements : 2518 points

Total : 45,000 points



Therefore the focus should be on required improvement from base to victory which in this case is 45,000 - 34,232 = 10,768 points


The %s for each variable are therefore:

Starting Team : 7,920 / 10,768 x 100 = 74%

Trading : 2,518 / 10,768 x 100 = 23%

Captains : 330 / 10,768 x 100 = 3%



The crossover here is that your trading improvement is directly impacted by the starting lineup you choose. If you initially choose good cash cows these will allow you to cash in more hence improve your team directly through the money made as well as prudent trading. From where I sit it's impossible to align exactly how much impact this has as opposed to the timing and value the actual trades create for your team. I would have to think though that it adds at least 5-10% to the value of your starting lineup and reduces the same amount from your trading.

As mentioned earlier the other impact is durability as you could choose a team with the Drummonds / Ruslings of the world that has the potential to score over 2000 ppw initially but has massive risk involved. Really difficult again to pin down the exact value or otherwise this represents as every player has a different risk attached.




Bax also added the following commentary which is relevant:-


If you look at it from this perspective (ie where you are sourcing the required improvement points from) we need to recognise that it’s really all about ranges of %, not absolutes.

If your base 22 scored at it’s 08 average, you’d score 34,232 points, 76% of the required 45,000 total points. So you’re really only chasing the remaining 24%, which is a combination of improvement within the selected players, trading and Captain choice.

However the relative proportion associated with each of these (as a %) is dependent on the squad you have selected. For example, I could have selected 22 players that filled the exact same cap, but without the same likely improvement per player (ie Newton over Lucas). Likewise, you could select a team that you project to improve to make up exactly 10,768 points (or 24%). The value of 7,920 is not static – it is variable depending on your initial team selection. So the starting team improvements can be responsible for anywhere between 0-100% of the required improvement (it could probably also be a negative value if you draft really badly).

Captains are a bit different however. If we have capped the max range of Captain scoring at 115, then the maximum % the Captain can contribute is 660 points, or 6% (15x22x2).

Trading just fills whatever else is required after your squad’s improvement and Capt choice. It is opportunistic and depending on injury/suspension could be responsible for 0-100% of the required improvement too. The worse your original drafting is, and the more you get hammered by injury/suspension during the season, the higher the % significance of trading will be.

For example, I draft a squad I think is reasonably capable of a projected score of 45,000, but I am an avg picker of Captains (true!) and they only score at their previous year’s avg. The % for each variable is therefore:
Starting team: 10,768 / 10,768 x 100 = 100%
Trading: 0 / 10,768 x 100 = 0%
Captains: 0 / 10,768 x 100 = 0%

If however, I have half a dozen of my players playing to their spudly 08 avg, I may find that my starting team can only make up 8,500 / 10,768 = 79%, which means my trading is now worth 21%. If my drafting went to hell completely, I might find that my starting team can only make up 5,000 / 10,768 = 46%, making me rely on trading for 54% of the points.

I think the takeaway from all of this thought for me is that if I can draft right, the trading becomes far less important – trading is more about covering injuries and seizing opportunities to grab premiums when down on price. Pre-season the most important thing you can do is draft right (ie to maximise value). During the season, the most important thing you can do is trade right. Hardly rocket science I know.



And this thought is probably also relevant as a final summary:

In almost every case value will be aligned to risk so to choose a team which can score 45,000 points initially will most likely have substantial risk relating to injury prone players and / or heavily rookie based. High risk / reward stuff. The key is to find the balance where your team has enough upside to get you home through trading but not too much risk where you burn all your trades or cop zeros. I actually think that to start with a team scoring expectation of around 1900 similar to your example team is a solid option. As long as this has sufficient cows for upgrading it would leave you in the mix at the business end. 1800 leaves too much work later on and 2000 will be full of risk. Each to their own though.



So if you can digest all that for a standard team with average risk the breakdown is 74% starting team, 23% trading and 3% captains.
 
Great Post Dogs, fantastic, and yes I actually did read it all! :p

Ive always been of the opinion that the starting team is crucial, and IMO, you get more unique teams at the start then trades through out the year.
 
Yeah nice work dogs, please dont tell me you just write all that out than ??

I get the gisted of it and for that to be actually worked at mathmatically is amazing i wish i was apart of the NP. You seem to come up with answers for everything.
 
I've added discussion features to the bottom of all player profiles on FanFooty now, so you can see what people think about each player, and add your own thoughts. I'll add a dynamic list of the most recent comments to the front page once a few of you start commenting.

Also, you should see a player search feature on the right side of the menu at the top of the page. It's not perfect, but it will pick up on most first names or surnames you type in, or parts thereof. I'll have to work on those three-word surnames like Cox, they're not coming up at the moment.
 
54Dogs said:
Taking luck out of the equation and focussing on what you can control we played around in NP with this for importance of each component:

Example team

This is a pretty stock standard BF DT for next year (ie run out of money by the time they select forwards!). Not a good team, but OK for illustrative purposes. We assume here that the players will score at their priced avg (price/MN).

Hodge (96.4)
Cornes (85.5)
Mattner (79.3)
Ibbotson (69.9)
Malceski (67.3)
Smith, JW (55.5)
Petterd (31.8)
91K Rookie
91K Rookie
Sum per week from BACKS: 486

Deledio (97.6)
Gibbs (87.3)
Lewis (83.1)
Cousins (52.9)
Hasleby (48.2)
Rich (27.6)
Sum per week from MIDS: 397

Cox (106.7)
McIntosh (66.9)
Sum per week from RUCKS: 174

Riewoldt (99.4)
Brown, NG (91.8)
Headland (59.3)
Lucas (50.2)
Higgins (43)
Yarran (25.5)
Ziebell (23.4)
Sum per week from FORWARDS: 393

(Assume Cox Capt)
WEEKLY SCORE: 1,556



If you choose a team where every player scores exactly what they are priced at, everybody has the same captain each week and everybody traded exactly the same then each team would be equal at years end so this needs to be the Base Starting Point and what I would focus on is how much improvement can be made from this point and what impact does each of the variables have.

I'll put down some numbers to explain from your example above:-


Initial Team

Allow 800K for bench rookies and target your starting team to achieve around 1900 ppw pre-trading.

I'll work on a standard DT team to keep things aligned. Initially, you have a starting lineup which if they all score to their average (assume Cox captain) will score 1556 ppw. Therefore 1556 x 22 weeks is your base starting point. Then base your expected scores for each player to come up with an expected score for the team pre-trade which in the example team is 1916 ppw therefore 1916 x 22 is the anticipated total weekly scores. The difference between the 2 is actually the value of your starting lineup.


Base starting Point : 1556 x 22 = 34,232
Expected Initial Value of Starting lineup: 1916 x 22 = 42,152
Value of starting lineup (Expected - Base) : 42,152 - 34,232 = 7,920 points


Assumption here is that every player will play 22 games and emergencies will never be used. This potentially brings a 4th variable in being durability of your team which will have a separate but related impact on total starting lineup score. I have left durability out of the calculation as it could impact both the base and expected value so would be best treated separately.

Captains

To find the base starting point here we need to make an assumption of the difference between a good and bad captain average. Based on some of the captain averages posted on this thread I would assume 100 is base and 115 is solid therefore multiplied by 22 weeks:

Base Starting Point : 100 x 22 = 2,200
Expected Value : 115 x 22 = 2530
Value of Captains : 330 points


Trades

Working with this as the final variable in the perfect world your trades would then need to do the rest to get you to the required 45,000 points as follows. Therefore trades would need to net you 2518 points to get you to 45,000. You can then use this figure to actually predict how much value in terms of points each trade should add to your team. Assume 5 trades for LTIs means that 15 trades need to make you 2518 points or 168 points per trade. With double trades obviously this becomes 336 points. Slightly off topic but looking at the trading period if a trade was made in the following weeks here's how many ppw it would need to improve your team by to get this number:

Rd 6 : 10 ppw
Rd 9 : 13 ppw
Rd 12 : 17 ppw
Rd 15 : 24 ppw

with double trades obviously twice this figure.

Summary

Anyway, back on track and summarising the above is the following:-



Base starting point from original team : 34,232 points

plus starting team improvements : 7,920 points

plus captains improvements : 330 points

plus trading improvements : 2518 points

Total : 45,000 points



Therefore the focus should be on required improvement from base to victory which in this case is 45,000 - 34,232 = 10,768 points


The %s for each variable are therefore:

Starting Team : 7,920 / 10,768 x 100 = 74%

Trading : 2,518 / 10,768 x 100 = 23%

Captains : 330 / 10,768 x 100 = 3%



The crossover here is that your trading improvement is directly impacted by the starting lineup you choose. If you initially choose good cash cows these will allow you to cash in more hence improve your team directly through the money made as well as prudent trading. From where I sit it's impossible to align exactly how much impact this has as opposed to the timing and value the actual trades create for your team. I would have to think though that it adds at least 5-10% to the value of your starting lineup and reduces the same amount from your trading.

As mentioned earlier the other impact is durability as you could choose a team with the Drummonds / Ruslings of the world that has the potential to score over 2000 ppw initially but has massive risk involved. Really difficult again to pin down the exact value or otherwise this represents as every player has a different risk attached.




Bax also added the following commentary which is relevant:-


If you look at it from this perspective (ie where you are sourcing the required improvement points from) we need to recognise that it’s really all about ranges of %, not absolutes.

If your base 22 scored at it’s 08 average, you’d score 34,232 points, 76% of the required 45,000 total points. So you’re really only chasing the remaining 24%, which is a combination of improvement within the selected players, trading and Captain choice.

However the relative proportion associated with each of these (as a %) is dependent on the squad you have selected. For example, I could have selected 22 players that filled the exact same cap, but without the same likely improvement per player (ie Newton over Lucas). Likewise, you could select a team that you project to improve to make up exactly 10,768 points (or 24%). The value of 7,920 is not static – it is variable depending on your initial team selection. So the starting team improvements can be responsible for anywhere between 0-100% of the required improvement (it could probably also be a negative value if you draft really badly).

Captains are a bit different however. If we have capped the max range of Captain scoring at 115, then the maximum % the Captain can contribute is 660 points, or 6% (15x22x2).

Trading just fills whatever else is required after your squad’s improvement and Capt choice. It is opportunistic and depending on injury/suspension could be responsible for 0-100% of the required improvement too. The worse your original drafting is, and the more you get hammered by injury/suspension during the season, the higher the % significance of trading will be.

For example, I draft a squad I think is reasonably capable of a projected score of 45,000, but I am an avg picker of Captains (true!) and they only score at their previous year’s avg. The % for each variable is therefore:
Starting team: 10,768 / 10,768 x 100 = 100%
Trading: 0 / 10,768 x 100 = 0%
Captains: 0 / 10,768 x 100 = 0%

If however, I have half a dozen of my players playing to their spudly 08 avg, I may find that my starting team can only make up 8,500 / 10,768 = 79%, which means my trading is now worth 21%. If my drafting went to hell completely, I might find that my starting team can only make up 5,000 / 10,768 = 46%, making me rely on trading for 54% of the points.

I think the takeaway from all of this thought for me is that if I can draft right, the trading becomes far less important – trading is more about covering injuries and seizing opportunities to grab premiums when down on price. Pre-season the most important thing you can do is draft right (ie to maximise value). During the season, the most important thing you can do is trade right. Hardly rocket science I know.



And this thought is probably also relevant as a final summary:

In almost every case value will be aligned to risk so to choose a team which can score 45,000 points initially will most likely have substantial risk relating to injury prone players and / or heavily rookie based. High risk / reward stuff. The key is to find the balance where your team has enough upside to get you home through trading but not too much risk where you burn all your trades or cop zeros. I actually think that to start with a team scoring expectation of around 1900 similar to your example team is a solid option. As long as this has sufficient cows for upgrading it would leave you in the mix at the business end. 1800 leaves too much work later on and 2000 will be full of risk. Each to their own though.



So if you can digest all that for a standard team with average risk the breakdown is 74% starting team, 23% trading and 3% captains.
Click to expand...

huh???:confused:
 
Tarquin said:
huh??
Click to expand...
i think he means your not suppost to reply to a massive post like that with a one word answer, on the main board i think Chief had a thread called festival of the red card IIRC and he said you will get carded if you give a one word answer to a big post like that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mitchell12345 said:
thoughts abotu brent reily
Click to expand...

abotu brent reily?

Hmm. Hard to answer that eccentric question.

If you have time, using proper grammar would be most appropriate most would agree on the DT Board. We set high standards.

Arghhhh. Don't we DWD? :p;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top