Midfield structure - your theories

[Captain Jim]

Great thread - strong work. All the above ideas have some merit and in the season that comes any could be proven the best. Unfortunately hindsight tends to reveal these things most clearly.

A great DT will get the rough theory right in all the 4 position for that given year - that being finding the best structure in each position which in turn works well with the best structures in the other 3 to fit under the salary cap. (Im confusing myself already but will plow on regardless....) To clarify - for example it may be deciding if you have to enough Rookie cover on your Backs bench without Hill or are happy to start a rookie forward that ultimately decides if you go from ABC -> Swan -> Gibbs -> Boak -> Masten -> Haselby -> etc etc..

I think the most important thing last year would have been to nail the mid-priced forwards that became either premiums or at least keepers (Lids, Buddy, Murphy, Didak, Burton/Porps while they lasted) and mid-priced backs that were solid and didn't get injured (McMahon n Co). Getting those 2 possies right and then fitting a midfield that first included Nick Stevens and then got best use of your remaining money would probably have done you very well (obviously providing you got a few good cash cows in place).

I guess my point is that last year, probably due to the increased options of high scoring players in the mids compared with other positions, the mids were more flexible than forwards or backs. The best midfield theory in the world is only as good as it allows the rest of the field to be.

I have probably been stating the obvious to most but it may help some...

To get back on track and make my eventual point - I believe a good midfield structure would exploit the value in:

1. 350 - 400k improvers
2. 250 - 300k upgrade projects

The cash you have left from elsewhere should then dictate what the remainder of your midfield does.

Sorry if that doesn't answer some people's definition of midfield structure but that is how I look at mine.

 

[Lakey91]

I think the value between the averages of 70-80 has been neglected alot by people. People jumping on cheaper options (reilly, hasleby, tuck, masten, ebert) and the more expensive options (sewell, boak, gibbs, judd), but not alot of talk for those between 70-80.

This is the price range IMO. <70 you are unlikely to get a keeper, >80 you want a good keeper, in between you can find the players that break out and become that keeper (like murphy and deledio). In most of the planteams ive seen in the threads, there has been very very few picks in this price range.

I know you have to pick what you think the value players are, but this price range could save you a fair few trades IMO.

 

[Saint KFC]

I think the value between the averages of 70-80 has been neglected alot by people. People jumping on cheaper options (reilly, hasleby, tuck, masten, ebert) and the more expensive options (sewell, boak, gibbs, judd), but not alot of talk for those between 70-80.

This is the price range IMO. <70 you are unlikely to get a keeper, >80 you want a good keeper, in between you can find the players that break out and become that keeper (like murphy and deledio). In most of the planteams ive seen in the threads, there has been very very few picks in this price range.

I know you have to pick what you think the value players are, but this price range could save you a fair few trades IMO.

Just some options I have spotted in the 70's range -

Griffen
Kerr
Harris
Vince
Foley
Pearce
Houli
Schammer
N. Jones


Can't say that any really take my fancy...

 

[sante]

Midfield always has the best value, so I always look to settle the other positions first.

I try to find the cheaper midfielders who I'm confident are ready to break out, meaning I save cash and maybe trades.

The structure I like having is one premium, 3 rookies (under 200k and one starting) and the other 4 where I see value.

 

[Hodges]

I think the most important thing last year would have been to nail the mid-priced forwards that became either premiums or at least keepers (Lids, Buddy, Murphy, Didak, Burton/Porps while they lasted) and mid-priced backs that were solid and didn't get injured (McMahon n Co). Getting those 2 possies right and then fitting a midfield that first included Nick Stevens and then got best use of your remaining money would probably have done you very well (obviously providing you got a few good cash cows in place).

I would agree with this. Last year was a bit unique in that you had two players who were near-guarantees in every team (Simmonds and Stevens) and a lot more mid priced talent. I started with Dids, Lids, Porps and Buddy, managed to avoid most of the backline troubles and winged my way into 7th overall.

I see this year as being a lot more challenging, due to less of these "lock" options. The rucks require some actual thought this year, the injured mid is actually a risky choice (Stevens was never really that risky - he was medically cleared) and the mid-priced talent just isnt there in the forwards.

Should be a good season.

 

[Bease Lo]

1. Having ABC at the start, with a 110 starting price, is going to end up costing you money. Sure, they will give you valuable captaincy points. But it is likely that they will fall in price. Even if they still average 110ppg, they will fall several tens of thousands by the magic number changing alone. If they average around 100ppg, they will fall (projected) close to 100k. Oh, I'm sure 1, maybe 2, of ABC will average 110 anyway.

How do you know that the Magic Number is going to change (decrease?)?
Also seems you have a fair idea by how much for you to say 'tens of thousands'. How do you arrive at this?

Also, if the Magic Number does inflate/deflate, wouldnt it all be relative to some extent ie you may lose 10K on AB&C but could lose 8K or so on someone else? = small difference.

 

[thebaxters]

<snip>In brief, I think your top 3 starting mids should be your bottom three final mids.

I went in to 08 with this theory, holding Swan, Cross and Salopek. But I got lucky last year with this, I admit.

1. Having ABC at the start, with a 110 starting price, is going to end up costing you money. Sure, they will give you valuable captaincy points. But it is likely that they will fall in price. Even if they still average 110ppg, they will fall several tens of thousands by the magic number changing alone. If they average around 100ppg, they will fall (projected) close to 100k. Oh, I'm sure 1, maybe 2, of ABC will average 110 anyway. But can you be sure you'll pick the right one? It's going to be near impossible for any of ABC to hold their price.

Very true. Highly likely that ABC will shed value by the time you look to get them in. You just have to weigh up how much value against the points you think you'll lose in the interim.

4. Around rd 7-8, the effect of magic number deflation starts wearing off, meaning that guns like ABC will be bottom-priced, your rookies will be cash cowed and ready to trade down, and hopefully one of Hasleby/Mackay/Rich will be ready to trade up.

I think their lowest prices last year were actually around Rd 21-22... but that doesn't do you much good in DT terms.

Disagree because whilst midfielders are relatively conistent and you can often have to wait a while to grab a real good one, the forwards/backs are much more inconsistent and there are many more opportunities to pick them up. Just my thoughts though.

They may be more consistent, but the value the premiums drop by playing to their avg just through MN changes make mids a nice upgrade target too.

I am going for a completely new structure to my mids this season, I am starting 5 mids above the 400k mark with my 6th mid being Haselby...see how it goes.

I like that idea actually. Long as they all hold their avg this will score some monsters.

Bartel
Ablett
Corey
Swan
Kane
Cross

Cant get much better than that! I dont know baxters starting lineup, but i think a final midfield like this is more achievable with players like reilly and hasleby who can be straight swapped to fallen ABCS. Id say id start with kane and cross, 3 lower mid pricers (not potential keepers) and a rookie, and this would probably be possible. But this is dangerous, as if the trades dont like up when your lower mid pricers dont peak, you could be left with a player averaging 80-85 in the closing rounds (round 15 onwards), whereas dageus would have a potential keeper (85-95 say) sitting there - much better.

Started with:
Swan
Cross
Salopek
Stevens
Houli
T.Tuck

Tuck>Masten in Rd 5 when Tuck got injured, Houli>Kornes in Rd 7, Palmer>Bartel in Rd 11, Stevens>Corey in Rd 12 and Salopek>Ablett in Rd 14 (Sal injured with achilles). So mids set by Rd 14.

I traded anyone who wasn't a final 6 mid, whether they were rookie or midpriced. I didn't get top price on the trade out for some (ie Palmer was 310K when I traded him to Bartel at 417K), but the players mentioned had all appreciated between 80-200K when they left my team.

<snip>Baxters final mids average was 105.23 (average of averages). Dageus was 100.87

Yet baxter finished 2nd and dageus 4th. Shows that BOTH structures can be very successful. I think the fact dageus picked good mid pricers meant he used less trades in midfield than baxters would of, meaning he was stronger in other areas, and probably had his team set earlier.

<snip>
Baxters situation is probably more likely to occur when you start with end in mind, hence why aiming high for your final team with the top guns. Dageus situation is probably more like thinking about getting your team set as early as possible.

I used 8 trades in my midfield all up, and it was set at Rd 12 (was going to keep Salopek), with Salopek getting injured I made my last mid trade to final 6 in Rd 14.

But you're right lakey in that both structures worked just fine, and that is something we all need to consider. There is no magic formula... any number of structure permutations can get up in any year. So just choose the players you are comfortable with and run with it!

 

[thebaxters]

1. Having ABC at the start, with a 110 starting price, is going to end up costing you money. Sure, they will give you valuable captaincy points. But it is likely that they will fall in price. Even if they still average 110ppg, they will fall several tens of thousands by the magic number changing alone. If they average around 100ppg, they will fall (projected) close to 100k. Oh, I'm sure 1, maybe 2, of ABC will average 110 anyway.

How do you know that the Magic Number is going to change (decrease?)?
Also seems you have a fair idea by how much for you to say 'tens of thousands'. How do you arrive at this?

Also, if the Magic Number does inflate/deflate, wouldnt it all be relative to some extent ie you may lose 10K on AB&C but could lose 8K or so on someone else? = small difference.

Because it does change... players are worth their least at the end of the season. And you're right - it is all relative, but the numbers are pretty big.

Here's an example of what Kid A is talking about. This is historical data from 08 showing curves for players at 50K intervals assuming they had scored their 2007 average every Rd. It uses the real MN changes that occurred in the 2008 season.

It shows a slightly steeper drop in curve over the first few Rd's for the more expensive players; a drop in value of 45K over the season for a 450K player, to a drop of 15K over the season for a 150K player, so nominally a 10% reduction in 2008 for players who scored their average.

What it means in DT...
If you get a premium, they will have to outscore their avg by 10% over the year to be worth what they were in Rd 1, in other words the most premiumest premiums are likely to represent negative value.

NOTE - The curves are a little bit off because I had to choose players around the right price bracket who scored about their 2007 average in Rd 1 2008. FYI the players shown are: Chapman, Power, Salopek, Johncock, Maxwell, Slattery, Leuenberger and Bird.

So, there is your rule of thumb - a 10% loss by playing to their previous season avg. The more the player is worth, the more value they shed by playing to their avg. It means that Cox at 473K will lose 47K if he scored 107 every Rd this year. It means he would drop a lot more if he only avgd 100. This was one of the fundamental points in the rucks thread - think about what you are choosing; understand the potential downside of a "lock" player.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There is no magic formula... any number of structure permutations can get up in any year. So just choose the players you are comfortable with and run with it!

This is what I've been pushing all summer. Threads about structure are often 90% garbage. The time would better spent watching footy and reading training reports.

 

[Lakey91]

KFD - Well i dont see that much in the 70-80 price range either to be honest, but in hindsight, i reckon 1-2 of these players could average 85-95 come years end.

Good post bax (i love those price depreciation curves!).

I traded anyone who wasn't a final 6 mid, whether they were rookie or midpriced. I didn't get top price on the trade out for some (ie Palmer was 310K when I traded him to Bartel at 417K), but the players mentioned had all appreciated between 80-200K when they left my team.

Do you mean as in a top 6 mid? Or a mid in your final team? I remember reading how much better off you were having corey in second half of year rather than stevens. This trade would of been interesting at the time as he could of passed as your 6th mid.

Thats a great midfield you had there, and would of obviously netted you alot of points in later rounds. I wonder when dageus had his midfield set? He could of quite easily started with corey, cross, murphy, stevens (4 of his keepers).

Cerpin taxt, while yes you can be successful with any formula, i think it is good to look at the different strategies used by the best of the best to better understand what sort of mindset and style worked for them. This, helps develop your own understanding of DT and DT strategy, that better enables you to achieve highly.

 

[_RT_]

I'm presently tossing up between the following midfields. The first one gives me an extra captain option as I presently only have Cox as a real Capt choice, the second lets me get an extra mid priced forward option who I'm not really that keen on but think could also be good value

1. Ablett, Selwood, Gibbs, Pendlebury, Griffin, Masten & 2x $86k rookie

or

2. Selwood, Gibbs, Pendlebury, Griffin, Rielly, Tuck & 2x $86k rookie

 

[chadleverington]

I'm presently tossing up between the following midfields. The first one gives me an extra captain option as I presently only have Cox as a real Capt choice, the second lets me get an extra mid priced forward option who I'm not really that keen on but think could also be good value

1. Ablett, Selwood, Gibbs, Pendlebury, Griffin, Masten & 2x $86k rookie

or

2. Selwood, Gibbs, Pendlebury, Griffin, Rielly, Tuck & 2x $86k rookie

Reduces down to
1 Ablett,Masten
2 Rielly,Tuck

Which tuck are you looking at? If it is Travis Tuck then i would go Ablett and Masten. Ablett premium and Masten a potential keeper.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Ablett and Masten by a mile.

Reilly is injury-prone and Tuck is no certainty to be a keeper. Tuck may average more than Masten, but Masten will play 22 games.

 

[LemmingMaster]

Tuck may average more than Masten, but Masten will play 22 games.

What odds are you offering for that?

I would not mind putting my money on Masten not playing 22 games.

 

[the egg]

Haha all these theories and mathematical equations are hilarious. If your thinking of putting together a side relying on prices to fluctuate in the first 7-8 rounds to improve your side your kidding yourself, because something will ALWAYS go wrong! You'll get smoked with an injury somewhere which will delay an upgrade which which stuff up something else.

My Theory: Pick a solid squad (mostly keepers with a couple of midd range players and a couple of rookies who you think will play early on).

It's not rocket science people. Watch a game of footy for a change and don't rely on fanfooty statistics

ps...select Hasleby at your own risk

 

[LemmingMaster]

the egg, I love your theory, pick a solid side. The best way to pick a solid side is to understand the "rocket science" behind Dream Team.

The convicts won last year and finished third the year before, did not even know what Bartel looked like. (Well so he said)

So please explain who he managed to finish so high, without even knowing what the God of DT looked like?

So Mr Egg, before you get a little more egg on your face, maybe you should stop and think a little. There might just be something to learn from all these "rocket scientists"

 

[the egg]

the egg, I love your theory, pick a solid side. The best way to pick a solid side is to understand the "rocket science" behind Dream Team.

The convicts won last year and finished third the year before, did not even know what Bartel looked like. (Well so he said)

So please explain who he managed to finish so high, without even knowing what the God of DT looked like?

So Mr Egg, before you get a little more egg on your face, maybe you should stop and think a little. There might just be something to learn from all these "rocket scientists"

Mate the bloke who was behind the convicts obviously watches, knows and loves his footy. I don't beleive for a second that he didn't know what Bartel looked like. You need alot of luck in dreamteam and i do beleive that research is essential. But whipping out these graphs and such is going a bit overboard....it's a new year, teams/players will rise and fall, new playing positions and uncontrollable outcomes such as injuries will occur.

Your not going to succeed by following others. I bet 90% of people on here didn't even know Hasleby was icing his need after the Freo v Kangas practice match, and that he also played shithouse...that's enough for me to de-select him.

I finished top 25 two years ago when we weren't getting fed info on a plate by fanfooty and these emails etc etc. Backing your own knowledge and learning from mistakes is how you become a good DT'er.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What odds are you offering for that?

I would not mind putting my money on Masten not playing 22 games.

He's had an uninterrupted preseason, was a #3 draft-pick, fills an on-field need, and is best 22.

What's the problem with the claim? Was wrapped in cotton wool last year but still managed an average of 69.

You should probably drop the attitude, this is a dream team board.

 

[the egg]

He's had an uninterrupted preseason, was a #3 draft-pick, fills an on-field need, and is best 22.

What's the problem with the claim? Was wrapped in cotton wool last year but still managed an average of 69.

You should probably drop the attitude, this is a dream team board.

I had Masten as a lock...but with the 300k price tag it left my team a bit unbalanced, it weaked my backline especially.

He will have a good year though, tackles alot

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I had Masten as a lock...but with the 300k price tag it left my team a bit unbalanced, it weaked my backline especially.

He will have a good year though, tackles alot

Yep, from memory he had the highest tackle-count for TOG last season. That's an excellent sign for a good dream teamer. I think he'll end up quite similar to Sam Mitchell. He'll have some big possession games and end up with 120's, but will generally handpass too much to move into that elite class.

The price is definitely the only factor here. At $300,000 he is quite pricey, but if he can move his average into the mid 80's he should be a keeper.

I've got him for now, but by no means do I consider him a lock. Team selection will dictate how much I need to spend on the cash cows below him.

 

[juddy_Like]

He's had an uninterrupted preseason, was a #3 draft-pick, fills an on-field need, and is best 22.

What's the problem with the claim? Was wrapped in cotton wool last year but still managed an average of 69.

You should probably drop the attitude, this is a dream team board.

Well Masten does have his issues. He might or might not play 22 games but its no gareentee either way.

1. He is in his 2nd year. Rookies do get rested even if they are flying (i.e. Palmer).
2. Groin Issues. 2nd only to hammies in keeping a youngster off the park.
3. Crash and bash player. He is going to get knocked around, he thrives on it. How he holds up is the issue.

 

[Lakey91]

I have to agree with tarquin. Our discussion is focussed on gaining an understanding of the deeper aspects of DT - how the magic number changes, what effect this has on prices, how big this effect is, whether the money saved by a fallen bartel outweighs the points lost, etc etc etc. This sort of information is important IMO.

The egg, you are right. Some DTers are good due to their ability to analyse numbers and trends (like convicts), others (like yourself), watch alot of football and thus know the game -you pick up on a change of role to the MF by watching the game, convicts may pick up on it by reading a news article - two different methods, both credible IMO. But dont just dismiss one method because yours works for you. You said it yourself, everyone needs there own strategy and method. By discussing various parts of DT we are helping ourselves develop our own thoughts and strategy that can be used.

You have your method, now let us develop ours.

Oh and cerpin taxt - masten wont be a keeper unless he has a very very good year.

 

[LemmingMaster]

He's had an uninterrupted preseason, was a #3 draft-pick, fills an on-field need, and is best 22.

What's the problem with the claim? Was wrapped in cotton wool last year but still managed an average of 69.

You should probably drop the attitude, this is a dream team board.

Firstly, how can you say Reilly is injury prone, but Masten will play 22 games?

Masten in his first season suffered from OP, so he is no less injury prone than Reilly in my eyes. Masten has not proven that he can play 22 games in a season, hence I think your claim is slightly incorrect.

That was my main problem with your claim.

As for my attitude, maybe I could have explained my reasons for thinking that Masten has the same injury concerns over his head, as Reilly.

 

[brent-83]

I'd take a guy that has been injured due to impact injuries over someone who has had tissue injuries _any_ day of the week.

 

[chadleverington]

I'd take a guy that has been injured due to impact injuries over someone who has had tissue injuries _any_ day of the week.

And i prefer to take players who rarely have injuries