-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
The Ask a No Passengers Member a Question Thread
- Thread starter happy_eagle
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Antagonist
Rookie
Gotta agree, its a classic risk v return, long term view v short term view proposition.
A year-long captain means weekly totals aren't as important, and thus mitigates the risk individual performances have (positive or negative).
Way I see it solid predictions can be made week to week regarding captains choices, based on past performances, form, opposition strengths etc. This knowledge can mitigate some of the risk (not all!) of such a short term view of return, however you still cannot take comfort in the knowledge your captains poor performances will most likely be offset by good performances, but by accepting a little more risk, the reward can be higher scores.
This is why I find a useful tool is the standard deviation of a players performances to date (how much individual performances vary from the players average). This can help you control how much risk you take in picking captains. If you stick to players with relatively low SD's (Swan, Kornes, Cox) it is more likely a player should score around 100 compared to the relatively higher SD's (Buddy, Richo, Shaw), who you can't bank on for an easy 100, but are more likely to get the truly massive scores.
That being said, you still need to look at players individual weekly scores though to help judge a players consistency. I think the best example of this is Crossy. He's a rock in my team, and although his SD is 20 whereas Kornes is 13, I would regard him as more consistent as his lowest score is 83, but has some massive scores to his name, whereas Kane has a 75 but hasn't cracked the 120 mark.
Antagonist
Rookie
Exactly.
I firmly believe the underlying reason he was such a gun DTer over the 21st century is the heavy reliance the Bullies had on his performances. He was the 'go to' man for much this time, the Bulldogs fortunes rested on his extremely capable shoulders more than it should and as such he commanded a lot more of the ball.
Now I haven't watched a heap of the Bulldogs this year, but it seems they are trying to spread the load around more, and with new faces and older ones stepping up, there hasn't been the need for his brilliance as much this season. He is no longer their main target up forward, and its been shown he doesn't need to have a big game for team success.
In short, a Johnson that is the bulldogs saviour = DT god. A Johnson who isn't = a keeper but not an upgrade target.
Not true, NoPassengers candidates are not selected because of their past or present DT performances. Emphasis is on DT knowledge and quality of posting.
Whose blowing their own trumpet now?
Happy_eagle is not arrogant, hes just a bit young and excited. Give him a break.
Here you go -->
Not true, NoPassengers candidates are not selected because of their past or present DT performances. Emphasis is on DT knowledge and quality of posting.
Whose blowing their own trumpet now?
quote]
I've been owned!
Very good thread Eagle and some very nice answers, well done
In the next 2 weeks im looking to trade Ebert(wc) and rioli for any foward and any midfielder
M Kornes, Cross, Mitchell, Stevens, Palmer, Ebert
F Pavlich, Chapman, Roo, JB, Okeef, Porps, Rioli
Who do u think the best foward and best midfielder are going to be this year?
Thnx
In the next 2 weeks im looking to trade Ebert(wc) and rioli for any foward and any midfielder
M Kornes, Cross, Mitchell, Stevens, Palmer, Ebert
F Pavlich, Chapman, Roo, JB, Okeef, Porps, Rioli
Who do u think the best foward and best midfielder are going to be this year?
Thnx
Antagonist
Rookie
Very good thread Eagle and some very nice answers, well done
In the next 2 weeks im looking to trade Ebert(wc) and rioli for any foward and any midfielder
M Kornes, Cross, Mitchell, Stevens, Palmer, Ebert
F Pavlich, Chapman, Roo, JB, Okeef, Porps, Rioli
Who do u think the best foward and best midfielder are going to be this year?
Thnx
I'm not one who likes to set their sights on one gun in upgrading a few weeks out. Even if they are your last 2 players in need of upgrading, be flexible in terms of best value/consistency/scoring power(ability for huge scores) for the given week you want to upgrade. Even when cash isn't an issue, more money in the kitty for unforeseen circumstances is always a plus. Also there doesn't seem to be as bigger gap in scoring than last year (Bartel anyone!)
That being said, you should get a list of potentials together to choose from. You should be looking at:
Mids:
Bartel
Corey
Swan
Ablett
There are others getting that way: Marc Murphy in particular
Forwards:
Buddy
Richo
Rob Murphy
You have reasonably consistent forwards already (JB aside
), look at player you can tear a game apart and pull a massive score in the process!Leave your options open, trust your gut and choose the ones you think is best pick the week you are upgrading!
I'm not one who likes to set their sights on one gun in upgrading a few weeks out. Even if they are your last 2 players in need of upgrading, be flexible in terms of best value/consistency/scoring power(ability for huge scores) for the given week you want to upgrade. Even when cash isn't an issue, more money in the kitty for unforeseen circumstances is always a plus. Also there doesn't seem to be as bigger gap in scoring than last year (Bartel anyone!)
That being said, you should get a list of potentials together to choose from. You should be looking at:
Mids:
Bartel
Corey
Swan
Ablett
There are others getting that way: Marc Murphy in particular
Forwards:
Buddy
Richo
Rob Murphy
You have reasonably consistent forwards already (JB aside
Leave your options open, trust your gut and choose the ones you think is best pick the week you are upgrading!
Thanks for the great response mate appreciate it
I didn't know they were giving out cars for "400th odd"?
The No Passengers board was set up to help the people who don't know as much about DT as you. We don't claim to be experts, that may be a title placed upon us from people like you, but it is certainly not the idea of the board. What we do claim is to know what we are talking about, and be willing to write about it in more detail than "Bartel is good
". We don't make decisions for the BF posters, but hopefully we can provide them with enough thoughtful opinion, and at times a number of different opinions, to make their own decisions and become better at the game.The advice is not compulsory, take it or leave it.
I didn't know they were giving out cars for "400th odd"?
The No Passengers board was set up to help the people who don't know as much about DT as you. We don't claim to be experts, that may be a title placed upon us from people like you, but it is certainly not the idea of the board. What we do claim is to know what we are talking about, and be willing to write about it in more detail than "Bartel is good
The advice is not compulsory, take it or leave it.
It is good to get a reasonably decent explanation about what the no passengers business is, but intentional or not, giving regular posters the chance to seek advice from No Passengers members is patronising. Maybe it is people like me misinterpreting the intention. The boards may be littered with inconsequential things like "I hate whoever", but when you filter through it you get some good insights, and I have been saved from at least one bogus trade by up to date info on this site. If no passengers simply filters out the nonsense, all good. The title of the thread though...
I didn't want to bring up the car in this context but I was fortunate enough to win the finals series last year.
I can assure you that Happy_Eagle's intention was to help rather partronise, and I can also assure you that he will learn from it and phrase the title differently next time.
The NP concept was originally established by the board moderators to try and have some established posters provided a level of solid quality posting in one place. The idea was to transfer the contents of this discussion to the main board so that all posters who wanted to didn't need to get through 100 pages of "who should I trade" threads to help with any information they were looking for. This would also encourage the posters involved to stay on the Big Footy boards rather than get frustrated and look elsewhere.
In essence, the key was to support posters who are looking for help find it in one thread rather than looking everywhere.
To be absolutely honest, whilst the quality of posts on the NP board is excellent the biggest challenge has been how to get that information accross to the main board in the best format. I don't believe this has been done well so far. A weekly "sticky" has been tried but it was posted on Thurs / Fri night which is not early enough for people considering trades and needing information. It was also too in depth in some ways as it went for 4-5 pages each week and took a lot to digest.
The NP "captains choice" thread was moved accross for people to use and add to but it then became unclear where the NP comments finished and normal posters started.
The actual members of NP do support the main board with posts regularly as well. People such as BeauWaters4PM, Iamthestig, Walesy, Crows88, TheBaxters and many others add great value to NP but also post consistently on the main board, hopefully without sounding arrogant or elitest. IMO it would be hard to argue that these people are anything but top quality posters.
I have been thinking that possibly a 1 page "Sticky" summarising the best posts for the week may add more value to the main board but would be interested to here anyone's thoughts.
I apologise if it sounds arrogant, it's certainly not meant to be that way and should really be there to help main board posters. If it's not we need to find a way to do it better.
In essence, the key was to support posters who are looking for help find it in one thread rather than looking everywhere.
To be absolutely honest, whilst the quality of posts on the NP board is excellent the biggest challenge has been how to get that information accross to the main board in the best format. I don't believe this has been done well so far. A weekly "sticky" has been tried but it was posted on Thurs / Fri night which is not early enough for people considering trades and needing information. It was also too in depth in some ways as it went for 4-5 pages each week and took a lot to digest.
The NP "captains choice" thread was moved accross for people to use and add to but it then became unclear where the NP comments finished and normal posters started.
The actual members of NP do support the main board with posts regularly as well. People such as BeauWaters4PM, Iamthestig, Walesy, Crows88, TheBaxters and many others add great value to NP but also post consistently on the main board, hopefully without sounding arrogant or elitest. IMO it would be hard to argue that these people are anything but top quality posters.
I have been thinking that possibly a 1 page "Sticky" summarising the best posts for the week may add more value to the main board but would be interested to here anyone's thoughts.
I apologise if it sounds arrogant, it's certainly not meant to be that way and should really be there to help main board posters. If it's not we need to find a way to do it better.
I have moved this accross as an example of the style / quality of discussion which happens on the No Passengers thread. The challenge is to get the information to the main board in the easiest possible format.
The true value of a zero
Been thinking about this a lot over the past 2 weeks with backline issues so I thought it may open up some debate about the value of a like for like trade over holding a zero for 3+ weeks.
Thought I would run some analysis to open proceedings. Could have chosen any of a large cast (Waters, Symes, Guerra etc) but have picked Guerra the example because I have a strong interest in him this week. The numbers, however could be used for anyone.
Guerra is out for 3-4 weeks (hammy).
If he returns for the last 10 games and averages 80 he scores you 800 points for the year (assuming you have a nil in his place). Divide 800 by the remaining 14 rounds and his "effective average" for your team is 57 ppw. If he misses 3 games it's 62 ppw.
Value of Like for Like trade
--------------------------
If Guerra is traded out for say Milburn / Fisher who will average 85 ppw your team would score 1190 points or 390 more for the 14 rounds.
390 / 14 = 28 ppw = $112K in cash terms + 20K made on the trade.
Total profit from trade = $132K
This would appear to be solid profit from a trade not many would consider.
There are many other variables including part coverage for a couple of weeks but does create interest
Reply 1
This has merit. Especially at the stage of season we are heading into. If you aren't in the pack now, then its over and its a trade like this which could put you ahead of the pack while other top teams hold on to that 'Zero'.
Reply 2
It really depends if you have cover or not.
If your emergencies arn't playing and you know it is a 3-4 week injury a trade is definantly on the cards due to your research above.(great work btw)
The emergencies are so important in these situations as they can save you a trade. But as you have pointed out above you may as well trade guerra for another premium and get the extra points instead of a 0 for the next 3 weeks
Its a decision most coaches will have to make. Its these risks which can decide your season or end it. Thats what I love about DT.
Reply 3
54Dogs - this is *exactly* the sort of thing I was thinking about here. Fantastic stuff! Plus you've prompted me to think more about it...
So I looked at determining your season’s vanishing point, the point at which you are not a mathematical chance to win.
I’ve taken the info in the Prospectus on the 50th ranked averages, translated it into this year’s numbers and made the following assumptions:
1. Last years end of season averages/totals don’t correlate with this year. Assumes that based on current form, the winner will average 2099 per game over the season, for a total of 46,178.
2. Assumes the leader will only increase at a constant rate of 16 ppg (based on last year’s 50th position result).
If you are currently in 500th position, with an average score of 1900 ppg and a total of 15,200, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2213 points per round, equating to 50 points per round more than the current leader in order to pip them at the finish.
If you’re in 1,000th, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2223 points per round, equating to 60 points per round more than the current leader.
If you’re in 5,000th, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2254 points per round, equating to 91 points per round more than the current leader.
Now let’s change the assumptions above, and run another case, assuming:
1. Last years end of season averages/totals correlate with this year. Assumes that the player who finished last year in 50th position averaged 2207 per game over the season, for a total of 48,154.
2. Assumes the leader will only increase at a constant rate of 16 ppg (based on last year’s 50th position result).
This scenario is probably more accurate, as the average scores tend to jump between Rd’s 15-22, so scores to date are not necessarily a good reflection of an anticipated trend.
If you are currently in 500th position, with an average score of 1900 ppg and a total of 15,200, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2383 points per round, equating to 112 points per round more than the current leader in order to pip them at the finish.
If you’re in 1,000th, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2393 points per round, equating to 122 points per round more than the current leader.
If you’re in 5,000th, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2423 points per round, equating to 152 points per round more than the current leader.
So, what do either of these case mean? You need to be increasing your weekly average from here on in by a considerable amount. You can do it by trading out injured players if you don’t have bench support, upgrading rookies and mids to premiums, or by judicious choices of Captains, but if you can’t find a way to improve your team by this much, you are out of the running for winning the competition. You should consider shifting your focus onto winning your league or finishing within a certain band (eg Top 500).
IMO, it means you need to be trading in high scoring players that will increase your current averages sooner rather than later. As in yesterday. Waiting two or three weeks could cost you not only 100-200 points, but will also jack up the average weekly score you require to catch the leader. You need to have no injuries from here on in, or you need to have bench players who are capable of scoring similarly.
Next step – correlating fielding 0’s or sub-par emergencies into the equation. If anyone has last year’s winning total score, I can re-run the numbers and make them look more horrific…
Reply 4
Great work 54dogs, but I think you've exaggerated the difference of 390 a little bit. Mainly just because you've said Fisher/Milburn will score an extra 5 ppw, which gives an extra 70 overall. Might be true, but it's a seperate issue to the impact of a zero. And just when you said "this is solid profit", don't forget that trades are a resource as well, and I think that if for every time a player was out for 3/4 weeks you traded them off, you'd run out quickly.
Your logic is strong and potentially effective, but dangerous in the wrong hands, simply because it might encourage people to trade too freely.
Reply 5
Agree with this Nighthawk. I based Milburn / Fisher on last years averages and what I have seen over recent weeks but it's by no means an exact science and is highly subjective.
Probably what I am driving at here is to get people to think a little more creatively. Rather than just saying "I can't do that trade because the DT rules say so", to look at whether in fact it will be of benefit to your team in the overall context. Not saying it's right or wrong just another option to consider.
Another example of this was the trading of Chad. I actually got into some really robust debate on the Chad thread on the main board, not to say it was right or wrong but to get people thinking a bit.
With so much information out there these days creativity in trading is the one thing which may differentiate from the pack. Becomes a bit boring if everyone makes the same trades each week.
Reply 6
It all depends on how you weight your trades. I mean, trades are for one thing essentially, To increase teams scoring potental.
You make a down trade, and an up trade to increase your teams scoring potential.
A down trade and an up trade in round 7 might net you an extra 40(?) points per round from that position for the rest of the game.
So lets play with that. 15 rounds left, * 40 is 600 extra points for the year for those 2 trades... one trade however, is netting you an extra 300 points for the year.
And that's if you get in early in round 7. Now, each week that goes by, those trades that you are holding, their value goes down by what 20 points per week (ish).
So, it's a numbers game. Using your trades to play the downgrade/upgrade game will net you (in a perfect world), 300 points per trade.
But then, you take into account this Zero issue. If by fielding a zero, you'll be losing out with a net effect of more than 300 points, then damn, you better think long and hard about not making that trade...
Reply 7
This is a really good way of looking at it Walesy and one not many people take into account. If you use a single trade in round 17 to upgrade someone there are only 5 rounds left so the trade will need to improve your team by 60 ppw (300 points total) to add the same value as doing this earlier. If this is a double trade (cash cow down for keeper up) this doubles to needing 120 ppw improvement which is basically impossible.
I guess in summary, the earlier all your upgrades are made, the more ppw you get benefit for, and the more your team improves. Having said this if you cop LTIs from Rd 15 on and have no cover this will be a net loss for the rest of the year of all points they would have scored.
Reply 8
Some very good points raised here.
When I first played DT (7 years ago), I went and analyzed all the trading benefits and what $$$ value that would justify a trade etc...
After a while, I came to one conclusion which has already been mentioned. I guess I want to substantiate the point. In order to attain the best value of a trade, you need to make it as soon as you can. I see way too many people trying to squeeze every single dollar out of a cow and meanwhile they are losing points on their prospective upgrades.
In regards to the grey matter, to determine that, you are bordering the realms of impossibility as there will always be differing circumstances.
Trade aggressively from the beginning for the best results. The issue of LTI's needs to be properly managed. Account for x amount and add 2... The rest should be allocated for upgrades etc. Provided you have selected great rookies, you shouldn't be caught out.
Strange game and anything can happen though...
The true value of a zero
Been thinking about this a lot over the past 2 weeks with backline issues so I thought it may open up some debate about the value of a like for like trade over holding a zero for 3+ weeks.
Thought I would run some analysis to open proceedings. Could have chosen any of a large cast (Waters, Symes, Guerra etc) but have picked Guerra the example because I have a strong interest in him this week. The numbers, however could be used for anyone.
Guerra is out for 3-4 weeks (hammy).
If he returns for the last 10 games and averages 80 he scores you 800 points for the year (assuming you have a nil in his place). Divide 800 by the remaining 14 rounds and his "effective average" for your team is 57 ppw. If he misses 3 games it's 62 ppw.
Value of Like for Like trade
--------------------------
If Guerra is traded out for say Milburn / Fisher who will average 85 ppw your team would score 1190 points or 390 more for the 14 rounds.
390 / 14 = 28 ppw = $112K in cash terms + 20K made on the trade.
Total profit from trade = $132K
This would appear to be solid profit from a trade not many would consider.
There are many other variables including part coverage for a couple of weeks but does create interest
Reply 1
This has merit. Especially at the stage of season we are heading into. If you aren't in the pack now, then its over and its a trade like this which could put you ahead of the pack while other top teams hold on to that 'Zero'.
Reply 2
It really depends if you have cover or not.
If your emergencies arn't playing and you know it is a 3-4 week injury a trade is definantly on the cards due to your research above.(great work btw)
The emergencies are so important in these situations as they can save you a trade. But as you have pointed out above you may as well trade guerra for another premium and get the extra points instead of a 0 for the next 3 weeks
Its a decision most coaches will have to make. Its these risks which can decide your season or end it. Thats what I love about DT.
Reply 3
54Dogs - this is *exactly* the sort of thing I was thinking about here. Fantastic stuff! Plus you've prompted me to think more about it...
So I looked at determining your season’s vanishing point, the point at which you are not a mathematical chance to win.
I’ve taken the info in the Prospectus on the 50th ranked averages, translated it into this year’s numbers and made the following assumptions:
1. Last years end of season averages/totals don’t correlate with this year. Assumes that based on current form, the winner will average 2099 per game over the season, for a total of 46,178.
2. Assumes the leader will only increase at a constant rate of 16 ppg (based on last year’s 50th position result).
If you are currently in 500th position, with an average score of 1900 ppg and a total of 15,200, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2213 points per round, equating to 50 points per round more than the current leader in order to pip them at the finish.
If you’re in 1,000th, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2223 points per round, equating to 60 points per round more than the current leader.
If you’re in 5,000th, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2254 points per round, equating to 91 points per round more than the current leader.
Now let’s change the assumptions above, and run another case, assuming:
1. Last years end of season averages/totals correlate with this year. Assumes that the player who finished last year in 50th position averaged 2207 per game over the season, for a total of 48,154.
2. Assumes the leader will only increase at a constant rate of 16 ppg (based on last year’s 50th position result).
This scenario is probably more accurate, as the average scores tend to jump between Rd’s 15-22, so scores to date are not necessarily a good reflection of an anticipated trend.
If you are currently in 500th position, with an average score of 1900 ppg and a total of 15,200, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2383 points per round, equating to 112 points per round more than the current leader in order to pip them at the finish.
If you’re in 1,000th, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2393 points per round, equating to 122 points per round more than the current leader.
If you’re in 5,000th, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2423 points per round, equating to 152 points per round more than the current leader.
So, what do either of these case mean? You need to be increasing your weekly average from here on in by a considerable amount. You can do it by trading out injured players if you don’t have bench support, upgrading rookies and mids to premiums, or by judicious choices of Captains, but if you can’t find a way to improve your team by this much, you are out of the running for winning the competition. You should consider shifting your focus onto winning your league or finishing within a certain band (eg Top 500).
IMO, it means you need to be trading in high scoring players that will increase your current averages sooner rather than later. As in yesterday. Waiting two or three weeks could cost you not only 100-200 points, but will also jack up the average weekly score you require to catch the leader. You need to have no injuries from here on in, or you need to have bench players who are capable of scoring similarly.
Next step – correlating fielding 0’s or sub-par emergencies into the equation. If anyone has last year’s winning total score, I can re-run the numbers and make them look more horrific…
Reply 4
Great work 54dogs, but I think you've exaggerated the difference of 390 a little bit. Mainly just because you've said Fisher/Milburn will score an extra 5 ppw, which gives an extra 70 overall. Might be true, but it's a seperate issue to the impact of a zero. And just when you said "this is solid profit", don't forget that trades are a resource as well, and I think that if for every time a player was out for 3/4 weeks you traded them off, you'd run out quickly.
Your logic is strong and potentially effective, but dangerous in the wrong hands, simply because it might encourage people to trade too freely.
Reply 5
Agree with this Nighthawk. I based Milburn / Fisher on last years averages and what I have seen over recent weeks but it's by no means an exact science and is highly subjective.
Probably what I am driving at here is to get people to think a little more creatively. Rather than just saying "I can't do that trade because the DT rules say so", to look at whether in fact it will be of benefit to your team in the overall context. Not saying it's right or wrong just another option to consider.
Another example of this was the trading of Chad. I actually got into some really robust debate on the Chad thread on the main board, not to say it was right or wrong but to get people thinking a bit.
With so much information out there these days creativity in trading is the one thing which may differentiate from the pack. Becomes a bit boring if everyone makes the same trades each week.
Reply 6
It all depends on how you weight your trades. I mean, trades are for one thing essentially, To increase teams scoring potental.
You make a down trade, and an up trade to increase your teams scoring potential.
A down trade and an up trade in round 7 might net you an extra 40(?) points per round from that position for the rest of the game.
So lets play with that. 15 rounds left, * 40 is 600 extra points for the year for those 2 trades... one trade however, is netting you an extra 300 points for the year.
And that's if you get in early in round 7. Now, each week that goes by, those trades that you are holding, their value goes down by what 20 points per week (ish).
So, it's a numbers game. Using your trades to play the downgrade/upgrade game will net you (in a perfect world), 300 points per trade.
But then, you take into account this Zero issue. If by fielding a zero, you'll be losing out with a net effect of more than 300 points, then damn, you better think long and hard about not making that trade...
Reply 7
This is a really good way of looking at it Walesy and one not many people take into account. If you use a single trade in round 17 to upgrade someone there are only 5 rounds left so the trade will need to improve your team by 60 ppw (300 points total) to add the same value as doing this earlier. If this is a double trade (cash cow down for keeper up) this doubles to needing 120 ppw improvement which is basically impossible.
I guess in summary, the earlier all your upgrades are made, the more ppw you get benefit for, and the more your team improves. Having said this if you cop LTIs from Rd 15 on and have no cover this will be a net loss for the rest of the year of all points they would have scored.
Reply 8
Some very good points raised here.
When I first played DT (7 years ago), I went and analyzed all the trading benefits and what $$$ value that would justify a trade etc...
After a while, I came to one conclusion which has already been mentioned. I guess I want to substantiate the point. In order to attain the best value of a trade, you need to make it as soon as you can. I see way too many people trying to squeeze every single dollar out of a cow and meanwhile they are losing points on their prospective upgrades.
In regards to the grey matter, to determine that, you are bordering the realms of impossibility as there will always be differing circumstances.
Trade aggressively from the beginning for the best results. The issue of LTI's needs to be properly managed. Account for x amount and add 2...
The rest should be allocated for upgrades etc. Provided you have selected great rookies, you shouldn't be caught out.Strange game and anything can happen though...
This was the original plan Stormer but the Mods tell us it can't be done because of system constraints. You're right though, it would solve all problems.
I have a fairly well travelling team and am considering picking up Judd for the run home, despite his poor performance up until now. I must trade Bird for someone this week and think that he's the best option for price.
I would like to know what NP members think of this trade?
I would like to know what NP members think of this trade?
- Banned
- #43
This is my fourth year of DT ...
In my first two years of DT, went with the week-to-week strategy and was shocking (avg of about 75-85). That is, admittedly, partly because many of my captains were forwards and I wasn't a great DTer then (rank of about 5000 - 10000).
Last year, chose to bring in an expensive mid from the start and it was Jimmy. The only time I didn't have him captain was the week after his first injury and the last 2 rounds (DNP). Averaged 116.
This year did the same with Kornes and have only changed from him when he has played Sydney (averaging high 90s).
I think your approach works out OK but I don't think you can have that many elite players from the start, it could work about mid-year though. I only had Kornes/Cornes as captaincy candidates from the start (I avoid forwards) and it turned out to be a problem when they played Sydney the first time ... put Brown as a captain who scored 66. If someone had Corey/Ablett from the start and put them capt all year, they'd be happy with their capt avg.
I have Kornes, Bartel, Cornes and Cox at the moment (bringing in Corey next week) and will try your approach and rotate the captaincy depending on who they play.
Reecey, the idea is probably not to tell you whether to complete this trade or not but to provide some information for you to digest and then have you decide yourself.
Firstly on Judd. Despite his outstanding career Judd has only ever once averaged over 85 in a DT season. This is for 2 main reasons. 1) He always gets the number 1 tag meaning he gets a large amount of tight, contested ball and 2) He has historically never taken a large number of marks. West Coast appeared to be able to block for him a bit better than the Blues so far and there is a lingering injury doubt. He has, however, proven he can score over 100 regularly but also scores low often and if he is priced below that 85 average may be worth considering.
History is the best research tool when considering future DT performance. Mids such as Bartell, KCornes, Swan and Scotland have proved they can consistently average over 100 ppw throughout the season so this is a solid barometer of this years expectations. These players will at some stage have a poor week or 2 (see last round) and become extremely good trade in options a couple of weeks later when the price has filtered through. They are effectively underpriced by up to 30-40K when this happens and it's all about trading at a value time to improve your team as much as possible.
Bird is interesting. He has mixed some poor scores in with some solid scores so it's hard to know where his maximum price sits. Similar to Tippett in some ways if he could string 3 scores between 50-70 together in a row he could make 30K more however he is probably on the edge of losing his place in the team as well. Cheap midfield options come up more regularly than anywhere else so you could hold for a few weeks until one appears unless you really like Cotchin. The issue with going to Cotchin is you only make 60K on the trade, so is it really worth it.
The decision is yours.
not a no passenger but will have a go.
As everybody should know he is extremely injury prone. These are the amount of games he has played in the past 3 seasons.
2005: 14
2006: 7
2007: 11
That would be enough to worry me out of him especially considering he has already been injured once this year.
There is no doubt that he has the ability to pull in massive scores ( i believe he scored something like 7 100's in a row last year correct me if i am wrong). He is the guy Brisbane love to give the ball to and will play lose in defence most weeks. He only has the one year of good scoring behing him which was last year when he averaged 86. He is at a nice price if you are looking for a very high risk reward player. But i would stay away.
He is a very high scoring player when he is fit but this is rare. He is constantly missing game injured and with the dramas in the backline picking another injury prone player would be crazy. Unless you are really sure he is over his injury problems it would be suicidal to pick him up.
Related to your analysis of what a 0 is worth I was wondering how you guys thought $$$ equated to points.
I'll give a specific example to try and make the question clearer:
This week I can trade: Masten -> Corey.
Said trade would cost $157k
Based on averages this trade would net me an extra 35 points this week.
However, assuming they score according to their average, after one week this price differential would come down 18k.
Another week and a further 35 points forgone and the trade would cost a further 9k less (27k total).
My question is, at what point is this trade optimal? On the face of it, it would appear that in two weeks time, when their price differential is a minimum... However, you'd think you'd need to factor in the 70 points lost in that time.
Personally, I'm unsure where to draw the line but I think the ~18k saving is worth holding out the first week, I'm not so sure about the second (which would obviously be impacted by actual rather than theoretical scores)
(question is based on overall win - not so concerned about leagues)
Cheers guys.
I'll give a specific example to try and make the question clearer:
This week I can trade: Masten -> Corey.
Said trade would cost $157k
Based on averages this trade would net me an extra 35 points this week.
However, assuming they score according to their average, after one week this price differential would come down 18k.
Another week and a further 35 points forgone and the trade would cost a further 9k less (27k total).
My question is, at what point is this trade optimal? On the face of it, it would appear that in two weeks time, when their price differential is a minimum... However, you'd think you'd need to factor in the 70 points lost in that time.
Personally, I'm unsure where to draw the line but I think the ~18k saving is worth holding out the first week, I'm not so sure about the second (which would obviously be impacted by actual rather than theoretical scores)
(question is based on overall win - not so concerned about leagues)
Cheers guys.
I having trouble wether I should get Riewoldt in DT this year. I don't trust murphy, richo or didak to maintain their scores for the season, none have shown previous high DT scoring ability in the past years.
Has the playing style of the saints changed the amount of points this year? Under grant thomas their game style flowed smoothly which alowed Riewoldt to score massively.
The saints look to be struggling which may also contribute to Roo's sub standard scores.
Will he average 95+ or should I forget about him this year?
Has the playing style of the saints changed the amount of points this year? Under grant thomas their game style flowed smoothly which alowed Riewoldt to score massively.
The saints look to be struggling which may also contribute to Roo's sub standard scores.
Will he average 95+ or should I forget about him this year?
Nice question JWood.
In the simplest terms 10 points is worth around $40,000-. The easiest way to look at this is to say that a player averaging 100 ppw is valued at $400,000-.
If you want to get a little more complex the answer is this. The key in defining how points = dollars is the magic number set by Virtual Sports. The number this year was set at approx 4300 meaning a player averaging 100 ppw was worth $430,000. This means that every 10 points was worth $43,000.
The way VS work this though is to divide the total player values by the total number of points scored. What happens each year is that the rookies at the start of the season score well above their average bringing this number down until it finds a true value. What this means is that a player who was averaging 100 ppw you paid 430K for could play to their average and their price would drop 30K. Doesn't mean they have played poorly it's just the VS number finding its true price.
As to the value of a trade realted to this, use say Hill > Chapman as an example.
If this trade was done 2 weeks ago it would cost say $160K. Based on 40,000 for 10 points improvement your break even for this trade is if Chapman scores 40 points more than Hill each week (160,000 / 40,000). If you believe Chappy would score over 40 more than Hill each week then the trade adds value.
As it turns out, both did not play but it illustrates the point of how much a trade should improve your team to be worthwhile.
As for the 10K for points saved in 1 week, to keep it in round figures if the points difference was 44 points this is the equivalent of 2 ppw over 22 weeks therefore $4K = 1 ppw so $8K = 2 ppw. To be honest it's that close it would not make a lot of difference.
Hope this helps.
Similar threads
- Sticky
