Thanks for the responce. I'm looking for ways too weed Hmac out, only area I'm really iffy on.First of all, thanks for the effort you made in writing such a thorough reply . I have to say I'm a bit surprised that you view the team as ultra risky considering that even the worst players above rookie price in my team have proved that they can average over 90 for an extended period. One of the stats I use is designed to find what a players capable of averaging at their peak and it's the best average they've managed in any block of 10 games over the past two years, or their past 40 games if they've missed a lot of games in recent years. Those peak averages for my non rookies are ...
Mitchell 119, Hanley 112, Simpson 109, Malceski 99, Dunn 93, Watson 129, Rockcliff 121, Cotchin 129, Murphy 117, Beams 142, Lobbe 104, Sandilands 115, Dangerfield 129, Gunston 101, Pavlich 130, Dahlhouse 93, Higgins 94. I stress that I don't expect them to all play at that peak level, but at least it shows what they have proven themselves capable of and the evidence suggests they will move back in that direction and be very good value. Compare that with the peak averages of the truly risky selections that others have made ... players like Caddy 73, Swallow 80, Suttcliffe 54, Atley 80 and MacRae 68. None of those players have proven they can score at a decent rate. Their selection is based on speculation that their roles may change and they might improve their scoring significantly if it does. Now that's risky.
Dahlhouse managed that 93 late last year. In those matches Boyd missed a few games and Macrae didn't play in the last couple, but other than that all the players you mentioned played while he was scoring big. Cooney and Cross (now gone) also played. So Dahlhouse has proved he can score well with the Bullies star midfield pretty much intact.
As for my not having a perma captain I would argue that Beams has proved himself quite capable of filling that role. He moved past Ablett and Pendlebury in the second half of 2012 and I believe he would be recognised already as the best player in the competition had he not been injured. Yes he can throw in the occasional low score, but Ablett has done that at times too.
Your team is very brave and I don't really agree with its critics that it costs you points. It's all really about value and if your improved players on other lines are earning you at least as many points per dollar as the higher priced midfield players they replace while allowing you to field playing mid rookies instead of getting donuts elsewhere then you should be ahead. My concern would be that after saving so much midfield cash you still have that very dangerous ruck combo. I really don't consider Dixon a reliable back up and the trade options if either or both of Sandi and HMac go down are pretty terrible. I hope you stick with the basic idea though. I'd love to see how it all works out
Risky may have been the wrong word. Different may be the word I'm after which isn't such a bad thing.
I like the idea of looking at 10 week blocks, never really heard much of people doing it before. Stick with it, you may be onto something that most won't look at. Maybe also look into the base average of a ten week block too. Then weigh the pro's/con's and add your general opinions of those players. Example, Dahlhaus averaged 63.7 rounds 4-13 last season.
Like your overall thinking on it. And thanks for making me examine SC stats even more than I already do..... My wife will be very grateful for the extra time spent on my team
