Position 2024: DEFENDER DISCUSSION

[aj74]

I went Young > Serong for a loss of points and maybe 100k. My reasoning was sound but my predictive powers were out.

Rankine > Flanders has been a positive so far. Just. The extra 70k has paid for 30 or 40 more points and piece of mind. Rankine too mercurial if he stays forward, which it looked like Nicks wanted. Flanders has pumped out a couple of decent hundreds for me since. I'll call it a win, so far

Grundy > JHF is too early to tell. So far I'm up maybe 30 points and 70k. Grundy had 5 weeks to show he had turned a corner and he didn't. At some stage he was likely to be traded. Might as well see if I can't fill M8 for real cheap.

So 3 trades for marginal benefit. Just glad I didn't go Rankine to Green like I originally planned! It's an expensive way to do business

But I think that the above should be taken with an important caveat. The conversation is around trading premiums and Young, Grundy and even Daicos are not premiums. Young, like Rankine and N Martin are breakout contenders and Grundy is whatever he is - unworthy of being called a premium anyway. Fallen premium? Longshot? I dunno.

Daicos, like Sheezel, for all their awsomeness are just kids punching well above their weight. I don't know that you can call them premiums yet as they don't have the established scoring power over multiple years. Daicos was starting to tire badly last year before the Hawks decided to break his leg. Nearly a third of Sheezel's games last year were sub-80

Dawson, Laird and Sicily are premiums. LDU is on the cusp. Holding on to them with the performances they've been displaying is just being dogmatic

 

[Feerits Elf]

But I think that the above should be taken with an important caveat. The conversation is around trading premiums and Young, Grundy and even Daicos are not premiums. Young, like Rankine and N Martin are breakout contenders and Grundy is whatever he is - unworthy of being called a premium anyway. Fallen premium? Longshot? I dunno.

Daicos, like Sheezel, for all their awsomeness are just kids punching well above their weight. I don't know that you can call them premiums yet as they don't have the established scoring power over multiple years. Daicos was starting to tire badly last year before the Hawks decided to break his leg. Nearly a third of Sheezel's games last year were sub-80

Dawson, Laird and Sicily are premiums. LDU is on the cusp. Holding on to them with the performances they've been displaying is just being dogmatic

It's semantics. In my opinion the categories are a function of both starting price and intent in selecting the player (one of which informs the other), with a player's age or number of successive seasons scoring at a particular level being immaterial.

Anyone at a certain price and above is a premium simply by virtue of being priced as such (with the accompanying intent of keeping them). Anyone at a certain price and below is a rookie simply by virtue of being priced as such (with the accompanying intent of trading them). And anyone in between is a midpricer simply by virtue of being priced as such (with the accompanying intent of trading them). What those prices are is up to you.

You might look at someone like Grundy and say "ah yes, but his starting price of $482.k is premised on a 2023 average of 86.2, and 86.2 is not premium scoring so he can't be a premium". But we know it's a bit more nuanced than that - the 86.2 came off the back of 5 successive seasons of premium scoring in a year where he shared ruck duties with Gawn. So when he was picked at $482.k as someone who would be sole ruck for the Swans, it was as an underpriced premium, but a premium nonetheless.

Same again with guys like Daicos in 2023 and Sheezel/Young this year. Their starting prices of $520-560k were based on their scoring in the 90s the previous year. Yes, they're young. Yes, they don't have a multi-year history of scoring at that level. But they were selected to score as premiums. So even if Young were to fall in a heap and average 78 for the year, that doesn't make him a midpricer. He'd be a failed premium. If you start to apply labels like "breakout contender" or "genuine premium" or "superpremium" it can start to mask those fundamental categories, which are based on price and therefore selection intent.

Even though premiums are intended to be kept (as distinct from rookies and midpricers, who are intended to be traded out), things don't always work out like that. So someone like Maric, Goldstein, Marshall, Wills, Kieren Jack, Brad Ebert, Wells, Coniglio or Brodie might be taken as a midpricer (with the intent of making money and trading them out) but they score so well they end up being kept for the year. But that doesn't make them premiums. They're just really successful midpricers.

Same again with those rare rookies who end up scoring like premiums (e.g. Zorko 2012, Cripps 2015, Sheezel 2023). They're selected as rookies with the intent to trade them out, but that day never comes because they're scoring so well.

LDU, Dawson and Grundy are premiums because those who picked them at their starting price did so intending them to return premium scores. Because the categories are based on starting price and intent, they don't change even if the players' prices plummet to the point that they would be legitimate midpricers if that had been their price at the start. They would simply be (heavily, in the case of LDU and Dawson) fallen / failed premiums.

The reason why players being "premiums" enters the conversation around trading those players is because they are selected at a premium price to score accordingly and it can therefore be very difficult to trade them away because it locks in the loss and acknowledges a failed starting pick (and the coach will then need to trade in an alternative premium). If the player concerned shows signs of life then all other coaches will jump on at the reduced price and the original coach will have locked in the loss as well as using a trade to take the alternative. So when people express reluctance to trade a "premium" they don't mean a reluctance to trade someone who's a really good player this year. They mean someone who they've paid a lot of money for who they expected to be a really good player this year and who, in a worst case scenario for them, can still be a really good player for others this year at a lot less.

 

[Post Nut Clarity]

I did the same with Daicos and can't say that I'm happy with it, sure Whitfields gone up a bit and Daicos has dropped a bit, but there hasn't been the points differential that I was hoping for, particularly as Clohesy would have been his cover (of course I didn't know that at the time) I don't think that I would do that move again.

There's 3 trades so far for me that are 50/50 Daicos > Whitfield, Young > Yeo and Wines > Drew. They can't be looked at in isolation as there was cash released which enabled other things, but those 3 trades would be very handy at the back end of the season.

Just to clarify, I’m not wrapped with the trade but I’m also not disappointed either! Whitfield’s price has went up and next week I’ll be getting in Daicos at a lower price than I traded him out at.

Not the ideal outcome but could definitely be worth.

 

[OnTopBar]

Just to clarify, I’m not wrapped with the trade but I’m also not disappointed either! Whitfield’s price has went up and next week I’ll be getting in Daicos at a lower price than I traded him out at.

Not the ideal outcome but could definitely be worth.

Yep, could've been better, could've been a whole lot worse if Whitfield was subbed off in the 2nd quarter round 4

 

[Zagbag]

Holdings premiums was a trope when we had 24 trades. Now trading them is a bit more of an artform. There's a bigger safety blanket with 40 trades.

The ability to discern whether and early flop is a Dawson (bad) or a Young (will bounce back) is what separate coaches. Usually involes a good sense of the role.

I traded Dawson out in Round 1 for Heeney. This has saved my season and is empiric truth that you can't have an absolute "always hold premiums" rule. It also could have gone the other way.

Maybe the rule should be "Sometimes trade premiums, sometimes don't, just be really shrewd when you do." Doesn't roll off the tongue but is a little more accurate.

 

[Bombers2win]

Holdings premiums was a trope when we had 24 trades. Now trading them is a bit more of an artform. There's a bigger safety blanket with 40 trades.

The ability to discern whether and early flop is a Dawson (bad) or a Young (will bounce back) is what separate coaches. Usually involes a good sense of the role.

I traded Dawson out in Round 1 for Heeney. This has saved my season and is empiric truth that you can't have an absolute "always hold premiums" rule. It also could have gone the other way.

Maybe the rule should be "Sometimes trade premiums, sometimes don't, just be really shrewd when you do." Doesn't roll off the tongue but is a little more accurate.

I’ve experienced the best of both worlds to date with trading premos, Rd2 Oliver>Butters thought I’d give Clarry a go as a POD despite preseason woes etc, champions generally don’t just lose it overnight and he had started well with 30+ possessions both games but needed to clean up his DE, there was also the carrot of 2 games at AO early which if everything fell into place would of given me a unique Cpts score on the rest of the comp, but as it turned out it wasn’t to be, since then there’s a 40pt buffer Butters way. My second and not so successful was Young>Stewart before price rises, I never was a fan of Young but played it safe with the masses and I suppose not owning Stewart last season was still fresh in my mind the amount of times I’d come up against him and he’d pump out another 120+ so after seeing him back on track with a 134 I was determined “not again” since then 25pt differential Young’s way. So a case can be made for trading or holding, as it stands I’m slightly ahead, I do plan on swallowing some humble pie though and getting Young back in.

 

[aj74]

It's semantics. In my opinion the categories are a function of both starting price and intent in selecting the player (one of which informs the other), with a player's age or number of successive seasons scoring at a particular level being immaterial.

Anyone at a certain price and above is a premium simply by virtue of being priced as such (with the accompanying intent of keeping them). Anyone at a certain price and below is a rookie simply by virtue of being priced as such (with the accompanying intent of trading them). And anyone in between is a midpricer simply by virtue of being priced as such (with the accompanying intent of trading them). What those prices are is up to you.

You might look at someone like Grundy and say "ah yes, but his starting price of $482.k is premised on a 2023 average of 86.2, and 86.2 is not premium scoring so he can't be a premium". But we know it's a bit more nuanced than that - the 86.2 came off the back of 5 successive seasons of premium scoring in a year where he shared ruck duties with Gawn. So when he was picked at $482.k as someone who would be sole ruck for the Swans, it was as an underpriced premium, but a premium nonetheless.

Same again with guys like Daicos in 2023 and Sheezel/Young this year. Their starting prices of $520-560k were based on their scoring in the 90s the previous year. Yes, they're young. Yes, they don't have a multi-year history of scoring at that level. But they were selected to score as premiums. So even if Young were to fall in a heap and average 78 for the year, that doesn't make him a midpricer. He'd be a failed premium. If you start to apply labels like "breakout contender" or "genuine premium" or "superpremium" it can start to mask those fundamental categories, which are based on price and therefore selection intent.

Even though premiums are intended to be kept (as distinct from rookies and midpricers, who are intended to be traded out), things don't always work out like that. So someone like Maric, Goldstein, Marshall, Wills, Kieren Jack, Brad Ebert, Wells, Coniglio or Brodie might be taken as a midpricer (with the intent of making money and trading them out) but they score so well they end up being kept for the year. But that doesn't make them premiums. They're just really successful midpricers.

Same again with those rare rookies who end up scoring like premiums (e.g. Zorko 2012, Cripps 2015, Sheezel 2023). They're selected as rookies with the intent to trade them out, but that day never comes because they're scoring so well.

LDU, Dawson and Grundy are premiums because those who picked them at their starting price did so intending them to return premium scores. Because the categories are based on starting price and intent, they don't change even if the players' prices plummet to the point that they would be legitimate midpricers if that had been their price at the start. They would simply be (heavily, in the case of LDU and Dawson) fallen / failed premiums.

The reason why players being "premiums" enters the conversation around trading those players is because they are selected at a premium price to score accordingly and it can therefore be very difficult to trade them away because it locks in the loss and acknowledges a failed starting pick (and the coach will then need to trade in an alternative premium). If the player concerned shows signs of life then all other coaches will jump on at the reduced price and the original coach will have locked in the loss as well as using a trade to take the alternative. So when people express reluctance to trade a "premium" they don't mean a reluctance to trade someone who's a really good player this year. They mean someone who they've paid a lot of money for who they expected to be a really good player this year and who, in a worst case scenario for them, can still be a really good player for others this year at a lot less.

Speaking of semantics.....

A premium isn't a premium because of his price even though yes, you are paying a premium to bring him in. He is premium because he is a premium player. It's the same as the distinction between rookies and rookie priced players.

It's an important distinction to make too because, for example, you mention LDU as a premium. In no universe has LDU ever been a true premium player. He might have been priced like one but that is off the back of a run of form that was well above what he has put out before or in the short time since. It looks to all intents like his 2023 was a spike year. Had he backed it up, then he would have proven that he could be classified and hence treated as some sort of premium player. Close but it seems, no cigar

If I'm wrong with all that, then we need a new word that marks "fake premiums" because they are real and exactly the sorts of players we need to avoid.

The main difference in the context of trading premiums vs trading breakout contenders is that a premium who makes his starting price in points is a success. A breakout contender who does likewise is a fail. As is the fallen premium, I would suggest, because your plan with these players is to get the premium scoring for a bargain price and you are likely to have foregone a premium/rookie pair to accommodate this and another value pick.

I think that the risk on breakout contenders is also different from that of fallen premiums. Normally with a fallen premium, you are able to determine with some degree of confidence whether the fall was a dip in output or part of a longer term decline. With breakouts, you don't have that body of evidence to make a truly confident punt.

So the cases of Sheezel and Daicos in particular, we are guessing as to whether they will be able to break out to, say, 115 ppg for a full season as they have never shown that ability in the past. Grundy on the other hand, very much has. Yes, we are still taking a guess at whether his fall from grace is due to a series of unfortunate events or whether he is in long term decline but that's a different puzzle to "Will Daicos start to fall over at round 17 again" or "Will Sheezel suffer the 2nd year blues, especially without Ziebell to lend a hand".

 

[Feerits Elf]

A premium isn't a premium because of his price even though yes, you are paying a premium to bring him in. He is premium because he is a premium player. It's the same as the distinction between rookies and rookie priced players.

It's an important distinction to make too because, for example, you mention LDU as a premium. In no universe has LDU ever been a true premium player. He might have been priced like one but that is off the back of a run of form that was well above what he has put out before or in the short time since. It looks to all intents like his 2023 was a spike year. Had he backed it up, then he would have proven that he could be classified and hence treated as some sort of premium player. Close but it seems, no cigar

If I'm wrong with all that, then we need a new word that marks "fake premiums" because they are real and exactly the sorts of players we need to avoid.

That sort of illustrates the point that I'm making, which is that whether someone is a "premium" is entirely subjective unless you predicate it on some objective factor, and the only truly objective factor is price. At its fundamental level SuperCoach (like any fantasy sport) is a trading and investment game which is entirely contingent on player pricing, as we all start with the same salary cap and must invest it in players that deliver a sufficient return in value over the course of the season as to net us the most points possible.

My view is that calling someone a "premium" is no more contingent on their scoring output than calling someone a "rookie" is contingent on them being a new recruit. If the latter were the case, the only rookies available would be the players selected in the 2023 National Draft and those taken in the rookie/preseason draft or supplemental signing etc. who hadn't played at AFL level before. Guys like Cadman, Darcy, Dempsey, Gibcus, Coffield, Z Reid wouldn't qualify. But of course we know that's a fallacy - "rookie" doesn't literally mean rookie, it's a label to apply to those players who can be selected below a certain price. As a consequence of that price they can be reasonably expected (all else being equal) to appreciate in price to deliver a sufficient return to allow them to be traded out for better players. So necessarily, if they're being selected it's with the intention that they be traded.

In a similar fashion, "premium" doesn't literally mean someone who scores at a premium level, it's a label to apply to those players who can be selected above a certain price. As a consequence of that price they cannot be reasonably expected (all else being equal) to appreciate in price to deliver a sufficient return to allow them to be traded out for better players. So necessarily, if they're being selected it's with the intention that they be kept.

If you tie the label to price then someone like 30-year-old 166-game veteran Alex Sexton isn't "rookie priced" - by virtue of price, he is a rookie.

And someone like 19-year-old sop****re Harry Sheezel isn't priced like a premium - by virtue of price, he is a premium.

That's why I say it should be tied to price, because then you're getting something close to objectivity.

I'm also saying it should be tied to starting price - so if someone like Sam Clohesy appreciates to $400k he doesn't cease to be a rookie and if someone like Jack Macrae depreciates to $380k he doesn't cease to be a premium. They're just a fantastic rookie and a rubbish premium respectively. If you base it on their in-season scoring or price (which are of course linked) then you have to chop and change the labels constantly as the season goes on.

If someone is "priced like a premium" at the start - why are they priced like a premium? The answer is because their average for the previous season put them at that level. So you might look at that and think they had a spike year, or they were assuming a more favourable role because someone else in their team was injured, or they haven't performed at that level for multiple successive seasons, or they had a couple of massive games that dragged their average up, or they came up against teams that didn't tag, or they have a quiet preseason, or any number of other reasons for you to think "hmm not sure they're going to continue to perform at that level or improve, can't see the value, I reckon I'll pass". But what I'm saying is that labelling the player you're taking a pass on as a "faux premium" or a "fake premium", or a player with a proven history of scoring at the requisite level as a "true premium", or a player who you expect to score at requisite level as a "potential premium" is all semantics because in my view they're all premiums on the basis that that label is contingent on starting price. They're just good, bad or indifferent picks as premiums.

I think the problem is that people parrot these glib one-liners like "Don't trade premiums" as if they're gospel and you're saying "hang on, what if they're not actual premiums because they sucked us in like LDU or they're severely underperforming like Dawson or they're mildly underperforming and weren't ever a real premium anyway like Grundy? We need a new label for those players because they don't align with the 'don't trade premiums' mantra." Of course you're entitled to trade those players if you think it will improve your team. I think the mantra should be interpreted as meaning don't trade away premium players (meaning players who are priced so high that they could not ever have been expected to appreciate sufficiently as to warrant trading, and therefore were selected with the intention that they be kept) on the basis of the occasional bad game or temporary decline in value. But if they're bleeding points and cash, you'll die wondering.

 

[Wheedus]

Bailey Dale's scores this year 87, 103, 93, 47, 12 (sub), 175

Started the round at $427k and was projected to lose another $50k with a BE of 184.

Will now likely bottom out at $420k.

Saints give up the most points to defender designated kickers and were horrible last night so take the 175 with a grain of salt but he's got a pretty good history of scoring and reliability so not a bad POD option down back.

Of course there is Bevo......

 

[eekraN]

Easy swap for Mass

 

[aj74]

That sort of illustrates the point that I'm making, which is that whether someone is a "premium" is entirely subjective unless you predicate it on some objective factor, and the only truly objective factor is price. At its fundamental level SuperCoach (like any fantasy sport) is a trading and investment game which is entirely contingent on player pricing, as we all start with the same salary cap and must invest it in players that deliver a sufficient return in value over the course of the season as to net us the most points possible.

My view is that calling someone a "premium" is no more contingent on their scoring output than calling someone a "rookie" is contingent on them being a new recruit. If the latter were the case, the only rookies available would be the players selected in the 2023 National Draft and those taken in the rookie/preseason draft or supplemental signing etc. who hadn't played at AFL level before. Guys like Cadman, Darcy, Dempsey, Gibcus, Coffield, Z Reid wouldn't qualify. But of course we know that's a fallacy - "rookie" doesn't literally mean rookie, it's a label to apply to those players who can be selected below a certain price. As a consequence of that price they can be reasonably expected (all else being equal) to appreciate in price to deliver a sufficient return to allow them to be traded out for better players. So necessarily, if they're being selected it's with the intention that they be traded.

In a similar fashion, "premium" doesn't literally mean someone who scores at a premium level, it's a label to apply to those players who can be selected above a certain price. As a consequence of that price they cannot be reasonably expected (all else being equal) to appreciate in price to deliver a sufficient return to allow them to be traded out for better players. So necessarily, if they're being selected it's with the intention that they be kept.

If you tie the label to price then someone like 30-year-old 166-game veteran Alex Sexton isn't "rookie priced" - by virtue of price, he is a rookie.

And someone like 19-year-old sop****re Harry Sheezel isn't priced like a premium - by virtue of price, he is a premium.

That's why I say it should be tied to price, because then you're getting something close to objectivity.

I'm also saying it should be tied to starting price - so if someone like Sam Clohesy appreciates to $400k he doesn't cease to be a rookie and if someone like Jack Macrae depreciates to $380k he doesn't cease to be a premium. They're just a fantastic rookie and a rubbish premium respectively. If you base it on their in-season scoring or price (which are of course linked) then you have to chop and change the labels constantly as the season goes on.

If someone is "priced like a premium" at the start - why are they priced like a premium? The answer is because their average for the previous season put them at that level. So you might look at that and think they had a spike year, or they were assuming a more favourable role because someone else in their team was injured, or they haven't performed at that level for multiple successive seasons, or they had a couple of massive games that dragged their average up, or they came up against teams that didn't tag, or they have a quiet preseason, or any number of other reasons for you to think "hmm not sure they're going to continue to perform at that level or improve, can't see the value, I reckon I'll pass". But what I'm saying is that labelling the player you're taking a pass on as a "faux premium" or a "fake premium", or a player with a proven history of scoring at the requisite level as a "true premium", or a player who you expect to score at requisite level as a "potential premium" is all semantics because in my view they're all premiums on the basis that that label is contingent on starting price. They're just good, bad or indifferent picks as premiums.

I think the problem is that people parrot these glib one-liners like "Don't trade premiums" as if they're gospel and you're saying "hang on, what if they're not actual premiums because they sucked us in like LDU or they're severely underperforming like Dawson or they're mildly underperforming and weren't ever a real premium anyway like Grundy? We need a new label for those players because they don't align with the 'don't trade premiums' mantra." Of course you're entitled to trade those players if you think it will improve your team. I think the mantra should be interpreted as meaning don't trade away premium players (meaning players who are priced so high that they could not ever have been expected to appreciate sufficiently as to warrant trading, and therefore were selected with the intention that they be kept) on the basis of the occasional bad game or temporary decline in value. But if they're bleeding points and cash, you'll die wondering.

We should get drunk together some time. I reckon the chat would be ace.

I see your point about it being a trading game and hence price needs to be the determining basis for things, including taxonomy. But I think it's still wrong. The point of the game is to finish with a better score and therefore, when categorising players, it needs to be based on that. "Do they give me premium results? Can they be expected to do so this year?"

I think the "don't trade premiums" philosophy is flawed anyway. "Buy low, sell high", to borrow from the trading word is a thing now in SC, where 1 premium (points scorer) can be traded for another plus cash equal to a decent rookie priced player downgrade. That was a lot harder to do when trades were worth 200k or so. With trades being worth as little as half that now, a Merrett to Walsh trade (for want of a better example right now) is effectively no different from downgrading Howes to Graham. You have the same number of premiums and rookies before and after the transaction in each case and both examples unlock the same amount of cash. Indeed, by trading premiums in this manner, you are opening up so many more opportunities to make bank, while the traditional player is stuck relying on cash cows to moo at the right time.

 

[JMAC]

Nick Martin, a top 6 defender? Can bring him in in the next three minutes haha.

 

[Chumpion]

Nick Martin, a top 6 defender? Can bring him in in the next three minutes haha.

To late to help but FWIW he won't be top 6 but could be an acceptable D6.

 

[Bombers2win]

Nick Martin, a top 6 defender? Can bring him in in the next three minutes haha.

Apart from his first Rd 63 he hasn’t really failed as a pick, the last fortnight has been relatively quiet for him yet he still finds ways to hit the ton, his price now is the problem with the likes of Stewart/Sicily/Sinclair/Daico’s all in the same bracket, as Chumpion said he’ll be acceptable but more like a top10 defender I reckon.

 

[Wheedus]

Bailey Dale's scores this year 87, 103, 93, 47, 12 (sub), 175

Started the round at $427k and was projected to lose another $50k with a BE of 184.

Will now likely bottom out at $420k.

Saints give up the most points to defender designated kickers and were horrible last night so take the 175 with a grain of salt but he's got a pretty good history of scoring and reliability so not a bad POD option down back.

Of course there is Bevo......

I really need to listen to myself a little more....

 

[wolfbunny]

I really need to listen to myself a little more....

Still not too late is it @$460k ? With a BE of -45.

 

[Shannon]

Still not too late is it @$460k ? With a BE of -45.

He looked great again on Saturday night, I am very tempted tbh

 

[wolfbunny]

He looked great again on Saturday night, I am very tempted tbh

I’m easing the same way, as @Wheedus says there is the Bevo factor, its just whether he won’t cop that again!
2 seasons at 90’s and a 102 in the last 3 and 93 so far, so some solid formline in recent years.
My backs are fairly full atm but always room for a good scorer who can make some $$ in the next few weeks.
Have to check my bye structure just in case.

 

[aps1]

I like Dale, but the last 2 weeks have been with Ed Richards in the midfield. You'd assume Richards goes back to a hbf when Libba returns, how does this impact Dale. They have a few to share the ball around and that may limit his ceiling.

Dogs do have a nice draw the next few weeks though.