SuperCoach Scores Twitter SuperCoach Scores Facebook

View Poll Results: Will Sam Dwyer be in your Initial SuperCoach Team in 2013?

Voters
53. REGISTER to Vote.
  • 1. Locked

    6 11.32%
  • 2. Likely

    8 15.09%
  • 3. Watch

    15 28.30%
  • 4. Unlikely

    13 24.53%
  • 5. No

    11 20.75%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 61

Thread: Sam Dwyer

  1. #21
    300 Games Club
    Join Date: 29-11-2012
    AFL Club: Hawthorn
    Posts: 1,471
    Likes: 222
    Rep Power: 734


    0 Not allowed!

    The concept is solid, but what if in the end Ablett is always scoring the highest every week. Are we just wasting 2 cash cows to potentially make 20-30 points once every 5-6 weeks? anyway that point is just to think about...


    Instead I'd like to consider a slight tweak with your plan Jay:

    Instead how about if we have all the best playing rookies in our side and then in the second half of the year we turn to the floating donut to make the extra points when we have many more premium mids?

    So the plan is to perform Cash Generation, then Maximum points. Max points obviously should be more since we stuck the cash generation first.

    Maybe I should have posted this in floating donuts
    SuperCoach:  1132 (2014)  1339 (2013) 


  2. #22
    Strategist
    Join Date: 01-03-2012
    AFL Club: Essendon
    Posts: 5,328
    Likes: 4,392
    Rep Power: 27131


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywhitebirds View Post
    An interesting analysis and idea. I come down on the side of using the slot for a cash-generating rookie instead of an extra floating donut, but even if I went down this path I'm not sure Sam Dwyer is the point-maximising call.

    Reason is if you want to use a floating donut you ideally want your floating donut to play late in the round, so you have the benefit of seeing what your EMG player has scored. If we look at Collingwood, they only play in Sunday/Monday games 6 times, and in the last game of the round 3 times. Melbourne play the most on a Sunday/Monday (11 times), and West Coast plays the most last games of the round (5 times). If we look at Adelaide, they have a better mix than Collingwood (9 times Sunday/Monday, 3 times last game), and have a similar MID/FWD rookie who is unlikely to play (although granted more likely to play compared to Sam Dwyer...) in Rory Atkins at $109,500.

    So, the question for me would become do I want to spend an extra ~$13k on a rookie (Rory Atkins vs Sam Dwyer) for the improved late-round positioning?

    I'd answer this question by comparing it to what you'd do with the $13k. If we assume for each $100k at start of season you'd look for an average of a 10 PPG improvement from Player X vs Player Y, then $13k is worth 1.3 PPG or 29 points over the course of the season (1.3 PPG x 22 games). So, question is, is the extra 3 late round games Adelaide has compared to Collingwood worth more than 29 points on aggregate?

    I'd suggest the answer to this is yes. Even assuming the floating donut only pays off in 2 of the 3 extra late round games, it could account for anywhere from 20 - 80 points.

    Anyway, a bit rats and mice, but every point counts...
    Welcome aboard and GREAT post I must say.

    The benefit of having Sam Dwyer is that by automatic deductive reasoning that your captain, Swan/Pendlebury will always play after the vice-captain.

    If you have Atkins as your floating donut it means you have to check captain as well as your floating donut plays after vice-captain. The mere fact that Swan/Pendlebury plays for the same team as Dwyer eliminates any concern that captain does not play after the vice-captain. I've used Swan/Pendlebury in the example as they would be one of my captains.

    I'm not suggesting you are wrong and a good pick up, but my second floating donut will be covering the games where the Pies play early and I can't use Dwyer as the floating donut, which could be Mr. Bean, but I need to look at their draw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hairy View Post
    The concept is solid, but what if in the end Ablett is always scoring the highest every week. Are we just wasting 2 cash cows to potentially make 20-30 points once every 5-6 weeks? anyway that point is just to think about...

    Instead I'd like to consider a slight tweak with your plan Jay:

    Instead how about if we have all the best playing rookies in our side and then in the second half of the year we turn to the floating donut to make the extra points when we have many more premium mids?

    So the plan is to perform Cash Generation, then Maximum points. Max points obviously should be more since we stuck the cash generation first.

    Maybe I should have posted this in floating donuts
    It's not only the Captain Loophole, but possibly having 2 bites of the pie with a rookie, Emergency Player Loophole?

    You are only looking at one side of the Pie (pun intended).

    It's actually indirectly 3 bites of the pie with the Floating Donut's MPP. Naturally, the awkward situation will be if the EMG player scores a solid 70, which then you need to decide whether you want this player's score.
    SuperCoach:  Winner (2011)  724 (2010)  188 (2009)  AFL Dream Team:  26 (2011) 

    Sooner or later you're going to realize, just as I did, that there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path - Morpheus
    Let no man forget how menacing we are, we are lions! Do you know what's waiting beyond that beach?Immortality! Take it! It's Yours! - Achilles

  3. #23
    200 Games Club
    Join Date: 13-03-2012
    AFL Club: Adelaide
    Posts: 1,191
    Likes: 782
    Rep Power: 1859


    0 Not allowed!

    Yes, having worked with the rolling lockout over the BigBash fantasy it is important to note (which we all probably knew anyway) that once the TEAM that the non-playing donut plays for has played he is locked into position. Even if that player himself hasn't played. Ideally the floating donut plays the last game every weekend which obviously won't happen.

    We are used to just loopholing from one game when we pick a VC and then have 8 more games to pick non-playing players from. It's been pretty straight forward.

    Rolling lockout from game to game is a whole different ball-game. It's obviously easier if you don't wish to use the loophole (ie, your VC choice stuffs up). If you do wish to use it the juggle of timing who locks into your team compared to when your C choice plays is not easy.

    I found the rolling loophole became as time consuming to manage as you chose to make it and sometimes it turned out that all the effort didn't generate more points, sometimes it did. It was break even for me over the 9 rounds actively working the lockout compared to if I had just locked my team away as normal and not looked at it again all weekend.

    The more complicated your looping set-up the cleverer you have to be with the timing as games pass lockout time. So if you are switching Dwyer from F to M to cover you have to carefully work out the timings of who plays when. You can't switch him with Rockliff is Rockliff has already played for example. If you are loop-holing a C choice AND an emergency's score getting the timing right is even more difficult.
    SuperCoach:  1238 (2016)  3623 (2015)  737 (2014)  2166 (2013)  15055 (2012)  3207 (2011)  3009 (2010)  356 (2009) 

      Quote Quote

  4. #24
    100 Games Club
    Join Date: 24-07-2012
    AFL Club: Port Adelaide
    Posts: 682
    Likes: 203
    Rep Power: 1298


    0 Not allowed!

    I've gone for Ben Kennedy (Mid/For)(Coll) because he is more likely to play at some stage and judging by previous years I will have plenty of players that turn out to be floating donuts that I thought were going to be cash cows, heres looking at you Thomas Couch.

  5. #25
    Moderator
    Join Date: 21-03-2012
    AFL Club: Essendon
    Posts: 7,215
    Likes: 9,581
    Rep Power: 11891
    Moderator


    2 Not allowed!

    As an aside can anyone image some people from Liam McBean's family and friends, or Liam himself, finding out that he is in say 15% of all SC teams and thinking "Wow, all these people must really rate Liam's footyball ability!!"
    SuperCoach:  6722 (2016)  2918 (2015)  9183 (2014)  10450 (2013)  1371 (2012)  96 (2011)  74 (2010)  3366 (2009)  329 (2008)  11 (2007)  334 (2006) 


  6. #26
    Strategist
    Join Date: 01-03-2012
    AFL Club: Essendon
    Posts: 5,328
    Likes: 4,392
    Rep Power: 27131


    1 Not allowed!

    I'll be the Devil's Advocate (Great Movie!) and ask yourself at Round 1, 2013, who will be your captain and your vice-captain?

    Friday, March 22
    • Adel v Ess, AAMI, 8.40pm

    Saturday, March 23
    • Frem v WC, Patersons, 7.40pm

    Thursday, March 28
    • Carl v Rich, MCG, 7.40pm

    Saturday, March 30
    • WB v BL, Etihad, 1.40pm
    • GWS v Syd, ANZ, 4.40pm
    • GC v StK, Metricon, 7.40pm

    Sunday, March 31
    • Melb v PA, MCG, 1.10pm
    • NM v Coll, Etihad, 4.40pm

    Monday, April 1
    • Haw v Geel, MCG, 3.15pm

    For me:

    • Ablett(VC)
    • Dwyer(EMG)
    • Swan/Pendlebury(C)

    Now for example,

    • If Cotchin is your vice-captain and Ablett is your captain and Cotchin scores 160 against the Blues, will you have a Floating Donut as part of your team? Note that you can still bring the floating donut as part of your initial SuperCoach team due to the rolling lockout? or
    • If you have Ablett as your vice captain and Swan/Pendlebury as you captain, would you forgo Ablett's score of 160 and take a chance on Swan/Pendlebury?

    I'm not doubting anyone, but let's just say if your vice-captain scores well in round 1, round 2, round 7, or whatever round, human nature will take its place and you 'may' trade in the Floating Donut after a few bad beats with the wrong Captain. This also applies to having bad beats for picking the wrong rookie to start on the field. I'm saying 'may' as I don't know the future. However, would you seriously walk away from a score of 160 from your vice-captain and risk a low score with an injury to your captain? Would you seriously walk away from a 100+ score of a rookie, which you have left on the bench?

    I'm not saying my strategy is correct and I agree that a person can be successful in SuperCoach 2013 without the Floating Donut, but I'm adopting this strategy. My advice is Just have a pre-run with your team Round 1 and see how it goes. Run the various different scenarios in your head and do a 'What If' scenario.

    PS -I'm not saying Sam Dwyer is 100% required, but I believe that a Floating Donut is required whether it's Mr.Bean (RIC) or other DPP rookies.
    SuperCoach:  Winner (2011)  724 (2010)  188 (2009)  AFL Dream Team:  26 (2011) 

    Sooner or later you're going to realize, just as I did, that there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path - Morpheus
    Let no man forget how menacing we are, we are lions! Do you know what's waiting beyond that beach?Immortality! Take it! It's Yours! - Achilles

  7. #27
    Strategist
    Join Date: 01-03-2012
    AFL Club: Essendon
    Posts: 5,328
    Likes: 4,392
    Rep Power: 27131


    0 Not allowed!

    Now if you can honestly put your hand on your heart and say you would not trade in a Floating Donut if your vice-captain scores 160, then there is no need to have Sam Dwyer or a Floating Donut. If you can't do that then you should have Sam Dwyer in your initial team rather than waste a trade trading him in.

    I realise some of the 'Unlikely voted' was due to the fact that other floating donuts would be picked.
    SuperCoach:  Winner (2011)  724 (2010)  188 (2009)  AFL Dream Team:  26 (2011) 

    Sooner or later you're going to realize, just as I did, that there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path - Morpheus
    Let no man forget how menacing we are, we are lions! Do you know what's waiting beyond that beach?Immortality! Take it! It's Yours! - Achilles

  8. #28
    Rising Star Winner
    Join Date: 21-08-2012
    AFL Club: St Kilda
    Posts: 250
    Likes: 31
    Rep Power: 408


    0 Not allowed!

    If you can get it right, this strategy can make a huge difference - but it requires a lot of luck (in terms of injuries etc...)

    I think it is worth it though to adopt the strategy.
    For mine, I'll have Ablett as VC every week, and in most cases i will keep his score, but in the event that he has an off game (off game for Ablett would be about 95-110 hah) then id take the punt with the loophole.

    Just how its going to fit with my team is the main thing...
    So far in my mids i've got the rookies: O. Wines, J. O'Meara, B. Couch and J. Viney
    Don't know who id drop to have Dwyer in there as I believe all of those players will be great Cash Cows and 3/4 if not all of them will line up Round 1.
    I wouldnt mind having McBean in RUC and Dwyer in FWD. I just dont wont to kick out one of those rookies above for Dwyer.

    So I was thinking maybe Tom Mitchell could be a better selection for mine in the MID. He's a gun, but will find it hard to get into the Swans side. However I think he could squeeze in in the back half of the season. Meaning he is used as a Floating Donut until he gets game... And in the mean time say Viney could be downgraded at rd 10ish to Dwyer, ensuring I always have a non-playing player.


    I know this will change a lot before round 1 but just a thought, it just worries me kicking out someone who has a good chance to generate a lot of cash.

    What do you think Jay? Also, will you be having a Floating Donut on each line?

  9. #29
    Moderator
    Join Date: 21-03-2012
    AFL Club: Essendon
    Posts: 7,215
    Likes: 9,581
    Rep Power: 11891
    Moderator


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordyfoz View Post
    So far in my mids i've got the rookies: O. Wines, J. O'Meara, B. Couch and J. Viney
    Don't know who id drop to have Dwyer in there as I believe all of those players will be great Cash Cows and 3/4 if not all of them will line up Round 1.
    I wouldnt mind having McBean in RUC and Dwyer in FWD. I just dont wont to kick out one of those rookies above for Dwyer.
    Another tactic could be lets say you have those 4 rookies and Crouch is not in the Adelaide 22 but an emergency. You could keep him in your team as your floating donut for Rd 1 for the first couple of weeks with the expectation that Crouch will force his way into the team in a couple of weeks once injuries start to take their toll on Adelaide. By then there would be a reasonable chance that one of your 8 mids will have an injury etc and can act as the new floating donut. Hence you save trades.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordyfoz View Post
    What do you think Jay? Also, will you be having a Floating Donut on each line?
    I suppose if you have McBean (R/f) if you had a mid/bac rookie you could cover all 4 lines with 2 players. Of course it doesnt help if say all 4 emargencies produce massive scores!


    EDIT - Swap Crouch with a different rookie, he would be pretty ineffective in Rd 1 since Adelaide play in the opening game.
    SuperCoach:  6722 (2016)  2918 (2015)  9183 (2014)  10450 (2013)  1371 (2012)  96 (2011)  74 (2010)  3366 (2009)  329 (2008)  11 (2007)  334 (2006) 


  10. #30
    Best and Fairest
    Join Date: 07-05-2012
    AFL Club: Richmond
    Posts: 2,739
    Likes: 849
    Rep Power: 3507


    0 Not allowed!

    Why does the floating donut have to be a DPP? If you have a guy not playing on a line and your vice gets 150 wouldn't you just put a guy playing on the bench and bring the guy not playing on the field and put the captain on him? Or am i missing something?
    SuperCoach:  4,558 (2016)  10,068 (2015)  722 (2014)  29 (2013)  474 (2012)  925 (2011) 


  11. #31
    Rising Star Nominee
    Join Date: 24-01-2013
    AFL Club: Hawthorn
    Posts: 60
    Likes: 37
    Rep Power: 528


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Hondo View Post
    Yes, having worked with the rolling lockout over the BigBash fantasy it is important to note (which we all probably knew anyway) that once the TEAM that the non-playing donut plays for has played he is locked into position. Even if that player himself hasn't played. Ideally the floating donut plays the last game every weekend which obviously won't happen.

    We are used to just loopholing from one game when we pick a VC and then have 8 more games to pick non-playing players from. It's been pretty straight forward.

    Rolling lockout from game to game is a whole different ball-game. It's obviously easier if you don't wish to use the loophole (ie, your VC choice stuffs up). If you do wish to use it the juggle of timing who locks into your team compared to when your C choice plays is not easy.

    I found the rolling loophole became as time consuming to manage as you chose to make it and sometimes it turned out that all the effort didn't generate more points, sometimes it did. It was break even for me over the 9 rounds actively working the lockout compared to if I had just locked my team away as normal and not looked at it again all weekend.

    The more complicated your looping set-up the cleverer you have to be with the timing as games pass lockout time. So if you are switching Dwyer from F to M to cover you have to carefully work out the timings of who plays when. You can't switch him with Rockliff is Rockliff has already played for example. If you are loop-holing a C choice AND an emergency's score getting the timing right is even more difficult.
    I mentioned in my earlier post I wasn't a fan of the floating donut and was preferring cash generating rookies. To some extent, this is true even for McBean. Let me be devil's advocate here and make the case for why the McBean floating donut is a bad idea for EMG trade purposes (can still work for captain purposes, and also for injury flexibility, but that's a different story).

    Let's assume I have Sandi and Mumford in my ruck, with Cox in the forward line. Each week, Mumford (who I view as having greater scoring variability compared to Sandi) will start on the bench as EMG, and McBean on the field. Now, Cox plays on Sunday/Monday 8 times, and 5 times is the last game of the week. So, if Mumford spuds it, I swing Cox into the ruck position. Pretty vanilla scenario, you can sub Goldy or Leuy in there, same logic. Problem is for the EMG loophole to work, I need both McBean AND Cox to be playing AFTER Sandi OR Mumford. How many times does that happen in a season? 2 games out of the 22 (9% of the games).

    So what's that actually worth in terms of points?

    Let's assume when Sandi or Mumford spud it they score 60, which is 40 less than the average you'd hope he would get (100). Last year, Mumford (the most likely to spud!) spudded it (ie scored ~60) in 4 of the 17 games he played (~23% of the time).

    So, let's work the McBean coverage model math. The odds would say Sandi/Mumford will spud about 5 times a season, and we have 2 games of coverage. However, we can't be sure the 5 times a season they spud it will be the 2 times a year I can use the Cox/McBean coverage model. So, the actual chance I can leverage McBean is 9% (2 games/22 games) x 23% (4 of the 17 games he spuds) = 2%. If, on average, I save 40 points (difference between 100 points and 60 points) when he spuds it, that means using Cox/McBean saves me 40 points x 2% = 1 point for the whole year. I get these are just averages, and it is the extreme example, but the bottom line is averages suggest that sacrificing a cash generating rookie for 1 point per year JUST for EMG loopholes in the ruck is poor logic.

    Implication of this also is that boosting your forward line with Roughies, Ryder etc probably won't radically boost the PPG enough to be the sole reason to put em in there.

    Happy to have the numbers challenged....
    SuperCoach:  1257 (2015) 


  12. #32
    Captain
    Join Date: 19-06-2012
    AFL Club: Collingwood
    Posts: 5,031
    Likes: 3,105
    Rep Power: 6180


    1 Not allowed!

    I know the rolling lockout is part of the game this year, but working on most Saturdays and playing golf on Sundays; my day to do something for me, puts a fair few of us at a disadvantage. Be that as it may, go with game, see how it goes. With respect to the builders of the game, there should be no 'loopholes' of any sort. Everybody sets their team before the first bounce..level playing field. To me it denotes a programming failure.
    Not a whinge, just a comment, all must play within the rules provided.
    Last edited by Courtesans; 24-01-2013 at 6:43pm.
    SuperCoach:  755 (2016)  3,658 (2015)  1,894 (2013)  43 (2012)  AFL Dream Team:  170 (2016) 


  13. #33
    Strategist
    Join Date: 01-03-2012
    AFL Club: Essendon
    Posts: 5,328
    Likes: 4,392
    Rep Power: 27131


    1 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywhitebirds View Post
    Let's assume I have Sandi and Mumford in my ruck, with Cox in the forward line. Each week, Mumford (who I view as having greater scoring variability compared to Sandi) will start on the bench as EMG, and McBean on the field. Now, Cox plays on Sunday/Monday 8 times, and 5 times is the last game of the week. So, if Mumford spuds it, I swing Cox into the ruck position. Pretty vanilla scenario, you can sub Goldy or Leuy in there, same logic. Problem is for the EMG loophole to work, I need both McBean AND Cox to be playing AFTER Sandi OR Mumford. How many times does that happen in a season? 2 games out of the 22 (9% of the games).
    Agree, McBean might not be the best Floating Donut and it has nothing to do with Mumford, Cox or Sandilands.

    it's more of the fact that the rookies don't come into play.

    Before I begin, first of all Mumford, Cox and Sandilands must start on he field and not on the Bench with an EMG. If we cannot be confident to start our premiums on the field then we are in deep trouble already.

    The Emergency Player Loophole is to cover those rookies you have starting that you are worried might not do well.

    Round 1 example:

    Brad Crouch(e) not not my starter. Everyone will start with Crouch, but I won't. I'll have Crouch(e). If Crouch does well and scores 80, then I start Floating Donut Dwyer and get Crouch scores. Now if Crouch gets 30 and is subbed off. I won't take Crouch score, I'll maybe switch Rockliff to the Mid or move my real Midfield 9 to start the game, when everyone else has Crouch. That is I have two bites of the pie with Crouch score. If Crouch does well, I keep it. If Crouch does bad then I don't keep it.

    Again, I repeat that premiums must start on the ground as if you don't have the confidence that your premium should start on the ground then you shouldn't even pick him as a premium.

    Every week you have that sliding door question, Crouch, Viney, Mitchell starting. But every week with the Floating Donut, you get a free hit just in case he doesn't score well.

    Quote Originally Posted by johno686 View Post
    Why does the floating donut have to be a DPP? If you have a guy not playing on a line and your vice gets 150 wouldn't you just put a guy playing on the bench and bring the guy not playing on the field and put the captain on him? Or am i missing something?
    Now the beauty of DPP is you have 2 free hits per Floating Donut, for example round 1:

    Dwyer [Crouch(e), M10]
    ...........[Daniher(e), F8]

    You get 2 free hits there with Daniher and Crouch.

    • Crouch (Bad), Daniher (Good) - Dwyer floats to the Forward on the field we get Daniher's score
    • Crouch (Good), Daniher (Bad) - Dwyer starts in the Midfield and we get Crouch score, Daniher we don't keep, so ignore
    • Crouch (Good,), Daniher (Good) - Dwyer starts in Midfield (Crouch) or floats to starting Forward (for Daniher). We need another floating donut for each good score if we want the second good score.
    • Crouch (Bad), Daniher (Bad) - we don't want either of their scores, so just pick the usual starters


    You have pretty much 2 free hits with the DPP Floating Donut of 2 rookie scores. You add that to the Captain Loophole and to me that's a cheap price.

    How much money do we expect to make on one rookie, $200K-$300K? You need to remember the first 3 good rookies, I would of had or traded them in, it's just the last one of the rank, which I might miss.

    Base on the above, I will have 2 free hits of rookies to capitalise one rookie per round, plus a free hit of a vice-captain for the price of one potential cashcow each round for $300K, I'll take that Remember, I would never miss a good cashcow as I'll trade him in as soon as 2 good games (remember we have 30 trades now)
    SuperCoach:  Winner (2011)  724 (2010)  188 (2009)  AFL Dream Team:  26 (2011) 

    Sooner or later you're going to realize, just as I did, that there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path - Morpheus
    Let no man forget how menacing we are, we are lions! Do you know what's waiting beyond that beach?Immortality! Take it! It's Yours! - Achilles

  14. #34
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 14,244
    Likes: 12,154
    Rep Power: 22457
    Moderator


    1 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywhitebirds View Post
    So what's that actually worth in terms of points?

    Let's assume when Sandi or Mumford spud it they score 60, which is 40 less than the average you'd hope he would get (100). Last year, Mumford (the most likely to spud!) spudded it (ie scored ~60) in 4 of the 17 games he played (~23% of the time).

    So, let's work the McBean coverage model math. The odds would say Sandi/Mumford will spud about 5 times a season, and we have 2 games of coverage. However, we can't be sure the 5 times a season they spud it will be the 2 times a year I can use the Cox/McBean coverage model. So, the actual chance I can leverage McBean is 9% (2 games/22 games) x 23% (4 of the 17 games he spuds) = 2%. If, on average, I save 40 points (difference between 100 points and 60 points) when he spuds it, that means using Cox/McBean saves me 40 points x 2% = 1 point for the whole year. I get these are just averages, and it is the extreme example, but the bottom line is averages suggest that sacrificing a cash generating rookie for 1 point per year JUST for EMG loopholes in the ruck is poor logic.

    Implication of this also is that boosting your forward line with Roughies, Ryder etc probably won't radically boost the PPG enough to be the sole reason to put em in there.

    Happy to have the numbers challenged....
    I agree with the numbers, to a certain extent, and follow your logic, I just think you are slightly askew in your summary.
    I will start with your last point first, because I agree totally with the last section of it. I don't think there is any point in selecting Roughy or Ryder in your Fwd line, unless you believe they will be in, or near, the top 6 scoring Fwd's for the year. What your summary didn't allow for, was the 5/22 games that Mummy misses, and you use McBean DPP related coverage, rather than trade Mummy out. I know on a emg loophole basis you are covering the spud scores, but the McBean/Roughy or McBean/Ryder connections have more use than just that, so you'd need to somehow factor that in too. I can't see Mummy playing 22 games, ever. When you try to put a point value on this back up, it is pretty hard, as the variables start to stack up.
    Your analysis of saving 1 point for a whole year needs to be put into perspective. As you said, that is an average of 1 point per year, when this model is used over a LOT of years. I know it's nit-picking (and sorry for that), but it is better to isolate the year, and just say "It is a 2% chance to save/make you 40 points next year, when used as an emg loophole".
    I really think anyone pairing McBean with a DPP R/F sitting in the Fwd line isn't really considering emg loopholes, they are only factoring in coverage for the inevitable games the Mummy's of this world will miss. Your point that it is bad SC logic to use Roughy or Ryder solely for this, if you think they are below standard Fwd's is well noted, and spot on.

    By the way, welcome aboard. It's great to have another mind here that pulls things apart mathematically. I hope you stick around and post some more!
    Last edited by Rowsus; 24-01-2013 at 6:53pm.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  15. #35
    Deputy Vice Captain
    Join Date: 22-08-2012
    AFL Club: Collingwood
    Posts: 3,503
    Likes: 1,291
    Rep Power: 2240


    0 Not allowed!

    Nobody no's if the loophole is worth it, if ablett or ur favoured captain doesn't let u down ur loosing the cash a playing cash cow makes each week
    SuperCoach:  1232 (2016)  6140 (2015)  236 (2014)  1966 (2013) 


  16. #36
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 14,244
    Likes: 12,154
    Rep Power: 22457
    Moderator


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Courtesans View Post
    I know the rolling lockout is part of the game this year, but working on most Saturdays and playing golf on Sundays; my day to do something for me, puts a fair few of us at a disadvantage. Be that as it may, go with game, see how it goes. With respect to the builders of the game, there should be no 'loopholes' of any sort. Everybody sets their team before the first bounce..level playing field. To me it denotes a programming failure.
    Not a whinge, just a comment, all must play within the rules provided.
    Totally agree. On one hand they try to keep those who give up interested, by giving so many trades, on the other hand they make the game nearly unwinnable to those not willing to commit themselves to nearly every possible late change, everyweek. They give with one hand, and take with the other.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  17. #37
    Strategist
    Join Date: 01-03-2012
    AFL Club: Essendon
    Posts: 5,328
    Likes: 4,392
    Rep Power: 27131


    0 Not allowed!

    For me the strongest argument against the Floating Donut (yes I've very objective) would be how do we know our rookie or vice-captain is the best we can get. That is, how do we know if rookie Crouch's 80 or vice-captain Ablett's 130 is a good score to keep or do we take a chance on another starter or do we go for Swan/Pendlebury as captain.

    That to me is a sound argument. Why am I questioning my own article LOL? I like to challenge my own advice too.

    In response to whether to keep the EMG or the VC is we don't know.

    However, I prefer to have the option to decide if I want the EMG or the VC score or take a gamble with another start or the C. Rookies, probably anything over 75 I'll keep and Vice-Capt anything over 140. It gets a bit tricky if it's about 130. However, if you were winning to accept the vice-captain's score then you should be happy regardless as what you have purchased is 'certainty' with your capt.
    SuperCoach:  Winner (2011)  724 (2010)  188 (2009)  AFL Dream Team:  26 (2011) 

    Sooner or later you're going to realize, just as I did, that there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path - Morpheus
    Let no man forget how menacing we are, we are lions! Do you know what's waiting beyond that beach?Immortality! Take it! It's Yours! - Achilles

  18. #38
    Captain
    Join Date: 16-09-2012
    AFL Club: Geelong
    Posts: 5,589
    Likes: 1,168
    Rep Power: 2173


    0 Not allowed!

    With your question of VC/C rd 1, using McBean I can pick Sandi vice and Pendles captain if he spuds it up.
    SuperCoach:  29,982 (2014)  184 (2013)  7082 (2012) 


  19. #39
    Rising Star Nominee
    Join Date: 24-01-2013
    AFL Club: Hawthorn
    Posts: 60
    Likes: 37
    Rep Power: 528


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Impromptu View Post

    Every week you have that sliding door question, Crouch, Viney, Mitchell starting. But every week with the Floating Donut, you get a free hit just in case he doesn't score well.

    Now the beauty of DPP is you have 2 free hits per Floating Donut, for example round 1:

    Dwyer [Crouch(e), M10]
    ...........[Daniher(e), F8]

    You get 2 free hits there with Daniher and Crouch.

    • Crouch (Bad), Daniher (Good) - Dwyer floats to the Forward on the field we get Daniher's score
    • Crouch (Good), Daniher (Bad) - Dwyer starts in the Midfield and we get Crouch score, Daniher we don't keep, so ignore
    • Crouch (Good,), Daniher (Good) - Dwyer starts in Midfield (Crouch) or floats to starting Forward (for Daniher). We need another floating donut for each good score if we want the second good score.
    • Crouch (Bad), Daniher (Bad) - we don't want either of their scores, so just pick the usual starters


    You have pretty much 2 free hits with the DPP Floating Donut of 2 rookie scores. You add that to the Captain Loophole and to me that's a cheap price.
    Thanks for the response. Let me have 1 more crack at why I think Sam Dwyer is a bad idea (I know I'm disagreeing with you Jay - 1 more shot then I'll go back to my corner).

    You're making two huge assumptions in the above comments, neither of which are valid in my mind:
    - that the round structure will enable a floating donut
    - that the rookies you have will play every game (if they don't, there is a lower chance the round structure will facilitate a floating donut).

    Let me explain. Assume your rookie mids are Wines (Port), Crouch (Adel), Viney (Melb), O'Meara (GC), and Dwyer (Coll). Now, to use Dwyer as a potential floating donut and give you optionality you need at least 1 mid rookie to play before Dwyer (as an EMG), and 1 mid rookie to play after Dwyer (to bring on the field in place of Dwyer if the EMG rookie's score sucks).

    So, how many times does at least 1 of Port, Adelaide, Melbourne or GC play before Collingwood, and at least 1 of them after? Answer - 7 times (rounds 3, 7, 8, 14, 17, 18, 20).

    Now, if you assume your mids are all locked premos by Round 14, following which you will play all your mids hopefully week in, week-out, that means in reality there are only 3 rounds where the floating donut in the mids works - 3, 7 and 8. Even if the floating donut pays off in each of these rounds (ie the bench player clearly gets a higher score than you expect the other rookie to get, say 100 vs expected 60 points), the most points you would make is 3 rounds x 40 points = 120 points.

    If you factor in the low likelihood that it will pay off in those specific rounds, plus the fact you most likely won't have all your rookies playing in each of those rounds, I'd put money on the points being closer to 0 than 120.

    And remember, the FWD swap is irrelevant if you don't have a viable floating donut structure in the mids...

    My last shot at shooting down Sam Dwyer!
    SuperCoach:  1257 (2015) 


  20. #40
    Strategist
    Join Date: 01-03-2012
    AFL Club: Essendon
    Posts: 5,328
    Likes: 4,392
    Rep Power: 27131


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywhitebirds View Post
    Thanks for the response. Let me have 1 more crack at why I think Sam Dwyer is a bad idea (I know I'm disagreeing with you Jay - 1 more shot then I'll go back to my corner).
    LOL feel free too. That's what forums are for, ie heathy discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywhitebirds View Post
    And remember, the FWD swap is irrelevant if you don't have a viable floating donut structure in the mids...
    I'm not sure what you mean here, but I presume that Dwyer will start in the MID to link with Rockliff/Martin/Robinson whoever.

    MID - Dwyer* [Crouch(e),R10]
    fwd - Rockliff* [Daniher(e), F8]

    • Crouch (Bad), Daniher (Good) - Dwyer floats to the Forward on the field we get Daniher's score
    • Crouch (Good), Daniher (Bad) - Dwyer starts in the Midfield and we get Crouch score, Daniher we don't keep, so ignore
    • Crouch (Good,), Daniher (Good) - Dwyer starts in Midfield (Crouch) or floats to starting Forward (for Daniher). We need another floating donut for each good score if we want the second good score.
    • Crouch (Bad), Daniher (Bad) - we don't want either of their scores, so just pick the usual starters


    In relation to the draw, I might trade him into a cashcow or into another floating donut.

    Either way, collectively I believe that having the luxury of using having 1 or 2 bites of the cherry is good enough with the Captain loophole. Remember, while I prefer to protect the rookies by using the loophole, in rounds where it is not possible, then I'll simply use a mid-pricer or premium with the E, someone like Robinson. Obviously premiums should start and rookies on the bench, but if there is no value with rookie on the bench, then I get a free hit with a premium(e).

    In the flipside, you are assuming this rookie will be a cashcow rather than a flop. As previously mentioned, any cashcow (with a low/negative breakeven) that others take, I will trade in and the Floating Donut cashcow will presumably be the worst cashcow.

    You can't on one hand argue in the worst case scenario for the Floating Donut and on the other hand argue in the best case scenario that the CashCow will be a Broughton/Rookie Rockliff etc. How do we know the rookie may or may not become a flop. We don't. The alternative of the floating donut could be a Cam Richardson, Thomas Couch, Relton Roberts etc.

    My point is collectively, for the price of one cashcow (which we don't know will reap rewards or become a lemon) I'll be happy to have 3 bites of the cherry each rounds with the rookie and in the case where the Dwyer plays early, then I'll skip that round or use a premium/midpricer as the emergency. Together with the Captain Loophole it's a bargain.

    I take the objective view and say all things being equal, the alternative to the rookie will not be a Relton Roberts nor a Rookie Rockliff/Broughton, but in midway. By the way, if I felt the rookie was to become a Broughton, I would trade him in. Anyone who missed him would trade him in. Thus if the cashcow is not a Rockliff/Broughton nor a Relton Roberts, then we pick someone in between say he gets to $350K. How many points do you think you can make with an extra $250K, but then I'd expect my points gain would equate to it.

    I re-iterate, you need to use the 'objective test' or the 'all things being equal', you can't argue the rookie will be the best cashchow (as being a chess player, I'd simply negate it, but trading the best cashcow it). I won't argue the rookie will be the worst cashcow (as you can simply trade the lemon out). Thus we meet half way.

    Now you just need to do the test:

    With 3 bites of the cherry for rookies each round (or premiums/midpricers where required) plus 2 bites of the right captain, is that worth the price of making $250K? It's not for me to decide, it's for everyone to decide.

    Let's just say being a strategist and a chess player, I would block/negatve any chance of missing a cashchow and to give anyone an advantage


    • If your submission is on the basis that we should have a Floating Donut but not Sam Dwyer, then possibly as I haven't gone every single permutation or combination of the rookies.
    • If your submission is that the Floating Donut has no value, then we will have to agree to disagree.


    It just depends one how we value a rookie and how we value the loophole. I just see everyone is valuing this rookie to be a rookie Rockliff/Broughton

    PS - While this is not the reason, but Dwyer in the MID gives you a bit of cover too and flexibility. As if midfield rookies don't games, then you simply switch Dwyer (bench forward) with Rockliff (plays mid).
    SuperCoach:  Winner (2011)  724 (2010)  188 (2009)  AFL Dream Team:  26 (2011) 

    Sooner or later you're going to realize, just as I did, that there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path - Morpheus
    Let no man forget how menacing we are, we are lions! Do you know what's waiting beyond that beach?Immortality! Take it! It's Yours! - Achilles

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •