SuperCoach Scores Twitter SuperCoach Scores Facebook

View Poll Results: Which midfielders will you start in 2018?

Voters
36. REGISTER to Vote.
  • Dangerfield

    22 61.11%
  • Martin

    14 38.89%
  • Titch

    19 52.78%
  • Ablett

    0 0%
  • Kelly

    14 38.89%
  • Oliver

    7 19.44%
  • Zorko

    4 11.11%
  • M Crouch

    10 27.78%
  • Sloane

    1 2.78%
  • Duncan

    0 0%
  • Zerrett

    6 16.67%
  • Neale

    1 2.78%
  • Fyfe

    26 72.22%
  • Pendles

    10 27.78%
  • Bont

    6 16.67%
  • JPK

    0 0%
  • Jelwood

    2 5.56%
  • Treloar

    1 2.78%
  • Hannebery

    4 11.11%
  • Rockliff

    2 5.56%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2345678 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 170
  1. #81
    Rising Star Nominee
    Join Date: 15-10-2017
    Posts: 82
    Likes: 56
    Rep Power: 157


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by chels View Post
    Could you indicate whether the bit I have boldened should read:
    (i) my bulldogs mate - i.e., he plays for the doggies; or
    (ii) my bulldogs supporting mate - i.e., he supports (as opposed to plays for) the doggies.
    Haha I meant my bulldogs supporting mate, I know Bont has had hip problems on/off for a couple of years now and that affected his scoring later in the year
      Quote Quote

  2. #82
    Rising Star Nominee
    Join Date: 15-10-2017
    Posts: 82
    Likes: 56
    Rep Power: 157


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Manikato1 View Post
    I would refer you to this article by Rowsus which makes excellent reading on fallen premiums including age analysis. http://www.supercoachscores.com/thre...fallen+premium
    Yeah I've checked that out and it helped convince me that Pendles could very well bounce back. Looking at Pendles stats not much has changed except that this year he has more inside 50's and less rebound 50's, probably meaning that his kicking effiency is down and handball efficiency is up compared to previous years. This does not seem to indicate deterioration but a slight change in role/style of play (he has been notoriously injury free throughout his career) Unfortunately we only have his disposal efficiency which has ranged from 75%-79% for the past 5 years so we can't be 100% sure. If it's a different role he's playing again then that could spell trouble but I believe he has shown far too much high scoring ability to not take a gamble on.
      Quote Quote

  3. #83
    300 Games Club
    Join Date: 16-06-2013
    AFL Club: Adelaide
    Posts: 1,494
    Likes: 622
    Rep Power: 2426


    0 Not allowed!

    I like this kid. Maybe not this year (but maybe ), especially in the 300k price range, but I reckon will be a gun in the future

    Name:  spec pick.jpg
Views: 368
Size:  16.9 KB
    SuperCoach:  16974 (2016)  49k (2015)  7316 (2014)  10k (2013) 


  4. #84
    Dual Best & Fairest
    Join Date: 12-04-2014
    AFL Club: Collingwood
    Posts: 3,246
    Likes: 1,859
    Rep Power: 6563


    1 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by IDIG View Post
    I've always been that way too Darkie and i think it's where some of us traditionalists can get exposed.

    Blaze mentioned above that he's probably too conservative to pick a Redden type, as i have been in past years, but Oliver was probably the one player that broke every SC rule ever made last year but was probably the difference between a good and ok/bad season for many. Picks like him and even Doc (over Shaw and his historical numbers) were worth 10,000s places overall.

    I'm thinking that it just seems easier to predict a player upward trending, over a player who has had a down year and will bounce back so i'll probably avoid most of the super-elite guys on a down year and go with a youth policy + form type team. Rocky may be the exception but he has the 'new club rule' to support his selection.
    It's a big question, and one I think a few of us will have pondered.

    Missing a player like Oliver was obviously quite costly, but I struggle to get past how low the odds of that sort of outcome must have been, especially given how few people here seemed to be advocating for him (myself very much included). If I interpret Row's table correctly, the odds were c. 3%, even if you ignore the fact that everyone in this sample scored over 100 at one point in his career - ie, this was a much better than average sample, which should have significantly improved the odds.

    http://www.supercoachscores.com/thre...-Sorted-By-Age

    The other thing for me is that I just don't think I'm that good a judge of up and coming footballers, and who will adapt to AFL level quickly, and score well at a young age. So I'm essentially playing to my strengths, in addition to using a strategy that makes more sense to me.

    I'm prepared to reassess if my approach doesn't work this year (particularly stripping out issues like uncharacteristic injuries), but I think the fallen premiums approach is still the one I'd use if my life was at stake ... and aside from that, I know I'll be more annoyed if it proves right and I've not followed it, than in the reverse scenario!

    Do you know what Jay is planning on doing?
    SuperCoach:  589 (2016)  3225 (2015)  8243 (2014)  AFL Dream Team:  397 (2016) 


  5. #85
    300 Games Club
    Join Date: 06-07-2012
    AFL Club: North Melbourne
    Posts: 1,573
    Likes: 626
    Rep Power: 3086


    1 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Juzzo View Post
    I like this kid. Maybe not this year (but maybe ), especially in the 300k price range, but I reckon will be a gun in the future

    Name:  spec pick.jpg
Views: 368
Size:  16.9 KB
    Not sure he'll quite be elite, but could get to 100+ when he's bulked up a bit. Not sure how he's mid only, clearly played forward quite a bit last year.
    SuperCoach:  3,104 (2013)  4,978 (2012)  9,760 (2011) 


  6. #86
    Moderator
    Join Date: 08-03-2012
    AFL Club: Essendon
    Posts: 24,117
    Likes: 11,972
    Rep Power: 9380
    Moderator


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkie View Post
    It's a big question, and one I think a few of us will have pondered.

    Missing a player like Oliver was obviously quite costly, but I struggle to get past how low the odds of that sort of outcome must have been, especially given how few people here seemed to be advocating for him (myself very much included). If I interpret Row's table correctly, the odds were c. 3%, even if you ignore the fact that everyone in this sample scored over 100 at one point in his career - ie, this was a much better than average sample, which should have significantly improved the odds.

    http://www.supercoachscores.com/thre...-Sorted-By-Age

    The other thing for me is that I just don't think I'm that good a judge of up and coming footballers, and who will adapt to AFL level quickly, and score well at a young age. So I'm essentially playing to my strengths, in addition to using a strategy that makes more sense to me.

    I'm prepared to reassess if my approach doesn't work this year (particularly stripping out issues like uncharacteristic injuries), but I think the fallen premiums approach is still the one I'd use if my life was at stake ... and aside from that, I know I'll be more annoyed if it proves right and I've not followed it, than in the reverse scenario!

    Do you know what Jay is planning on doing?
    Yeah it was a near impossible type of pick to justify with what we know about SC. I grabbed him for Hanners from memory which is a big no-no every other year but as it turned out, it was a season defining trade of sorts as it allowed me some financial flexibility to make other moves.

    As you would know, jumping on these bolters in previous years has not been a winning formula but having seen him go at it, i kinda felt like he was capable of not being a complete disaster...and as it turned out, he became one of the top scoring midfielders at the ultra kind price of $450k or whatever it was. Funny old game this sometimes

    Knowing Jay, he will start Pendles, Selwood and potentially Rocky as he plays a similar game to yourself and backs in the historical numbers (and he loves his brand names). I'll find it hard not to start Pendles if he looks good in the preseason and i think i'll be rolling with Rocky at a new club. Selwood will be a wait and see, which has become the norm for me in recent times.
    SuperCoach:  1,895 (2017)  4,853 (2016)  5,202 (2015)  479 (2014)  7,684 (2013) 

    Highest overall ranking: 18th (Rd 18, 2014)

  7. #87
    Moderator
    Join Date: 21-05-2012
    AFL Club: Hawthorn
    Posts: 14,987
    Likes: 4,732
    Rep Power: 4977
    Moderator


    1 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Juzzo View Post
    I like this kid. Maybe not this year (but maybe ), especially in the 300k price range, but I reckon will be a gun in the future

    Name:  spec pick.jpg
Views: 368
Size:  16.9 KB
    Quote Originally Posted by Bontempele View Post
    Not sure he'll quite be elite, but could get to 100+ when he's bulked up a bit. Not sure how he's mid only, clearly played forward quite a bit last year.
    Loved what this bloke did last year and the way he goes about it. As Bontemepele said, surprised he is not FWD eligible to be honest. Definitely one to monitor over the coming year or so.
    SuperCoach:  7,008 (2017)  1,940 (2016)  2,715 (2015)  3,063 (2014)  8,473 (2013)  282 (2012) 

    That's What I'm Talkin' About

  8. #88
    Michael Tuck Club
    Join Date: 13-04-2012
    AFL Club: Port Adelaide
    Posts: 2,343
    Likes: 1,766
    Rep Power: 5968


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Goodie's Guns View Post
    Loved what this bloke did last year and the way he goes about it. As Bontemepele said, surprised he is not FWD eligible to be honest. Definitely one to monitor over the coming year or so.
    Quite often mistook him for Macrae when watching on TV. Looks to have some real talent.
    SuperCoach:  12499 (2015)  5015 (2014)  22 (2013)  10k (2012)  20k (2011) 


  9. #89
    Best and Fairest
    Join Date: 27-01-2014
    AFL Club: Fremantle
    Posts: 2,858
    Likes: 2,903
    Rep Power: 7902


    2 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkie View Post
    It's a big question, and one I think a few of us will have pondered.

    Missing a player like Oliver was obviously quite costly, but I struggle to get past how low the odds of that sort of outcome must have been, especially given how few people here seemed to be advocating for him (myself very much included). If I interpret Row's table correctly, the odds were c. 3%, even if you ignore the fact that everyone in this sample scored over 100 at one point in his career - ie, this was a much better than average sample, which should have significantly improved the odds.

    http://www.supercoachscores.com/thre...-Sorted-By-Age

    The other thing for me is that I just don't think I'm that good a judge of up and coming footballers, and who will adapt to AFL level quickly, and score well at a young age. So I'm essentially playing to my strengths, in addition to using a strategy that makes more sense to me.

    I'm prepared to reassess if my approach doesn't work this year (particularly stripping out issues like uncharacteristic injuries), but I think the fallen premiums approach is still the one I'd use if my life was at stake ... and aside from that, I know I'll be more annoyed if it proves right and I've not followed it, than in the reverse scenario!

    Do you know what Jay is planning on doing?
    Your very low risk strategy is also a very low luck strategy and you are removing good luck as well as bad luck. Guns and rookies is a great way to finish top 1000 and make sure you are competitive in a league but in a competition with 200,000 competitors there are bound to be many more than you who have taken chances and gotten lucky. I don't mean lucky like lotto. I mean lucky like this player will have a break out year soon and I'm not going to wait for hindsight. If you decide to run your luck and finish 20,000th it doesn't mean the strategy is wrong.
    But I can understand a coach who plays cash leagues and views supercoach as a profitable hobby playing the percentages. Last years overall winner didn't even win his work league. He got knocked out in the prelim, probably by a more consistent player who fell too far behind early but ultimately had a better constructed team by the time finals came around.
    I think the perfect supercoach article published by the herald sun was interesting. 5 premiums and 13 mid pricers in the starting lineup and didn't need Laird for the whole year! Supercoach should have a league team separate to the overall team, like they do for the keeper leagues, so a player can have an overall strategy and a league strategy and the herald sun wouldn't need to offer prizemoney for those in leagues who are probably already playing for something amongst each other anyway.
    I'm always thinking about the $50k knowing that the risks I take can often backfire.
    Last edited by freowho; 19-12-2017 at 3:55pm.
    SuperCoach:  8293 (2017)  10922 (2016)  9214 (2015)  653 (2014) 

    I miss the old colours.

  10. #90
    Rising Star Nominee
    Join Date: 15-10-2017
    Posts: 82
    Likes: 56
    Rep Power: 157


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurn Stern View Post
    The AFL player rating are a good measure of a players impact, and usually translates a good SC score. Bont is ranked 5th overall, but it works on a 2 year cycle, so it still includes the premiership year and his awesome finals scoring. He finished 20th using just this years data, with Dusty 1st, Danger 2nd, and .... Fyfe in 3rd, then Ablett 4th and Pendles 5th.

    Its not a direct correlation, but its generally a good indication of which players will be scaled up based upon impact. Im waiting to see how the Dogs go before selecting Bont.

    Its a a pretty decent guide but I feel it places way too much importance on X factor and context in place of consistency and that askews the impact. X factor and big moment plays are important in reality(as they are in supercoach but much less so) but aren't completely disproportionate to consistent play throughout games and big plays early in games. Game by game you see many players who were top 3 on the ground get rated 12th or something around that by the ratings. I.e Heppell in round 20 had 34 disposals, 15 contested, 6 tackles, 6 clearances 134 SC points but was ranked equal 7th with the others for the player ratings. A bit like the total qbr by espn for NFL the end result is counterintuitive and you don't know what exactly is being measured
      Quote Quote

  11. #91
    Rising Star Nominee
    Join Date: 15-10-2017
    Posts: 82
    Likes: 56
    Rep Power: 157


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by 1000litresgained View Post
    Its a a pretty decent guide but I feel it places way too much importance on X factor and context in place of consistency and that askews the impact. X factor and big moment plays are important in reality(as they are in supercoach but much less so) but aren't completely disproportionate to consistent play throughout games and big plays early in games. Game by game you see many players who were top 3 on the ground get rated 12th or something around that by the ratings. I.e Heppell in round 20 had 34 disposals, 15 contested, 6 tackles, 6 clearances 134 SC points but was ranked equal 7th with the others for the player ratings. A bit like the total qbr by espn for NFL the end result is counterintuitive and you don't know what exactly is being measured
    It should say (as they are in supercoach but much less so than the player ratings). It should also say ranked equal 7th with three other Essendon players by the player ratings****for some reason I can't edit that last comment.
      Quote Quote

  12. #92
    Dual Best & Fairest
    Join Date: 12-04-2014
    AFL Club: Collingwood
    Posts: 3,246
    Likes: 1,859
    Rep Power: 6563


    4 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by IDIG View Post
    Yeah it was a near impossible type of pick to justify with what we know about SC. I grabbed him for Hanners from memory which is a big no-no every other year but as it turned out, it was a season defining trade of sorts as it allowed me some financial flexibility to make other moves.

    As you would know, jumping on these bolters in previous years has not been a winning formula but having seen him go at it, i kinda felt like he was capable of not being a complete disaster...and as it turned out, he became one of the top scoring midfielders at the ultra kind price of $450k or whatever it was. Funny old game this sometimes

    Knowing Jay, he will start Pendles, Selwood and potentially Rocky as he plays a similar game to yourself and backs in the historical numbers (and he loves his brand names). I'll find it hard not to start Pendles if he looks good in the preseason and i think i'll be rolling with Rocky at a new club. Selwood will be a wait and see, which has become the norm for me in recent times.
    It sounds like you jumped on Oliver at exactly the right time. For what it's worth, that's basically the approach I would intend to use for this type of player - not start them (he had never scored 100 before), but get them in quickly if something had clearly changed (he scored four consecutive 100s and averaged 116 over that period, and continued in a similar vein). I didn't end up picking Oliver, but he wasn't ruled out as an in season pick, just for my starting side. To freo's point, I would say that you took a calculated risk - one that I think was much lower than pre-season - and it worked out for you.

    It's interesting you say that Jay backs the history and loves the brand names ... I feel like he is quite an out of the box thinker on SC, but I see that as the textbook strategy. If I recall correctly he is quite willing to take non-consensus approaches in structure, which I see as a slightly different aspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by freowho View Post
    Your very low risk strategy is also a very low luck strategy and you are removing good luck as well as bad luck. Guns and rookies is a great way to finish top 1000 and make sure you are competitive in a league but in a competition with 200,000 competitors there are bound to be many more than you who have taken chances and gotten lucky. I don't mean lucky like lotto. I mean lucky like this player will have a break out year soon and I'm not going to wait for hindsight. If you decide to run your luck and finish 20,000th it doesn't mean the strategy is wrong.
    But I can understand a coach who plays cash leagues and views supercoach as a profitable hobby playing the percentages. Last years overall winner didn't even win his work league. He got knocked out in the prelim, probably by a more consistent player who fell too far behind early but ultimately had a better constructed team by the time finals came around.
    I think the perfect supercoach article published by the herald sun was interesting. 5 premiums and 13 mid pricers in the starting lineup and didn't need Laird for the whole year! Supercoach should have a league team separate to the overall team, like they do for the keeper leagues, so a player can have an overall strategy and a league strategy and the herald sun wouldn't need to offer prizemoney for those in leagues who are probably already playing for something amongst each other anyway.
    I'm always thinking about the $50k knowing that the risks I take can often backfire.
    I probably wouldn't see what I'm doing as particularly low risk, although maybe I haven't enunciated myself very well! Perhaps I can explain it better (albeit not so concisely ...) below.

    I see structure (guns and rookies vs mid-priced madness, eg) as being different to player selection (fallen premiums vs bolters, eg). Both are tools in a coach's arsenal, if you will.

    I would say it's possible to have a team full of brand names (mine will have quite a few) but a fair bit of structural risk that perhaps wouldn't be recommended by the purists (mid-pricers). In 2017, for example, I started or traded in all of Fyfe, Beams, Sandi, JOM, Swallow and Roughy. I think most people would have advised against this (some did ) and in retrospect they were right, but I am comfortable with the decision (albeit I would err on fewer, rather than more, mid-pricers if I had to change it one way or another). My team is on the RMT tread and currently includes all of Birchall, Griffen, Ah Chee, Lids and Bennell as mid-pricers (mainly high-priced cash cows as I see it, with one or two as potential keepers if things go my way, like Wells a couple of years ago). I think I also take a decent amount of risk via trades (I basically start at round three and use them as fast as possible until my team is all-but upgraded) and VC/C (I base my decision purely on expected points, not locking in a safe but middling VC score) - so there are a few ways you can take risk as I see it.

    I agree with your point about having to expose yourself to the possibility of winning if you want to have some chance of that. Without wanting to make things too technical, if your overall season score is plotted against every other coach, you want to be in the right tail of th curve (I'm pretty sure you will be all over this, although not everyone will be familiar with it).

    There are a couple of ways of doing that as I see it. One is to select players with high variance, so you tend to end up with players that do really well or really poorly, and you end up with a right tail outcome, or potentially a left tail one (albeit you can usually end up mid-pack simply by turning up consistently and having half an idea).

    The other way is to pick players with high expected return. This is really my focus. All of the potential cash cows I select are chosen on this basis - their job is to make cash, so it's all about outperforming their price, ideally fairly quickly. I'm pretty agnostic about their other attributes. I will likely end up with more mid-pricers than most because I think Griffen, Bennell and others can make at least as much cash as a good rookie, somewhat more in my view.

    The other key set of players with high expected return (in my eyes) are those I expect to significantly outperform their price and perform at or very close to keeper level. This could well be a 2017 Heeney type (breakout candidate, and one I was quite confident in and selected) but in my case is more likely to be a fallen premium. Essentially my view is that mean reversion applies, especially once I overlay my own understanding of a player, their role, fitness and the like. I used basically the same approach in DT last year (albeit with less research - perhaps the strategy is okay but I'm overthinking the player selection? Or maybe I just got luckier) and was 4th early on, and finished about 220th after being realistically in the hunt for maybe 2/3 of the year.

    My current premiums are largely fallen, including Gawn and NicNat (almost everyone seems on board with this) plus Fyfe, Pendles, Selwood, Rocky, Hanners, Gray and Dahl (less popular, except maybe Fyfe, for understandable reasons). I'm picking the latter group not so much because I see them as safe but because I see them as having an attractive expected return (they are discounted, and I am confident they will outscore their price, especially in aggregate, with a strong chance of most of them being good keepers). Personally I would see picking players like Laird and Heeney (for 2018, and ignoring any issues regarding his knee) as being low risk and low expected return. They're a good chance to be premium keepers, with low likelihood of being disasters, but they definitely will not be what the ultimate winner points to as determining his/her success! I currently have both, largely because I think they have a role to play in an SC side (a portfolio?) and because I can't find superior options.

    To your point about some people playing conservatively for various reasons because thy only have one team, I agree with this. I mentioned elsewhere recently that I think it would be really straightforward for each coach to be allowed perhaps 2 or 3 teams, and they simply designate which is eligible for the cash prizes before the season starts. If one team goes badly, another may be going well enough to keep someone interested ... ie, still going to the website, viewing the advertising, watching more games, etc etc. It seems to be a win-win for coaches and for those running the competition, so I was wondering whether I had missed an obvious reason why this hasn't been done already.
    Last edited by Darkie; 19-12-2017 at 9:59pm.
    SuperCoach:  589 (2016)  3225 (2015)  8243 (2014)  AFL Dream Team:  397 (2016) 


  13. #93
    100 Games Club
    Join Date: 12-01-2014
    AFL Club: West Coast
    Posts: 722
    Likes: 536
    Rep Power: 1897


    0 Not allowed!

    I probably wouldn't see what I'm doing as particularly low risk, although maybe I haven't enunciated myself very well!
    I have liked your post Darkie just because you used the word enunciated. That is the word of the day for sure. English teacher in another life?????
    There are no shortcuts to anywhere that is worth going to.
      Quote Quote

  14. #94
    Rising Star Winner
    Join Date: 24-03-2015
    AFL Club: North Melbourne
    Posts: 390
    Likes: 300
    Rep Power: 856


    0 Not allowed!

    Great post Darkie, very eloquently put.

    On a complete change of topic, what do people think of Jack Graham? Debuted R22 last year and played 5@80 (including 3 finals) - averaged 14 disposals, 7 tackles and a goal per game.

    Awkward price for a 20yo (call him a high, high priced rookie) but he certainly had some poise about him and looked right at home on the big stage. Probably a no for me but interested in people's thoughts.
    SuperCoach:  12877 (2016)  8481 (2015) 


  15. #95
    Rising Star Winner
    Join Date: 08-01-2015
    AFL Club: Sydney
    Posts: 256
    Likes: 287
    Rep Power: 1463


    0 Not allowed!

    Darkie - congrats on a well thought out post. A comment designed to clarify if you will bear with me. Thus may seem pedantic but it is not. You say:

    "The other way is to pick players with high expected return. This is really my focus. All of the potential cash cows I select are chosen on this basis - their job is to make cash, so it's all about outperforming their price, ideally fairly quickly. I'm pretty agnostic about their other attributes. I will likely end up with more mid-pricers than most because I think Griffen, Bennell and others can make at least as much cash as a good rookie, somewhat more in my view."

    You use two concepts here "return" and "cash" (generation). They are not interchangeable. For ease of exposition assume two players; player X is a $100 rookie and player Y is a $300 mid pricer. Assume X increases in value by $50 - a 50% return. To give the same return Y needs to increase in price by $150 rather than by the $50 X's price increased. That is the notion of a return - it is adjusted by the amount of the investment. Which player would you rather have held? For cash generation Y, but note there is an opportunity cost in holding Y, you could have spent $200 elsewhere, which would in turn have generated cash. You need to factor in the foregone return on that investment to conclude whether X or Y performed better. On a return basis you should be indifferent between X and Y.

    BTW, I am sure you understand this - I am just making sure we use the terms return and cash generation consistently.
    SuperCoach:  5257 (2017)  29649 (2016)  21972 (2015)  18713 (2014) 

      Quote Quote

  16. #96
    300 Games Club
    Join Date: 06-07-2012
    AFL Club: North Melbourne
    Posts: 1,573
    Likes: 626
    Rep Power: 3086


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Leroy View Post
    Great post Darkie, very eloquently put.

    On a complete change of topic, what do people think of Jack Graham? Debuted R22 last year and played 5@80 (including 3 finals) - averaged 14 disposals, 7 tackles and a goal per game.

    Awkward price for a 20yo (call him a high, high priced rookie) but he certainly had some poise about him and looked right at home on the big stage. Probably a no for me but interested in people's thoughts.
    Surely Griffen and Armitage are preferable at a similar prices? Could be a one-game wonder, or could go be a genius pick!
    SuperCoach:  3,104 (2013)  4,978 (2012)  9,760 (2011) 


  17. #97
    100 Games Club
    Join Date: 04-03-2013
    AFL Club: Geelong
    Posts: 714
    Likes: 430
    Rep Power: 1393


    1 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by freowho View Post
    Your very low risk strategy is also a very low luck strategy and you are removing good luck as well as bad luck. Guns and rookies is a great way to finish top 1000 and make sure you are competitive in a league but in a competition with 200,000 competitors there are bound to be many more than you who have taken chances and gotten lucky. I don't mean lucky like lotto. I mean lucky like this player will have a break out year soon and I'm not going to wait for hindsight. If you decide to run your luck and finish 20,000th it doesn't mean the strategy is wrong.
    But I can understand a coach who plays cash leagues and views supercoach as a profitable hobby playing the percentages. Last years overall winner didn't even win his work league. He got knocked out in the prelim, probably by a more consistent player who fell too far behind early but ultimately had a better constructed team by the time finals came around.
    I think the perfect supercoach article published by the herald sun was interesting. 5 premiums and 13 mid pricers in the starting lineup and didn't need Laird for the whole year! Supercoach should have a league team separate to the overall team, like they do for the keeper leagues, so a player can have an overall strategy and a league strategy and the herald sun wouldn't need to offer prizemoney for those in leagues who are probably already playing for something amongst each other anyway.
    I'm always thinking about the $50k knowing that the risks I take can often backfire.
    Need to spread some rep...
    I think relying solely on hard data is flawed within it's self and it also assumes the persons ability to read and then implement
    that data effectively.
    And don't forget those pesky little things called variables, here variables, there variables EVERYWHERE VARIABLES!
    Last edited by GoGeta; 20-12-2017 at 12:56pm.

  18. #98
    250 Games Club
    Join Date: 13-03-2012
    AFL Club: Adelaide
    Posts: 1,265
    Likes: 807
    Rep Power: 1991


    2 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by freowho View Post
    Your very low risk strategy is also a very low luck strategy and you are removing good luck as well as bad luck. Guns and rookies is a great way to finish top 1000 and make sure you are competitive in a league but in a competition with 200,000 competitors there are bound to be many more than you who have taken chances and gotten lucky. I don't mean lucky like lotto. I mean lucky like this player will have a break out year soon and I'm not going to wait for hindsight. If you decide to run your luck and finish 20,000th it doesn't mean the strategy is wrong.
    But I can understand a coach who plays cash leagues and views supercoach as a profitable hobby playing the percentages. Last years overall winner didn't even win his work league. He got knocked out in the prelim, probably by a more consistent player who fell too far behind early but ultimately had a better constructed team by the time finals came around.
    I think the perfect supercoach article published by the herald sun was interesting. 5 premiums and 13 mid pricers in the starting lineup and didn't need Laird for the whole year! Supercoach should have a league team separate to the overall team, like they do for the keeper leagues, so a player can have an overall strategy and a league strategy and the herald sun wouldn't need to offer prizemoney for those in leagues who are probably already playing for something amongst each other anyway.
    I'm always thinking about the $50k knowing that the risks I take can often backfire.
    My theory is that you need to nail these value picks to win $50K because the past winners mostly seem to have these picks.

    That said, most value picks don't work out so from that perspective it seems a risky approach. However, for those willing to dabble in value picks and not go strict GnR the carrot is the greater likelihood of being $50K richer at the end.

    The winners seem to be value orientated coaches who just happen to get on all the right value horses in a given year whereas the traditionalists going stricter GnR tend to get consistently high rankings but not win the $50K. The winners mostly seem to be coaches without a track record of high rankings which probably reflects the higher risk associated with trying to nail the right value picks.

    I think Jay is an exception to this in his winning year which I recall was more GnR than most winners.
    SuperCoach:  2252 (2017)  1238 (2016)  3623 (2015)  737 (2014)  2166 (2013)  15055 (2012)  3207 (2011)  3009 (2010)  356 (2009) 

      Quote Quote

  19. #99
    Rising Star Winner
    Join Date: 06-06-2013
    Posts: 222
    Likes: 108
    Rep Power: 222


    1 Not allowed!

    Why is there no Cripps in the Poll - absolute beast, absolute lock

    And am warming to Barlow - god help me
      Quote Quote

  20. #100
    Rising Star Nominee
    Join Date: 15-10-2017
    Posts: 82
    Likes: 56
    Rep Power: 157


    1 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Hondo View Post
    My theory is that you need to nail these value picks to win $50K because the past winners mostly seem to have these picks.

    That said, most value picks don't work out so from that perspective it seems a risky approach. However, for those willing to dabble in value picks and not go strict GnR the carrot is the greater likelihood of being $50K richer at the end.

    The winners seem to be value orientated coaches who just happen to get on all the right value horses in a given year whereas the traditionalists going stricter GnR tend to get consistently high rankings but not win the $50K. The winners mostly seem to be coaches without a track record of high rankings which probably reflects the higher risk associated with trying to nail the right value picks.

    I think Jay is an exception to this in his winning year which I recall was more GnR than most winners.
    Is that actually correct?

    The 2013 winner had 4 mids over 600k and 2 genuine mid pricers (Karnezis at 262k and Cloke at 436k), along with 3 semi mid priced players (Dusty 473k, Mundy 477k and Hartlett 489k).
    The 2014 winners team is unavailable but he advised to only pick 2 mid priced players in a herald sun article, whilst the 2015 winners 2016 team only had 3 mid pricers (his winning team is unavailable).
    The 2016 winner's team had 4 mid pricers in Johannisen (418k), Brad Crouch (310k but was traded to Libba at 357k shortly after), Hall 428k and Wells at 243k. He also had 4 midfielders over 600k in his starting lineup, as well as Gawn and Goldstein.
    I'm not sure if crazy amounts of risk or saving money was as important as nailing their premiums and rookies from the start. They also generated money from expensive premiums from the start and rather than having more premiums/midpricers on the field they started more rookies. This meant they were essentially generating more money and were leaving room to pick the appropriate players as the season unfolded.
      Quote Quote

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2345678 ... 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
  •