SuperCoach Scores Twitter SuperCoach Scores Facebook
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 107
  1. #41
    250 Games Club
    Join Date: 25-03-2012
    AFL Club: Collingwood
    Posts: 1,228
    Likes: 1,505
    Rep Power: 5566


    8 Not allowed!

    I think something that often goes overlooked in this type of analysis is that you not only have to nail the correct time to trade a player OUT, but you also have to pick the right player to trade IN. John Bruyn gets many plaudits for trading out Cloke at his peak (and deservedly so) but it is hardly even mentioned that he traded in Steve Johnson (I'm 99% sure) who went on a massive run of his own from the time he was traded in.

    The benefits of trading out a well-performing, and in most cases, overpriced player are proven, but you still have to nail the person you are trading in.
    SuperCoach:  14270 (2017)  8377 (2016)  163 (2015)  AFL Dream Team:  4854 (2017)  6693 (2016)  5 (2015) 


  2. #42
    350 Games Club
    Join Date: 13-03-2012
    AFL Club: Adelaide
    Posts: 1,616
    Likes: 1,052
    Rep Power: 2720


    5 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pearcey47 View Post
    I think something that often goes overlooked in this type of analysis is that you not only have to nail the correct time to trade a player OUT, but you also have to pick the right player to trade IN. John Bruyn gets many plaudits for trading out Cloke at his peak (and deservedly so) but it is hardly even mentioned that he traded in Steve Johnson (I'm 99% sure) who went on a massive run of his own from the time he was traded in.

    The benefits of trading out a well-performing, and in most cases, overpriced player are proven, but you still have to nail the person you are trading in.
    IIRC that year StevieJ was being talked up with a switch to the midfield but missed 1 or more games from the start due to suspension. if not for that, he would have been a very popular pick. So then he started playing, did in fact get that midfield time and was completely gunning it and needed to be brought in but R5 or so when Dimmawits did it was an awkward and early round to make that move. So either like me you had a LTI trade and brought SJ in. OR you happen to have a way overpriced Trav Cloke in your team who you want to cash out.

    I think he himself acknowledges that the had the perfect storm of someone (in fact a massive POD) to trade out at close to $600K and a must have cheaper premium going on a SC bender.

    I can't recall such a clear cut obvious sideways premium win trade as that before or since. I am sure some have their own similar stories but there are also stories of when these moves just fail like Higgins and Lynch last year.

    The odds are stacked this tactic working against which is why it hasn't come into our standard seasons plans. I'm not saying don't explore it though.

    It always comes down to the conundrum that the reason your player has maxxed out in price way above what you paid is because they have been scoring well and been really important to your side. You are selling off one of your key assets, gambling on your guess that they are about to go MIA. And you are selling them off despite your team not being upgraded or despite holding some mid-priced punt that has turned into a spud.

    You ask yourself, why I am trading one of my best scoring players (esp if he is a POD) while I still have X number of spuds who are doing my head in week after week? Shouldn't I fix them first? What if I make the trade but my max priced gun keeps it up and I am off the train. You'd never forgive yourself!

    I never considered it with Dahl last year but in hindsight it seems obvious.

    All that said, it is something we should consider more than we do I reckon. It might be something you explore as the season unfolds and you notice the opportunity. Trying to pre-plan your IN and OUT relies on quite a few planets lining up. The more planets you need lined up, the less likely it happen.
    Last edited by Hondo; 01-02-2018 at 3:04pm.
    SuperCoach:  2252 (2017)  1238 (2016)  3623 (2015)  737 (2014)  2166 (2013)  15055 (2012)  3207 (2011)  3009 (2010)  356 (2009) 

      Quote Quote

  3. #43
    Rising Star Winner
    Join Date: 31-07-2013
    AFL Club: Richmond
    Posts: 267
    Likes: 503
    Rep Power: 3933


    14 Not allowed!

    It's hard to stay away from a thread like this

    FWIW I haven't tried to repeat the strategy. I mean winning SC is a multitude of "things going your way" and this was just one for the season. My take away season to season is just to try and have some sort of point of difference in your side.

    I'm as susceptible as anyone to the ole group think. I think it's important that you resist the need to play safe. If there 'was a Cloke' to be started with this year chances are he won't be Dixon or Gray....and the player 'you should've' had that is going to get that sort of effect on the comp would be the guy people right now will say you are crazy to start. (although Rowsus's analysis in the thread is bloody top notch).

    I think a good example might be not picking Danger. It's certainly something I am struggling with. It would take some big kahuna's to do it but lets says he comes out and averages 115-120 along with Gaz and Jelwood...cats finish 2nd and they lose in the Granny to the tiges. It will seem obvious after that Danger was overpriced...but of course that will only matter if you spent that extra 100-150k wisely. Maybe you start an extra premo mid (Rocky/Cripps etc) who ends up top 10...it's the second part of the move that matters more and is maybe harder to nail as you won't have the preseason to mull it over (if it is trade based). I wouldn't have won if I chose someone other than SJ in that trade. But there were a bunch of other things where the dice landed my way also.

    Maybe it is Peracca. Comes out and goes 35 possessions and 6 goals rd 3, follows up with 33 and 7 after tonning up rd 1 and 2. Meanwhile Danger gets concussed rd 3. Plays 100% fwd the next week and drops a ton of cash going into round 5. Would you try swap them at that point? To start with you gotta start CP and not Danger to even have the choice and also be correct that CP then crumbles under a tag rest of the year. Needle in a hay stack stuff but bloody fun looking for it!
    SuperCoach:  Winner (2013) 

      Quote Quote

  4. #44
    50 Games Club
    Join Date: 25-06-2015
    AFL Club: Essendon
    Posts: 411
    Likes: 277
    Rep Power: 756


    1 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dimmawit View Post
    It's hard to stay away from a thread like this

    I think a good example might be not picking Danger. It's certainly something I am struggling with. It would take some big kahuna's to do it but lets says he comes out and averages 115-120 along with Gaz and Jelwood...cats finish 2nd and they lose in the Granny to the tiges. It will seem obvious after that Danger was overpriced...but of course that will only matter if you spent that extra 100-150k wisely. Maybe you start an extra premo mid (Rocky/Cripps etc) who ends up top 10...it's the second part of the move that matters more and is maybe harder to nail as you won't have the preseason to mull it over (if it is trade based). I wouldn't have won if I chose someone other than SJ in that trade. But there were a bunch of other things where the dice landed my way also.
    Last season I did the no Danger and managed to pick him up at what ended up being about his lowest price for the season. Was around 100~ rank not too long after I picked him up and liked thinking that was why.

    This being said, the first handful of rounds last season were spent obsessively fidgeting over when to get Danger back in...
    SuperCoach:  1300 (2017)  5074 (2016)  1045 (2015) 

    420 Fedora Fanatic
      Quote Quote

  5. #45
    Dual Brownlow Medalist
    Join Date: 11-11-2012
    AFL Club: Essendon
    Posts: 11,062
    Likes: 7,322
    Rep Power: 13161


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ricky Bobby View Post
    Gaz's price really worries me - not much margin for error there. If he was $100k cheaper, I think I would possibly consider picking him as part of this type of Strategy, but I guess at that price there would be lots of other Coach's willing to do the same thing and therefore it wouldn't be a POD...

    It's funny, I started to write this comment with a view to disagreeing with your suggestion, but as I think about it further (and in the spirit of this being a POD thread) I am coming around to your way of thinking. Gaz's ownership is low (6.3%) and will probably stay low due to his price so putting him in your starting team will be a POD move. You are probably not going to see much price rise, but could benefit from stronger potential scoring. You just need to assess whether it is a POD for POD's sake and whether the upside potential is better than if you took a $550k mid and used the spare $80 -$100k efficiently. If he gets injured, then you should have enough cash to trade to any number of other premo's.

    I'm not sure that this would be a move that I would make, but I hope it goes well for you if you go down that path
    Part of the problem is, there are so many good 550k mids, I'm not sure who the right one is. I'm kind of thinking of using Ablett as someone to place there (because I know he'll be 110-115 at least with a fair chance of 120-125) til I can figure out who the right option is? Is that a waste of a trade? Definitely a lot more sensible to just grab a Titch or a Dusty at that price, but where's the fun in that!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rowsus View Post
    There's one key difference between trying it with Gaz, and the Riewoldt situation.
    Riewoldt played on, so those that had him likely held him, a least until they completed their team. Anyone who traded him at that optimum moment was getting the double gain of getting a better performing player, while there were many stuck with an underperforming Premium in Riewoldt.
    While it's not impossible, it's unlikely Gaz will become a 20-30/game underperformer, the bigger problem is staying on the park. That's why it's not comparing apples with apples, as most will probably dump Ablett if/when the trouble hits, but not many, if any, dumped Riewoldt. You'd be making a popular (and correct) decision, which means your path would not be that different to a large percentage of other Ablett owners.

    In a totally ideal situation, which rarely gets to happen, you'd be trading out a player, that masses are trading in, in that same week! That's very unlikely with Ablett.
    Fair point in that GAZ is somewhat different to Nick Roo but he was the closest fit as an example of 'taking a different path to the final destination'. The way that GAZ might work is if he starts off as one of the few going at 120-125+ over 7-8 rounds and the masses start panicking and trade him in only for him to finish on a PIT100 (ie: no LTI but a number of missed games). The masses would be reluctant to trade him out (barring an LTI) as they'd spent a trade getting him in, however, I'd be happy enough to offload him expecting him to get rests/minor niggles in the second half.

    Still not set on GAZ at all as I probably can spend the cash better elsewhere, but it's certainly a POD strategy under consideration.
    Supercoach: 3775 (2017) 530 (2016) 1858 (2014) 805 (2013) 4220 (2011) 574 (2010) Real Dreamteam: 74 (2017) 1225 (2016) 335 (2015) 518 (2014)

  6. #46
    Captain
    Join Date: 19-06-2012
    AFL Club: Collingwood
    Posts: 5,483
    Likes: 3,381
    Rep Power: 6647


    3 Not allowed!

    To KISS and as a contradictor. I still adhere to the one up one down mantra, no sideways trades unless necessary or should be done. Simply due to I run out of trades with LTI's to premium players. Horses for courses, this trading is luxuriating. Luv to do it.


    Having said that, Shaw, Rocky, Roo, JJK, Treloar, Lynch killed me last year. Had to hold 3 of them as they were still playing, still ran out of trades and I am not frivolous with them.
    Last edited by Courtesans; 03-02-2018 at 3:18pm.
    SuperCoach:  755 (2016)  3,658 (2015)  1,894 (2013)  43 (2012)  AFL Dream Team:  170 (2016) 

    "Do Something." (John Kennedy 1975)

  7. #47
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,469
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pearcey47 View Post
    I think something that often goes overlooked in this type of analysis is that you not only have to nail the correct time to trade a player OUT, but you also have to pick the right player to trade IN. John Bruyn gets many plaudits for trading out Cloke at his peak (and deservedly so) but it is hardly even mentioned that he traded in Steve Johnson (I'm 99% sure) who went on a massive run of his own from the time he was traded in.

    The benefits of trading out a well-performing, and in most cases, overpriced player are proven, but you still have to nail the person you are trading in.
    Not completely necessary.
    Trading out an overperforming, overpriced player, and taking say a $150k profit, can still be considered a winning move, even if the traded in player scores at say 5 less/game than your traded out player. The $150k, which is around what your middle of the road downgrade on a Rookie makes, sets up a Rookie upgrade. Lose 5/game on the Prem swap, make 30/game (or more) on the Rookie upgrade. While ideally you want a win/win, but a good win/small loss still equates to a win imo.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hondo View Post
    IIRC that year StevieJ was being talked up with a switch to the midfield but missed 1 or more games from the start due to suspension. if not for that, he would have been a very popular pick. So then he started playing, did in fact get that midfield time and was completely gunning it and needed to be brought in but R5 or so when Dimmawits did it was an awkward and early round to make that move. So either like me you had a LTI trade and brought SJ in. OR you happen to have a way overpriced Trav Cloke in your team who you want to cash out.

    I think he himself acknowledges that the had the perfect storm of someone (in fact a massive POD) to trade out at close to $600K and a must have cheaper premium going on a SC bender.

    I can't recall such a clear cut obvious sideways premium win trade as that before or since. I am sure some have their own similar stories but there are also stories of when these moves just fail like Higgins and Lynch last year.

    The odds are stacked this tactic working against which is why it hasn't come into our standard seasons plans. I'm not saying don't explore it though.

    It always comes down to the conundrum that the reason your player has maxxed out in price way above what you paid is because they have been scoring well and been really important to your side. You are selling off one of your key assets, gambling on your guess that they are about to go MIA. And you are selling them off despite your team not being upgraded or despite holding some mid-priced punt that has turned into a spud.

    You ask yourself, why I am trading one of my best scoring players (esp if he is a POD) while I still have X number of spuds who are doing my head in week after week? Shouldn't I fix them first? What if I make the trade but my max priced gun keeps it up and I am off the train. You'd never forgive yourself!

    I never considered it with Dahl last year but in hindsight it seems obvious.

    All that said, it is something we should consider more than we do I reckon. It might be something you explore as the season unfolds and you notice the opportunity. Trying to pre-plan your IN and OUT relies on quite a few planets lining up. The more planets you need lined up, the less likely it happen.
    Certainly planning your IN that far in advance is harder than planning your OUT. I don't think there is anything wrong with a bit of Draw or opportunity (ie role change due to injured team mate) analysis to help pick a player you hope and plan to be your OUT. While you might do a similar analysis to help pre-plan your IN, I totally agree, it is probably hoping too many planets will align.
    I myself will be starting one or both Dixon/Lynch with the plan of trading them out by their bye at the latest, and hopefully before then, if their prices peak, and their B/E's climb.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  8. #48
    250 Games Club
    Join Date: 25-03-2012
    AFL Club: Collingwood
    Posts: 1,228
    Likes: 1,505
    Rep Power: 5566


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rowsus View Post
    Not completely necessary.
    Trading out an overperforming, overpriced player, and taking say a $150k profit, can still be considered a winning move, even if the traded in player scores at say 5 less/game than your traded out player. The $150k, which is around what your middle of the road downgrade on a Rookie makes, sets up a Rookie upgrade. Lose 5/game on the Prem swap, make 30/game (or more) on the Rookie upgrade. While ideally you want a win/win, but a good win/small loss still equates to a win imo.
    5 less/game than what the overpriced player was averaging when you traded them out, or with the benefit of hindsight 5 less/game than what the overpriced player averaged AFTER you traded them out?

    I think you are absolutely nailing the trade in if you manage to get someone for a $150,000 saving that comes within 5ppg of a player you are trading out.
    SuperCoach:  14270 (2017)  8377 (2016)  163 (2015)  AFL Dream Team:  4854 (2017)  6693 (2016)  5 (2015) 


  9. #49
    350 Games Club
    Join Date: 16-06-2013
    AFL Club: Adelaide
    Posts: 1,733
    Likes: 734
    Rep Power: 2919


    1 Not allowed!

    I agree with Courtesans.
    Even if I did know or had the chance to make a Cloke-like trade, it seems I always have to deal with a more important issue ie LTI, etc.
    So I try to stay away from sideways like trades. Of course if everything is going along nicely I would love to try to pull one of these moves, but in my 5 or 6 year SC career the opportunity has not come my way yet. Maybe this year!
    SuperCoach:  16974 (2016)  49k (2015)  7316 (2014)  10k (2013) 


  10. #50
    Rising Star Winner
    Join Date: 08-01-2015
    AFL Club: Sydney
    Posts: 269
    Likes: 294
    Rep Power: 1471


    2 Not allowed!

    Could I suggest a lot of us are missing the thrust of Rowsus's argument?

    Foe mine it is - we spend an inordinate amount of time looking for the player who is undervalued (averaging 80 when we expected 100) and trying to time his inclusion in our team. What I think Rowsus is suggesting is you selected a guy who you hope to go at 100, he is going at 120, what a great time to flick him, and take a player who can maintain 100 especially if he is undervalued.

    In other words, do your research before the season starts and then back your research and judgement during the season. Don't faff round trying to predict the player who might be the trade out before the season starts, look at the data as the season unfolds. Look at the high B/E's as well as the low B/E/s. The opportunity might not happen but allow your mind to be open to the possibility.
    SuperCoach:  5257 (2017)  29649 (2016)  21972 (2015)  18713 (2014) 

      Quote Quote

  11. #51
    350 Games Club
    Join Date: 13-03-2012
    AFL Club: Adelaide
    Posts: 1,616
    Likes: 1,052
    Rep Power: 2720


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by chels View Post
    Could I suggest a lot of us are missing the thrust of Rowsus's argument?

    Foe mine it is - we spend an inordinate amount of time looking for the player who is undervalued (averaging 80 when we expected 100) and trying to time his inclusion in our team. What I think Rowsus is suggesting is you selected a guy who you hope to go at 100, he is going at 120, what a great time to flick him, and take a player who can maintain 100 especially if he is undervalued.

    In other words, do your research before the season starts and then back your research and judgement during the season. Don't faff round trying to predict the player who might be the trade out before the season starts, look at the data as the season unfolds. Look at the high B/E's as well as the low B/E/s. The opportunity might not happen but allow your mind to be open to the possibility.
    I think his suggestion is to actually pick the player in your starting side and that a KPF is the likely player. Unless I have misunderstood.

    As well as generally be open to cash cows not always having to be your starting rookies.

    It’s just that it is easier said than done I think
    SuperCoach:  2252 (2017)  1238 (2016)  3623 (2015)  737 (2014)  2166 (2013)  15055 (2012)  3207 (2011)  3009 (2010)  356 (2009) 

      Quote Quote

  12. #52
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,469
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    2 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pearcey47 View Post
    5 less/game than what the overpriced player was averaging when you traded them out, or with the benefit of hindsight 5 less/game than what the overpriced player averaged AFTER you traded them out?

    I think you are absolutely nailing the trade in if you manage to get someone for a $150,000 saving that comes within 5ppg of a player you are trading out.
    I think you still don't appreciate the potential of it all.
    I dug back through some old posts from 2016 to find the details of my Shaw/McVeigh trade.
    In Round 11 2016 I traded Shaw ($658,400) to McVeigh ($442,200) for a profit of $216,200. Most of that money was used that Round to upgrade a Rookie to a premium.
    The key part of your point is, how did McVeigh perform?
    Coming into Round 11 Shaw had scored his 203 in Round 9, and followed it with an 83 in Round 10. I knew Shaw would probably get another small price rise after Round 11, but I decided to jump one Round early anyway. Shaw's B/E was 111, and was going to be massive when the 203 fell out of his pricing cycle (it ended up being B/E 194 next Round), so I was confident he was very close to his peak price, and ready to start falling again.

    Shaw Rnds 1-10: 87, 74, 129, 70, 132, 143, 102, 143, 203, 81 - 10/116.4

    Bottom line, 99% of the time, you just aren't going to find a Def that will get within 10 of that, to replace him. I maintain you don't have to.

    Shaw Rnds 11-13: 124, 118, 121. - McVeigh in those Rounds went: 79, 68, 130

    I'll admit, I was starting to think I've pulled the wrong reign here. Even with those scores, Shaw's price had still fallen $40k since I traded him out, so there was still the live option of seeing if he fell further, then deciding if I wanted to get him back in. It was something I wanted to avoid if possible though.

    Shaw Rnds 14-23: 46, bye, 82, 92, 82, 129, 58, 88, 103, 124 giving him a post trade total of 12/97.25

    McVeigh Rnds 14-23: bye, 114, 77, 87, DNP (got Collins' 78 as replacement), 67, 86, 96, 85, 115 post trade in total 11/91.27

    If i had kept Shaw, that Place In my Team would have scored 1,167 points, as it is, it scored 1,082 points. Loss of 85 points.

    I still call it a win, because I got $216,200 to upgrade a Rookie, and got use of that upgrade for the next 12 Rounds. McVeigh didn't have to score at, or even near what Shaw was scoring at when I traded him out. He just had to hold his own against what Shaw did from there.

    Or to put it more simply. If I came to you in Round 11 in any given season and said "Give me 85 points back off your total and 1 trade, and I'll give you $216k", would you accept?
    Given a very large majority of our Rookies make less than $216k, and that money theoretically equates to 40/game in improvements, I'm pretty sure most would jump at the opportunity!

    You can say it is with the benefit of hindsight, but that's how the success of most trades are judged, I say I was just backing my judgement, that Shaw couldn't maintain a 116 average, or a near $660k price. It turns out I was right on both accounts. We saw he only averaged 97 after I traded him out, and after Round 18 his price had fallen $190k to $468,500. The option was there to trade him back in, if I needed or desired.
    Last edited by Rowsus; 06-02-2018 at 3:32am.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  13. #53
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,469
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    0 Not allowed!

    Quote Originally Posted by chels View Post
    Could I suggest a lot of us are missing the thrust of Rowsus's argument?

    Foe mine it is - we spend an inordinate amount of time looking for the player who is undervalued (averaging 80 when we expected 100) and trying to time his inclusion in our team. What I think Rowsus is suggesting is you selected a guy who you hope to go at 100, he is going at 120, what a great time to flick him, and take a player who can maintain 100 especially if he is undervalued.

    In other words, do your research before the season starts and then back your research and judgement during the season. Don't faff round trying to predict the player who might be the trade out before the season starts, look at the data as the season unfolds. Look at the high B/E's as well as the low B/E/s. The opportunity might not happen but allow your mind to be open to the possibility.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hondo View Post
    I think his suggestion is to actually pick the player in your starting side and that a KPF is the likely player. Unless I have misunderstood.

    As well as generally be open to cash cows not always having to be your starting rookies.

    It’s just that it is easier said than done I think
    It's one of those instances where you are both right.
    chels is right in that you don't necessarily have to start a player you are specifically intending to use for this gambit. Any of your starting players are viable candidates.
    Hondo is right, in that I am actually trying to pick a player (or two) in my starting line up this season, that I'm hoping I can use for this gambit.
    KPF's are just great candidates for it, because they're one of the few players that can go REALLY big, outside of your Dangerfield/Gaz types, and the KPF's have the volatile scoring, that means they can very quickly throw up a big B/E, which is one the preferable things you want in this situation. The two I'm targeting (Dixon/Lynch) have the double benefit of favourable Draws for KPF's and awkward byes, that make them good trade out targets anyway!
    You're right Hondo, it is easier said than done, but when you go back through each season, you'd be surprised how many players could have been used quite confidently for this move.
    The Roberton example springs to mind:
    He looked like a 90-92 player at best coming into the 2017 season.
    He ended up with a 22/92.6 season.
    In between those two things, he hit $557,400 in price after Round 8 (where he was 8/105), and actually was 12/104 after Round 13. Why were so many surprised his scoring corrected back to something like our initial expectation? His last 10 games were 10/79, and lots of people copped the bad scores, and missed the cream. Trust your initial judgement, when you are dealing with players with fairly established scoring patterns!
    Last edited by Rowsus; 06-02-2018 at 1:23am.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  14. #54
    50 Games Club
    Join Date: 15-09-2012
    AFL Club: Essendon
    Posts: 404
    Likes: 142
    Rep Power: 1303


    0 Not allowed!

    This thread is great reading.

    It has been centred on lynch and Dixon. But what about westhoff? He actually has m/f eligibility this year. By memory a few years ago he started like a bat out of hell and tapered off and would be way more of a pod. End of the day it’s ballsy to pick any KPF over a decent mid forward type.

  15. #55
    Dual Best & Fairest
    Join Date: 27-01-2014
    AFL Club: Fremantle
    Posts: 3,183
    Likes: 3,155
    Rep Power: 8298


    1 Not allowed!

    I'm a believer Rowsus and I was happy with my Michael Walters move last year and I wish I'd made the Heath Shaw move because it would have given me a premium at D6 instead of a rookie. Working through volatile premiums on the ground rather than rookies on the ground is a great way to score more points yet still make enough money to do upgrades. But I'm not in love with the benefits of starting a player who is priced at the middle of this volatility. If these players are going up and down from high $500's to low $400's surely we're looking for players at the bottom of the cycle like Cloke was for Dimmawitt.
    SuperCoach:  8293 (2017)  10922 (2016)  9214 (2015)  653 (2014) 


  16. #56
    Rising Star Winner
    Join Date: 08-01-2015
    AFL Club: Sydney
    Posts: 269
    Likes: 294
    Rep Power: 1471


    0 Not allowed!

    It seem to me that the data needed to set up a side in which such a manouevure could be undertaken is standard deviation / variance of player scores. Following Rowsus's model it would seem the KPF's are likely to have the highest variance in their scores but I would like to see all players. From memory from some data I saw the standard deviation of a players' scores seems to cluster around a little below 20 points.

    Does anyone have average and standard deviation (or variances) data for all players. If so could you pm me? To be useful the standard deviation data would need to be game by game rather than by season. Thanks in advance.
    Last edited by chels; 06-02-2018 at 9:08am. Reason: st dev of 30 seems a bit high from the data I have been eye balling
    SuperCoach:  5257 (2017)  29649 (2016)  21972 (2015)  18713 (2014) 

      Quote Quote

  17. #57
    Rising Star Winner
    Join Date: 08-01-2015
    AFL Club: Sydney
    Posts: 269
    Likes: 294
    Rep Power: 1471


    0 Not allowed!

    I should have mentioned, it is a condition precedent of this strategy that the guy is someone you are hayy having in your side. I do not think there is a point taking a high variance player just because he is a high variance player.
    SuperCoach:  5257 (2017)  29649 (2016)  21972 (2015)  18713 (2014) 

      Quote Quote

  18. #58
    Vice Captain
    Join Date: 23-05-2013
    AFL Club: Sydney
    Posts: 4,688
    Likes: 3,731
    Rep Power: 6842


    2 Not allowed!

    I think Port will go well this season, a few Fwd options are interesting to me.
    SuperCoach:  4020 (2017)  1400 (2016)  1017 (2015)  7654 (2014) 


  19. #59
    Debutant
    Join Date: 12-02-2017
    Posts: 53
    Likes: 5
    Rep Power: 68


    0 Not allowed!

    Agree i think port have recruited well
    https://fantasyleaguesaustralia.godaddysites.com/
      Quote Quote

  20. #60
    350 Games Club
    Join Date: 13-03-2012
    AFL Club: Adelaide
    Posts: 1,616
    Likes: 1,052
    Rep Power: 2720


    0 Not allowed!

    Cyril stood out to me a candidate for this strategy. I think he's around $300K but we all know COULD spring a couple of big early scores. It's not something I am seriously considering but he fits some elements of the Cloke profile. Ageing former (borderline) premium capable of going off in a big way on his day but not consistently a big enough scorer and too much injury risk to want in your side all season.
    SuperCoach:  2252 (2017)  1238 (2016)  3623 (2015)  737 (2014)  2166 (2013)  15055 (2012)  3207 (2011)  3009 (2010)  356 (2009) 

      Quote Quote

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 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
  •