SuperCoach Scores Twitter SuperCoach Scores Facebook
Page 1 of 6 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 107
  1. #1
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    19 Not allowed!

    I've long thought a lot of people on here are too precious with their trades. Anyone who espouses a plan to use a pinch hitter usually finds a post or two decrying that they are burning trades, and will soon regret it, or run out.
    Here's the thing though. All of us ....... ALL OF US, pull what turn out to be sour trades, each and every season. Quite often these sour trades are the spur of the moment, made on the run trades, and we end up beating ourselves up over it. Fair enough too. Make a spur of the moment, unresearched trade, and you get what you deserve, to some level. So what is wrong with going in with a plan to ride the wave of a hopeful hot streak, then jumping ship? I say nothing!

    Let's look at a few examples from the past, starting with the one made famous by our very own Dimmawits:
    Cloke in 2013.
    (prices are what he was coming into the round)

    Rnd 1 $436,300 - 92
    Rnd 2 $436,300 - 79
    Rnd 3 $436,300 - 133
    Rnd 4 $456,400 - 195
    Rnd 5 $515,900 - 63
    Rnd 6 $552,700 - 124
    Rnd 7 $575,000

    So after Round 6 he has scored 688 (Ave 114.7), risen $138,700 in price, and faced a B/E of 158.
    The benefit of hindsight tells us this is the perfect storm, and seemingly only seen going forward by one person at the time, and he went on to win the whole shooting match! Cloke's season after this hot streak produced 15/87.5. That's not only poorish, but terrible for an asset priced at 115/game!

    Waite in 2016.

    Rnd 1 $435,200 - 122
    Rnd 2 $435,200 - 174
    Rnd 3 $435,200 - 123
    Rnd 4 $507,500 - 129
    Rnd 5 $563,900 - 103
    Rnd 6 $575,000 - 105
    Rnd 7 $574,900

    After Round 6 he has scored 756 (Ave 126.0), risen $139,700 in price, and faced a B/E of 137.
    For the remainder of the season Waite went 8/66.1!

    JJK in 2013.
    First a little background, In 2011 JJK went 20/86.8, and in 2012 he did an ankle, severly, early in Rnd 5. He came back and played the last 2 games, and 2 finals. Still, his SC season read 7/56.0, which gave him an opening price of $299,600!

    Rnd 1 $299,600 - 109
    Rnd 2 $299,600 - 103
    Rnd 3 $299,600 - 136
    Rnd 4 $374,700 - 68
    Rnd 5 $448,000 - 124
    Rnd 6 $449,600 - 80
    Rnd 7 $457,000 - 83
    Rnd 8 $448,300 -

    After Round 7 he had scored 703 (Ave 100.4), but JJK's price had stagnated, and he was facing a B/E of 111. It was probably time to jump ship. His next 3 games went: 91, 121, 82, so we might have jumped ship early, but he was in danger of undoing the good work. Post Round 7 he managed 14/84.7, and post Round 10, if you were sharp enough to hang on, he went 11/81.1. After Round 7 his price had risen $148,700.
    Last edited by Rowsus; 21-01-2018 at 4:07pm.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  2. #2
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    5 Not allowed!

    While these are examples are obviously at the extreme end, I still think it can be a profitable gambit on lesser figures. Trades are meant to make points or dollars, and if you are lucky, they make both. But they can still be considered a good trade, if they make enough of one or the other.
    Not that it completely fits the pattern we are looking for, but look at N Riewoldt in 2014.

    Starting price - $567,100 - after he played Round 5 he has 606 points at 121.2 and is priced at $570,000.

    In terms of dollars in your wallet, no change, but in real terms those players that scored at their previous year average to Round 5 had dropped around 8%, so in terms of usable value, he is up about $45,000.
    He is now valued at 114/game, a level he managed in the years from 2006 to 2009, a good 5 years earlier. The leg problems that were to plague him were evident by 2014, and he quite often had a spell mid or late in the season where his output dropped, as those leg problems caught up with him. I think it was more than reasonable to say a 20-21/114 season was probably beyond him 2014. History shows his best post 2013 season turned out to be 21/101 in 2016. Now, i'm not saying I would have been Johnny-on-the-spot, and advocated owners trade him out after Round 5, BUT, I could understand someone who did it! His season returns coming into 2014 were: 21/87, 19/96, 21/105. Even if you were bullish after his start, a reasonable high limit on his expectations was probably 21/109, and that's the upper limit.

    21/109 = 2,289 points - 606 already scored leaves 16/1,683 + 1 x 65 point rookie score = PIT65 17/1,748 (ave 102.8)

    So your upper limit has him scoring at 102.8 from here, where a reasonable middle of the road expectation might see you think he could go 20/100 for the season (I wrote a whole series of threads about the dangers of adjusting your pre-season expectations up/down too much!). That makes his Pit65 look like:

    20/100 = 2,000 points - 606 already scored leaves 15/1,394 + 2 x 65 point rookie scores = PIT65 17/1,524 (ave 89.6).

    So your upper limit has him overpriced by 11/game, and your middle of the road expectation has him overpriced by 24/game. I think there is nothing wrong with selling a player who is overpriced by 24/game (in most circumstances).

    History show us he finished the season on 22/91.8, so he went 17/1,414 (Ave 83.2) after Round 5! He was overpriced by 31/game, and even failed to meet our middle of the road expectations, even after starting 5/606!

    Swapping him to say a 110/game Mid would have been a genius move, if you were brave enough to do it!
    Last edited by Rowsus; 21-01-2018 at 4:10pm.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  3. #3
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    4 Not allowed!

    So what do the 3 extreme examples have in common?

    They are all tall, Key Position Forwards, that take contested marks, and kick goals, sometimes bags of them.

    They were underpriced when compared to their recent(ish) best seasons.
    Cloke - nominally* priced at Round 1 at 436,300/5000 = 87.3 after managing 22/98 2 years earlier.
    Waite - nominally priced at Round 1 at 435,200/5000 = 87.0 after managing 11/97.2 (2012) & 21/98.3 (2008).
    JJK - nominally priced at Round 1 at 299,600/5000 = 59.9 after managing 20/86.8 2 years earlier.

    They had high ceilings, which is really important. Not 130-140, but HIGH ceilings.
    Cloke - 159 and 154 in his previous 2 seasons.
    Waite - 177, 160, 149 in his previous 23 games leading into 2016.
    JJK - had a 190 and 150 in his most recent full season leading into 2013.

    * we use the nominal price, as the MN quickly falls to around 5,000 once the season starts.

    So they were all tall contested mark, goal kicking Forwards, priced at least 10/game below their recent best seasons, and all had the capacity to go very large, which obviously helps spike both their price, and their average.
    Last edited by Rowsus; 21-01-2018 at 5:40am.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  4. #4
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    3 Not allowed!

    Tall Key Position Forwards are quite often looked on as SC poison, but that's what makes the ones with the capacity go very large ideal for this sort of gambit. People shy away from them because they can score 120 one week, and 40 the next. This makes their pricing very volatile. If you can find the right one, and ride the wave, then jumping off them again is a perfectly acceptable move. Apart from your Dangerfield type players, and Franklin, there aren't many other type of players that can score multiple 150+ scores in a season. You don't want to sell your Dangerfield's (in general), Franklin is nearly in a category of his own, and that leaves the tall, contested mark go back and kick the goal type player the only ones left. Your Dangerfield types aren't likely to cough up 3 scores in a row below 70 or 80, but your tall KPF will do it nearly every season.


    If you can find the right one....... how do we do that?
    Last edited by Rowsus; 21-01-2018 at 5:43am.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  5. #5
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    6 Not allowed!

    Taking a handful of Contested Marks, and kicking bags of goals is usually more dependent on who your opposition is than anything. Some Defences give up bigger scores, both SC and match, than others.

    So which teams gave up the most 100+ scores to tall KPF's last season?

    There were 17 players of this description that managed 4 or more 100+ scores in 2017, for a total of 88 100+ scores.
    Here is a breakdown of who they scored them against, and which players from each team made the list. I am sure there will be conjecture about player A being in there, but not player B etc. That's fine. Franklin didn't make it, as he's not known as a Contested Mark type player (though he did come 15th for average CM's for the season, so maybe he should be in there, he just doesn't fit the generally accepted mold of a KPF):



    Interestingly enough, GWS gave up no 100+ scores to these 17 players, and St Kilda and Adelaide only gave up 2 each.
    Last edited by Rowsus; 21-01-2018 at 6:47am.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  6. #6
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    5 Not allowed!

    So how do we quantify this information,so we can use it to analyse the Draw?

    First let's break those 100+ scores down a bit further. We really are looking for scores better than 100-109 if we are going to get that price climbing sharply in a short period of time. While the 110-119 scores only do it marginally better, I think we'll start there. So let's calculate a numerical value of how easily a team gives up a 110+ score:

    (percentage of games where a 110+ score was given up) x (average score when a 110+score was given up)

    That produces a table that looks like this, easiest for a tall KPF to score 110+ against to hardest.

    Last edited by Rowsus; 24-01-2018 at 12:42am.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  7. #7
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    5 Not allowed!

    When we plug those factors into a Draw table, we get this:



    and when we convert that table into a cumulative table we get this:

    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  8. #8
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    5 Not allowed!

    Now, this gambit is ideally run somewhere from 4 to 8 Rounds, so lets make a table of the best placed teams in that area:



    GC, Port and Rich look the best placed teams to take advantage of this, with Melb, GWS, WC, and Ess also worth looking at.
    Last edited by Rowsus; 30-01-2018 at 4:35am.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  9. #9
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    5 Not allowed!

    Gold Coast

    Well, aren't Gold Coast interesting to look at for this exercise! They delisted 3 talls in the off season (Currie, Brooksby and Loersch), and only added one! That leaves their talls that may play regular Forward spots at Lynch, Wright, and Rookie recruit (but not Rookie listed) Crossley. They also have Witts, Nicholls, Thompson and Day as talls, but I can't see them playing much regular forward time. Crossley played both Forward and Ruck in the NEAFL last season, and won the Gold Coast's Academy player of the year award. He's one to keep an eye, at least as a potential Rookie. He's listed as Ruck only in SC.
    The other thing that makes Gold Coast interesting to look at is, they don't play at Metricon until Round 11!

    P Wright - He doesn't quite fit the bill. He had 4 good(ish) scores in 2016 (142, 136, 104, 101), but his best 3 scores in 2017 were between 90 and 100. His 4 good scores in 2016 were all at Metricon, and 3 were in wins! How many do they win early on in 2018? Who knows, but we do know they don't play at Metricon until after their bye! Wright has 5+ goals in 1 of his past 39 games.


    T Lynch - Doesn't quite have the perfect ceiling for the exercise, but is underpriced on his 2016 form. He averaged 93 in 2016, and 85 in 2017. He's only had one 130+ score in the past 2 seasons, and ideally we want someone who can have say three 150+ scores in a season. He did manage 146 twice in 2015, but doesn't really "own" enough games to be the perfect candidate. His last 2 seasons only have six 120+ scores: 161, 129, 126, 126, 123, 122. The good thing is, he can actually score well when GC don't do so well. Here is a break up of his past 2 seasons:
    Wins by 40+ points - 4/96.8 - 112, 99, 94, 82
    Wins by 1-39 points - 8/120.8 - 161, 129, 126, 126, 123, 106, 103, 92
    Losses by 1-39 points - 17/82.6 - Highs: 116, 114, 113, 102, 101 - Lows: 36, 37, 37, 58
    Losses by 40+ points - 12/75.5 - Highs: 122, 118, 103 - Lows: 29, 42, 43
    Lynch did have seven 100+ scores in 2017, which is equal 2nd best (with Hawkins), behind Dixon's nine 100+'s. Lynch topped the Contested Mark list in 2016, but that part of his game really fell away in 2017, where he didn't even make the top 16. That's an area where he has potential improvement on last year. He also carried injuries and niggles for quite a few games, as do most tall players, but Eade did go to lengths to point it out about Lynch about half way through the season. Lynch has kicked 5+ goals in 5 of his last 41 games.
    Last edited by Rowsus; 28-01-2018 at 3:23am.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  10. #10
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    5 Not allowed!

    A write up about Crossley from June 2017. - source Foxsports
    He's 18 now, and turns 19 in August, but has been playing NEAFL, so is used to mixing it with bigger bodies.

    THE NEXT SHANE MUMFORD?

    HE doesn’t have the same sausage-eating capabilities as Shane Mumford, but one underage ruckman is boosting his draft credentials by showing off ample Mummy-like traits.

    Like Ballenden, Allies ruckman Brayden Crossley was a rare shining light for his side in the heavy loss to WA on the weekend, asserting his dominance at stoppages.

    After being rested against South Australia in Round 2, Crossley starred for the Allies against WA, booting two goals to go with 15 disposals and a game-high 29 hit-outs.

    But while his numbers looked good on paper, it was his presence and physicality that stood out to on-lookers on Sunday afternoon.

    And it’s not that hard to miss Crossley on the field — all 198cm and 105kg of him.

    “He’s aggressive, he’s competitive … there’s very much Shane Mumford all over him,” Sheehan told the league’s website.

    “He’s got a physical presence that would’ve delighted coach Adrian Fletcher … He was inspirational for the Allies.

    “It’s been a tough month for them, but Crossley has really kept up that passion for the game and the contest and provided great leadership for his team.”

    A big reason behind Crossley’s ability to adapt to the national Under 18 stage is that he’s already played against seasoned bodies at NEAFL level.

    Crossley, linked with the Gold Coast Academy, has already played NEAFL footy — and impressed. He earned a NEAFL rising star nomination in May last year, impressing against GWS ruck duo of Tom Downie and Dawson Simpson.

    The 17-year-old has also played a couple of NEAFL games for the Suns this season, booting five goals from his two outings.

    While he has great contested marking ability, Crossley will need to work on his aerobic capacity and kicking in order to cement a spot on an AFL list.

    Crossley is the son of Troy Crossley, who played with West Adelaide in the SANFL and is a member of Southport’s hall of fame.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  11. #11
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    5 Not allowed!

    Port

    Dixon appears to be the only Port candidate qualified for this sort of exercise. He was the KPF with the most 100+ scores in 2017 (9). His 100+ scores were: 167, 151, 135, 116, 115, 108, 106, 103, 102.
    He actually does have a bit of a history of "Feast Or Famine". In 2015 he went 16/69.8 and had a very unusual score spread:
    135, 124, 123, 111
    95, 82
    then 10 scores ranging from 19 to 67, that averaged 44.7!!!
    In that regards, Dixon is a perfect candidate. We want a player that can average 90, but throws in a good smattering of high scores, hopefully some of them in a bunch. You can't average 90's with those big scores, unless you have the corresponding low scores that bring your average down. If they are going to average high 90's, or better, they shouldn't be considered for this sort of gambit anyway! (They should just be in your team!)
    His 100+ scores last seasons were:
    Home wins: 167, 108, 106, 103, 102
    Home losses: 135
    Away wins: 151, 116, 115
    Away losses:
    Dixon lead the League in average Contested Marks last season (2.57/game), a key component of the equation, as they can really boost a players points. Against that, his 2017 22/90.9 was a career high, just in front of his 2013 13/90.5, and they are his only 2 seasons over 74! He doesn't tick all the boxes for this gambit, but he and Lynch tick more than anybody else. Dixon has 5+ goals in 3 of his past 41 games.
    Last edited by Rowsus; 28-01-2018 at 3:27am.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  12. #12
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    5 Not allowed!

    Richmond

    J Riewoldt would appear to be the only candidate at Richmond. Not that this helps him, for this sort of thing, but he's only missed 3 matches in the past 8 seasons! 3 of those 8 seasons he has averaged 90.8 to 92.4, and the other 5 he has averaged 81.5 to 85.9, that's remarkably consistent! He's coming off a 20/82.8 season, so he's roughly 10% underpriced on his potential best form, that's a good start. In the past 3 seasons he has recorded 7 scores of 120+ (120, 121, 122, 124, 144, 146, 161), and 12 scores between 100 and 119. That's only 19 scores of 100+ in his past 68 games (including finals). That's not a great strike rate, and only 3 scores over 125. The fact that Richmond are the architects of the smaller, faster Forward line can be seen as both a hindrance and a help. They aren't necessarily structured to look for the tall Forward to take a contested mark for their goals, but against that, he won't have as many tall forwards taking his space/opportunities as some other candidates.
    Riewoldt was 15th for Contested Marks and 7th for Goals in 2017. Not horrible, nor great numbers. His other problem might be, he doesn't kick many bags of goals. Only twice in the past 3 seasons has he kicked more than 4 goals! He has 2 games with 6 goals, and 13 games with 4 goals in that time. Riewoldt has 5+ goals in 1 of his past 45 games.
    He's probably not as good a candidate as Dixon or Lynch.
    Last edited by Rowsus; 28-01-2018 at 3:34am.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  13. #13
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    4 Not allowed!

    Melbourne

    Hogan appears to be the only possibility ....... at first glance!
    Stats can be made to say anything, and I will preface this by saying, Hogan has only played 51 games, and has had his problems in that time. Having said that, he plays almost exclusively in the spearhead role, so you'd want to see some better numbers than these before rolling the dice on him.
    Hogan has only 2 grounds where he has a career total goals higher than 5! Given we are generally looking for bags of 5 or higher for this exercise, that's not great! MCG 60 goals from 30 games, Etihad 22/6, then his next best grounds are Marrara 5/3, and Traeger Park 5/2.
    Hogan has only recorded career double figures against two teams! Brisbane 15/3 and St Kilda 17/5. He does play them both in the first 7 Rounds, but is that enough? Probably not! Hogan has 5+ goals in 3 of his past 31 games.

    T McDonald in my opinion takes over Watts' role in the Fwd line, with Lever taking over TMc's role in Def. The problem is, we have no history to count on, so while he could surprise, he would be a huge risk, if he is only picked with this gambit in mind. Having said that, he's a swingman (D/F) this year, so he could be a good pick just for your team anyway! TMc has 5+ goals in 1 of his past 41 games.
    Last edited by Rowsus; 28-01-2018 at 3:38am.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  14. #14
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    5 Not allowed!

    GWS

    Cameron made a jump in career average last season, averaging 89.1, where his previous best was 74.5 in 2015. Straight away, that's a little off putting. The other problem is, Cameron only has four 120+ scores in the last 2 seasons: 143, 139, 133, 128. On top of that, he only has another five 100+ scores in that time. That isn't promising, when we are looking for high score hot streak. This is a little surprising, as Cameron has 6 bags of 5+ goals in his last 39 games, so it implies sometimes he doesn't quite reward for effort. Part of that might be explained by his pretty poor Contested Mark numbers in that same time, where only has 30! Most good tall players can average up to and above 2/game. Given he is priced nearly the same as Dixon, you'd want to see some better numbers than that, to choose him in front of Dixon. As mentioned, Cameron has 6 bags of 5+ goals in his last 39 games.

    Patton is actually priced nearly $50k cheaper than Cameron, so that gives him greater potential for growth than Cameron. A lot might depend on how they structure up, but with Mummy retiring, Lobb (supposedly) going into the Ruck, it actually potentially opens the GWS Forward line a little. Does Cameron play the higher role, and Patton stay closer to goal? Patton is certainly a better Contested Mark than Cameron, averaging nearly 2/game, and Cameron appears to be better at getting on his bike than Patton, so it makes sense for Cameron to play higher than Patton. Of course there will be rotations, but one will play closer more than the other. Patton's 80.6 average was nearly 17 higher than his 64.1 the previous season. That doesn't auger well, as it means he starts at a career high price! Patton only has two 120+ scores in the past two seasons: 156 & 124. He has 6 more scores between 100 and 119. It must be noted, he had a 2nd knee reco late in 2014, and only played 3 games late in 2015. That generally means a large chunk of 2016 can also be seen as "recovery". In fact in 2016 he never scored over 80 until Round 17! I actually prefer Patton to Cameron for something like this. Patton has 4 bags of 5+ goals in his last 45 games, but it's also 4 bags in his last 26 games, which also gives credence to much of 2016 being a recovery season.

    Lobb has good Contested Mark numbers, but none of his other historical numbers would have you choosing him for this sort of manoeuvre. If you think his move to the Ruck gives him good potential, then he still wouldn't be good for this gambit, as you likely hang onto him, if he's going well, anyway.
    Last edited by Rowsus; 28-01-2018 at 5:15am.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  15. #15
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    3 Not allowed!

    West Coast

    Kennedy averaged 93.5 in 2017, after going at a career high of 97.8 in 2016, so he carries a small discount on his best form. As Kennedy has a history of being a successful candidate for this, let's dissect his early season draw thoroughly. The other interesting factor with Kennedy is that he will be playing his home games at a whole new stadium! The new stadium is shorter by 10m than Domain stadium, but also a little wider than Domain.

    Rnd 1 - Syd in Perth (game result/Kennedy SC score, just for when WC played Syd in Perth the last 3 seasons)
    The games listed in red are when they played each other at the opposite venue.
    Rnd 4 2017 won 91-65/110. Rnd 17 2015 won 103-51/55. (Rnd 5 2016 SCG loss 49-88/63)

    Rnd 2 - WBull at Eti
    Rnd 15 2017 won 87-80/DNP. Rnd 11 2016 loss 75-83/49. Rnd 1 2015 loss 87-97/72. (EF 2016 Domain loss 52-99/76)
    (rnd 21 2015 Domain won 162-85/150)

    Rnd 3 - Geel in Perth
    Rnd 13 2017 won 83-70/DNP. Rnd 9 2015 won 120-64/148. (Rnd 7 2016 at Cat Park loss 79-123/80)

    Rnd 4 - GC in Perth
    Rnd 10 2016 won 132-55/146. Rnd 7 2015 won 135-43/93. (Rnd 11 2017 at Met loss 77-80/DNP)
    (Rnd 18 2015 at Met drawn 83-83/58)

    Rnd 5 - Carl at MCG
    Rnd 17 2016 won 82-75/39. (Rnd 21 2017 won 100-83/120). (Rnd 2 2015 won 131-62/178)

    Rnd 6 - Freo in Perth
    Rnd 17 2017 won 74-44/79. Rnd 6 2017 won 103-62/141. Rnd 20 2016 won 110-64/141.
    Rnd 3 2016 won 92-59/101. Rnd 20 2015 won 104-80/112. Rnd 3 2015 loss 81-111/66

    Rnd 7 - Port in Perth
    Rnd 16 2017 loss 88-120/DNP. (EF 2017 won 78-76/62). (Rnd 7 2017 won 97-87/96).
    (Rnd 9 2016 won 94-86/137). (Rnd 6 2015 won 78-68/72)

    Rnd 8 - GWS at Spot
    Rnd 22 2017 loss 60-81/74. Rnd 21 2016 won 97-66/98. (Rnd 10 2017 loss 90-98/56).
    (Rnd 5 2015 won 120-33/116).

    With WC having 5 of their first 7 games at home it should give JJK a chance to kill it. Unfortunately, some of them are tough. He seems unlikely to go really big against Syd, and WC probably don't beat Geel by 9 goals, like they did when he scored his 148 against them. GC could be a monster, but unfortunately, he gets WBull at Eti, and even more unfortunate, Carl at the MCG. If you could switch those 2 games to Perth, and just cop the Syd and Geel games as away games, you'd probably take him in this gambit. It's possible he might get the scores required to make this play, it's just that he has his "easyish" games at hard venues, and his hard games at his (potentially) best venue. Kennedy has kicked 5+ goals in 14 of his past 42 games! WOW!
    Last edited by Rowsus; 29-01-2018 at 5:02am.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  16. #16
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    4 Not allowed!

    Essendon

    Daniher, if he were to be used in this gambit, would have to be taken on trust, that he would perform some sort of breakout this season. That's not beyond the realms of possibility, given he has increased his average every season (51, 59, 61, 69, 86). Also, being a tall player, we should allow him a season or two longer to hit his peak, than we do your Midfielder type, so he should at least hold his average this season, give or take a little. Against all that, he has played 93 games now, and doesn't have many bags to his name:
    2015: 1 x 5 goal game, 1 x 6 goal game.
    2016: 1 x 5 goal game
    2017: 2 x 5 goal games, 1 x 6 goal game
    That's only 6 games with 5+ goals, and he only has 4 x 4 goal games!
    He had seven 100+ games last season, which is more than his first 4 seasons combined!
    124, 114, 113, 106, 105, 100, 100
    He hasn't really grabbed too many games by the throat, and we are looking for players that can do that.
    He might become that player, but it's a pretty big risk to use him in this gambit, as you are also relying on some sort of breakout as well!
    Last edited by Rowsus; 30-01-2018 at 4:51am.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  17. #17
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    9 Not allowed!

    I do believe this sort of gambit is under utilized, mainly because a lot of people see it as being a bit frivolous with your trades. This really is being too narrow with your thinking! We hope to get 200 points out of each trade (give or take), and we don't have that many Rookies that make $150k, yet given the right player, and the right situation, this move can actually potentially give you both, so doesn't that make the better examples of this move worth 2 trades?! You can achieve both those things, with just the one trade. Now, if the better examples of this are worth 2 trades, it follows that the lesser, but still successful examples are still worth 1, and that is all you are committing to this gambit.
    Does it matter if you get your 200 points, or $150k from less traditional means? Not at all! What stops people trying this type of manouvre is generally 2 things.

    Fear of failure. For some reason people find greater comfort in failing with a move/decision/trade that a LOT of other Coaches also made. Safety in numbers. I don't look so stupid, as so many other people made the same mistake.

    It's not traditional. That's not how the "blueprint" for the game works, and if we want success, we need to follow the "blueprint". More people that follow the "blueprint" have good seasons, than those that stray from the path!


    Ok.

    Stop.

    Take a deep breath.

    And just consider how ridiculous those two reasons are! You are scared of making a mistake, and you want any mistake you make to be a common mistake, made by lots of people, so the ridicule/pain/disappointment is shared. You don't want to stray from the accepted path to a good season, as more people record a good/great season by staying the tried and true path. So the 2 reasons are nearly the same. You like the safety in numbers approach, and you want to run with a very VERY large pack. Good luck with having that outstanding season with that approach. If you're running with a pack of 10, 15, 20,000 people, how are you going to separate yourself from the pack? If decisions that look leftfield are rejected, because for want of other words "not enough other people are doing it", then your approach to this game is all wrong (imo). Accept you will make mistakes, but don't try limit the damage from those mistakes, by thinking "it's better if I'm in the same boat as everyone else". Believe me, there will always be plenty of people not in that boat, so why go with the masses, just for the sake of it, or for "safeties sake"?
    Why do you think it is, that so many people that stick to the path, or stick to the "blueprint", record good seasons? The simple answer is, there are just so many doing it! If 20,000 people are running down that same path, and have somewhere around 13-15 players in common, and only 7-9 points of difference, then those 20,000 people are probably going to finish anywhere from top 500 to top 40,000, depending on how those 7-9 points of difference go.

    Time to stop again, and think about that.

    Their season is totally dependent on those points of difference. Now in those 20,000 teams, there may be as many as 40 to 50 players making up those 7-9 points of difference, but even within those numbers, there may be say 10-12 of those 40 players that make up 4 to 5 of the 7-9 spots in nearly every team. Once again we are getting a sameness.

    Aren't there a fairly finite set of combinations of teams that have completed their full premium set up, that can generate the points to propel you into that top 100, instead of top 1,000?
    Won't they all have mostly the same players, but have a POD or 3 anyway?
    So how do you get around this?
    The answers to these questions are yes, yes and .........

    Take a different path to get there!

    Look, we are all pretty much trying to get to the same destination. A team of Premiums/Keepers starting for us each week. In the great scheme of things, there will nearly always be a sameness to most of the teams up the top. We all here talk about POD's like they are the make and break of a season, which is true to a certain extent. But here's the thing people just aren't seeing.

    A POD doesn't have to be a player, it can be a path.
    Instead of taking a S Martin as your R2, and thinking "There is one of my POD's, that I hope will separate me from the masses".
    Head to the same destination as everyone else, but take a different path to get there! That too is a POD!
    Instead of researching to the nth degree why this player might breakout this season, and give you the edge, spend about a quarter of this research time exploring a different path to the same destination.

    Most will fob this off as basically the search for Stepping Stones, and trying to pluck the right one. Stepping Stones are only one tool to this search for the alternative path.
    Think of the example of N Riewoldt above. There is no way those that started him viewed him as a Stepping Stone, but he did provide an amazing opportunity to take a different path to that final destination. You need to try and force yourself to stop thinking like everyone else. If everyone is saying get this player, you need to start trying to find alternatives, not join with them! The more popular a player is, unless it's a Dangerfield, or a vintage Gaz, the more you need to ask yourself "why?!".
    Last edited by Rowsus; 30-01-2018 at 5:52am.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  18. #18
    Statistician
    Join Date: 19-03-2012
    AFL Club: Melbourne
    Posts: 15,470
    Likes: 13,476
    Rep Power: 24181
    Moderator


    11 Not allowed!

    So having written 17 posts on this, where are we at.

    The bottom line is, it's not a season that looks like throwing up a Dimma/Cloke type scenario, but you just never know! Remember, it doesn't have to be as good as the extreme examples above to still be a successful move! Success is measured in degrees, and it still has the opportunity to provide that POD ....... Path Of Difference!
    It also doesn't have to be a KPF to do the job, either. They fit a really classical mold to achieve this, the ability to go Dangerfield/Gaz large, but the volatility to throw in a 30 as well, making them great trade out targets as well. Most seasons you could point to a number of players a move like this would have been successful with, and it might turn out to be a Def, Ruck or Mid. I actually had some success (to a much smaller degree than Dimma/Cloke) trading Shaw out 2 seasons ago, when his price peaked, and his B/E also shot up. It was around Round 14 or 15, so it doesn't necessarily have to come in the early part of the season either. The thing is to keep an eye out for that opportunity.
    Think Roberton last season. Most (but not all) people were trying to figure out how to trade him into their teams, even as late as Round 14. If you started him, you actually totally brained the situation, if you traded him out in Round 14! His average from there on was less than 80, and people were trying to get him into their team. They weren't to know he'd tank it from there, but imagine you traded him out, to a cheaper, better scoring player. Just as an example, a Luke McDonald type, where you made around $90,000 on the deal, and picked up a player that outscored Roberton by around 12/game from there. (You probably needed to do this Round 15, not 14, if it was McDonald you went to, but it's a rough example). The $90,000 might have made you another 15/game somewhere. Genius! you just picked up 27/round for 8 rounds, by trading out a player nearly everyone was trying to trade in!
    The crux of the matter is, learn to think differently, and the more your thoughts a mirroring the masses, the more you need to look in another direction!

    As to this year, if you were to try it with a KPF, it appears Dixon and Lynch are the best 2 placed to do it, followed by JJK or Riewoldt, depending on how JJK handles the new ground, and a couple of toughish early opponents. Just remember though, it doesn't have to be a Forward, and it doesn't have to be at the start of the season!

    Good luck to you, if you try a move like this. Let's hope luck favours the brave!
    Last edited by Rowsus; 30-01-2018 at 8:58pm.
    We're goin' to need a bigger boat...

  19. #19
    Captain
    Join Date: 22-02-2013
    AFL Club: Hawthorn
    Posts: 5,264
    Likes: 4,565
    Rep Power: 9237


    0 Not allowed!

    Good write up Rowsus, enjoyed the read!

    For me, it is less the fear of failure and more that taking a Path Of Difference is bloody difficult...
    SuperCoach:  14,974 (2017)  72 (2016)  22,451 (2015)  2,593 (2014)  33,325 (2013) 

    SC 2018 Round 9 Lesson: what goes yo must come yo and then yo and yo.

  20. #20
    100 Games Club
    Join Date: 18-09-2014
    AFL Club: Collingwood
    Posts: 767
    Likes: 932
    Rep Power: 3700


    0 Not allowed!

    Thanks for referring me to this Row. I’m going to take a few bets this year to differentiate my path, and this has just given me an idea for how. Much appreciated!
    SuperCoach:  4767 (2017)  920 (2016)  330 (2015)  113 (2014) 


Page 1 of 6 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
  •