The true value of a zero

Been thinking about this a lot over the past 2 weeks with backline issues so I thought it may open up some debate about the value of a like for like trade over holding a zero for 3+ weeks.

Thought I would run some analysis to open proceedings. Could have chosen any of a large cast (Waters, Symes, Guerra etc) but have picked Guerra the example because I have a strong interest in him this week. The numbers, however could be used for anyone.

Guerra is out for 3-4 weeks (hammy).

If he returns for the last 10 games and averages 80 he scores you 800 points for the year (assuming you have a nil in his place). Divide 800 by the remaining 14 rounds and his "effective average" for your team is 57 ppw. If he misses 3 games it's 62 ppw.

Value of Like for Like trade
--------------------------
If Guerra is traded out for say Milburn / Fisher who will average 85 ppw your team would score 1190 points or 390 more for the 14 rounds.

390 / 14 = 28 ppw = $112K in cash terms + 20K made on the trade.

Total profit from trade = $132K

This would appear to be solid profit from a trade not many would consider.

There are many other variables including part coverage for a couple of weeks but does create interest.

Geez, you're good.

This has merit. Especially at the stage of season we are heading into. If you aren't in the pack now, then its over and its a trade like this which could put you ahead of the pack while other top teams hold on to that 'Zero'.

Its a decision most coaches will have to make. Its these risks which can decide your season or end it. Thats what I love about DT.

It really depends if you have cover or not.

If your emergencies arn't playing and you know it is a 3-4 week injury a trade is definantly on the cards due to your research above.(great work btw)

The emergencies are so important in these situations as they can save you a trade. But as you have pointed out above you may as well trade guerra for another premium and get the extra points instead of a 0 for the next 3 weeks

54Dogs - this is *exactly* the sort of thing I was thinking about here. Fantastic stuff! Plus you've prompted me to think more about it...

So I looked at determining your season’s vanishing point, the point at which you are not a mathematical chance to win.

I’ve taken the info in the Prospectus on the 50th ranked averages, translated it into this year’s numbers and made the following assumptions:
1. Last years end of season averages/totals don’t correlate with this year. Assumes that based on current form, the winner will average 2099 per game over the season, for a total of 46,178.
2. Assumes the leader will only increase at a constant rate of 16 ppg (based on last year’s 50th position result).

If you are currently in 500th position, with an average score of 1900 ppg and a total of 15,200, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2213 points per round, equating to 50 points per round more than the current leader in order to pip them at the finish.

If you’re in 1,000th, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2223 points per round, equating to 60 points per round more than the current leader.

If you’re in 5,000th, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2254 points per round, equating to 91 points per round more than the current leader.


Now let’s change the assumptions above, and run another case, assuming:
1. Last years end of season averages/totals correlate with this year. Assumes that the player who finished last year in 50th position averaged 2207 per game over the season, for a total of 48,154.
2. Assumes the leader will only increase at a constant rate of 16 ppg (based on last year’s 50th position result).

This scenario is probably more accurate, as the average scores tend to jump between Rd’s 15-22, so scores to date are not necessarily a good reflection of an anticipated trend.

If you are currently in 500th position, with an average score of 1900 ppg and a total of 15,200, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2383 points per round, equating to 112 points per round more than the current leader in order to pip them at the finish.

If you’re in 1,000th, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2393 points per round, equating to 122 points per round more than the current leader.

If you’re in 5,000th, you have to ensure your team increases it’s average to 2423 points per round, equating to 152 points per round more than the current leader.

So, what do either of these case mean? You need to be increasing your weekly average from here on in by a considerable amount. You can do it by trading out injured players if you don’t have bench support, upgrading rookies and mids to premiums, or by judicious choices of Captains, but if you can’t find a way to improve your team by this much, you are out of the running for winning the competition. You should consider shifting your focus onto winning your league or finishing within a certain band (eg Top 500).

IMO, it means you need to be trading in high scoring players that will increase your current averages sooner rather than later. As in yesterday. Waiting two or three weeks could cost you not only 100-200 points, but will also jack up the average weekly score you require to catch the leader. You need to have no injuries from here on in, or you need to have bench players who are capable of scoring similarly.

Next step – correlating fielding 0’s or sub-par emergencies into the equation. If anyone has last year’s winning total score, I can re-run the numbers and make them look more horrific…

Great work 54dogs, but I think you've exaggerated the difference of 390 a little bit. Mainly just because you've said Fisher/Milburn will score an extra 5 ppw, which gives an extra 70 overall. Might be true, but it's a seperate issue to the impact of a zero. And just when you said "this is solid profit", don't forget that trades are a resource as well, and I think that if for every time a player was out for 3/4 weeks you traded them off, you'd run out quickly.

Your logic is strong and potentially effective, but dangerous in the wrong hands, simply because it might encourage people to trade too freely.

nighthawk said:

Great work 54dogs, but I think you've exaggerated the difference of 390 a little bit. Mainly just because you've said Fisher/Milburn will score an extra 5 ppw, which gives an extra 70 overall. Might be true, but it's a seperate issue to the impact of a zero. And just when you said "this is solid profit", don't forget that trades are a resource as well, and I think that if for every time a player was out for 3/4 weeks you traded them off, you'd run out quickly.

Your logic is strong and potentially effective, but dangerous in the wrong hands, simply because it might encourage people to trade too freely.

Click to expand...

Agree with this Nighthawk. I based Milburn / Fisher on last years averages and what I have seen over recent weeks but it's by no means an exact science and is highly subjective.

Probably what I am driving at here is to get people to think a little more creatively. Rather than just saying "I can't do that trade because the DT rules say so", to look at whether in fact it will be of benefit to your team in the overall context. Not saying it's right or wrong just another option to consider.

Another example of this was the trading of Chad. I actually got into some really robust debate on the Chad thread on the main board, not to say it was right or wrong but to get people thinking a bit.

With so much information out there these days creativity in trading is the one thing which may differentiate from the pack. Becomes a bit boring if everyone makes the same trades each week.

It all depends on how you weight your trades. I mean, trades are for one thing essentially, To increase teams scoring potental.
You make a down trade, and an up trade to increase your teams scoring potential.
A down trade and an up trade in round 7 might net you an extra 40(?) points per round from that position for the rest of the game.
So lets play with that. 15 rounds left, * 40 is 600 extra points for the year for those 2 trades... one trade however, is netting you an extra 300 points for the year.
And that's if you get in early in round 7. Now, each week that goes by, those trades that you are holding, their value goes down by what 20 points per week (ish).
So, it's a numbers game. Using your trades to play the downgrade/upgrade game will net you (in a perfect world), 300 points per trade.
But then, you take into account this Zero issue. If by fielding a zero, you'll be losing out with a net effect of more than 300 points, then damn, you better think long and hard about not making that trade...

54Dogs said:

Probably what I am driving at here is to get people to think a little more creatively. Rather than just saying "I can't do that trade because the DT rules say so", to look at whether in fact it will be of benefit to your team in the overall context. Not saying it's right or wrong just another option to consider.

Click to expand...

This is a super point. Rules are made to be broken, you just need to have the rational, worked decisions behind it to back it up.

Walesy said:

And that's if you get in early in round 7. Now, each week that goes by, those trades that you are holding, their value goes down by what 20 points per week (ish).

Click to expand...

Oh, now this has me thinking. A depreciating value of a trade by ppg as a function of Round, while conversely there is an increasing value of trade in terms of ability to make up ground. Bueller?


The inherent knowledge I'm seeing coming out here (eg trueblue91 "If your emergencies arn't playing and you know it is a 3-4 week injury a trade is definantly on the cards due to your research above") is getting close to an answer. I can feel it crystallising; there will be some eureka moment at some point. Give us your thoughts folks - there must be some common ground between this grey matter.

Walesy said:

It all depends on how you weight your trades. I mean, trades are for one thing essentially, To increase teams scoring potental.
You make a down trade, and an up trade to increase your teams scoring potential.
A down trade and an up trade in round 7 might net you an extra 40(?) points per round from that position for the rest of the game.
So lets play with that. 15 rounds left, * 40 is 600 extra points for the year for those 2 trades... one trade however, is netting you an extra 300 points for the year.
And that's if you get in early in round 7. Now, each week that goes by, those trades that you are holding, their value goes down by what 20 points per week (ish).
So, it's a numbers game. Using your trades to play the downgrade/upgrade game will net you (in a perfect world), 300 points per trade.
But then, you take into account this Zero issue. If by fielding a zero, you'll be losing out with a net effect of more than 300 points, then damn, you better think long and hard about not making that trade...

Click to expand...

This is a really good way of looking at it Walesy and one not many people take into account. If you use a single trade in round 17 to upgrade someone there are only 5 rounds left so the trade will need to improve your team by 60 ppw (300 points total) to add the same value as doing this earlier. If this is a double trade (cash cow down for keeper up) this doubles to needing 120 ppw improvement which is basically impossible.

I guess in summary, the earlier all your upgrades are made, the more ppw you get benefit for, and the more your team improves. Having said this if you cop LTIs from Rd 15 on and have no cover this will be a net loss for the rest of the year of all points they would have scored.

54Dogs said:

This is a really good way of looking at it Walesy and one not many people take into account. If you use a single trade in round 17 to upgrade someone there are only 5 rounds left so the trade will need to improve your team by 60 ppw (300 points total) to add the same value as doing this earlier. If this is a double trade (cash cow down for keeper up) this doubles to needing 120 ppw improvement which is basically impossible.

I guess in summary, the earlier all your upgrades are made, the more ppw you get benefit for, and the more your team improves. Having said this if you cop LTIs from Rd 15 on and have no cover this will be a net loss for the rest of the year of all points they would have scored.

Click to expand...

Yep, and that all comes back to your opening strategy.

My opening plan was to have 6 people to upgrade. with 15 trades to do it... With just a little luck, I'll be on track for that...

Sadly though, my initial "guns" have let me down so far... but still, 15 "upgrade trades", 5 injury trades...

However, as this topic is bringing to a front, perhaps a couple more injury trades should be held to cover those nasty zeros that pop up.

Although, perhaps this might work out to be a bit of navel gazing that relates to this year...

I barely remember playing a zero last year, sure, I had injuries, but I usually had someone on the bench to cover.

This year (and it's DEF that's the problem), there have been many of you highly praised rookies that got dropped (Proud, SDT, Hartlett, Edwards, Pffiefer) along with several of the "much selected" getting injured (Cornes, Symes, Kennelly)

I dunno, I guess I just never had to deal with this much in the past (heck, last week was the first zero I copped this year)

Wow some really good points made and some that have required some in depth thinking top work NP!

I agree that knwoing whether or not to pull that trade tirgger is the difference between wiining and losing and what makes this game so exciting.

Some terrific discussion taking place here.

I guess it all comes down to three main issues:
1) How many trades do you have left in hand?
2) What is your goal, to win overall or to win your league?
3) Do you have depth to cover the injury and how well do your benched players score?

Compare and contrast the following two scenarios:

Round 12
Injured Player - B.Guerra


Situation 1
Factor 1) You have 7 trades left.
Factor 2) You plan on winning your league and you are currently third on the ladder.
Factor 3) You have D.Myers to cover the loss of B.Guerra.

NO TRADE
Why?
You are running low on trades which will be needed in the finals (which you are a great chance to make) and the difference between B.Guerra and D.Myers may only be 25 points per week.
25 points per week will not have that much impact on your league matches meaning that your position on the ladder will stay in place and it will also allow you to hold onto your last 7 trades just a little bit longer.


Situation 2
Factor 1) You have 14 trades left.
Factor 2) You plan on winning overall and you are currently ranked in the Top 1,000.
Factor 3) You have no permanent back-up on the bench with A.Proud and S.Selwood.

TRADE
Why?
You have a whopping 14 trades left sitting comfortably in the Top 1,000 (still a chance to win) with no permanent emergency.
If A.Proud or S.Selwood do happen to be named, it is still a loss of about 40 points per week compared to a premium and 80 points per week if they are not named at all.
Over the 3-4 weeks whilst B.Guerra is out injured, it is a loss of approximately 200 points which will automatically throw away any chance you had of winning overall.
Every point counts in order to win the major prize.

This may sound so basic to you boys but it is the most logical way to put it.

So, as thebaxters asked, how do we find an answer around this grey matter?

Well, to tell you the truth, the answer is always "different" and these three main factors must always be taken into account before you push that trade button.

Obviously, as we have already seen, there is still a lot more to digest and discuss in regards to the topic but i do not believe the answer is black or white as every single team faces the situation with a different frame of mind.

Some very good points raised here.

When I first played DT (7 years ago), I went and analyzed all the trading benefits and what $$$ value that would justify a trade etc...

After a while, I came to one conclusion which has already been mentioned. I guess I want to substantiate the point. In order to attain the best value of a trade, you need to make it as soon as you can. I see way too many people trying to squeeze every single dollar out of a cow and meanwhile they are losing points on their prospective upgrades.

In regards to the grey matter, to determine that, you are bordering the realms of impossibility as there will always be differing circumstances.

Trade aggressively from the beginning for the best results. The issue of LTI's needs to be properly managed. Account for x amount and add 2... The rest should be allocated for upgrades etc. Provided you have selected great rookies, you shouldn't be caught out.

Strange game and anything can happen though...

I think the last few posts made me realise something.

The value of a zero has nothing to do with $. In fact, $ have very little to do with winning.

The value of a zero is solely in terms of points. Points you slip behind an estimated final total, points you slip behind the leader. You don't win by having a million bucks in the bank, or a team worth 10 million. yOu win only on points.

Discussion of trades shouldn't focus on whether a rookie has peaked and when a gun has troughed. If you can make a trade that will earn you x points, it's a worthwhile trade. This is hugely amplified in the case of a zero.
It means that trading out a rookie averaging 80 odd (ie Palmer) for another gun averaging 85 is practically worthless. The $ are relevant only in as much as they allow the trades to occur. It means that you don't trade the Wona in your backline, you trade the Gram (or equivalent) - someone averaging less. It means you overlook upgrading a player averaging 100 to a player you expect to average 110 in the mids to trade out that back averaging 50 for a back you expect to average 80.

It is purely about making up points, or maximising points on a weekly basis. It means that trading guns like Cornes this year when you have insufficient coverage is a good trade.

I can't believe it's taken me this long to really crystallise this.

Should have some stats showing the value of a zero in terms of points (by Rd) tomorrow.

Summed up beautifully mate.

*EDIT - Apologies - scratched this post as it wasn't clearly showing what I was trying to show. The first bit is still valid...*

Some numbers to go with our discussion of the value of a zero.

The premise behind these calculations is that the value of a zero has nothing to do with dollars, as dollars have very little to do with winning.

It tells you that the value of a zero is solely in terms of points. Points you slip behind an estimated final total, points you slip further behind the leader.

Bearing this in mind, we use the following assumptions:
- the winner this year will average 2207 ppg and score a total of 48554 (based on 50th position data from last year)
- your named 22 score an even amount of ppg (this may undervalue a gun or overvalue an average player)
- you are trying to win the whole box of dice

I've really enjoyed the input and robust discussion on this thread, IMO one of our best. Nice work to all involved.

Baxters, nice points about the value of a zero in but I would like to "devil advocate" a couple of points.

Firstly, no disagreement that points win DT and we probably should talk in terms of points rather than $. Walesy mentioned this on an earlier post on this thread but I would really like to do some work on how many points a trade should improve your team by. A figure of 300 points was thrown up but we could put some more science into this as a lead in for next year.

I would, however, dispute your point that $ are meaningless and have little to do with winning DT. Whilst $ do not directly help, they are the conduit to gaining more points with the link being player form / price.

For example, would you trade say Palmer to Bartell if Palmer was averaging 80 ppw and Bartell 110 ppw if the trade would cost you 200K. Whilst it improves your team by 30 ppw the 200K cost is not worthwhile if you could potentially trade someone in at a cost of 50K to improve your team by 20 ppw. The other 150K could be used to improve your team by say 40 ppw elsewhere so using money wisely is vital to winning DT as it gets you more ppw.

As I mentioned earlier, the link between points and $ is player price / form. This is why we trade at peaks and troughs. Players get traded out because we know they have peaked and players get traded in because their average (based on history and what we know) will improve. An example of this currently is NStevens / KCornes. Averaging 95 and 97 respectively this year there is not one chance in a million there will only be 2 ppw average between them at the end of the season.

Whilst you probably cannot sustain more than 1-2 zeros per year to win DT, I think Neb nailed it in one. The earlier you upgrade your team the more weeks you have benefit of the upgrade hence the more overall improvement it provides.

Assume trading period is Rd 6 to 12. If trading in a player in RD 6 gets you 40 ppw improvement, trading the same player into your team in RD 12 would need to get you 62 ppw (ie average 112 instead of 90 each week) to get the exact same benefit. It gets steadily worse as the weeks roll on. People get so focussed on saving trades and waiting for cows to hit absolute peak they forget that every delay costs your team points.

54Dogs said:

Firstly, no disagreement that points win DT and we probably should talk in terms of points rather than $. Walesy mentioned this on an earlier post on this thread but I would really like to do some work on how many points a trade should improve your team by. A figure of 300 points was thrown up but we could put some more science into this as a lead in for next year.

I would, however, dispute your point that $ are meaningless and have little to do with winning DT. Whilst $ do not directly help, they are the conduit to gaining more points with the link being player form / price.

For example, would you trade say Palmer to Bartell if Palmer was averaging 80 ppw and Bartell 110 ppw if the trade would cost you 200K. Whilst it improves your team by 30 ppw the 200K cost is not worthwhile if you could potentially trade someone in at a cost of 50K to improve your team by 20 ppw. The other 150K could be used to improve your team by say 40 ppw elsewhere so using money wisely is vital to winning DT as it gets you more ppw.

As I mentioned earlier, the link between points and $ is player price / form. This is why we trade at peaks and troughs. Players get traded out because we know they have peaked and players get traded in because their average (based on history and what we know) will improve. An example of this currently is NStevens / KCornes. Averaging 95 and 97 respectively this year there is not one chance in a million there will only be 2 ppw average between them at the end of the season.

Whilst you probably cannot sustain more than 1-2 zeros per year to win DT, I think Neb nailed it in one. The earlier you upgrade your team the more weeks you have benefit of the upgrade hence the more overall improvement it provides.

Click to expand...

Yep, good thoughts, made me rethink how I was trying to present the data and I think this might be a better way of describing it.

I've used the same assumptions as previously:
- the winner this year will average 2207 ppg and score a total of 48554 (based on 50th position data from last year)
- you are trying to win the whole box of dice

As a working example, I've added my scores for Rd 1-9, and some trades I'm thinking of coming up.

This is based on the premise that a trade has 3 distinct values:
- points value of a trade (a function of the earliness of the trade)
- inherent value of a trade (a function of the number of trades and Rd's remaining)
- # value of a trade (ratio of point value to cost of upgrade)

The goal of trading is to decrease the Total Team Score Delta column (first highlighted column). To determine the relative values of trades, I've entered the points averages of the player(s) I'm trading out (that are scoring points as part of the fielded 22), and the points averages of the player(s) I'm trading in. This results in a ppg benefit.

The second highlighted column then shows the Potential total points made up (ie the benefit in terms of reducing the Total Team Score Delta column), this shows that the earlier you make the trades, the more benefit you get for them.

I've then determined a ratio of:
Total Team Score Delta : Potential total points made up

It looks like if this ratio is less than 10, it's a worthwhile use of a trade. As an example, I've used the same trade in Rd 13 and Rd 20 to show the difference in benefit.

Also correlated the outgoing / incoming player(s) with cost, and presented these in a ratio of:
$ delta : Potential total points made up

It looks like any thing less than $250 per point gained is a worthwhile trade.

I like that very much!

This is great stuff baxters and dogs, top notch!!

As for the value of a zero, it can be best expressed in terms of points. Again this is points you slip behind an estimated final total, points you slip further behind the leader on a weekly basis.

The impact of a zero is spread over the remaining rounds, so it is a function of time. If you have a zero in Rd 2, it is spread over 20 Rd's, if you have a zero in Rd 21, it is spread over 2 Rd's.

R = Rd's remaining
L = expected loss in points from zero

Value of zero = L x (1/R)

Let's take a gun, assuming they average 100 ppg (eg Kornes). If they are out in Rd 10, and you take a hit with a big fat donut, the impact is:

Value of Kornes being out in Rd 10 = 100 x (1/12) = 8.33 points

In other words, you need to increase your average in every remaining Rd by 8.33 to make up for the zero.

Let's run it again, but this time with Kornes out in Rd 20. The impact is:

Value of Kornes being out in Rd 20 = 100 x (1/2) = 50 points

In other words, you need to increase your average in every remaining Rd by 50 to make up for the zero.

If Kornes was out for two weeks, say Rd 10-11, the impact would be:

Value of Kornes being out in Rd 10-11 = (100 x (1/12)) + (100 x (1/11)) = 8.33 + 9.09 = 17.42 points

So this fits with wisdom like nebula's - trade early to minimise impact on points scored. Thoughts?

Reading this thread just makes me dissapointed because being mid 1200's I realise just how far back it is to the top....

Man, i am bloody impressed with thebaxters.
It seems that figures, numbers and charts is your thing.

Dream Team becomes more competitve each year and this is the reason why we are looking towards more complex strategies with the use of numbers, like the chart you have produced above.

thebaxters said:

As for the value of a zero, it can be best expressed in terms of points. Again this is points you slip behind an estimated final total, points you slip further behind the leader on a weekly basis.

The impact of a zero is spread over the remaining rounds, so it is a function of time. If you have a zero in Rd 2, it is spread over 20 Rd's, if you have a zero in Rd 21, it is spread over 2 Rd's.

R = Rd's remaining
L = expected loss in points from zero

Value of zero = L x (1/R)

Let's take a gun, assuming they average 100 ppg (eg Kornes). If they are out in Rd 10, and you take a hit with a big fat donut, the impact is:

Value of Kornes being out in Rd 10 = 100 x (1/12) = 8.33 points

In other words, you need to increase your average in every remaining Rd by 8.33 to make up for the zero.

Let's run it again, but this time with Kornes out in Rd 20. The impact is:

Value of Kornes being out in Rd 20 = 100 x (1/2) = 50 points

In other words, you need to increase your average in every remaining Rd by 50 to make up for the zero.

If Kornes was out for two weeks, say Rd 10-11, the impact would be:

Value of Kornes being out in Rd 10-11 = (100 x (1/12)) + (100 x (1/11)) = 8.33 + 9.09 = 17.42 points

So this fits with wisdom like nebula's - trade early to minimise impact on points scored. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Nice summary Bax. I am right in Neb's corner here. Trade early and aggresively, all upgrades by RD 12 if possible and keep some savers for late zeros.

The question now is the "true value of a trade" because as per the above, the later you trade, the more benefit you need to gain from it. Certainly as Baxters and Walsey mentioned earlier this is better expressed in points than $. How many points should you gain from 1 trade to make it truly worthwhile? 250 / 300 / 350? And if you save 5 trades for LTIs, will they make you more or less than this?

Also interesting that last year's winner only made 1 trade by round 8.

54Dogs said:

Nice summary Bax. I am right in Neb's corner here. Trade early and aggresively, all upgrades by RD 12 if possible and keep some savers for late zeros.

The question now is the "true value of a trade" because as per the above, the later you trade, the more benefit you need to gain from it. Certainly as Baxters and Walsey mentioned earlier this is better expressed in points than $. How many points should you gain from 1 trade to make it truly worthwhile? 250 / 300 / 350? And if you save 5 trades for LTIs, will they make you more or less than this?

Also interesting that last year's winner only made 1 trade by round 8.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to calculate it (in fact I don't think you can) but you also need to take into account the value of saving trades for the end of the season. As Bax's point shows injuries late in the season hurt your score more but having trades in hand can minimise that dramatically, to almost 0. Upgrading early is obviously the best strategy but there comes a point when it would be better to take the 0 and save that trade for when you need it more. Both will hurt but the late zero will hurt more, and you will probably gain more from using the trade at that point than earlier in the season. By the end of the season, some will run out of trades and most teams are pretty similar. If you can sideways trade (or even upgrade) your way out of a late season injury you can gain 100's of points per week on people ahead with no trades left.

I was going to post this earlier after baxters "how much you need to improve to win post" and all of that was excellent work, but it had one assumption that I didn't agree with - that the number 1 ranked person now is the one you need to gain points on. If the top teams have left themselves exposed through lack of trades, the 16 points per week becomes laughable as it is possible to make many more than that per week on someone taking 0's in round 18. It is likely that the winner is in the top 50 because not all will have wasted their trades, but it is not neccessarily the #1 bloke right now.

By all means trade aggressively and trade early but if you burn them all too quick you will suffer in the long run. Zeroes have their place and that place is early in the season.