Position 2013 bargains

[Keystone agony]

Agreed completely, Cloke & Buckley = very limited value in Cloke for DT, add ot this the presence of a functional 2nd tall in Q-Stick and Clokes appeal diminishes even further

Contrary it could improve even further

Less attention = possibly more points

 

[Krujan]

Contrary it could improve even further

Less attention = possibly more points

So you'll be picking him then? that's awesome

 

[Keystone agony]

So you'll be picking him then? that's awesome

Didnt know i said that?

 

[Krujan]

Didnt know i said that?

Looked to me like you were trying to talk yourself into yet another unique pick...

 

[Keystone agony]

Looked to me like you were trying to talk yourself into yet another unique pick...

Clokes not unique

Nope all i said was that a decent 2nd tall forward would/could actually bring less attention to him contrary to what he said in that a 2nd functional forward would diminish his scores ever more so. Im not saying either would happen im just being devils advocate

 

[Krujan]

Clokes not unique

Nope all i said was that a decent 2nd tall forward would/could actually bring less attention to him contrary to what he said in that a 2nd functional forward would diminish his scores ever more so. Im not saying either would happen im just being devils advocate

7% not unique?

 

[Keystone agony]

7% not unique?

no

 

[toxic]

no

Just pick him KA - deal with the pain of a non performing key fwd

 

[Keystone agony]

Just pick him KA - deal with the pain of a non performing key fwd

Has never been considered at all really i just disagree with what you said. A more functional 2nd forward would lean towards less attention to Cloke not more attention and not necessarily diminish his numbers.

 

[Cizzler]

Spangher is one in the fwd line that is a potential steal particularly if Lake doesn't get up.

Still looking for heaps more for the FREE Dream Team Competition with top 3 getting prize money - click link to enter http://dreamteam.afl.com.au/group?cic=230119

 

[leungtl]

no

What percentage would make someone unique in your books? Just to put it in perspective, more people have picked Nathan Bock, Sam Kerridge, Jon Patton and Brent Staker in their forward lines.

 

[Keystone agony]

What percentage would make someone unique in your books? Just to put it in perspective, more people have picked Nathan Bock, Sam Kerridge, Jon Patton and Brent Staker in their forward lines.

Id say at least less than 4-5%

If the growing trend of DTers continue we will have 350-400k, 7.7% of that is alot of teams with Cloke in it.

 

[leungtl]

Id say at least less than 4-5%

If the growing trend of DTers continue we will have 350-400k, 7.7% of that is alot of teams with Cloke in it.

You only need to concern yourself with percentage ownership and not the total amount of teams in the comp when accounting for whether a player is unique, whether there's 400 teams or 400k teams.

Otherwise your definition of "unique" could gradually drop to around 1% in a decade when there's a truckload more teams, and that's just a whole new level of unique!

 

[CrippsonBlue]

That doesn't tell the whole story anyway, also depends on the quality of teams that contribute to those percentages.

 

[Budgie63]

This argument over the use and % assigned to the term "unique" is crap. To be correct, the term 'unique', in reference to DT selections is a rubbish one. The meaning of "unique", from dictionary.com, is "existing as the only one or as the sole example;" No player ever has only one selection in the comp and therefore the term unique does not apply. Further, to assign some baseless percentage to the term is even more ridiculous. Perhaps just use the term rare and forget the rest.

 

[toxic]

This argument over the use and % assigned to the term "unique" is crap. To be correct, the term 'unique', in reference to DT selections is a rubbish one. The meaning of "unique", from dictionary.com, is "existingastheonlyoneorasthesoleexample;" No player ever has only one selection in the comp and therefore the term unique does not apply. Further, to assign some baseless percentage to the term is even more ridiculous. Perhaps just use the term rare and forget the rest.

or perhaps you drop the dictionary at the door and understand the word Intent, provided everyone understands the intent of the phrase/word and talks a common language then the actual word is irrelevant. other than that if you dont want to be apart of a forum on "unique" players then do something unique and leave the topic!

 

[Budgie63]

or perhaps you drop the dictionary at the door and understand the word Intent, provided everyone understands the intent of the phrase/word and talks a common language then the actual word is irrelevant. other than that if you dont want to be apart of a forum on "unique" players then do something unique and leave the topic!

Using your logic then it's OK to use any old word in any situation and, as long as everyone understands, then it's all good. I'm just suggesting that the word is wrong and so are the percentages. Anyway, I thought it was a topic on 2013 bargains, not a discussion of the rarity of selections. So, in light of that, I offer up Hayden Crozier as my bargain given the shortage of decent fwd options. Not sure why he's not mentioned more with the little we have to pick from.

 

[toxic]

Using your logic then it's OK to use any old word in any situation and, as long as everyone understands, then it's all good. I'm just suggesting that the word is wrong and so are the percentages. Anyway, I thought it was a topic on 2013 bargains, not a discussion of the rarity of selections. So, in light of that, I offer up Hayden Crozier as my bargain given the shortage of decent fwd options. Not sure why he's not mentioned more with the little we have to pick from.

agreed on Crozier - i reckon he falls with Stringer from doggies as a $$$$ based judgement

 

[Keystone agony]

You only need to concern yourself with percentage ownership and not the total amount of teams in the comp when accounting for whether a player is unique, whether there's 400 teams or 400k teams.

Otherwise your definition of "unique" could gradually drop to around 1% in a decade when there's a truckload more teams, and that's just a whole new level of unique!

Yeh i know it just used it as an example for 8% which isnt unique. I said 4-5% or less is unique.

 

[Keystone agony]

Using your logic then it's OK to use any old word in any situation and, as long as everyone understands, then it's all good. I'm just suggesting that the word is wrong and so are the percentages. Anyway, I thought it was a topic on 2013 bargains, not a discussion of the rarity of selections. So, in light of that, I offer up Hayden Crozier as my bargain given the shortage of decent fwd options. Not sure why he's not mentioned more with the little we have to pick from.

The % arent wrong

 

[Budgie63]

The % arent wrong

Of course they aren't KA, because if anybody would know it'd be you.

 

[Keystone agony]

Of course they aren't KA, because if anybody would know it'd be you.

No, it would be the entire database

But keep telling yourself you have picked 'rare' players

 

[Budgie63]

This:

Keystone agony said: ↑
Yeh i know it just used it as an example for 8% which isnt unique. I said 4-5% or less is unique.

Source for explanation of how 4-5% is "unique" and where it fails to be?

I'm not questioning the % chosen in AC, I'm asking you where you got your definitons from because I suspect they came from the same place you get all of your stuff from.

 

[Krujan]

I just want to use Cloke as an example here. Out of the 7.7% that currently own him, I wonder how many of those are even half serious DT players...as in finished inside the top 100k last year? 1%? 2%? Because the below average or novice DT player just picks players they know are good players in real life, but would be unaware of why said player gun is so cheap in DT in comparison to other players of equal or lesser playing ability.

 

[CrippsonBlue]

Keystone is an idiot.

One of the few decent contributors left imo.