Position 2015: Midfielders

[Jiska]

The big guns. Who are you looking at? The classic premium/rookie strategy?

And of course, twenty pages of people trying to convince everyone not to pick Ablett... only for him to be the top scorer.. again..

 

[Keystone agony]

Some good midprice options due to injury once again and the strength of the midfield rookies doesnt seem there like past years but we will know more come nab cup abd round 1 teams.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

What are people's thoughts on Scott Selwood?
Eagle Supporters what is his role this year and why was he so shit last year

 

[Clint Beastwood]

What are people's thoughts on Scott Selwood?
Eagle Supporters what is his role this year and why was he so shit last year

He wasn't 100% last year, but I reckon he was also tagging a bit more than the previous two years. He's certainly worth a look at his price, but I'd expect his role to be somewhat similar to last year. Hope he makes it onto the park more often than not.

 

[LordHaart]

What are people's thoughts on Scott Selwood?
Eagle Supporters what is his role this year and why was he so shit last year

Note that he probably isn't a round 1 start at this stage. If he comes back through the WAFL he might build up enough match readiness to play well from his first AFL game but if he's rushed back (as has happened before) I suspect he might play his first few games at a lower standard so might not be worth it.

 

[go you pups]

I like the look of Mitch Duncan, he spudded it up 4 times last year with scores of 55, 52, 65 and 48 which dropped his average but when you look at his scores he is generally very consistent. In his other 18 games he scored at least 85+ including 11 tons, 3 80s and 4 90s, so taking out his 4 poor scores he would have averaged 103.7 (instead of 95), players like Barlow and Pendlebury generally produce those numbers every week (etc don't dip below 80).

He has gotten better every year over the last 4 years, avg 77 in 2011, avg 81 in 2012 and avg 88 in 2013 so I reckon with Geelong's aging midfield Mitch will have to step it up a notch and I think he can based on his scope of improvement.

 

[TRAWP]

What are people's thoughts on Scott Selwood?
Eagle Supporters what is his role this year and why was he so shit last year

I'm staying clear, loved him for the last 3 seasons besides last year. I'm really disappointed that this year I cant lock Priddis at the start of the year

 

[Keystone agony]

I'm staying clear, loved him for the last 3 seasons besides last year. I'm really disappointed that this year I cant lock Priddis at the start of the year

Why not?

 

[DJ75]

Some good discussion on Midfielders here;

http://www.unambitiousus.com/uncategorized/2015-afl-fantasy-strategy-premium-mids/
and here;
http://www.unambitiousus.com/sports/2015-afl-fantasy-a-grade-mids-and-rookies-preview/

 

[Keystone agony]

Some good discussion on Midfielders here;

http://www.unambitiousus.com/uncategorized/2015-afl-fantasy-strategy-premium-mids/
and here;
http://www.unambitiousus.com/sports/2015-afl-fantasy-a-grade-mids-and-rookies-preview/

Seem a little off the mark IMO

However some good small snippets aswell.

If a player avg 95 last year, then to maintain price (ie: Breakeven) then they will need to avg a bit more then that 95 to maintain price due to rookiies going up in price and TPS for everyone staying the same.

Also i think you need a captain and that person has to be the best scorer in the game.

I post something similar every year.

This year based on Magic Number the avg starting point for all your players is 1766 points (Salary / Magic Number). - this isnt including captain.

Lets say you go for there example and pick guys like J.Selwood (106) as captain.

Thats

1766 - 106 = 1660 + (2X captain score, in this case 106 which is 212)
1660+212 = 1872

Lets use the same if we pick the highest scoring player in the comp, Rockliff (134)

1766 - 134 = 1632 2 x captain score = 268)
1632 + 268 = 1900

------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats an extra 28 points per week, with all things equal.

Thats why you should be picking Rockliff in your team and as captain.

Finally ive spilled the beans.

 

[Taylor]

Thats an extra 28 points per week, with all things equal.

Except they aren't equal, that 28 points costs you $160,000.

 

[Keystone agony]

Except they aren't equal, that 28 points costs you $160,000.

No it doesnt each teams value is 10 mill

Refer to the 1766 (thats 10 mill)

 

[Taylor]

No it doesnt each teams value is 10 mill

Refer to the 1766 (thats 10 mill)

Oh I get what you're saying now.

I was thinking that if you can only fit your 30 players and one of them costs $160,000 more than your next choice (in this case J Selwood), so it has to fall out of somewhere else and I'd expect to get more than 28 points for $160,000.

Regarding Rockliff, the last 28 points are the toughest for him to get.

 

[Keystone agony]

Oh I get what you're saying now.

I was thinking that if you can only fit your 30 players and one of them costs $160,000 more than your next choice (in this case J Selwood), so it has to fall out of somewhere else and I'd expect to get more than 28 points for $160,000.

Regarding Rockliff, the last 28 points are the toughest for him to get.

How? why?

Im not really sure i understand what your saying there?

Are you trying to say 1 point is harder to get over another 1 point?

 

[Taylor]

How? why?

Because he has to get 106 before them, it's not a guarantee.

 

[Keystone agony]

Because he has to get 106 before them, it's not a guarantee.

Neither is it for anyone though, its a mute point because it can be said about any player.

Your trying to tell me its harder to get 1 point over another 1 point, that must sound ridiculous to you. It does to me.

 

[Taylor]

Neither is it for anyone though, its a mute point because it can be said about any player.

Your trying to tell me its harder to get 1 point over another 1 point, that must sound ridiculous to you. It does to me.

I'm obviously failing to get my point across, I'm saying that the higher up the average is the harder it will be to hit the average each time. I am worried people will expect huge scores like that from him all the time.

If his average was 50 points then it's not unreasonable to expect that, but missing one quarter by playing deep forward and suddenly Rockliff is chasing 35 extra points the next quarter just to keep his average.

 

[Keystone agony]

I'm obviously failing to get my point across, I'm saying that the higher up the average is the harder it will be to hit the average each time. I am worried people will expect huge scores like that from him all the time.

If his average was 50 points then it's not unreasonable to expect that, but missing one quarter by playing deep forward and suddenly Rockliff is chasing 35 extra points the next quarter just to keep his average.

Yes but my point is based on averages.

Its just as easy for Rockliff to get to 134 as it is for J.Selwood to get to 106.

If you dont think Rockliff is going to avg that then you either need to
1) Not pick him
2) Decided if he avgs 'X' amount less is he still worth it as captain option?


Lets use the above example to further illustrate my point based on J.Selwood maintaining his avg and Rockliff dropping by 5 points to 129~

J.Selwoods team with him captain avgs 1872

Rockliffs team avgs:
1766 - 134 = 1632
1632 + 258 (2 x captain score(129) = 258) = 1890 points

Rocklffs team is still far superior even though he drops his avg and J.Selwood maintains it.

Edit: With the above example, if you think Rockliff will avg less than 120 then maybe you need to look at not picking him and picking someone else.

 

[Spider Klein]

Yes but my point is based on averages.

Its just as easy for Rockliff to get to 134 as it is for J.Selwood to get to 106.

If you dont think Rockliff is going to avg that then you either need to
1) Not pick him
2) Decided if he avgs 'X' amount less is he still worth it as captain option?


Lets use the above example to further illustrate my point based on J.Selwood maintaining his avg and Rockliff dropping by 5 points to 129~

J.Selwoods team with him captain avgs 1872

Rockliffs team avgs:
1766 - 134 = 1632
1632 + 258 (2 x captain score(129) = 258) = 1890 points

Rocklffs team is still far superior even though he drops his avg and J.Selwood maintains it.

Edit: With the above example, if you think Rockliff will avg less than 120 then maybe you need to look at not picking him and picking someone else.

Using your numbers above

Assume Rockliff team spends entire salary cap
10 mill divided by 1890 means you are paying $5291 per point

Selwoods team 9.84 mill divided by 1872 means you are paying $5256 per point

The Selwood team is actually better off in points per salary hence the 160k you save getting Selwood if used correctly can get you 160000/5256 = 30 so roughly 30 more points if you can spend the money elsewhere.

I understand the double points for captain argument is a valid one but comparing 2 players who are $160,000 different in price has way too many variables on how that money would change the rest of the squad.

 

[Keystone agony]

Using your numbers above

Assume Rockliff team spends entire salary cap
10 mill divided by 1890 means you are paying $5291 per point

Selwoods team 9.84 mill divided by 1872 means you are paying $5256 per point

The Selwood team is actually better off in points per salary hence the 160k you save getting Selwood if used correctly can get you 160000/5256 = 30 so roughly 30 more points if you can spend the money elsewhere.

I understand the double points for captain argument is a valid one but comparing 2 players who are $160,000 different in price has way too many variables on how that money would change the rest of the squad.

All things are equal SK

The same amount of salary has been spent on both teams. The only difference is the points.

 

[Spider Klein]

All things are equal SK

The same amount of salary has been spent on both teams. The only difference is the points.

Ok no problem.

I just got confused because the maths looked like both teams have calculated having Rockliff and Selwood in the team. However one team has Selwood captain and doesnt score as much as the team with Rockliff captain even though at some point in the maths Rockliff scores 134 and at another time he drops to 129.

I will admit that I am not following exactly your point. But I do agree with your argument that a team with Rockliff captain is better than a team without Rockliff captain if all the other players are equal

 

[Keystone agony]

Ok no problem.

I just got confused because the maths looked like both teams have calculated having Rockliff and Selwood in the team. However one team has Selwood captain and doesnt score as much as the team with Rockliff captain even though at some point in the maths Rockliff scores 134 and at another time he drops to 129.

I will admit that I am not following exactly your point. But I do agree with your argument that a team with Rockliff captain is better than a team without Rockliff captain if all the other players are equal

It was showing that even having Rockliff as captain but his avg drops 5 points (ie: 134 to 129) that team still scores more than having Selwood as captain even though in the case above we assumed he maintained his avg.

One team has Rockliff as captain, another team has J.Selwood as captain - the other 29 players in the team doesnt matter who they are.

I dont know really what your getting confused with, im not sure how much better i can explain it then by using simple maths.

Its trying to compare having the best scoring player in the game as captain (My theory backed by stats) then by someone who writes articles on a website who thinks you can get away without Rockliff and having someone like J.Selwood for example as captain without any numbers or stats which will mean less points as proven by my post.

 

[Keystone agony]

Seem a little off the mark IMO

However some good small snippets aswell.

If a player avg 95 last year, then to maintain price (ie: Breakeven) then they will need to avg a bit more then that 95 to maintain price due to rookiies going up in price and TPS for everyone staying the same.

Also i think you need a captain and that person has to be the best scorer in the game.

I post something similar every year.

This year based on Magic Number the avg starting point for all your players is 1766 points (Salary / Magic Number). - this isnt including captain.

Lets say you go for there example and pick guys like J.Selwood (106) as captain.

Thats

1766 - 106 = 1660 + (2X captain score, in this case 106 which is 212)
1660+212 = 1872

Lets use the same if we pick the highest scoring player in the comp, Rockliff (134)

1766 - 134 = 1632 2 x captain score = 268)
1632 + 268 = 1900

------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats an extra 28 points per week, with all things equal.

Thats why you should be picking Rockliff in your team and as captain.

Finally ive spilled the beans.

Read this one Spider Klein

Its comparing picking the top scoring player (Rocky) as captain compared to J.Selwood in this case.

This year based on Magic Number the avg starting point for all your players is 1766 points (Salary / Magic Number). - this isnt including captain.

J.Selwood as Captain maintaining avg (106)
1766 - 106 = 1660 (Is the total amount of points the rest of the team scores W/O J.Selwood)
1660 + 212 (2X captain score, in this case 106 which is 212) = 1872

Rockliff as captain maintaining avg (134)
1766 - 134 = 1632 (Amount the rest of Rockliffs team scores, as you can see less than J.Selwoods because J.Selwood is cheaper and more can be spent on the rest of the side compared to Rockliff)

1632 + 268 (2 x captain score of 134 = 268) = 1900

 

[Sassy420]

How? why?

Im not really sure i understand what your saying there?

Are you trying to say 1 point is harder to get over another 1 point?

Technically 1 point is harder to get than another because of the uncertainty principle as he increases in score, just saying.

 

[Keystone agony]

Technically 1 point is harder to get than another because of the uncertainty principle as he increases in score, just saying.

Technically no it isnt