Position 2017 Midfielders

[Here2tellyouwhy]

"Go on finish, you lil bitch."

Wouldve been nice if she finished it for me.
No such luck.

 

[stevebbb]

that BF influence though..

MMurphy now in my midfield

 

[Hairy Lager]

Wouldve been nice if she finished it for me.
No such luck.

Wine and Dine, Wine and Dine.

 

[Hairy Lager]

that BF influence though..

MMurphy now in my midfield

Beams has the potential to smash him 'IF' he can stay fit.

 

[stevebbb]

Beams has the potential to smash him 'IF' he can stay fit.

I'm now thinking I'll take both at M5 and M6

DSwallow at M7 also an option if mid rookies are poor

 

[Hairy Lager]

I'm now thinking I'll take both at M5 and M6

DSwallow at M7 also an option if mid rookies are poor

Waiting for rookies but I'm thinking about batting deep in Mids this year...
Coming down to Heeney at a very simular price who is unknown vs Beams/Murphy or Heppell ala Cripps breakout last year.

 

[Moustachio]

Actually was wondering if North might try and hard tag him.

Even if two of them are holding him by the ankles I'm not sure anyone on North can actually catch up to him. Maybe he can beat the whole team by himself, I am thinking of Asterix vs the Romans after he drinks one of those little potions.

Anyway, I ran some comparisons on bonus points for VC/C based on % of games that each player goes 120+ (in which case I would bank the VC score in that % of games, otherwise I get the C's score). I used the actual draw from R1-10 with Strnadica as a loophole.

Teams compared all had
Fyfe (2015, no injuries) + Pendles (2016, R7+ scores) + Bont (R7+ scores). This is kind of optimistic, but Pendles/Bont spent start of season recovering from injuries, and Fyfe is looking like a sexy man god so far in pre-season so maybe won't die.

One team had 2016's Danger --> +138 ppg av from VC/C
One team had 2016's Danger with -5% to all scores (125 av) --> +134 ppg av
One team had 2014's Rocky with -5% to all scores (125 av) --> +135 ppg av
One team had 2014's Rocky with -10% to all scores (119 av) --> +132 ppg av
One team had no extra VC/C option --> +132 ppg av
If Fyfe injured and only Pendles C --> +124 ppg av
If Fyfe injured and Pendles is down 5% on my predicted --> +118 ppg av

So..... not a huge difference, say 6 ppg ($30k) compared to the vanilla option. But if Fyfe goes down and you perma-captain a slightly underperforming Pendles, suddenly we are at 20 ppg = $100k. Given how durable Danger is, he is a good accompaniment to Fyfe and Pendles to make sure the C's keep ticking every round. He will cost multiple trades if you have to bring him in R3 or whatever because Fyfe forgot to drink his milk again. I just can't bring myself not to start him, I don't know where else I would spend the cash that would be a better investment.

 

[catstragic]

Even if two of them are holding him by the ankles I'm not sure anyone on North can actually catch up to him. Maybe he can beat the whole team by himself, I am thinking of Asterix vs the Romans after he drinks one of those little potions.

Anyway, I ran some comparisons on bonus points for VC/C based on % of games that each player goes 120+ (in which case I would bank the VC score in that % of games, otherwise I get the C's score). I used the actual draw from R1-10 with Strnadica as a loophole.

Teams compared all had
Fyfe (2015, no injuries) + Pendles (2016, R7+ scores) + Bont (R7+ scores). This is kind of optimistic, but Pendles/Bont spent start of season recovering from injuries, and Fyfe is looking like a sexy man god so far in pre-season so maybe won't die.

One team had 2016's Danger --> +138 ppg av from VC/C
One team had 2016's Danger with -5% to all scores (125 av) --> +134 ppg av
One team had 2014's Rocky with -5% to all scores (125 av) --> +135 ppg av
One team had 2014's Rocky with -10% to all scores (119 av) --> +132 ppg av
One team had no extra VC/C option --> +132 ppg av
If Fyfe injured and only Pendles C --> +124 ppg av
If Fyfe injured and Pendles is down 5% on my predicted --> +118 ppg av

So..... not a huge difference, say 6 ppg ($30k) compared to the vanilla option. But if Fyfe goes down and you perma-captain a slightly underperforming Pendles, suddenly we are at 20 ppg = $100k. Given how durable Danger is, he is a good accompaniment to Fyfe and Pendles to make sure the C's keep ticking every round. He will cost multiple trades if you have to bring him in R3 or whatever because Fyfe forgot to drink his milk again. I just can't bring myself not to start him, I don't know where else I would spend the cash that would be a better investment.

my head hurts.

 

[catstragic]

Danger and Pendles. Then build my team.

 

[gutsroy]

Even if two of them are holding him by the ankles I'm not sure anyone on North can actually catch up to him. Maybe he can beat the whole team by himself, I am thinking of Asterix vs the Romans after he drinks one of those little potions.

Anyway, I ran some comparisons on bonus points for VC/C based on % of games that each player goes 120+ (in which case I would bank the VC score in that % of games, otherwise I get the C's score). I used the actual draw from R1-10 with Strnadica as a loophole.

Teams compared all had
Fyfe (2015, no injuries) + Pendles (2016, R7+ scores) + Bont (R7+ scores). This is kind of optimistic, but Pendles/Bont spent start of season recovering from injuries, and Fyfe is looking like a sexy man god so far in pre-season so maybe won't die.

One team had 2016's Danger --> +138 ppg av from VC/C
One team had 2016's Danger with -5% to all scores (125 av) --> +134 ppg av
One team had 2014's Rocky with -5% to all scores (125 av) --> +135 ppg av
One team had 2014's Rocky with -10% to all scores (119 av) --> +132 ppg av
One team had no extra VC/C option --> +132 ppg av
If Fyfe injured and only Pendles C --> +124 ppg av
If Fyfe injured and Pendles is down 5% on my predicted --> +118 ppg av

So..... not a huge difference, say 6 ppg ($30k) compared to the vanilla option. But if Fyfe goes down and you perma-captain a slightly underperforming Pendles, suddenly we are at 20 ppg = $100k. Given how durable Danger is, he is a good accompaniment to Fyfe and Pendles to make sure the C's keep ticking every round. He will cost multiple trades if you have to bring him in R3 or whatever because Fyfe forgot to drink his milk again. I just can't bring myself not to start him, I don't know where else I would spend the cash that would be a better investment.

Absolutely robust in your cortex on those selection paradigm construction scenarios there, Higgo-like.

Good on you for investing the effort (not trivial) and sharing

 

[kirbonavich]

Absolutely robust in your cortex on those selection paradigm construction scenarios there, Higgo-like.

Good on you for investing the effort (not trivial) and sharing

Does anyone know when it opens for non gold members?

 

[gutsroy]

Does anyone know when it opens for non gold members?

Thought someone had indicated early FEB(?) you can use the SC Paige / Jock Reynolds picker tools in the meantime if you haven't yet

 

[pulpdriver]

How are WCE supporters feeling about Dom Sheed's year? One I plan to watch closely in the pre-season.

Really liked him as a junior and thought he would end up a very good player at AFL level. He did make steady improvement over his first two years without really wowing. When he finally came back at injury last year he wasn't too crash hot but surely coming into his fourth year and with a full pre-season he'd be eyeing a full-time inside role in the Eagles midfield?

If he can have a full year as an inside mid I think there's a possibility he hits an average of around 85-95 which is fine for a m7 until bye upgrade and a decent return for $267k.

 

[Metapod]

No 200K rookies for me - have avoided them like the plague all my SC life

It'll be 280K or 150K and below

If i was committing to Dswallow it'd be with a view of last one upgraded or M9 capability (knowing he may miss a couple as he is "managed" along the way

Likewise. For the record I'm not taking DSwallow either. Would be interesting to see a comparison of how 200k rookies have fared against <150k rookies in the past...

 

[Sydney Kicker]

Likewise. For the record I'm not taking DSwallow either. Would be interesting to see a comparison of how 200k rookies have fared against <150k rookies in the past...

Someone on Super Coach Scores mentioned some research was done a while ago (I didn't see the research). Unsurprisingly the conclusion was the cheaper rookies were better for cash generation. No idea how much better and I assume it wouldn't account for the difference in job security which is always a strong driver when selecting rookies.

 

[Hairy Lager]

Someone on Super Coach Scores mentioned some research was done a while ago (I didn't see the research). Unsurprisingly the conclusion was the cheaper rookies were better for cash generation. No idea how much better and I assume it wouldn't account for the difference in job security which is always a strong driver when selecting rookies.

With my limited SC knowledge still in rookie status compared to you guns,
I think a good back rookie is probably worth the extra coin but mids/fwds can surprise a SC in their poteintal...
see Jr Mcgov last year.

 

[Here2tellyouwhy]

How are WCE supporters feeling about Dom Sheed's year? One I plan to watch closely in the pre-season.

Really liked him as a junior and thought he would end up a very good player at AFL level. He did make steady improvement over his first two years without really wowing. When he finally came back at injury last year he wasn't too crash hot but surely coming into his fourth year and with a full pre-season he'd be eyeing a full-time inside role in the Eagles midfield?

If he can have a full year as an inside mid I think there's a possibility he hits an average of around 85-95 which is fine for a m7 until bye upgrade and a decent return for $267k.

I like Dom. Is Good.
But he's a very 50/50 pick.
If you have the option to take a playing 120k rookie you do it.
If you want him gtab him but IMO there probably will be better options out there.

 

[gutsroy]

Have a file with 2016 rookie price developments by price band, rounds played, number of rounds after debut to reach n games % reaching n games etc. (had 60-65-odd rookies, wasn't 100% exhaustive), can do up a summary table if of interest. Don't have previous years.
Wanted to see if accepted wisdom was true.

 

[Sydney Kicker]

Have a file with 2016 rookie price developments by price band, rounds played, number of rounds after debut to reach n games % reaching n games etc. (had 60-65-odd rookies, wasn't 100% exhaustive), can do up a summary table if of interest. Don't have previous years.
Wanted to see if accepted wisdom was true.

Would be very interested to see that.

 

[gutsroy]

Would be very interested to see that.

No worries, will try to post later. Nice summary of mids in other thread, btw.

 

[Hairy Lager]

I like Dom. Is Good.
But he's a very 50/50 pick.
If you have the option to take a playing 120k rookie you do it.
If you want him gtab him but IMO there probably will be better options out there.

Not SC relevant IMO, we as a club are not SC relevant.

JJK, or Pridda only premos for me.

Rioli will get a game if Lecras bubs keeps him up.

 

[Falchoon]

Likewise. For the record I'm not taking DSwallow either. Would be interesting to see a comparison of how 200k rookies have fared against <150k rookies in the past...

I did last years

basically the average of <150k rookies exceeded all >150k rookies in avg/starting price value, the averages are pretty similar, 63 to 60.

Game theory suggests don't bother over $150k

*MN = 5395

Based on the above I value rookies roughly as follows, (first half of the season average).

R1 86
R2 84
R3 76
R4 75
R5 73
R6 73
R7 69
R8 68
R9 67
R10 63
R11 62
R12 61
R13 60
R14 59
R15 59
R16 57

 

[Sydney Kicker]

I did last years

basically the average of <150k rookies exceeded all >150k rookies in avg/starting price value, the averages are pretty similar, 63 to 60.

Game theory suggests don't bother over $150k

*MN = 5395

Based on the above I value rookies roughly as follows, (first half of the season average).

R1 86
R2 84
R3 76
R4 75
R5 73
R6 73
R7 69
R8 68
R9 67
R10 63
R11 62
R12 61
R13 60
R14 59
R15 59
R16 57

Good work. That's telling a story - stay away from those expensive rookies except in exceptional circumstances. Especially the ones just drafted.

 

[Goats]

Good work. That's telling a story - stay away from those expensive rookies except in exceptional circumstances. Especially the ones just drafted.

Bowes and McCluggage
look the goods, ey?

 

[gutsroy]

Would be very interested to see that.

Here you go. Had three categories, last year's real price data. Tried to do checks on data as I went along, may well have missed something
Looked at rookies overall, then subset that debuted rd 1-3 (figured there's often the odd early rookie corrective trade), by position (not shown).
There are some artefacts, it being single-year snapshot, Listed blokes looked at further down. Missed a few, would think. Haven't attached any comments.


Blokes looked at: