List Mgmt. 2017 Trade & FA Targets Part 2

[Saintos The ITK]

What if we have more currency to trade than we'd reckoned on?
Eg two top five picks? Does that change the landscape around a bit?

 

[35Saints35]

What if we have more currency to trade than we'd reckoned on?
Eg two top five picks? Does that change the landscape around a bit?

Go on . Too late for cryptic subliminal messages

 

[saintscott]

So explain it again considering there is no head head or tail tail option. You are either a star or not a star. 50%. Fact. I would clueless but I will leave it to people who know maths to decide Good luck proving me wrong Alicia silverstone


In footy in this example you are a star or not 50% apparently even though I'm working on 20% so one in five chance. Good luck alicia


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we only had one first rounder it would be 50%. It is two first rounders that change the math. Substitute heads and tails for star and dud.

The math is sound. What is debatable is the 50% strike rate to find a star. 200 gamer maybe. But star is top 3 on a list types. Plenty of 150 gamers that aren't stars. Adelaide have 3 in douglas, smith and mackay. On our list we have geary, gilbert and armitage

 

[Strahany]

The math in this thread is broken.

Just because there are 2 outcomes (gun player or not gun) does not mean there is a 50% chance. It's like saying there's two outcomes - you winning a billion dollars tomorrow or not winning a billion dollars. It isn't 50/50.

Regardless, if we assume the it is a 50/50 shot (which it isn't), then the example of the coin flip IS correct because the discussion is regarding taking TWO PICKS.

If you have one pick, then, in this scenario, it would be a 50% chance of a gun.
But if you have two picks, there's two 50% chances in isolation, however probability compounds. There are 4 outcomes from 2 picks:

Gun + Gun
Gun + Not Gun
Not Gun + Gun
Not Gun + Not Gin

There's a 1/4 chance of 2 guns
1/4 chance of 2 not guns
2/4 (or 1/2) chance of 1 gun

Therefore, there's a combined 3/4 chance, or 75%, that there will be an outcome of AT LEAST one gun.

But, as I said at the start, this is nonsensical as this isn't a 50/50 scenario. Again, if it were, then the above is indisputably correct.

Can we move on?

 

[saintscott]

The math in this thread is broken.

Just because there are 2 outcomes (gun player or not gun) does not mean there is a 50% chance. It's like saying there's two outcomes - you winning a billion dollars tomorrow or not winning a billion dollars. It isn't 50/50.

Regardless, if we assume the it is a 50/50 shot (which it isn't), then the example of the coin flip IS correct because the discussion is regarding taking TWO PICKS.

If you have one pick, then, in this scenario, it would be a 50% chance of a gun.
But if you have two picks, there's two 50% chances in isolation, however probability compounds. There are 4 outcomes from 2 picks:

Gun + Gun
Gun + Not Gun
Not Gun + Gun
Not Gun + Not Gin

There's a 1/4 chance of 2 guns
1/4 chance of 2 not guns
2/4 (or 1/2) chance of 1 gun

Therefore, there's a combined 3/4 chance, or 75%, that there will be an outcome of AT LEAST one gun.

But, as I said at the start, this is nonsensical as this isn't a 50/50 scenario. Again, if it were, then the above is indisputably correct.

Can we move on?

Ha same time. Though yours is more eloquently put!

 

[Dard Ball Get]

This math shit can **** right off, I come in here to get my deluded hopes up, not have classroom flashbacks!

 

[plugger66]

The math in this thread is broken.

Just because there are 2 outcomes (gun player or not gun) does not mean there is a 50% chance. It's like saying there's two outcomes - you winning a billion dollars tomorrow or not winning a billion dollars. It isn't 50/50.

Regardless, if we assume the it is a 50/50 shot (which it isn't), then the example of the coin flip IS correct because the discussion is regarding taking TWO PICKS.

If you have one pick, then, in this scenario, it would be a 50% chance of a gun.
But if you have two picks, there's two 50% chances in isolation, however probability compounds. There are 4 outcomes from 2 picks:

Gun + Gun
Gun + Not Gun
Not Gun + Gun
Not Gun + Not Gin

There's a 1/4 chance of 2 guns
1/4 chance of 2 not guns
2/4 (or 1/2) chance of 1 gun

Therefore, there's a combined 3/4 chance, or 75%, that there will be an outcome of AT LEAST one gun.

But, as I said at the start, this is nonsensical as this isn't a 50/50 scenario. Again, if it were, then the above is indisputably correct.

Can we move on?

Doesn't change it because each pick is an individual pick. If you have on coin and the first is heads then the second is still 50% I can't believe people actually think 2 picks matters. If you have 10 picks out of 20 and only a 50% chance of a star every pick is still even money. In other words 50%. Anyway we know it's much less than that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aussierulesrules]

Unless we turn our form around in a pretty big way and in a pretty big hurry, it could very easily be a better outcome for us to miss out on the likes of Kelly, and hit the draft with what could very easily be picks 3/4 and something around 8.

Sure getting Kelly is a safer bet than those you'd get at those picks, but we need more than just him to get right into premiership contention and if we add two more really talented types from the draft instead, we save our money for another day.

End result of that would be that from our assets of two really good picks and around $1.3mil PA in cap space, we could potentially get as many 3 or even 4 "guns", rather than just one Josh Kelly.

If we were just one Josh Kelly away from a flag then by all means, we'd be better off getting him- at almost any cost- but it doesn't look like that's the case, so unless our form turns in big way in a hurry, we're probably far better off hitting the draft really hard one last time, front-ending the crap out of our contracts for the 2018 season and then going ape-shit at the likes of Sloane at the end of next year, with a ridiculously big warchest, and an offer they simply won't refuse.

Our chances of a premiership in the coming years are surely much better if we add a couple of top-end talents from this year's draft and then a Sloane type next year, with these assets we currently have, rather than just adding a Josh Kelly with these same assets.

It's probably not the time to go all-in on a Kelly type.

 

[Strahany]

Doesn't change it because each pick is an individual pick. If you have on coin and the first is heads then the second is still 50% I can't believe people actually think 2 picks matters. If you have 10 picks out of 20 and only a 50% chance of a star every pick is still even money. In other words 50%. Anyway we know it's much less than that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I make an effort not to be personal on this forum, however one can only assume that you dove into the deep end when you're usually frolicking in the intellectual kiddie-pool on this topic. Your understanding of mathematics is basic, at best.

 

[Crusty Undies]

The math in this thread is broken.

Just because there are 2 outcomes (gun player or not gun) does not mean there is a 50% chance. It's like saying there's two outcomes - you winning a billion dollars tomorrow or not winning a billion dollars. It isn't 50/50.

Regardless, if we assume the it is a 50/50 shot (which it isn't), then the example of the coin flip IS correct because the discussion is regarding taking TWO PICKS.

If you have one pick, then, in this scenario, it would be a 50% chance of a gun.
But if you have two picks, there's two 50% chances in isolation, however probability compounds. There are 4 outcomes from 2 picks:

Gun + Gun
Gun + Not Gun
Not Gun + Gun
Not Gun + Not Gin

There's a 1/4 chance of 2 guns
1/4 chance of 2 not guns
2/4 (or 1/2) chance of 1 gun

Therefore, there's a combined 3/4 chance, or 75%, that there will be an outcome of AT LEAST one gun.

But, as I said at the start, this is nonsensical as this isn't a 50/50 scenario. Again, if it were, then the above is indisputably correct.

Can we move on?

I said the exact same thing in less words like 6 times. Apparently it needed to be ELI5'd.

 

[Crusty Undies]

Doesn't change it because each pick is an individual pick. If you have on coin and the first is heads then the second is still 50% I can't believe people actually think 2 picks matters. If you have 10 picks out of 20 and only a 50% chance of a star every pick is still even money. In other words 50%. Anyway we know it's much less than that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you actually stupid? Like seriously at this point I'm curious. 2 Independent events = 4 outcomes. The 2 possible results of each event being (Gun) or (Not Gun). Assuming each event has a 50% chance of occuring yhe 4 outcomes of these events are.

First pick (Gun), Second pick (Gun).

First pick (Gun), Second pick (Not Gun).

First pick (Not Gun), Second pick (Gun).

First pick (Not Gun), Second pick (Not Gun).

What about this do you not understand? Did you even pass Primary School?

 

[plugger66]

I make an effort not to be personal on this forum, however one can only assume that you dove into the deep end when you're usually frolicking in the intellectual kiddie-pool on this topic. Your understanding of mathematics is basic, at best.

I like the way everyone says this but just explain why it's wrong. Sand don't use the heads or tails example because we know that can't be right. If there are 20 picks and you have 2 there is no way it's 75% chance he will be a gun. The first pick is 50% and then the second pick is still 50%. Apart from getting told I'm wrong how about telling why.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[plugger66]

Are you actually stupid? Like seriously at this point I'm curious. 2 Independent events = 4 outcomes. The 2 possible results of each event being (Gun) or (Not Gun). Assuming each event has a 50% chance of occuring yhe 4 outcomes of these events are.

First pick (Gun), Second pick (Gun).

First pick (Gun), Second pick (Not Gun).

First pick (Not Gun), Second pick (Gun).

First pick (Not Gun), Second pick (Not Gun).

What about this do you not understand? Did you even pass Primary School?

Ok so let's play this game. Let's say there are 10 picks. inside the first 20 picks. What are the odds then? Under you example must be about 99%. It's still actually 50%. You theory of using gun gun and fail fail is wrong because you are using the fact that the picks are thrown up together like heads or tails. They aren't. They are individual pick. The first pick is 50 50. Even you would agree on that. The second pick then is still 50 50 because it has to be gun or fail every second pick It's like black or red in roulette forget green for a moment. If 15 reds have come up it's still 50 50 next spin. If one fine been taken then it's still a chance of a gun or a fail next pick. Individual picks so there is no gun gun or fail fail. It's gun or fail every pick

I would love you to tell me my odds for the example I asked. My bet is you won't because it will prove you wrong. Forgetting all this the madness of thinking you get a gun with every second pick is mind boggling. Every 5 th pick is more likely





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Crusty Undies]

Ok so let's play this game. Let's say there are 10 picks. inside the first 20 picks. What are the odds then? Under you example must be about 99%. It's still actually 50%. You theory of using gun gun and fail fail is wrong because you are using the fact that the picks are thrown up together like heads or tails. They aren't. They are individual pick. The first pick is 50 50. Even you would agree on that. The second pick then is still 50 50 because it has to be gun or fail every second pick It's like black or red in roulette forget green for a moment. If 15 reds have come up it's still 50 50 next spin. If one fine been taken then it's still a chance of a gun or a fail next pick. Individual picks so there is no gun gun or fail fail. It's gun or fail every pick

I would love you to tell me my odds for the example I asked. My bet is you won't because it will prove you wrong. Forgetting all this the madness of thinking you get a gun with every second pick is mind boggling. Every 5 th pick is more likely





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LMAO. You're actually still trying to argue it hahaha. You're so wrong it's actually hilarious and even other people are trying to tell you but you're either so stubborn that you can't admit it or so stupid you can't see it.

But I'll humour you for a second. You are correct in that each INDIVIDUAL PICK BY ITSELF has a 1 in 2 chance of heads or tails. But the chance of getting ONE win from TWO flips is greater than 50% as there are THREE OF FOUR outcomes where you get AT LEAST 1 win.

I've literally tried explaining it every way I can and I honestly don't know what else I can do to prove this to you other than direct you to any maths textbook ever. If you don't know that is then I really can't help you any more.

 

[Yawkey way]

Unless we turn our form around in a pretty big way and in a pretty big hurry, it could very easily be a better outcome for us to miss out on the likes of Kelly, and hit the draft with what could very easily be picks 3/4 and something around 8.

Sure getting Kelly is a safer bet than those you'd get at those picks, but we need more than just him to get right into premiership contention and if we add two more really talented types from the draft instead, we save our money for another day.

End result of that would be that from our assets of two really good picks and around $1.3mil PA in cap space, we could potentially get as many 3 or even 4 "guns", rather than just one Josh Kelly.

If we were just one Josh Kelly away from a flag then by all means, we'd be better off getting him- at almost any cost- but it doesn't look like that's the case, so unless our form turns in big way in a hurry, we're probably far better off hitting the draft really hard one last time, front-ending the crap out of our contracts for the 2018 season and then going ape-shit at the likes of Sloane at the end of next year, with a ridiculously big warchest, and an offer they simply won't refuse.

Our chances of a premiership in the coming years are surely much better if we add a couple of top-end talents from this year's draft and then a Sloane type next year, with these assets we currently have, rather than just adding a Josh Kelly with these same assets.

It's probably not the time to go all-in on a Kelly type.

This is the point I keep making, we aren't even close to top four.

One player no matter how good he is will not push this team into serious finals contention. We need about 5 A graders.

The conundrum is how can you trade for a gun like Kelly paying the expected price in picks and cash and still bring in enough talent to make it worth the trouble.

The simple answer no matter how unpalatable is you can't. Saints need to reset their timeline acquire more talent via the trade period where possible and take some high draft picks.

So many limited players on the saints list, what is the point of carrying players who are depth for c graders.

Remember compared to most clubs we have had a good run with injuries as well.

 

[Yawkey way]

LMAO. You're actually still trying to argue it hahaha. You're so wrong it's actually hilarious and even other people are trying to tell you but you're either so stubborn that you can't admit it or so stupid you can't see it.

But I'll humour you for a second. You are correct in that each INDIVIDUAL PICK BY ITSELF has a 1 in 2 chance of heads or tails. But the chance of getting ONE win from TWO flips is greater than 50% as there are THREE OF FOUR outcomes where you get AT LEAST 1 win.

I've literally tried explaining it every way I can and I honestly don't know what else I can do to prove this to you other than direct you to any maths textbook ever. If you don't know that is then I really can't help you any more.

It's just another one for the list, electricity, magic I just turn on the switch shrug and move on.

Don't even get me started on the thermos flask how does that ****ing thing know the difference between hot and cold? Sheer genius.

 

[can coach]

Just looked at the draw and every game for the rest of the year looks winnable. Apart from port in port and possibly Sydney in Sydney. Not if we play like last night thou.
Thought McCartin looked a lot better too. Just needs more games into him.

 

[plugger66]

LMAO. You're actually still trying to argue it hahaha. You're so wrong it's actually hilarious and even other people are trying to tell you but you're either so stubborn that you can't admit it or so stupid you can't see it.

But I'll humour you for a second. You are correct in that each INDIVIDUAL PICK BY ITSELF has a 1 in 2 chance of heads or tails. But the chance of getting ONE win from TWO flips is greater than 50% as there are THREE OF FOUR outcomes where you get AT LEAST 1 win.

I've literally tried explaining it every way I can and I honestly don't know what else I can do to prove this to you other than direct you to any maths textbook ever. If you don't know that is then I really can't help you any more.

So you 75%. What about 10 picks out of 20? Be interested in your odds there. I'm sorry but I don't care what some others say. If 100% say I'm wrong tgen I will concede but like you I think they are wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quixote]

I really hope performances like last night aren't "pen down" moments...

 

[Yawkey way]

Just looked at the draw and every game for the rest of the year looks winnable. Apart from port in port and possibly Sydney in Sydney. Not if we play like last night thou.
Thought McCartin looked a lot better too. Just needs more games into him.

Paddy didn't do himself any favours by kicking poorly.

He looked OK, with limited opportunities against a very good defence he wasn't the problem.

If we play like that every week no game is winnable, after 3 weeks of that it's hard to find the positives but there were a few.

 

[plugger66]

I really hope performances like last night aren't "pen down" moments...

We really do need mids at the draft. What I don't get is our mids get big numbers but it doesn't equate to any scoring at all. We are certainly handballing far to much. Won't be the game plan but we are under so much pressure we don't have any other options


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sir Skid]

Here's my take on the math as its more complex than a heads v tails scenario..

Generally there are what 4 guns selected in the top 10 draftees.There is a probability factor to consider here. Say we end up with picks 2 and 6 at the end of the year.

Pick 1 could be seen as a 4 in 10 chance if we were picking a card from 10 cards turned face down. But we're not picking cards as there is knowledge anout the players clubs are selecting. The probability of selecting a gun with pick 1 is more like 90 percent. Its not 100 pc as there are no guarantees.

Pick 2 now has likely 3 guns remaining out of the 9 left with a very slim chance of the 4 guns remaining. Probs around a 80pc chance of a gun.

Pick 3 say 70pc, pick 4 60pc...
.......
Pick 10 has much less chance of a gun as in all likelihood the 4 guns have ready been taken. Maybe around 15-20pc at this point.

So us with picks 2 and 6 means something like 80% chance of a gun at pick 2 and somewhere around 40% chance of a gun at pick 6.

 

[Keg on legs]

Wake up to all this maths chat after 45000 beers yesterday....

 

[plugger66]

Wake up to all this maths chat after 45000 beers yesterday....

View attachment 379969

I hope you know how to add up after all those beers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yawkey way]

We really do need mids at the draft. What I don't get is our mids get big numbers but it doesn't equate to any scoring at all. We are certainly handballing far to much. Won't be the game plan but we are under so much pressure we don't have any other options


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sinclair uses the ball really well, there was one passage of play where he broke clear put someone into space and he just dropped the ball, terrible turnover.

Skill and pace are killing us, can't remember who it was Mav I think running through the middle kicked it straight down the throat of a crows player all on his own, no pressure just a terrible turnover.

Yes we were under a lot of pressure and that obviously makes it hard when you don't have a clear option but too many times it is just straight up skill errors.