Price Increases

[V23]

Good idea, I was thinking the same thing a couple of days ago. Like you said, it gives people who selected the best rookies a bigger advantage.

 

[controlKLICK]

Having to burn a trade is punishment enough. Will cost you at the end of the year. Short term gain long term pain.

 

[Mattrox]

Having to burn a trade is punishment enough. Will cost you at the end of the year. Short term gain long term pain.

Your point is well taken, but there are always two sides of the coin.

Smart trades to the correct rookies CAN stop doughnuts and low scores from bench players when a player is given a rest or has a week or two with injury or suspesion. If you cop a couple of these in your side you want to have the best scoring rookies. If you can use the good scores it saves painful scores in these rounds and may be trades well spent.

 

[Jbomb967]

I sense you've both picked good rookies and are wanting to reap the complete benefits... If that's the case, not only do you have a head start with better scores then those who picked poor rookies, but they also have to burn trades just to level the playing field...

At the end of the day, picking the right rookies does come down to a fair amount of luck (in terms of their individual scores in their first 2 rounds) and so I think that the rules should stay...

Edit: by 'both' I mean the first two posts...

 

[potchip]

Wouldn't change anything - and the simple outcome is people will just have more cash in reserves to cater for the slight changes in price so at the end this change won't really reward selection.

Besides, what you proposing is basically to increase the influence of round 1- which is mathematically the same as having a 3 round average in the scheme of things as any time the player does bad the differences/variance will cancel the early game out, so the only net effect is you slighty emphasis the first round results = an one off lottery.

I think you are seriously under valuing trades. Even if the difference between a 40 pt average rookie and a 70pt average rookie may seem big, the real difference is opportunity cost which may or may not be 30pts depending on your other rookies selections.

 

[Mattrox]

I think you are seriously under valuing trades. Even if the difference between a 40 pt average rookie and a 70pt average rookie may seem big, the real difference is opportunity cost which may or may not be 30pts depending on your other rookies selections.

Lets say you have 2 poor rookie selections and you need to make downgrades/upgrades after round 6. Thats 30 x 6 x 2 = 360pts not much in the scheme of things, but on top of that, your buying power is reduced.

Lets say your rookies are really poor DT scorers and are getting 25ppg (and missing games) 45 x 6 x 2 = 540 pts if they actually play all six games plus negligable price rises and an inability to upgrade to the best choices.

Now with the points missed from upgrading from lets say 90 ppg to 110ppg players. Lets take the 17 rounds left. 20 x 17 x 2 = 680 points. If your premium duds it up and gets 80ppg and you NEED to get him out you are even worse off.

Add the points missed from the rookies and the points missed from upgrades and that leaves you a long way behind the mark.

Also, those lower scoring rookies may make good downgrade targets, they get a game and play a role in the team but may not score DT wise and have low values come trade in time. I don't see having a downgrade target in your side from the start as a good thing.

I agree that you can't burn trades willy nilly. But if the rookies are not up to scratch its better to fix them early. Having said that you need a couple of rounds to make the decision on which will be selected regularly and score enough to warrant losing a trade. That makes this a worthwhile discussion.

In my situation I have 2 rookies I want to get rid of, if price rises and falls happened in round 1 I would be in a world of hurt as their price drop combined with the better rookies price rises would stop me from trading. At least I can look at 2 rounds of footy and make a more educated guess before price rises. This year it suits me fine to have price rises after 3 rounds.

On the other hand, I think I do have a couple of good rookie choices and price rises from the start are a good reward for research. The duds I have are because I took a punt and didn't or couldn't do the research required.

Great topic.

 

[potchip]

I thought the discussion at hand is not about 'whether trading for great rookies early on is worthwhile?'?

Opportunity cost is the pt loss that playing rookie with a + 30 pt average really contribute to your team. If your team already have another rookie on the field averaging say 60, then the real difference is only -10 pts /round.

Your other scenario may be true IF there are only 2 rookie spots in my team. Except every team will have a mixture of between 11-14 premium + the rest being mostly rookies + a couple mid pricers. In the scheme of things that 2 trades for 2 rookies will not result in 680 pts of difference as you describe unless you absolutely make a dogs breakfast of rookie selections, and -2 trades down the line can easily mean -50 pts (due to premium injury) per round. 24 trades, 4+ reserved for the bye rounds, and you have at maximum perhaps 6-8 premium upgrades plus injury reserves.

The topic at hand is whether 1 round of performance, is statistically important enough to warrant influence to price. My contention is no -> it simply shifts emphasis on one round and at the end of the day will only result in everybody reserving a bit of spare cash (which most people do anyway now precisely for the early adjustments that's expected).

And finally, round 1 is no indication of duds or guns. You'll need around 5 rounds.

 

[Mattrox]

Number 1. I thought that price rises affect rookies most as their low base price. This is why I used rookies in the example.

Number 2. If price changes started early it is a real disincentive to trade. I was looking at a couple theoreticals where someone might want to trade early and why the 2 rounds grace before price rises is warranted.

You are right that 5 rounds of footy are required to make the judgement correctly. But part of the game is deciding if you can afford a trade or two on an early punt to make your team better and gain an advantage.

I also agree that the statistical significance of round 1 is not enough to warrant price rises straight away. Especially given that come round 4 the 1st round's score is no longer considered in price movements.

 

[V23]

I sense you've both picked good rookies and are wanting to reap the complete benefits.

Edit: by 'both' I mean the first two posts...

Ha, I wish: Ledger, Dickson, Cameron, Darley, etc.

 

[Damarus]

Number 2. If price changes started early it is a real disincentive to trade. I was looking at a couple theoreticals where someone might want to trade early and why the 2 rounds grace before price rises is warranted.

It's not a grace period though. The price is calculated using a 3 round rolling average, so if you only have 1 round of data, you don't have a 3 round average to calculate a price from. If you have a player that plays his first game in round 3, his price wont change until his third game.

Everyone may already realise the above, but I just thought I'd post it to be clear. I think the idea of a price alteration after 1 game is unrealistic because 1 game is not a very representative data set.