Random Question Thread (Part 3)

[Dunn - Well Done]

That's what I'm saying. You gotta have Swan from the start. After round 13, you pick up Pendles. He might be the last MID upgrade you do. In any case, you've got both of them for 11 rounds staright from there (along with 4 other super premiums if you've played your cards right).

Gotta love the perfect world....

Im now seriously seriously considering not starting Swan or Pendles (only one of them). The other i will upgrade to after round 7. I dont think Swan is a lock and in fact very much may not be apart of my starting team right now.

If people are picking Goddard and Boyd on the basis they will improve which i think for Goddard is true than that lock in captain option is covered. Swan aint needed. You dont want to many players with NO UPSIDE just ask Skank. Im starting to get worried about these Chapman, Swan, Boyd players who i see as having no upside. Im sort of happy with Boyd because i see slight upside to him.

Lets say Chappy is 500k, surely your better off picking a 415k player + a rookie who is going to play week in week out for 86k instead of Chappy. Both players show upside and both sides have one keeper each.

 

[dylan123]

Im now seriously seriously considering not starting Swan or Pendles (only one of them). The other i will upgrade to after round 7. I dont think Swan is a lock and in fact very much may not be apart of my starting team right now.

If people are picking Goddard and Boyd on the basis they will improve which i think for Goddard is true than that lock in captain option is covered. Swan aint needed. You dont want to many players with NO UPSIDE just ask Skank. Im starting to get worried about these Chapman, Swan, Boyd players who i see as having no upside. Im sort of happy with Boyd because i see slight upside to him.

Lets say Chappy is 500k, surely your better off picking a 415k player + a rookie who is going to play week in week out for 86k instead of Chappy. Both players show upside and both sides have one keeper each.

On Chapman, I think he potentialy has room to improve, if you take a look at his first half of the seasons average then his second you will see his first halfs numbers are a bit higher (avg of 117 DT first 12 games and his last 9 games he averaged 108.4). If he was to do this again, having him at the start would be a huge benift over those that trade him in midway through the season and miss out on his strong start.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

On Chapman, I think he potentialy has room to improve, if you take a look at his first half of the seasons average then his second you will see his first halfs numbers are a bit higher (avg of 117 DT first 12 games and his last 9 games he averaged 108.4). If he was to do this again, having him at the start would be a huge benift over those that trade him in midway through the season and miss out on his strong start.

But whats to say that will happen again. Also it can be argued that he could decrease his avg due to Ablett factor. Second in line for tag, not to mention his durability (i know he seems okay looking at last year), but these injuries linger around.

Lets say you have Chapman 500k + 86k rookie vs 440k + 145k player. We assume both the 86k player and 145k player will improve by the same amount.

Whats not to say that the 440k player will not increase his avg or dominate early on aswell. For me i see it as one player has greater upside than the other.

Thats 108 towards the back end isnt a great sign either, when Ablett had a lesser role to the team, greatly affecting his counterpart Chapman.

An avg of 117 will still mean you get him for cheaper anyway and if you time it right with a low score than he can be brought in for even cheaper.

 

[terminators]

Im now seriously seriously considering not starting Swan or Pendles (only one of them). The other i will upgrade to after round 7. I dont think Swan is a lock and in fact very much may not be apart of my starting team right now.

If people are picking Goddard and Boyd on the basis they will improve which i think for Goddard is true than that lock in captain option is covered. Swan aint needed. You dont want to many players with NO UPSIDE just ask Skank. Im starting to get worried about these Chapman, Swan, Boyd players who i see as having no upside. Im sort of happy with Boyd because i see slight upside to him.

Lets say Chappy is 500k, surely your better off picking a 415k player + a rookie who is going to play week in week out for 86k instead of Chappy. Both players show upside and both sides have one keeper each.

I disagree with the idea of not starting Swan. Swan is the default captain in the competition and will average 5-8 points more than any other player.You mentioned he is not value, that is incorrect. His value comes from the doubling of the captains points.

Say Swan costs 123 and Goddard 113, you are paying for 10 points extra.

If you pay 113 for Goddard and he averages 115 you get 230 points from you captain every week. If you pay 123 for Swan you get 246 points if he just holds his average.

Getting 16 points extra each week, when paying for 10, is value.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

I disagree with the idea of not starting Swan. Swan is the default captain in the competition and will average 5-8 points more than any other player.You mentioned he is not value, that is incorrect. His value comes from the doubling of the captains points.

Say Swan costs 123 and Goddard 113, you are paying for 10 points extra.

If you pay 113 for Goddard and he averages 115 you get 230 points from you captain every week. If you pay 123 for Swan you get 246 points if he just holds his average.

Getting 16 points extra each week, when paying for 10, is value.

Yes thats if they hold the same avg as last year, but im picking Goddard because i think he will improve as the same with Boyd. Boyd avg 115 last year and people are expecting improvement otherwise your better off getting a keeper who is priced at 100 and has improvement. I for one dont think Swan can quite maintain that avg and also think God, Boyd will avg much closer to Swan next year. And these are the reasons

Boyd avg 121 in his last 12 games. If you take at the 82 (outlier) than his lowest score in that period was 110 against Sydney (known for not giving points away).

Goddard avg 119 over his last 13 games

I guess Swan did avg 129 over his last 12 or if including finals 132. But i doubt he can get these numbers.

Also i have a different strategy for captain next year which ill keep close to my chest. It involves not needing these lock and load captains but just solid/premium players.

EDIT: Your calculation is wrong if your starting both which i assume most will

Goddard (captain) 115x2= 230+123 (swans score) = 353
Swan (captain) 123x2=246 + 115 (goddards score) = 361

So your only paying for an 8 point difference thus Goddard if he can improve his avg by 2 is a better pick.

 

[terminators]

EDIT: Your calculation is wrong if your starting both which i assume most will

Team 1: Goddard (captain) 115x2= 230+123 (swans score) = 353
Team 2: Swan (captain) 123x2=246 + 115 (goddards score) = 361

So your only paying for an 8 point difference thus Goddard if he can improve his avg by 2 is a better pick.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful DunnWellDone but it appears you have confused yourself completely.

In the above example you have chosen Goddard and Swan in both teams. Meaning you chose Goddard and Swan and then started Goddard captain. Why on earth would you do that? Surely you would only play Goddard captain if Swan was not in your team, which creates a completely different calculation.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

I don't mean to sound disrespectful DunnWellDone but it appears you have confused yourself completely.

In the above example you have chosen Goddard and Swan in both teams. Meaning you chose Goddard and Swan and then started Goddard captain. Why on earth would you do that? Surely you would only play Goddard captain if Swan was not in your team, which creates a completely different calculation.

No, good point. Sorry about that did confuse myself a little.

Still i think Boyd and Goddard can avg close to 120. So if they do and Swan maintains avg than he is only worth 6 points more, thats assuming that those players avg 120. But as i said if you dont think they can or wont improve than you probably shouldnt be picking them at all.

ATM Swan is 8 points more expensive than Boyd and 10 points more than Goddard.

So i guess the real question is if (Swan maintains 123) than if you think Goddard can avg within 5 of Swan than pick Goddard. If you think Boyd can get within 4 of Swan than pick Boyd. So its based on what you think those 2 will avg and how far away it will be from Swan.

If you do like myself think they can avg withi 4 or 5 than there is no real need to start Swan. If you think there 6 or more away from Swanny next year than you should start Swan.

 

[Benatration]

Here's a solution with Goddard/Boyd/Swan.....just pick all 3

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Here's a solution with Goddard/Boyd/Swan.....just pick all 3

argh but you would finish behind me if the above happened and we had the same other players and traded the same.

Happy to lose to me.

Just looking for every way to make my side better if that means by 2 points per round than ill take 48 points for the season.

 

[yogibbear]

No, good point. Sorry about that did confuse myself a little.

Still i think Boyd and Goddard can avg close to 120. So if they do and Swan maintains avg than he is only worth 6 points more, thats assuming that those players avg 120. But as i said if you dont think they can or wont improve than you probably shouldnt be picking them at all.

ATM Swan is 8 points more expensive than Boyd and 10 points more than Goddard.

So i guess the real question is if (Swan maintains 123) than if you think Goddard can avg within 5 of Swan than pick Goddard. If you think Boyd can get within 4 of Swan than pick Boyd. So its based on what you think those 2 will avg and how far away it will be from Swan.

If you do like myself think they can avg withi 4 or 5 than there is no real need to start Swan. If you think there 6 or more away from Swanny next year than you should start Swan.

Here's a thought... maybe to differentiate between them (and help you decide which two make your side) think about which one relies more on being rotated through the bench to maintain match fitness/effectiveness and then pick the other 2 as it's likely that with one less bench spot available every match it will be harder to get the rotations that that player is used to. Maybe. Though alternatively you could just make the wrong call and then blame it on me.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Here's a thought... maybe to differentiate between them (and help you decide which two make your side) think about which one relies more on being rotated through the bench to maintain match fitness/effectiveness and then pick the other 2 as it's likely that with one less bench spot available every match it will be harder to get the rotations that that player is used to. Maybe. Though alternatively you could just make the wrong call and then blame it on me.

Wow, aggressive post for some reason!

As ive said if i think God and Boyd can score within 4 and 5 points respectivily of Swans avg next year than i will pick them. I might still pick Swan but ATM i like Pendlebury a bit more and the thought of upgrading Swallow to Swan after R7.

 

[dylan123]

But whats to say that will happen again. Also it can be argued that he could decrease his avg due to Ablett factor. Second in line for tag, not to mention his durability (i know he seems okay looking at last year), but these injuries linger around.

I would be very happy if it was to happen again and Chapman was in my starting squad. He would dominate every other forward (bar the exception of Riewoldt) in scoring early. Meaning anyone that is going for the car is going to have to upgrade to him if they want to score high enough to complete with the rest. For his average to drop to say 105 it would still be easily in the top 7 forwards which is what I want and those that traded him in at his peak don't get his early scores/wasting a lot of money upgrading to such a premium and are just filling in a missing gap in their team to level the playing fields.

Lets say you have Chapman 500k + 86k rookie vs 440k + 145k player. We assume both the 86k player and 145k player will improve by the same amount.

Whats not to say that the 440k player will not increase his avg or dominate early on aswell. For me i see it as one player has greater upside than the other.

Well why would you want to fork out the extra 86k on a player that is going to average the same as an 86k when its known Chapman will be in the top 5 (probably top 2) scoring forwards again this year bar injuries? If your confident on the 440k player becoming a top 10 scoring forward then I would change your team around so you can have both.


The reason why most are starting with Chapman even though he may not increase on his current average is because his current average is so much better then the next forward giving you a big advantage over the rest that do not select him as he will outscore them.


If we wanted to go just value we would all be selecting rookies and midpricers, whilst value is great we also want to be scoring as highly as possible and having Chapman in your side I believe will do this.

Thats 108 towards the back end isnt a great sign either, when Ablett had a lesser role to the team, greatly affecting his counterpart Chapman.

There could be a number of reasons for this.
- Chapman wearing out as the season went on.
- Thompson giving him more of a rest in preparation for their 4th attempt at a grand final in 4 years.
- Geelong becoming a little lazy/layback as they already made the finals and didn't need to push anymore.

Or as you have stated, Ablett having a lesser role although I think at the same time this allowed Chapman to spend more time in the midfield.

If it is either the first or second option I have stated then I think we should expect this to improve with a new coach who will be wanting to impress the AFL world and have Geelong coming out stronger then ever, not sliding down the ladder.

An avg of 117 will still mean you get him for cheaper anyway and if you time it right with a low score than he can be brought in for even cheaper.

You might be able to pick him up a little cheaper, but is it really worth it in the end considering how much points you are going to miss out on? Considering how much easier it has been to get a full team of premiums in the past couple of years, I can't really see how we can afford to give up on points like Chapman will offer.

Also worth noting, Chapman only scored under 100 3 times in 21 games last year and the lowest of those three scores was 88. He had a super consistent year and if he backs that up, I can't see him been a 'cheap' pickup at any stage.

argh but you would finish behind me if the above happened and we had the same other players and traded the same.

Happy to lose to me.

Just looking for every way to make my side better if that means by 2 points per round than ill take 48 points for the season.

You've lost me here, how would he lose when he's selecting the best premiums from the start and you guys do the exact same trades and have the same other starting players meaning you will never trade the guys that he started with into your starting team?

 

[thebaxters]

On Chapman, I think he potentialy has room to improve, if you take a look at his first half of the seasons average then his second you will see his first halfs numbers are a bit higher (avg of 117 DT first 12 games and his last 9 games he averaged 108.4). If he was to do this again, having him at the start would be a huge benift over those that trade him in midway through the season and miss out on his strong start.

The issue for mine with Chappy is that a full season (or near full like 2010) is exception rather than rule.

2008 and 2009 he missed 5 games in Rd 1-22.

That's 17 games in regular season. 17 games @ 117 ppg = 1989 points.
Or, you could pick up a guy capable of 22 games @ 90 ppg = 2002 points.

(Ah, but wait a minute Bax you say, you'd get a rookie to sub in for Chappy's missed games.

OK, so you get Chappy's 17 @117 = 1989 plus 5 of ROOKIE @ 70 = 350 for total of 2339. That's still only 22 @ 106. Like my chances of finding a 106 ppg scorer better than Chappy lasting 22).

So there's that, and the fact that Chappy isn't traditionally a quick starter.
2009 Rd 1-11 avg 107.2
2009 Rd 12-22 avg 118.5

2008 Rd 1-13 avg 90.8
2008 Rd 14-GF avg 94.8

So, missing only one game the exception, plus normally better back end of year... buyer beware.

 

[yogibbear]

Yep, i hope everyone avoids chappy like the plague...

 

[dylan123]

The issue for mine with Chappy is that a full season (or near full like 2010) is exception rather than rule.

2008 and 2009 he missed 5 games in Rd 1-22.

That's 17 games in regular season. 17 games @ 117 ppg = 1989 points.
Or, you could pick up a guy capable of 22 games @ 90 ppg = 2002 points.

(Ah, but wait a minute Bax you say, you'd get a rookie to sub in for Chappy's missed games.

OK, so you get Chappy's 17 @117 = 1989 plus 5 of ROOKIE @ 70 = 350 for total of 2339. That's still only 22 @ 106. Like my chances of finding a 106 ppg scorer better than Chappy lasting 22).

I highly doubt you will be able to find 7 that could do that, Chapman was the only forward last season to average over 100 let alone 106 needed (+ the player playing 22 games) to match Chapman.

For memory, Chapman has broken down (hamstrings) towards the end of the season (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) multiple times, not the start meaning with the 4 extra trades there should be more then enough to downgrade him to another premium forward and have some cash to use elsewhere if his hammy goes again.

So there's that, and the fact that Chappy isn't traditionally a quick starter.
2009 Rd 1-11 avg 107.2
2009 Rd 12-22 avg 118.5

2008 Rd 1-13 avg 90.8
2008 Rd 14-GF avg 94.8

So, missing only one game the exception, plus normally better back end of year... buyer beware.

Well in 2009 I seem to remember Chapman breaking his thumb and looking at his scores I would suggest it happened in round 7 where he missed the next week, played the one after then missed again. This would have dramatically reduced his scoring as everything would have been made harder which is why I think he was rested a game on and off a game as he found it too hard. Take out his round 7 and 9 scores (which I think was when he was playing with a broken thumb (again, correct me if I am wrong)) and his average from rd 1-11 (taking away rounds 7 and 9) goes up to 116.7.

 

[Narkee]

Like my chances of finding a 106 ppg scorer better than Chappy lasting 22).

Chappy was the only forward who averaged over 100 last year. The next best was Buddy and Didak at 99. I can definitely see Buddy and Roo improving to 100+ next year but who are your other premiums going to be? Chappy's lowest score last year was 88 (which he scored in R18) and he had a standard deviation of 16.3 (unheard of). That makes it awfully hard to get him into your side without a massive outlay. Yeh you might be able to get him in for cheaper than what he started on, but the person who started with Chappy can get a Boomer/Sylvia/Gia/Goodes for much cheaper (due to their higher volatilities: 32.2/30.2/33.2/24.4 respectively for 2010) and make up the cash that way.

Chappy will be a top 7 forward next year and I am sure he wont get much lower than $400k at any stage. You will be banking on his historical durability (and alst year being an anomaly) to come out on top if you decide to leave him out of your starting squad.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

I would be very happy if it was to happen again and Chapman was in my starting squad. He would dominate every other forward (bar the exception of Riewoldt) in scoring early. Meaning anyone that is going for the car is going to have to upgrade to him if they want to score high enough to complete with the rest. For his average to drop to say 105 it would still be easily in the top 7 forwards which is what I want and those that traded him in at his peak don't get his early scores/wasting a lot of money upgrading to such a premium and are just filling in a missing gap in their team to level the playing fields.

Chapman wouldnt be a good pick if he avgs 105


Well why would you want to fork out the extra 86k on a player that is going to average the same as an 86k when its known Chapman will be in the top 5 (probably top 2) scoring forwards again this year bar injuries? If your confident on the 440k player becoming a top 10 scoring forward then I would change your team around so you can have both.

I think you miss read my post. I said that if both the 86k player and 145k player both improved the same eg: both improved by 30 points and the 440k player also improved but Chapman did not than the 440k player is the better option.

The reason why most are starting with Chapman even though he may not increase on his current average is because his current average is so much better then the next forward giving you a big advantage over the rest that do not select him as he will outscore them.

So what

If A team spends the same as B team on there forwards, than they score the same, Doesnt matter if you have humpdy dumpdy who avgs 200 or not.


If we wanted to go just value we would all be selecting rookies and midpricers, whilst value is great we also want to be scoring as highly as possible and having Chapman in your side I believe will do this.

Value will always beat, high scoring players that dont improve. Select 22 players who improve on past avg by accumulation of 200 points than that of the high scoring method who only increase by lets say 100 than your going to get beaten.

There could be a number of reasons for this.
- Chapman wearing out as the season went on.
- Thompson giving him more of a rest in preparation for their 4th attempt at a grand final in 4 years.
- Geelong becoming a little lazy/layback as they already made the finals and didn't need to push anymore.

Or as you have stated, Ablett having a lesser role although I think at the same time this allowed Chapman to spend more time in the midfield.

Exactly when he went into the midfield he avg quite less coinciding with Ablett moving forward. I dont think you can seriousily believe yourself if your saying Geelong were laidback last year, because they had made the finals. They needed to push for number 1 and play the doggies and it would've helped heaps. Geelong dont settle for second best.

If it is either the first or second option I have stated then I think we should expect this to improve with a new coach who will be wanting to impress the AFL world and have Geelong coming out stronger then ever, not sliding down the ladder.

I think its the role Ablett took up. These 2 were known to rotate forward and midfield, with Chappy playing more midfield and Gazza playing more forward his scores dropped, would be interesting to correlate the scoring patterns.

You might be able to pick him up a little cheaper, but is it really worth it in the end considering how much points you are going to miss out on? Considering how much easier it has been to get a full team of premiums in the past couple of years, I can't really see how we can afford to give up on points like Chapman will offer.

Again prefer value anyday, the more your players can improve the greater chance you can win. I dont want to be paying top dollar for players i think wont improve especially when they are very undurable.

Also worth noting, Chapman only scored under 100 3 times in 21 games last year and the lowest of those three scores was 88. He had a super consistent year and if he backs that up, I can't see him been a 'cheap' pickup at any stage.

You've lost me here, how would he lose when he's selecting the best premiums from the start and you guys do the exact same trades and have the same other starting players meaning you will never trade the guys that he started with into your starting team?

Sorry shouldve stated that because i was getting value at of Boyd who scores within 4 points of Swan. When your paying 8 points extra for Swan, hard to explain and i shouldve stated this if i use that extra 8 points i saved in money and spend it in my starting squad and we trade the same and have the other 20 players the same than i would win.

written in bold

 

[dylan123]

Chapman wouldnt be a good pick if he avgs 105

Firstly, I said if his average was to drop to 105 in the second half of the year and even then I would love to see the logic behind Chapman not been a good pick even if his average was to drop to 105 for the whole year as as he would still be the top scoring forward for the 2010 season.

I think you miss read my post. I said that if both the 86k player and 145k player both improved the same eg: both improved by 30 points and the 440k player also improved but Chapman did not than the latter is the obvious better option.

The later option isn't obviously better depending on how much the 440k player improved. If Chapman was to maintain the same average as he had last season then I cannot honestly see how having a player who averaged 13 points higher then the next best forward could possibly be a bad pick when DT is about scoring as many points as possible.

The reason why most are starting with Chapman even though he may not increase on his current average is because his current average is so much better then the next forward giving you a big advantage over the rest that do not select him as he will outscore them.

So what

If A team spends the same as B team on there forwards, than they score the same, Doesnt matter if you have humpy dumpy who avgs 200 or not.

Using that logic then everyone in the competition will average the same since we all have the same salary cap...

Value will always beat, high scoring players that dont improve. Select 22 players who improve on past avg by accumulation of 200 points than that of the high scoring method who only increase by lets say 100 than your going to get beaten.

We all want to have some value in our teams (mostly in the rookies to downgrade and give us cash to upgrade) but I think your overlooking the fact that we are wanting to get the best possible players in each position if we are a chance to win and Chapman is clearly one of these. It's the same reason people picked Ablett, Swan, Goddard, Sandilands from last season, not because they were hoping in an average increase, but because they were clearly the best in their positions and it's much easier to start with them and benefit from them from the get go then having to try and trade them in.

Exactly when he went into the midfield he avg quite less coinciding with Ablett moving forward. I dont think you can seriousily believe yourself if your saying Geelong were laidback last year, because they had made the finals. They needed to push for number 1 and play the doggies and it would've helped heaps. Geelong dont settle for second best.

Would love to see some stats/facts behind Chapman moving into the midfield and his average decreasing. Tell me, as a coach, would you rather come first in the home and away season at the cost of wearing your players out for the finals? Personally, I wouldn't (and I doubt anyone would) and it's exactly why we see teams rest players up before the finals. Geelong had made it to the grand final in the previous 3 years, so why would they care where they finish in the home and away season when they had locked in a spot in the top 4 giving them a second chance?

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Chapman Team

6 players score 55 = 330 points
Chapman (in my case im saying wont improve but i think he will stay around last years mark) 110

Chapmans team = 440 points

NON Chapman Team

5 x 55 = 275 points (So you have 168 points in value to buy your next two players (Chappy 113 + 55 = 168))

I buy two players each who are priced at 84 avg both expecting them to improve. Lets say im looking for a solid improvment of 6 and to round to 90 each

275 + 90 + 90 = 455

Non Chapman team wins by 15 points and they both spend the same on there forward line.

So if both teams plug along and upgrade at the same time one of there 55 players to Chapman and the other to the 84 avg player who has increased to 90.

Lets use a bit of magic number *magic number has dropped to 4000*. We will assume for the case they score 110 each week (Chapmans case) while the other scores 90 every week.

Chapman at the time cost 440 000
90 avg player cost 360 000

So both teams upgrade to there players

Starting Chapman team becomes
55x5 = 275
Chapman = 110
Upgrade player = 90
= 475

Non starting Chapman Team
55x4=220
Chapman = 110
2 x 90 players = 180
= 510 points

Non starting Chapman team scores 35 points more per round after scoring an extra 15 points per round up until the trade.

So lets say we do the trade at round 11 (use 22 rounds for case example).

That means NON STARTING CHAPMAN team
over first 11 rounds= 11 x 15 = 165 more points
after the trade, last 11 rounds = 11 x 35 = 385 pints

165+385= 550 points

*But DWD you didnt calculate in the extra 80k used to upgrade to Chapman instead of the 90 avg player*

So in this example its 550 vs 80k??

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

The reasons behind Goddard, Sandi, Swan, Ablett last year. Well these were my thoughts.

Sandi - I know i picked him because i truly thought he would improve, im guessing thats why others did aswell.

Goddard - I actually didnt start with Goddard, traded him in after round 7. At the time i didnt see the improvement, which was simply a mistake but i got him alot cheaper than what others paid and reaped the same rewards. I got him at 31k cheaper.

Swan and Ablett - Well the only reason these players were picked by me was purely due to the captaincy option. They were streets ahead of the next best, now we have Boyd and Goddard challenging these 2, so i dont see them streets ahead anymore. I only picked one as the other wasn't required unless you saw improvement in them.

 

[Tom12]

You don't pick Chapman, you will likely get punished. Unless your a coach foolish enough to use injury and plastic logic as an excuse for avoiding him. Him and Riewoldt have already been talked up as bad picks. Wow. At your own risk I say.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

You don't pick Chapman, you will likely get punished. Unless your a coach foolish enough to use injury and plastic logic as an excuse for avoiding him. Him and Riewoldt have already been talked up as bad picks. Wow. At your own risk I say.

Can you tell me what is wrong with my post 2 above maybe 3 now. The one including chapman and the one not. Clearly shows which one is the better option if your like me and dont see Chappy improving. Can you show me why this isnt a logicable explanation as a reason not to pick chapman, if you go by my basis that he wont improve. Even in this case if he improves to 115 he isnt a good pick based upon that you can get to 80 ish player to improve to 90.

Ive just proven it may, make me think otherwise. Im not using injury as an excuse. Even though it clearly is a problem with Chapman. You keep harpen on but never provide solid basis to prove otherwise. I will wait for that moment, when you put the effort in to prove otherwise.

 

[Tom12]

Mate, you're welcome to use all the statistical analysis you want to justify not picking Chapman. I applaud the effort.
I also think that sometimes, fantasy footy moves past statistical assumption. Assuming x player and y player averages the same as the opposition.
I also find it magical that you got ahold of two gems in that forward line who averaged less than 85, and got such a solid improvement out of them. Assuming again that the non Chapman coach missed these supposed value picks?

 

[dylan123]

Chapman Team

6 players score 55 = 330 points
Chapman (in my case im saying wont improve but i think he will stay around last years mark) 110

Chapmans team = 440 points

NON Chapman Team

5 x 55 = 275 points (So you have 168 points in value to buy your next two players (Chappy 113 + 55 = 168))

I buy two players each who are priced at 84 avg both expecting them to improve. Lets say im looking for a solid improvment of 6 and to round to 90 each

275 + 90 + 90 = 455

Not going to quote it all as it's a bit big.

Firstly, I get what your trying to show but it's a little easier said then done, picking two players at an average of 84 odd and improving by 6. If both were to happen and Chapman's average was to stay you might get a bit of a bonus to begin with but then you also have to factor in once you do all your forwardline upgrades the team with Chapman will have a higher premium average to the one that does not have him.

 

[terminators]

Chappy was the only forward who averaged over 100 last year. The next best was Buddy and Didak at 99. I can definitely see Buddy and Roo improving to 100+ next year but who are your other premiums going to be? Chappy's lowest score last year was 88 (which he scored in R18) and he had a standard deviation of 16.3 (unheard of). That makes it awfully hard to get him into your side without a massive outlay. Yeh you might be able to get him in for cheaper than what he started on, but the person who started with Chappy can get a Boomer/Sylvia/Gia/Goodes for much cheaper (due to their higher volatilities: 32.2/30.2/33.2/24.4 respectively for 2010) and make up the cash that way.

Chappy will be a top 7 forward next year and I am sure he wont get much lower than $400k at any stage. You will be banking on his historical durability (and alst year being an anomaly) to come out on top if you decide to leave him out of your starting squad.

Great post Narkee and I agree with everything you've said. You can basically lock in Chapman, Riewoldt and Franklin as the top 3 scoring forwards who you'll need in your final side to be in the hunt this year. The only reason you wouldn't select these players in your starting side is if they had high scoring fluctuations resulting in high price fluctuations. Say like a Heath Shaw or Sam Fisher in the backline or a Stanton in the midfield, these are guys you would trade in later.

Chapman has very few low games, his scoring is extremely consistent. Watching him closely last year I honestly believe he is over the worst of his durability issues. He played 21 games with 1 lower back issue IIRC, not too bad and right up there with the most durable players in the top 20 scorers. Players go in cycles with getting their body right, some are not durable right through their career bit others have a bad couple of years then are OK. Gia is an example of this and I believe from what I saw last year that Chapmans body is coming good.


On Franklin, he is no longer the Franklin of 2008 who stays inside fwd 50 and licks 100 goals. The Franklin of 2010 and 2011 plays a mini Richo role and goes where he wants. He kicked 60 goals lats year but his stats elsewhere were way up and because he was playing higher his scoring was far more consistent. No games under 70 and only 3 games under 90 for the season so again he is somebody who is certain to be a top 7 forward but will not drop markedly in price, therefore he should be in your starting lineup IMO. The only real risk here is his elbows.

Riewoldt probably doesn't need to be discussed as I'm sure anyone talking about dream team this early in the year has him locked in the side.


These 3 are the only legitimate chances to top the forward scoring IMO and it's hard to find reasons why you wouldn't start with all 3 when you'll need them all by years end, and most likely won't be able to pick them up cheap during the year. I guess the other thing to consider in relation to these 3 is the draw, with 2 of these having a bye in round 6.