Random Question Thread (Part 3)

[terminators]

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??

DunnWellDone I have looked over you calculations and have no issues with the numbers but you have failed to factor in several considerations.


1) No coach in their right mind would take 6 players priced at 55 plus Chapman. In reality they would take say 3 other premiums, 1 or 2 mid pricers plus rookies depending on who was available. So the decision on Chapman has to be based on the team as a whole. If I have rookies such as Mzungu, Krakouer or Richardson who can score 75 this will allow me enough cash to take the absolute premium with the rest of my money. Basically what I am saying is that there is so much cash this year that to not take a player who dominates their position from the start will hurt you. It's as much about selecting other players that will allow you get to get Chapman as it is about Chapman himself

2) DT is not a flat linear game. Price movements are fluid and players do not score at their average every game. A rookie priced at 21 can have a spike and be traded into your side with an effective average of 80+ if you get your timing right

3) You have not factored in the trading aspect. If DT had unlimited trades your argument with hold more sway but with only 24 trades taking 2 players you will either need to upgrade them if they don't come off or will be stuck with 2 low end fwd premiums

4) You are basically forcing yourself to trade in Chapman at some later stage, as he will be needed in the final side. If he doesn't drop in price (which he doesn't a lot because of his consistency) you will have to pay more to get him in. By taking Chapman you have a player you need but also have the choice to look at any number of underpriced premiums for your upgrades when the time is right

5) Chapman always starts fast. If you need him and know he will score better in the first half of the year it would be crazy to leave him out initially.



Sometimes numbers don't paint the whole picture.

 

[SkankDanker]

Good stuff, and nice post terminators.

I think the numbers game is basically over in DT - the high salary cap and other variables simply means you need a complete rethink of the way you approach DT.

Chapman is a great example, he has previously represented a massive risk and if you used numbers to analyse him at the beginning of last year you would never have picked him. I grabbed him in my starting line-up based on a solid pre-season, but I must admit it was impulsive and a last minute move (season went downhill from there!). But I have always said you have to take injury risks at the start and trade in the durables throughout the season. Plus he now has a couple of byes to rest those niggles.

With the higher cap, increased trades and to a certain extent DP, the points potential of a player is far more important than it used to be, and as terminators is suggesting you could hang around for 6-8 rounds and hope to pick chappy up cheap (he rarely does drop significantly as pointed out) and by the time you have got him he has probably skewered you to the extent you can't watch Geelong play. Plus reduced your chances of winning as points per $ is not that important anymore (I call it value but a lot of people get annoyed with that concept ).

There was nothing wrong with your statistical analysis DWD, but the points terminator has raised are the reality now. In a way, while the game is allegedly easier, I think there is one key change - you need to go back to really knowing your footy players, as terminator points out in pts 1 & 4.

While charting and statistical analysis etc will remain a valuable tool, knowing when a person is going to hit form, using your own judgement to pick a break-out, researching your rookies, handling the byes - this is all going to matter a lot more this year than deciding whether to choose a gun/rookie or mid-pricer approach and following a standard upgrade pattern.

In fact the more trades mean more opportunities to make mistakes and maybe trade out players just because you can.

This season is going to be very challenging.

 

[54Dogs]

Yeh, quality stuff Terminators (can I call you Arnie).

With the coin available this year it's almost a given to take the dominant player in each position. So many cash cows that dancing around low level keepers is a one way trip to failure.

DWD, nice analysis mate, I'd agree with your numbers but in the changing environment this year the top enders will be a must have.

 

[54Dogs]

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.

Hard to disagree with much of that well played sir. I may not be as bullish on Buddy as you but apart from that I'd agree with it all. Chappy and Volt look like must haves.

Just one point Terminators, I think you're underselling the importance of the Rd 6 bye. If you commit to these 3 you've already locked in 2 places for that round, plus I assume you're considering Petrie, I Smith and Mzungu as well like most. Could leave you thin if you use Petrie DP plus the others with the bye. Just a thought.

 

[terminators]

Hard to disagree with much of that well played sir. I may not be as bullish on Buddy as you but apart from that I'd agree with it all. Chappy and Volt look like must haves.

Just one point Terminators, I think you're underselling the importance of the Rd 6 bye. If you commit to these 3 you've already locked in 2 places for that round, plus I assume you're considering Petrie, I Smith and Mzungu as well like most. Could leave you thin if you use Petrie DP plus the others with the bye. Just a thought.

Thanks for the feedback 54Dogs.

I've played around a bit with plan teams but haven't gone too deeply into the byes yet, other than knowing Rd 4 and 6 look tough. I think it's one of those positions where you lock in your must haves first and make sure your fringe players don't impact in the bye rounds. But that's a discussion for another time and place.

 

[Benatration]

Does anyone else cringe when reading "Dr. Dreamteam"? Reading some of his articles prove knows nothing about the game! He is the worst "expert" for any fantasy sport game in the world!

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

Here's a solution to that problem- think before you post anything. Seriously. You are filling these OPs with absolute rubbish.

I wouldn't recommend this.

 

[thebaxters]

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.

Depends I guess whether you had Chappy mid or forward. Should be plenty of mids around that mark.

But seriously, it was a bit tongue in cheek - the chances of Chappy playing 22 are about as good as me picking a player at 106, etc.

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.

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.

Yep, I suspect that the extra trades and well timed byes might mean historical durability issues are nowhere near as important as in previous years. Yep, his hammys are typically back end of season. I guess that injury with Chappy has happened at both ends of the season, you could take statistical outliers around every game out - just pointing out that the call "he starts strong" is not necessarily the case.

Little bit of fire in some posts on this thread, but good discussion.

 

[SkankDanker]

Does anyone else cringe when reading "Dr. Dreamteam"? Reading some of his articles prove knows nothing about the game! He is the worst "expert" for any fantasy sport game in the world!

Are you kidding? The Pundit for EPL has given me some disastrous advice. HACK!

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

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.

I can see what your saying but even if the team was to upgrade to a better player than a 90avg, lets say 100 which is about the next best looking at the forwards than that team still losses in the long run.

Thats the thing if you dont think Chapman will improve his avg or holds value (which is what im saying) - not that it will happen or be true (i dont have a crystal ball). Than he isnt worth taking over 2 players who are both going to improve there avg.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

DWD, nice analysis mate, I'd agree with your numbers but in the changing environment this year the top enders will be a must have.

But i just cant get my head around that. I still think there is room for the value idea.

*Now im using the 110 for chapman purely because i am saying that he may not improve on his avg*

I have clearly shown that it would be better not to start chapman IF YOU DONT THINK HE WILL IMPROVE

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

DunnWellDone I have looked over you calculations and have no issues with the numbers but you have failed to factor in several considerations.


1) No coach in their right mind would take 6 players priced at 55 plus Chapman. In reality they would take say 3 other premiums, 1 or 2 mid pricers plus rookies depending on who was available. So the decision on Chapman has to be based on the team as a whole. If I have rookies such as Mzungu, Krakouer or Richardson who can score 75 this will allow me enough cash to take the absolute premium with the rest of my money. Basically what I am saying is that there is so much cash this year that to not take a player who dominates their position from the start will hurt you. It's as much about selecting other players that will allow you get to get Chapman as it is about Chapman himself

2) DT is not a flat linear game. Price movements are fluid and players do not score at their average every game. A rookie priced at 21 can have a spike and be traded into your side with an effective average of 80+ if you get your timing right

3) You have not factored in the trading aspect. If DT had unlimited trades your argument with hold more sway but with only 24 trades taking 2 players you will either need to upgrade them if they don't come off or will be stuck with 2 low end fwd premiums

4) You are basically forcing yourself to trade in Chapman at some later stage, as he will be needed in the final side. If he doesn't drop in price (which he doesn't a lot because of his consistency) you will have to pay more to get him in. By taking Chapman you have a player you need but also have the choice to look at any number of underpriced premiums for your upgrades when the time is right

5) Chapman always starts fast. If you need him and know he will score better in the first half of the year it would be crazy to leave him out initially.



Sometimes numbers don't paint the whole picture.

1) It doesnt matter what the numbers are. Just made it easier to understand reading wise than saying each team has 1x (50,60,70,75,78,80) scorer plus chapman. The numbers dont matter.

2) Yeah i understand that but was purely to make it easier to understand again. Also if one happens for one team than i cant see why it wont happen for the other, i have to make things equal in this argument. I couldve said Chappy scored 150 the week before giving a price rise, but whats not to say that the 90avg player also scored 130 that week. It was purely to show things equal so i didnt advantage any team - purely for the case example.

3) Yep your right but im saying that your better off picking players that hold value, thus players you think will improve rather than those who may not (maybe Chapman).

4) Nothing wrong with forcing Chapman into the side at a cheaper price. Whether he scores 110 every week or 90 than 130 than 90 than 130 ever week, he will drop in price.

Look at Goddard 2010, i didnt pick him and he dropped 31k after round 7, which is the time i brought him in.

5) That isnt necessarily true. I can provide as much data to show he starts slow as you could saying he starts fast. But its a good point you bring up, picking premiums who start fast is a must.

Its proven that finals team take a while to get going the next year. Something i am doing right now is working out how GF teams are affected in the opening 6 rounds compared to the rest of the season.

After all this Chapman is in my team right now and ill probably pick him, because i actually think he will improve. *DWD changed his mind now*. NO purely just showing that if you think he wont improve than dont pick him. I actually see a bit of improvement in him, i think he could push towards 120.

 

[terminators]

1)

After all this Chapman is in my team right now and ill probably pick him, because i actually think he will improve. *DWD changed his mind now*. NO purely just showing that if you think he wont improve than dont pick him. I actually see a bit of improvement in him, i think he could push towards 120.

Random question here DunnWellDone but we're in the right thread for it. What made you change your mind between last night and this morning in that you now see Chapman improving where as previously you did not?

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Random question here DunnWellDone but we're in the right thread for it. What made you change your mind between last night and this morning in that you now see Chapman improving where as previously you did not?

Miss read what i said

But i was purely saying Chapman wont improve to show that he therefore isnt worth picking. He has been in my team since the start of my fanplanner this year.

I was purely arguing it, as shown in Dogs and other post saying IF you dont think he wil improve than dont pick him.

but look at the 5 replies to your questions or summaries

edit: I probably did state that he wont improve, but that was purely just easier to say and get my msg across. Most of the time i wouldve used IF.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Something like that.

Im starting to get worried about these Chapman, Swan, Boyd players who i see as having no upside.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Something like that.

Well worried, means little. Its not stating that i wont be picking them.

Boyd i have changed my mind and see the upside. I dont see the upside in Swan thus thinking about not picking him purely if i believe strongly that Boyd and Goddard can get within 4-5 points of him.

Chapman would be in my team if i picked it tomorrow. I dont like that many forwards this year so he gets a gig. Im unsure if i see upside in him or not. he will avg between 110-118 IMO. Quite a range. Im still deciding on him, but as i said i see him with upside at this moment.

 

[dylan123]

I dont see the upside in Swan thus thinking about not picking him purely if i believe strongly that Boyd and Goddard can get within 4-5 points of him.

I can't see Swan improving on his average but at the same time we know he is going to be in our final 22 so I'm of the thinking its probably easier starting with a super premium like him rather then trying to find the cash mid season to trade him in. Not an easy task at all, could cost one and a half downgrades then the upgrade trade which all takes time to do.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

I can't see Swan improving on his average but at the same time we know he is going to be in our final 22 so I'm of the thinking its probably easier starting with a super premium like him rather then trying to find the cash mid season to trade him in. Not an easy task at all, could cost one and a half downgrades then the upgrade trade which all takes time to do.

Its a tough one but i agree with you.

I have 5 midfielders i really like i the keeper to premium end and am only going to take 4. The 5th really depends on his role he plays, so if he doesnt change his role than ill likely just go with Swan and Pendles from the get go.

 

[Narkee]

I can't see Swan improving on his average but at the same time we know he is going to be in our final 22 so I'm of the thinking its probably easier starting with a super premium like him rather then trying to find the cash mid season to trade him in. Not an easy task at all, could cost one and a half downgrades then the upgrade trade which all takes time to do.

Just a slight extension on this comment, given most coaches (well the ones that do heavy preseason research) will have selected very similar rookies, most teams will be generating a similar level of cash. Assuming Swan maintains a level of scoring that he did in 2010, this means that those that don't start with Swan will be outlaying more cash to get him than those that started with him. Meanwhile those that started with Swan a snaring the Bartel's, Montagna's and Hayes' for around $400k (or even less in some cases).

This is the point at which the coach who may not have strictly focused on value (by picking Swan) can make up those value points gained by someone who actively seeked value at the start of the year.

Value is definitely important, but it can be realised in may different ways.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Just a slight extension on this comment, given most coaches (well the ones that do heavy preseason research) will have selected very similar rookies, most teams will be generating a similar level of cash. Assuming Swan maintains a level of scoring that he did in 2010, this means that those that don't start with Swan will be outlaying more cash to get him than those that started with him. Meanwhile those that started with Swan a snaring the Bartel's, Montagna's and Hayes' for around $400k (or even less in some cases).

This is the point at which the coach who may not have strictly focused on value (by picking Swan) can make up those value points gained by someone who actively seeked value at the start of the year.

Value is definitely important, but it can be realised in may different ways.

Dont know what your saying but

Those who start Swan buy him for 500k whatever he is. If he maintains his avg over the first 6 rounds than he drops in value. So the people upgrading to him at any time get him cheaper.

You might be able to upgrade to good players like Montagna or Boyd whoever you havnt picked. But i may have picked them from the start because i saw value in them and they have risen in price..

So we end up with the same 2 players at the exact same time but you pay more for them.

The reasons to start Swan are he is so expensive so as Dylan said it may cost you more than 1 trade more like 1.5 trades so timing with him will be harder than other players, so that money saved at the start by not picking him is counteracted by the fact that timing is so hard with him.

Also as a captaincy option if you dont see players like Godd, Boyd ect getting within half of what he is priced over them players than you would want to pick him as your captain.

 

[Narkee]

Yeh I probably didn't make myself all that clear then. What I tried to say, was that last year Swan didn't drop in price as much as some of the other premium midfielders, so say at best Swan drops $50k from his premium price, other premiums can ay fall by a greater amount than Swan's $50 so ground is made up there.

Hope I made sense that time

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Yeh I probably didn't make myself all that clear then. What I tried to say, was that last year Swan didn't drop in price as much as some of the other premium midfielders, so say at best Swan drops $50k from his premium price, other premiums can ay fall by a greater amount than Swan's $50 so ground is made up there.

Hope I made sense that time

Yeah i understand what your saying now

But the reason Swan didnt drop much in value last year was because he increased his avg by 4 points. Which is very good for a top end premium.

So if you dont think he can avg 127 or even 123 in my case than he will drop by a fair but more than 50k.

If you look at other top end premiums from last year than
Ablett dropped by over 90k and still improved his avg
Montagna is a good example he dropped by over 95k although late in the season, but he was 70k down at round 9. Hes proof if you dont improve than these players can be brought in quite cheaper than SP.

 

[Narkee]

What you are saying makes sense DWD, but identifying premiums (or midpricers for that matter) that will improve is a tough gig. Get it right and you get ahead, get it wrong and you spend the whole season catching up. To say you will nail 30 odd players who will improve on last years average is a little unrealistic, even if it is your ultimate goal (I know you didn't say this, but you discussion on value is what this is alluding to).

 

[terminators]

What you are saying makes sense DWD, but identifying premiums (or midpricers for that matter) that will improve is a tough gig. Get it right and you get ahead, get it wrong and you spend the whole season catching up. To say you will nail 30 odd players who will improve on last years average is a little unrealistic, even if it is your ultimate goal (I know you didn't say this, but you discussion on value is what this is alluding to).

In theory identifying 33 players who'll improve is a great idea but you're right Narkee, in reality it won't work. There will always be a ROK or Tippett who hurts you and messes up the best laid plans.

The other key factor this year is you actually won't need to identify all improvers because of the value in the rookies. If the fanplanner prices are correct with the cash available this year it won't be difficult to generate enough cash to finalise a solid team and yet start with the top player/s in each position. GC rookies and the trend towards mature age players have made this even easier. If you identified a squad of rookies and mid pricers who would all improve you would have $2 mill left over but would run out of trades upgrading them.

There really has to be a balance with the points you score and the cash you generate. But in reality this year will be less about finalising a team early and more about successfully negotiating all your players through byes and reducing the impact of the sub rule on your team.

 

[54Dogs]

But in reality this year will be less about finalising a team early and more about successfully negotiating all your players through byes and reducing the impact of the sub rule on your team.

Agree Terminators, donuts will be far more prevalent this year with the byes so avoiding them will be vital.

There's also been a huge trend towards playing rookies earlier in the last year or 2 so finding solid downgrade options may be tougher mid year to avoid zeros coming home.