Opinion 2024 AFL SuperCoach Planning Thread

[Darkie]

Thanks Darkie, very interesting.

I think the main point for me to consider is the quality of the finishing teams. This has always been a weak point for me as I've generally faded away in the last few rounds. Last year I see I went from 711 after RD19 to 3567 at season's end.

There doesn't seem to be much wiggle room anymore in terms of finishing team, if you want to finish right at the pointy end. Possibly the best use of the extra trades this year is for that final push coming out of the byes, committing to culling the underperforming premos and targeting the absolute best of each line.

Of course the ultimate skill issue remains - can I tell the difference between an underpriced premo about to bounce back and one on the decline, or between a broken-out bona fide premo and a fake one on a surge.

I agree that the basic strategy seems pretty clear: balanced starting side of G&R with a few breakout gambles; avoid rd0 players unless you perceive at least +5pt/rd value over their next best alternative; don't stint on correction trades to get all the best cash cows; upgrade as fast as possible, using all boosts, from RD6 onwards, with aim of completing team before byes; slingshot through byes to get worst premos off field and all must-haves in; cruise to victory.

Simple?

Lock it in!

Thanks for your detailed thoughts.

A couple of additional points I should mention:

- I subsequently posted that I was struggling a bit to implement my intended strategy, because this year’s rookies looked good, and the mid pricers much less so. There are some decent ones around 200-300k, but few above that. This is obviously an obstacle. I think the key is to go where the value is rather than target a price range simply because we can.

- The DPP additions were important last year, and not something I mentioned. This underlines the importance of having the top liners, and is a good use of slingshots or final trades to put the icing on the cake.

- Avoiding subbed players was hard last year, and this has quite a negative impact on cash generation. This was something I omitted to mention in my earlier post, but is a key reason to go for an established player at 250k over a 150k rookie (assuming of course that you think the sub risk is lower with the dearer player).

 

[Darkie]

I’ve been thinking about this more, and I think using players like Sam Walsh and Rozee are good option for an example (Kane Cornes would be proud).

Walsh should be a good starting pick, but we aren’t selecting anyone (round 0 bye or not) who is outside the top 8 in a line and we don’t think will increase their average by 5ppg. i.e. people are picking Butters, Rozee, LDU, Parish, N Anderson because we can foresee they’ll increase by at least 5 (likely hoping for 10 if picking Parish or Anderson). So coming out ahead becomes relative, as they actually have to increase their average relative to more expensive picks, who also increase their average, in order to close that points gap.

Then comes in early scoring rate and price increase vs extra scoring, as people aren’t avoiding round 0 players all year, just very early. If over the first 6 SC rounds, Team A picks Walsh who averages 110 (7pt increase), and Team B picks Rozee who averages 112.5 (5pt increase), they’ll likely both increase modestly or hold price, with Walsh making money at a slightly faster rate. In round 7, Team A trades in Rozee and Team B trades in Walsh. They now have the same teams, with Team A having more money (maybe $35k ($10k extra gain based on magic number + $25k starting price difference)) and Team B with more points (no bye round + Rozee averaging more = about 55 more points (15 due to Rozee scoring, 40 due to extra premo in best 18)).

Which team is ahead at this point? You’ve got the exact same teams, so would you rather the $35k or 55 point head start?

This is a very specific example, but I think it shows a little bit of this challenge. If you start round 0 bye players who will be keepers (top group of scorers in a line), then you’re trying to pick they ones who can fire early and outscore other great options by closer to 10-15 points per game in the first few rounds to get an advantage and make the extra cash and not lose too many points before the POD is closed.

Some interesting ideas here, thank you.

I think the point about it being relative is a good one. In a way it always is, but in this case I do think that Rozee owners may be expecting upside, so not all of Walsh’s upside may be incremental.

One thing that may be playing into my read on the situation is that I have always been more comfortable picking a fallen premium (eg Walsh) than a breakout player or a premium with only a short history of elite scoring (eg Butters, LDU, Rozee, Green, Gulden). As it happens @Donald posted earlier today, largely confirming that this approach is backed up by the numbers.

In light of the above, I remain skeptical that guys like Butters and LDU improve further in 2024. I think there’s a good chance that one or more of them regress, meaning that they’re more in the fairly (or even over-)priced category for me, versus being in the value camp for some other coaches.

In terms of your question, this may have been somewhat rhetorical, but I’d definitely take the cash. $35k should buy 7ppg, which over 17 rounds should give 119 points, which is roughly double the foregone 55 points. Obviously it depends on the assumptions used, but in a long season, my view is that cash will usually win out simply because its benefit grows each round.

My hope in posting an example was to get my own thinking straight, but also share it with other coaches here. I am somewhat concerned that there may have been a tilt too far away from teams who play R0. It is true that the c. 55 points is largely “locked in” in that you’re fielding a rookie over a premium, but that can be made up pretty quickly with a Walsh type if he is priced below his capacity and then performs as expected.

 

[HimothyTaranto]

Rate him very highly.

With Hunter in serious doubt for the start of the season, Windsor is a genuine chance of playing round 1 on a wing. If his form warrants it, he may even keep Hunter out of the side once he’s fit.

Hopefully he puts in a good showing tomorrow morning.

Thanks Ben. Hope he delivers on the hype tomorrow.

 

[GrainFedBeef]

Why you'd play a Brownlow Medal winner (who won it on-ball) on a wing a few season later, beggars belief IMO.

Not really sure, unless it had something to do with the coach moving him aside for guys like Butters and Rozee to get that midfield experience, (Horne Francis coming in too) while they're still young. It was a bit of a drop-off though after his Brownlow year and especially the year after that.

Wines played on the wing due to his injury, thought I read about that a week ago. Wasn't to benefit Butter etc, expect potentially we see Wines push Rozee a little more forward this year as Wines CBA's shoot back up, although Rozee still getting solid CBA's, maybe 3/4th in line.

 

[Connoisseur]

Wines played on the wing due to his injury, thought I read about that a week ago. Wasn't to benefit Butter etc, expect potentially we see Wines push Rozee a little more forward this year as Wines CBA's shoot back up, although Rozee still getting solid CBA's, maybe 3/4th in line.

Just be careful not to place too much emphasis on centre bounce attendances as no magic points are received from attendance nor disposals received from a centre bounce and best to consider the amount of stoppages in a game comparative to the amount of centre bounces (only occur after a goal or to start a quarter) given sides could rotate players off bench and onfield or to the back or forward line, etc between the centre bounces and that a low proportion of disposals and points occur from a CBA.

Not in this instance but just a general observation in preseason, last season, etc that there seems to be a false equivalence that increased CBA equals increased scoring which is not always the case with some players as a correlation may not exist. Also some coaches using this measure more than ruck contests attended when assessing rucks, which is not advised.

 

[Juzzo]

Is anyone considering ollie wines? Playing full time inside mid surely he goes back to 105 average? At an ave of 83 surely he is 20ppg unders.

not going near Wines, but have considered not starting Butters.

 

[Locus Levy Lunacy]

Some interesting ideas here, thank you.

I think the point about it being relative is a good one. In a way it always is, but in this case I do think that Rozee owners may be expecting upside, so not all of Walsh’s upside may be incremental.

One thing that may be playing into my read on the situation is that I have always been more comfortable picking a fallen premium (eg Walsh) than a breakout player or a premium with only a short history of elite scoring (eg Butters, LDU, Rozee, Green, Gulden). As it happens @Donald posted earlier today, largely confirming that this approach is backed up by the numbers.

In light of the above, I remain skeptical that guys like Butters and LDU improve further in 2024. I think there’s a good chance that one or more of them regress, meaning that they’re more in the fairly (or even over-)priced category for me, versus being in the value camp for some other coaches.

In terms of your question, this may have been somewhat rhetorical, but I’d definitely take the cash. $35k should buy 7ppg, which over 17 rounds should give 119 points, which is roughly double the foregone 55 points. Obviously it depends on the assumptions used, but in a long season, my view is that cash will usually win out simply because its benefit grows each round.

My hope in posting an example was to get my own thinking straight, but also share it with other coaches here. I am somewhat concerned that there may have been a tilt too far away from teams who play R0. It is true that the c. 55 points is largely “locked in” in that you’re fielding a rookie over a premium, but that can be made up pretty quickly with a Walsh type if he is priced below his capacity and then performs as expected.

You are debating very well here.

I think the example from Jurn Sturn (Walsh v Rozee) is a good one, but is probably skewed in terms of the Rozee team.

If I felt Rozee would average 112.5 and Walsh 110, then I wouldn't pick Walsh. Those picking Walsh would be looking at his 117 average from 2021. That increases the dollar and point gain in Walsh's favour. Walsh actually "wins" the point battle by 22.5 (5 x 4.5).

The 40 point gain (for Rozee) in having the extra premo for an extra round, is also not straightforward. In a best 18 round (because the round zero player would be present in the best 22 of rounds 1 and 4), the Walsh team has at least 5 players vying to be the 18th score. Potentially this could be 7 if you loop Walsh and we'll assume Williams. I would be backing one of those 5-7 to score more than 72, thus closing the 40 point gap on Rozee's 112.

 

[donnybuang]

This is something that I have been trying to get my head around. I have seen mentioned that best 18 means that we can go a little more mid-priced to get rookie scores off field. However, I am wondering if it means we should actually go harder at GnR targeting higher end premiums? It might mean an extra on field rookie or two but in the best 18 scoring the risk of rookie score fluctuations is mitigated through lower scores dropping out. Potentially this could allow for quicker cash generation too?

However there will be a mid pricers who do extremely well. Maybe instead of starting them we target them when we have more information and just be prepared to sacrifice a starting premium? Odds are at least one of our starting premiums will start poorer than expected, so we would just need to be prepared to make early calls. I think 40 trades means we can’t waste time and need to learn to react quicker.

I don't see mid pricers being much help in best 18, unless you have gone full MPM. Realistically most teams have 12-13 keepers. Take 1 or 2 out due to their bye and that means you'll need 8 or so midpricers to acoid the lowers scores being rookies. I'm not sure that's viable budget wise

 

[Chumpion]

You are debating very well here.

I think the example from Jurn Sturn (Walsh v Rozee) is a good one, but is probably skewed in terms of the Rozee team.

If I felt Rozee would average 112.5 and Walsh 110, then I wouldn't pick Walsh. Those picking Walsh would be looking at his 117 average from 2021. That increases the dollar and point gain in Walsh's favour. Walsh actually "wins" the point battle by 22.5 (5 x 4.5).

The 40 point gain (for Rozee) in having the extra premo for an extra round, is also not straightforward. In a best 18 round (because the round zero player would be present in the best 22 of rounds 1 and 4), the Walsh team has at least 5 players vying to be the 18th score. Potentially this could be 7 if you loop Walsh and we'll assume Williams. I would be backing one of those 5-7 to score more than 72, thus closing the 40 point gap on Rozee's 112.

It’s worth noting that it’s your 5 worst scores vying for the 18th score. So to get 72 for that spot you’re relying on only having 4 players score less than 72 for the round. The chances can increase with looping etc, but it’s still the same - you need a very high floor for your team in that scenario.

Given most (if not all) these scores are coming from rookies, you would need to have nailed the selections and have them all firing. The problem with that, is so many will be popular and common that most teams will have the same ones. So for your 18th score to be 72, it means another team was going so well that was their 19th score, or you that your rookie pods were so good (which likely means everyone piled on them already).

I definitely think the edge in bye rounds comes from the premium group. 11 Uber premiums will likely outscore 12 weaker premiums by enough to at least break even on the 18th score, and possibly beat it. But who can afford all those Uber premiums? Realistically, I think it’ll probably come down to teams who’ve structured to have 7 uber/4 other vs those who are more 5 Uber/7 other.
If the 2 extra ubers score to expectations it’s likely advantage that scenario. But if a few score poorly, then the team with a combined greater number likely does better.

Last thought - premiums can also flop. If round 1 last year was best 18 a lot of teams probably drop Laird’s score. Imagine Rozee has a stinker that week and scores 60.. could happen!

 

[donnybuang]

I’ve been thinking about this more, and I think using players like Sam Walsh and Rozee are good option for an example (Kane Cornes would be proud).

Walsh should be a good starting pick, but we aren’t selecting anyone (round 0 bye or not) who is outside the top 8 in a line and we don’t think will increase their average by 5ppg. i.e. people are picking Butters, Rozee, LDU, Parish, N Anderson because we can foresee they’ll increase by at least 5 (likely hoping for 10 if picking Parish or Anderson). So coming out ahead becomes relative, as they actually have to increase their average relative to more expensive picks, who also increase their average, in order to close that points gap.

Then comes in early scoring rate and price increase vs extra scoring, as people aren’t avoiding round 0 players all year, just very early. If over the first 6 SC rounds, Team A picks Walsh who averages 110 (7pt increase), and Team B picks Rozee who averages 112.5 (5pt increase), they’ll likely both increase modestly or hold price, with Walsh making money at a slightly faster rate. In round 7, Team A trades in Rozee and Team B trades in Walsh. They now have the same teams, with Team A having more money (maybe $35k ($10k extra gain based on magic number + $25k starting price difference)) and Team B with more points (no bye round + Rozee averaging more = about 55 more points (15 due to Rozee scoring, 40 due to extra premo in best 18)).

Which team is ahead at this point? You’ve got the exact same teams, so would you rather the $35k or 55 point head start?

This is a very specific example, but I think it shows a little bit of this challenge. If you start round 0 bye players who will be keepers (top group of scorers in a line), then you’re trying to pick they ones who can fire early and outscore other great options by closer to 10-15 points per game in the first few rounds to get an advantage and make the extra cash and not lose too many points before the POD is closed.

I'm only picking round zero guys in one of 3 categories:
Well undervalued and could very likely end up top 6-10 players. Eg Miller
Rookies
Midpricers such as Zilliams.

 

[donnybuang]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1758769386792644892

View: https://twitter.com/JoshGabelich/status/1758769386792644892

Hard to see him or Serong not playing round 1 against the bombers tall timber. Interesting to see what happens after that. DGB is in a moon boot reportedly, but hasn't shown much in his career so far anyway.

 

[BIGB0Y]

Intercept mark for gibcus

 

[BIGB0Y]

WOW petracca is strong

 

[madmunza]

Petracca looking good, dam byes

 

[Santoz]

Trac looks irresistible.

 

[BIGB0Y]

Trac looks irresistible.

He looks a class above everyone else

 

[BIGB0Y]

Dow is looking like he could add 20-25 ppg, a good cash generator with some decent scores.

 

[Ironhawk]

Trac looks irresistible.

Was hoping he stayed quiet, have him as M1 currently. Guess he will just be a bit more popular if he keeps going.

 

[Santoz]

Dow is looking like he could add 20-25 ppg, a good cash generator with some decent scores.

Needs to clean up his disposal, but he is good at finding the footy.

 

[BIGB0Y]

Needs to clean up his disposal, but he is good at finding the footy.

100% was thinking the same thing.