Opinion 2024 AFL SuperCoach Planning Thread
- Thread starter MC's Mix
- Start date
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2023
- Messages
- 182
- Likes
- 761
- AFL Club
- Carlton
100% a mid-priced team should outscore a GnR team early on in the season and the extra trades does make a mid priced team more viable this season.
I think you still need to start with the likes of Bont, Daicos and any other players that may not be viable to trade in later in the season though as teams starting them will have a massive advantage, especially in the back half of the season when teams are closing in on a full premium side.
I think you still need to start with the likes of Bont, Daicos and any other players that may not be viable to trade in later in the season though as teams starting them will have a massive advantage, especially in the back half of the season when teams are closing in on a full premium side.
The days of being hell bent on starting a certain amount of keepers is over, the more important aspect is nailing your value picks and trading smartly in the early rounds, I started 11 premiums last year and even traded out of a couple of them and still finished my side before most people and was top 30 most of the season.
I think in perfect circumstances the mid price team performers well early but there are a few factors that influence both that, and the ultimate end position.
First of all, I think there is huge risk in assuming all midpricers work out. There will be a lot that score poorly, or score well enough to to beat a rookie in the same position, but not to make more money than the rookie. Secondly, cash generation in mid price teams is a huge risk as it’s often only the very best of them that make good money, and those are usually the last to be traded. Alternatively the others make smaller gains and therefore mean it’s hard to cull them to bring in a top premium, leading to compromised picks. Yes, you can do 2 down to 1 up, but that is a lot harder across the season when the incoming rookies are less. A GnR team likely does a few 2 down 1 up, but has more rookies that have made more which can be a 1 for 1 early.
The extra trades help in that you can do more 2 to 1 moves, but you still need the cash gen and that’s where I see the full MP team falling down. Slower and/or lower cash gen meaning a GnR team quickly over takes them with top premiums.
Just my 2 cents anyway!
First of all, I think there is huge risk in assuming all midpricers work out. There will be a lot that score poorly, or score well enough to to beat a rookie in the same position, but not to make more money than the rookie. Secondly, cash generation in mid price teams is a huge risk as it’s often only the very best of them that make good money, and those are usually the last to be traded. Alternatively the others make smaller gains and therefore mean it’s hard to cull them to bring in a top premium, leading to compromised picks. Yes, you can do 2 down to 1 up, but that is a lot harder across the season when the incoming rookies are less. A GnR team likely does a few 2 down 1 up, but has more rookies that have made more which can be a 1 for 1 early.
The extra trades help in that you can do more 2 to 1 moves, but you still need the cash gen and that’s where I see the full MP team falling down. Slower and/or lower cash gen meaning a GnR team quickly over takes them with top premiums.
Just my 2 cents anyway!
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,989
- Likes
- 126,705
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
With the forward line premiums so up in the air I honestly think you can adopt a more value based approach and just trade your way to a completed team with a lower than standard starting premium count, even 10 premo setups I dont mind this year when theres the likes of Fisher,Williams,Fyfe,Jordon,Harmes,Billings that can massively out perform their prices reckon those teams are completing their side just as fast as a 12 premium setup that relies more on rookies making consistent money.
Whole heartedly agree. Those teams with the more traditional 12 Premium+1 Mid price look like they'll be left behind by the 10 Premium+4/5 mid pricers more so than ever before this season. The cheapness of the mid pricers is the tipping point with so many being mid high 200s you don't really need to skimp on premium quality.
Same setup currently, Fyfe’s role is hard to resist but very wary of him getting rested/subbed or the inevitable injury :-
With Wilson on my mid bench providing a link to the fwds.
Can see all these players making money early on with their expected roles. Allows me to wait & see which fwd premiums are the ones to target (Flanders/Macrae/Jackson etc)
Last few years have shown that with the game changing/ more trades & boosts, generating money as soon as possible thus allowing upgrades early on is the way to go. Picking options under 300k with good JS/ good roles/ low sub risk appears the best strategy to me.
With Wilson on my mid bench providing a link to the fwds.
Can see all these players making money early on with their expected roles. Allows me to wait & see which fwd premiums are the ones to target (Flanders/Macrae/Jackson etc)
Last few years have shown that with the game changing/ more trades & boosts, generating money as soon as possible thus allowing upgrades early on is the way to go. Picking options under 300k with good JS/ good roles/ low sub risk appears the best strategy to me.
Hehe - I have found your posts on this interesting. A couple of weeks ago I think we were in strenuous agreement on pretty much everything, but recently I think our views have diverged! I would be interested to see if we can identify the cause of the divergence
I think some of the areas where I agree are:
- Not all midpricers will work out
- A lot of the best value is in the rookies, and that the bar for midpricers making really good cash is higher than for rookies (who are commonly priced at c. 25-35, ie very low)
- Avoiding sub risk is important and valuable (hopefully midpricers help with this - albeit I suppose the downside to cash gen is greater if they do get subbed ... Fyfe more of a risk than some others, perhaps?)
Areas where I think we may differ (?):
- I don't think it was assumed that all the midpricers would work out. Not all rookie or premo picks will either. I do acknowledge that the hit rate for midpricers is historically poor, but that's in part because of the trade cost associated with these picks, and that cost has now gone down. If a Fyfe fails or gets injured, we can switch to a Billings with reduced impact in terms of trades (because we have more of them) as well as upgrade cadence (because we have multiple boosts).
- I don't think it's harder to cull a midpricer to bring in a top premium, necessarily. If anything I think it's a lot easier to get to a premium from a midpricer at, say, 400k than from a rookie who may be 280k? The rookie may have generated more cash on their starting price, but the midpricer has higher value, so the gap to the premo is lower. You do have to be willing to cut the midpricer rather than holding on thinking/hoping they will make whatever your targeted cash generation is (call it 150k for each cash cow), but I don't think the latter approach is terribly rational, and cutting "midpricers" in BBL is totally fine and people do it all the time (so the term doesn't even really get used in that format). [I think comparing AFL SC vs BBL SC strategies can be quite instructive, given AFL SC is taking some steps in this direction.]
- I see significant value in getting a sighter in round 0, and this has broader implications. I think this reduces the chances of getting all of our picks wrong - whether premos, midpricers or rookies. The value of this sighter is greatest for those picks that were most uncertain, which to me is typically midpricers. Either way, our starting picks should be better than normal, meaning that we actually need fewer correctional trades (assuming the same team structure) than in a normal year - and in addition to that, we have a heap of extra ones, so we are in a much better position overall. To me this suggests that risk can be dialled up (eg with more injury risk or midpriced structures). We can make six trades in two rounds if we wish, which should be ample to address any failed picks. If we are getting >6 picks wrong, to the point that they all "need" to be corrected quickly, we aren't going to have a good year anyway
- I think you mentioned English recently as an example of groupthink (as an alternative/addition to slow adaptation to changing rules) on particular selections as a reason why sites like SCS may have had a down year. I definitely agree that this can happen. With that said, to me he is actually a good example of how we should be adapting, and that perhaps hasn't happened as quickly as is warranted. I started (and advocated for) English last year, despite the injury risk, because I thought that the extra trades allowed me to do so - his upside was large, and the downside was reduced versus prior years. He ended up playing all 23 games, but even if he got injured after round 6, he had posted 6x 130+ scores by then (all C or VC-worthy, too), and I would have had a good advantage. He's the type of pick I would have shied away from in years gone by, but that I think should be under close consideration going forward.
I would be interested if I have misinterpreted your view, and/or in your take on my thoughts.
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2015
- Messages
- 6,697
- Likes
- 30,160
- AFL Club
- Sydney
