Opinion 2024 AFL SuperCoach Planning Thread
- Thread starter MC's Mix
- Start date
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.
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.
Can I gently add to this bubbling pot by asking: are we talking about value picks or are we talking about mid pricers? Value is subjective while mid pricers could be said to have solid parameters eg 207k to 450 or 475k (depends on your definition I suppose).
You mentioned English. He may have been value in your eyes but he was not a mid pricer last year. Many players fall into both the price range and value categories but not all, hence my query.
I agree with your distinction.
To me a player can be value at any price, although I think everyone is essentially in agreement in picking rookies and premiums that meet the “value” label.
I think it’s the value midpricers (your price ranges being reasonable in my view) where opinions start to diverge a bit more.
English was definitely not in the midpricer category, but I think he was in the value premium category, and one that most people didn’t choose because of the injury risk. He came up in the context of this discussion (which was admittedly a little earlier, and might not be obviously connected in the minds of other posters!):
https://supercoachscores.com/threads/2024-forward-discussion.5257/post-1077942
To me a player can be value at any price, although I think everyone is essentially in agreement in picking rookies and premiums that meet the “value” label.
I think it’s the value midpricers (your price ranges being reasonable in my view) where opinions start to diverge a bit more.
English was definitely not in the midpricer category, but I think he was in the value premium category, and one that most people didn’t choose because of the injury risk. He came up in the context of this discussion (which was admittedly a little earlier, and might not be obviously connected in the minds of other posters!):
https://supercoachscores.com/threads/2024-forward-discussion.5257/post-1077942
