Discussion General Discussion
- Thread starter Impromptu
- Start date
Hi,
Question:
How does the SC opening round work for 2025?
I assume:
Players scores count towards their rolling average.
Yet your round 0 score doesn’t count towards your total points and ranking?
If that’s true, why avoid round 0 bye players (as I have seen many say they will)? They would have already had a bye round that didn’t affect your ranking?
Sure there is the risk they will score badly or get injured. Meaning a potential correctional trade. But still ….
Appreciate if someone can clarify and peoples thoughts here? How did this pan out last year?
Thanks
Question:
How does the SC opening round work for 2025?
I assume:
Players scores count towards their rolling average.
Yet your round 0 score doesn’t count towards your total points and ranking?
If that’s true, why avoid round 0 bye players (as I have seen many say they will)? They would have already had a bye round that didn’t affect your ranking?
Sure there is the risk they will score badly or get injured. Meaning a potential correctional trade. But still ….
Appreciate if someone can clarify and peoples thoughts here? How did this pan out last year?
Thanks
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2023
- Messages
- 103
- Likes
- 553
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
It’s the one less game they score points is the issue. For argument sake let’s say you think Sheezel and Flanders will average the same for the year. The fact that you don’t get Flanders R0 score in your total points and you have to take a rookie score in R3 means that Sheezel is probably worth an extra 40-60 total points than Flanders. For approximately the same price and the same yearly average. So the argument is that you start Sheezel and make Flanders an upgrade target after he has his R3 bye.
How did it work out last year? Not well. I think people missed out on Green’s early tear because of his bye. Some missed Heeney (me included). However, waiting for Naicos was a win. I think the question of whether you do or don’t take R0 players is not clear cut and probably comes down to personal preference.
How did it work out last year? Not well. I think people missed out on Green’s early tear because of his bye. Some missed Heeney (me included). However, waiting for Naicos was a win. I think the question of whether you do or don’t take R0 players is not clear cut and probably comes down to personal preference.
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 39,497
- Likes
- 128,538
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 39,497
- Likes
- 128,538
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
This was a seriously good article to read. And yes the last line is right on the money. I also liked this -
"For some clubs, the clearance differential is less important than what happens at the next contest. But broadcasters still report simple clearance counts, which the layperson comes to regard as a proxy for “midfield quality”. Perhaps, we agree, the fact that the phrase “post-clearance” seems to have entered the footy lexicon, at least on its margins, is a harbinger of better things to come."
It reminded me of the fact that many of the stats we often use when looking for some confirmation of our theory on a player or team are in fact useless without context. At one time I was looking at stats for scoring based on turnovers in defense and chains of possession but found in percentage terms that there were good teams but also some poor teams often close together. Why?
It took me a while to realise that probably the good teams are often highly efficient in defense and forcing turnovers which lead to scores. The poor teams have the ball down in their defense all the time. They are much less efficient than good teams (ie they get flogged) but the number of times the ball is down there means it is one of the most likely place a chain of possession starts and leads to a score. So it was about context and as the article notes better stats don't always mean better outcomes.
Thanks for posting @Connoisseur
"For some clubs, the clearance differential is less important than what happens at the next contest. But broadcasters still report simple clearance counts, which the layperson comes to regard as a proxy for “midfield quality”. Perhaps, we agree, the fact that the phrase “post-clearance” seems to have entered the footy lexicon, at least on its margins, is a harbinger of better things to come."
It reminded me of the fact that many of the stats we often use when looking for some confirmation of our theory on a player or team are in fact useless without context. At one time I was looking at stats for scoring based on turnovers in defense and chains of possession but found in percentage terms that there were good teams but also some poor teams often close together. Why?
It took me a while to realise that probably the good teams are often highly efficient in defense and forcing turnovers which lead to scores. The poor teams have the ball down in their defense all the time. They are much less efficient than good teams (ie they get flogged) but the number of times the ball is down there means it is one of the most likely place a chain of possession starts and leads to a score. So it was about context and as the article notes better stats don't always mean better outcomes.
Thanks for posting @Connoisseur
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 39,497
- Likes
- 128,538
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
https://www.theroar.com.au/2024/12/...night-commentary-as-seven-shake-up-continues/
Baby steps splitting up Triple M Lite to hopefully keep him in line although could be seen as a promotion with the Thursday night time slot. Such a cushy job when you still have absolutely no idea the differences in call style needed between tv and radio broadcasting after 20+ years but goes to show that brown nosing pays off when executives are too scared to make basic decisions. Competition with Fox will be great as although very hopeful, it may finally force their hand to cut ties.
Baby steps splitting up Triple M Lite to hopefully keep him in line although could be seen as a promotion with the Thursday night time slot. Such a cushy job when you still have absolutely no idea the differences in call style needed between tv and radio broadcasting after 20+ years but goes to show that brown nosing pays off when executives are too scared to make basic decisions. Competition with Fox will be great as although very hopeful, it may finally force their hand to cut ties.
Just wanna make a quick post about something that's absolutely infuriated me this morning and might help some of you out.
Kayo Sports is an absolute joke.
Trying to set up a new subscription and am greeted with this page. This was the default setting upon opening the page. I am using Binge here (operating under the same parent company, Hubbl) to demonstrate the massive UI flaw... which feels by design.
That whole dark/light/dark setup on the options, that has been standard UI forever and a day to delineate between a series of rows in a table. What this doesn't tell you - and the reason I say it's deliberate - is that the light coloured row is actually the option you have selected.
This is also, in theory, marked with the green tick on the right hand side... But that tick is in the corner between two options, so it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that the top option is selected. Normally when selecting an option in a table like this, as well, there will be a border around the selected option to make it clear. Nothing.
Finally, there is no confirmation page after selecting Continue here. Just the sound of an extra $10 leaving your bank account than you intended.
Business practices like this really drive me mad because it absolutely puts the lie to the idea that they're giving the consumer what they want. I shouldn't have to unlearn decades of pattern recognition about how information is displayed digitally every time some scam artist in a big company wants to make a quick buck off the average punter.
Kayo Sports is an absolute joke.
Trying to set up a new subscription and am greeted with this page. This was the default setting upon opening the page. I am using Binge here (operating under the same parent company, Hubbl) to demonstrate the massive UI flaw... which feels by design.
That whole dark/light/dark setup on the options, that has been standard UI forever and a day to delineate between a series of rows in a table. What this doesn't tell you - and the reason I say it's deliberate - is that the light coloured row is actually the option you have selected.
This is also, in theory, marked with the green tick on the right hand side... But that tick is in the corner between two options, so it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that the top option is selected. Normally when selecting an option in a table like this, as well, there will be a border around the selected option to make it clear. Nothing.
Finally, there is no confirmation page after selecting Continue here. Just the sound of an extra $10 leaving your bank account than you intended.
Business practices like this really drive me mad because it absolutely puts the lie to the idea that they're giving the consumer what they want. I shouldn't have to unlearn decades of pattern recognition about how information is displayed digitally every time some scam artist in a big company wants to make a quick buck off the average punter.
