Chasing last years points (MkII)....

[Rowsus]

If you have not already done so, can I suggest you read 'Chasing Last Year's Points.....' to gather the full idea behind this thread.

Researching past years SC scores for comparison purposes is fraught with hazards.
Finding the information you want, in the format you want, is no easy matter. In some cases the numbers for a player vary from source to source! Who do you believe? Couple that with the changing face of AFL football, with new rules and interpretations causing changes to SC scores, as well as perceived changes to how the scores are arrived at, and it is a real minefield! How do you compare J Browns 10 games at 140.5 in 2006, with Abletts 19 games at 140.1 in 2009?
The answer is you can only do it on face value. Yes, there is so much changing about the game (both AFL and SC) that it causes trends here and there in each seasons analysis. It is near impossible to differentiate between the different causes and effects, because there are just so many!
The best thing to do, is just plough on, and treat the numbers for what they are. Until they change one game or the other so drastically, that all history goes out the window, I think that's all you can do.

I have compiled a history of the 109 players I could find that ever had a 100+ season average. I may be missing some players from 2006 and 2005, as the history from the first 2 years was very poorly kept.

Amongst those 109 players there are 39 players who have jumped 20+ points, from one season to the next, and finished on a 100+ average for the season. 13 of them did it in 2012, including K Jack, who did it for the 2nd time! So let's examine how 25 of the 27 who did it earlier than 2012 faired in their next season.

I am going to make an exception of 2 players (hence the 25 of 27 above), just to better demonstrate my point. You can say it makes the analysis unfair, and you may be right. To those of you that think you need to include them, feel free to add them in. Even when you do, I think you'll find the figures a bit surprising!

Out of the 27 players, I am going to exclude:

Ablett

Ablett qualified for the list of 27 players in 2007, when he jumped 22.8 points from his 2006 average of 91.4 to 114.2. The following year his average jumped again, this time by 18.0 to 132.2.
The fact that Ablett is an exception to nearly every SC analysis should be obvious to everyone. To those that need convincing, try these small facts:
1 of only 2 players to ave 140+ in a season. The only one to do it in more than 10 games. (J Brown, above)
Has 3 seasons of 130+, there are only 7 recorded seasons of 130+!
Has 5 (consecutive!!!) seasons of 125+. Swan is the only player with more than 1. He has 2, and they weren't consecutive. There have only been 15 ever recorded.
120 is a figure that is bandied about as an ideal for your Mids to achieve. Ablett has achieved this 5 times, Swan 4 times, Pendlebury twice, and only 16 other players have ever achieved it once, for a total of 27 times it has happened! So only 19 players have ever achieved it, in 8 years of SC, and Ablett has done it 5 times!

Swan

Swan qualified for the list in 2009, when he jumped his average up from an ok 102.0 in 2008, to a very good 123.2 in 2009. In 2010 he managed to sneak up a little further, when he recorded a 126.9
Swan falls a little bit into Abletts SC shadow. He is the Hay List to Abletts Black Caviar. In any other period he would be lauded as an out and out, once in a generation SC champion. Unfortunately, he has to deal with Ablett setting the benchmark. As mentioned above, outside of Ablett, he is the only player with more than 1 season over 125 in average, and with Pendlebury is the only other player to have more than 1 120+ average season. He has 4 consecutive seasons of 120+ scores running at the moment

So allowing me those 2 exceptions out of the list of 27 players, let's look at the other 25. As I said earlier, if you think it is cheating leaving them out, feel free to add them in. The figures are still, IMO, eye-opening.
Let's break the 25 players into 2 groups. Players whose 20+ jump landed them on 100.0 - 101.9 (7 players), and players whose 20+ jump landed them on 102.0+ (18 players)

100.0 - 101.9

[TABLE="width: 650, align: center"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]Player
[/TD]
[TD]year/ave
[/TD]
[TD]year/ave
[/TD]
[TD]year/ave
[/TD]
[TD]+/- change
[/TD]
[TD]% change
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cotchin
[/TD]
[TD]2010/78.9
[/TD]
[TD]2011/100.6
[/TD]
[TD]2012/116.3
[/TD]
[TD]+15.7
[/TD]
[TD]+15.6%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]H Shaw
[/TD]
[TD]2005/72.0
[/TD]
[TD]2006/100.7
[/TD]
[TD]2007/106.3
[/TD]
[TD]+5.6
[/TD]
[TD]+5.6%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]McEvoy
[/TD]
[TD]2010/63.4
[/TD]
[TD]2011/101.2
[/TD]
[TD]2012/104.2
[/TD]
[TD]+3.0
[/TD]
[TD]+3.0%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Roughead
[/TD]
[TD]2010/77.7
[/TD]
[TD]2011/101.5
[/TD]
[TD]2012/103.7
[/TD]
[TD]+2.2
[/TD]
[TD]+2.2%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Griffin
[/TD]
[TD]2010/43.7
[/TD]
[TD]2011/101.0
[/TD]
[TD]2012/91.8
[/TD]
[TD]-9.2
[/TD]
[TD]-9.1%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jack
[/TD]
[TD]2009/66.9
[/TD]
[TD]2010/100.2
[/TD]
[TD]2011/80.9
[/TD]
[TD]-19.3
[/TD]
[TD]-19.3%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Malceski
[/TD]
[TD]2006/67.1
[/TD]
[TD]2007/101.0
[/TD]
[TD]2008/66.0
[/TD]
[TD]-35.0
[/TD]
[TD]-34.7%
[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

7 players jumped 20+ points, and made it to a season level of between 100.0 and 101.9.
2 improved again the next year, for an average improvement of +10.6%
2 players finished within +/- 5% of their previous years score, average change +2.6%
3 players dropped more than 5% in the year after their break out jump, average loss -21.0%
Overall result was an average drop of -5.2%

Nothing too startling, or eye-opening here. It is a small point range and sample group, so hardly anything surprising.

The players that fall into this catagory from 2012 are:
[TABLE="width: 500, align: left"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]Waters
[/TD]
[TD]2011/71.9
[/TD]
[TD]2012/100.3
[/TD]
[TD]+28.4
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Walker T
[/TD]
[TD]2011/62.5
[/TD]
[TD]2012/100.1
[/TD]
[TD]+37.7
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ebert Brad
[/TD]
[TD]2011/63.5
[/TD]
[TD]2012/100.1
[/TD]
[TD]+36.6
[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]


102.0+

[TABLE="width: 650, align: center"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]Player
[/TD]
[TD]year/ave
[/TD]
[TD]year/ave
[/TD]
[TD]year/ave
[/TD]
[TD]+/- change
[/TD]
[TD]% change
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Redden
[/TD]
[TD]2010/76.1
[/TD]
[TD]2011/102.9
[/TD]
[TD]2012/102.8
[/TD]
[TD]-0.1
[/TD]
[TD]-0.1%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Chapman
[/TD]
[TD]2008/98.8
[/TD]
[TD]2009/119.0
[/TD]
[TD]2010/116.4
[/TD]
[TD]-2.6
[/TD]
[TD]-2.2%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Scotland
[/TD]
[TD]2005/84.8
[/TD]
[TD]2006/110.3
[/TD]
[TD]2007/106.7
[/TD]
[TD]-3.6
[/TD]
[TD]-3.3%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Carrazzo
[/TD]
[TD]2006/78.9
[/TD]
[TD]2007/102.5
[/TD]
[TD]2008/97.4
[/TD]
[TD]-5.1
[/TD]
[TD]-5.0%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bartel
[/TD]
[TD]2006/105.0
[/TD]
[TD]2007/125.8
[/TD]
[TD]2008/116.0
[/TD]
[TD]-9.8
[/TD]
[TD]-7.8%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cox
[/TD]
[TD]2010/88.8
[/TD]
[TD]2011/122.2
[/TD]
[TD]2012/112.3
[/TD]
[TD]-9.9
[/TD]
[TD]-8.1%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Montagna
[/TD]
[TD]2008/97.2
[/TD]
[TD]2009/125.2
[/TD]
[TD]2010/114.8
[/TD]
[TD]-10.4
[/TD]
[TD]-8.3%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hodge
[/TD]
[TD]2009/91.4
[/TD]
[TD]2010/116.5
[/TD]
[TD]2011/106.5
[/TD]
[TD]-10.0
[/TD]
[TD]-8.6%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Fyfe
[/TD]
[TD]2010/72.6
[/TD]
[TD]2011/108.0
[/TD]
[TD]2012/93.2
[/TD]
[TD]-14.8
[/TD]
[TD]-13.7%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Rockliff
[/TD]
[TD]2010/85.9
[/TD]
[TD]2011/113.6
[/TD]
[TD]2012/97.3
[/TD]
[TD]-16.3
[/TD]
[TD]-14.4%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Goddard
[/TD]
[TD]2005/71.5
[/TD]
[TD]2006/106.6
[/TD]
[TD]2007/90.1
[/TD]
[TD]-16.5
[/TD]
[TD]-15.5%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Goldstein
[/TD]
[TD]2010/65.8
[/TD]
[TD]2011/113.2
[/TD]
[TD]2012/93.0
[/TD]
[TD]-20.2
[/TD]
[TD]-17.8%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mumford
[/TD]
[TD]2010/92.6
[/TD]
[TD]2011/112.6
[/TD]
[TD]2012/90.9
[/TD]
[TD]-21.7
[/TD]
[TD]-19.3%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]J Brown
[/TD]
[TD]2005/114.0
[/TD]
[TD]2006/140.5
[/TD]
[TD]2007/111.3
[/TD]
[TD]-29.2
[/TD]
[TD]-20.8%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Drummond
[/TD]
[TD]2006/77.4
[/TD]
[TD]2007/113.4
[/TD]
[TD]2008/89.4
[/TD]
[TD]-24.0
[/TD]
[TD]-21.2%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Kerr
[/TD]
[TD]2006/92.0
[/TD]
[TD]2007/119.8
[/TD]
[TD]2008/89.5
[/TD]
[TD]-30.3
[/TD]
[TD]-25.3%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Leuenberger
[/TD]
[TD]2010/68.5
[/TD]
[TD]2011/102.2
[/TD]
[TD]2012/70.3
[/TD]
[TD]-31.9
[/TD]
[TD]-31.2%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Adcock
[/TD]
[TD]2006/89.2
[/TD]
[TD]2007/110.7
[/TD]
[TD]2008/75.5
[/TD]
[TD]-35.2
[/TD]
[TD]-31.8%
[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

18 players jumped 20+ points, and made it to a season level of 102+
ALL 18 ACTUALLY DROPPED THEIR AVERAGE THE NEXT SEASON!!!!!
4 finished within +/- 5% of their previous years score, average change -2.6%
14 players dropped more than 5% in the year after their break out jump, average loss -17.4%
Overall result was an average drop of 14.1% (even with Ablett and Swan in, the average drop was 11.8%!)

Do I believe this trend will continue, that every player that jumps 20+ points to 102+ will drop the next year, unless they are in the freakish Ablett or Swan catagory? Not one little bit.
Do I think it shows how hard it is to build on a break out season, even on one that takes you to the mediocre level of 103? Absolutely!
As I stated previously, the higher level a player jumps to, the more coaches will want to say he can repeat, or near repeat, his stellar year. Logic, and these statistics show that that just doesn't hold true!
102 Doesn't seem to be too hard a mountain to climb, but only the 2 best ever (Ablett and Swan) have managed to overcome a break out season that landed them on, or beyond, this peak!

The players that fall into this catagory from 2012 are:
[TABLE="width: 500, align: left"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]Beams D
[/TD]
[TD]2011/100.8
[/TD]
[TD]2012/122.9
[/TD]
[TD]+22.1
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Kennedy JP
[/TD]
[TD]2011/96.1
[/TD]
[TD]2012/120.2
[/TD]
[TD]+24.1
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Dangerfield
[/TD]
[TD]2011/80.3
[/TD]
[TD]2012/118.9
[/TD]
[TD]+38.6
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tuck
[/TD]
[TD]2011/82.2
[/TD]
[TD]2012/114.6
[/TD]
[TD]+32.4
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Naitanui
[/TD]
[TD]2011/93.9
[/TD]
[TD]2012/114.2
[/TD]
[TD]+20.3
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Maric I
[/TD]
[TD]2011/69.3
[/TD]
[TD]2012/113.4
[/TD]
[TD]+44.1
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jack
[/TD]
[TD]2011/80.9
[/TD]
[TD]2012/112.4
[/TD]
[TD]+31.5
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]McLean
[/TD]
[TD]2011/64.8
[/TD]
[TD]2012/106.3
[/TD]
[TD]+41.5
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sidebottom
[/TD]
[TD]2011/83.5
[/TD]
[TD]2012/106.2
[/TD]
[TD]+22.7
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Selwood S
[/TD]
[TD]2011/82.2
[/TD]
[TD]2012/104.1
[/TD]
[TD]+21.9
[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

 

[3rdMonkey]

Rowsus - That... is simply magnificent!

So, Ablett is the ONLY player to increase his avg by 5%+ the year after jumping over 100.

That would suggest there is no value in picking any of Beams, Dangerfield, Kennedy etc in our starting teams in 2013. They may drop back but at worst should hold their avg, so no disadvantage in trading in later, but a clear disadvantage in picking from R1... that is a lot of food for thought!

 

[Rowsus]

Rowsus - That... is simply magnificent!

So, Ablett is the ONLY player to increase his avg by 5%+ the year after jumping over 100.

That would suggest there is no value in picking any of Beams, Dangerfield, Kennedy etc in our starting teams in 2013. They may drop back but at worst should hold their avg, so no disadvantage in trading in later, but a clear disadvantage in picking from R1... that is a lot of food for thought!

Close. But sorry, I need to make a slight adjustment to your observation.

Ablett is the ONLY player to increase his avg by 5%+ the year after jumping by 20 points or more to over 102.

Yes, that is right.

I find it a little startling. I'm not sure about others here.

(And thanks for the wrap. Makes the hours of work worthwhile when you know people appreciate it. )

 

[Nk29]

Rowsus - That... is simply magnificent!

So, Ablett is the ONLY player to increase his avg by 5%+ the year after jumping over 100.

That would suggest there is no value in picking any of Beams, Dangerfield, Kennedy etc in our starting teams in 2013. They may drop back but at worst should hold their avg, so no disadvantage in trading in later, but a clear disadvantage in picking from R1... that is a lot of food for thought!

Beams went from 100.2 to 122.9 the next year which is more than a 5% jump but I think Rowsus mentions that it is only players who averaged 102+ after breaking out

 

[Rowsus]

Beams went from 100.2 to 122.9 the next year which is more than a 5% jump but I think Rowsus mentions that it is only players who averaged 102+ after breaking out

Your looking at it slightly wrongly, Nk29. Yes, Beams went from 100.8 to 122.9 last year, but what we are looking at, is how the player went in the season AFTER they made a jump like that. So we would only be looking at how Beams goes in 2013 to add him into those 25 players. When he made the jump into the 100's he only jumped from 84.9 to 100.8. A jump of 15.9, and we are looking for jumps of 20+ that landed them on an average over 100, like he did in 2012.

 

[Goodie's Guns]

Another great read Rowsus and loving the time and effort that goes into you articles. It is sort of confirming to me that I am going down the right path and skipping the Beam/Dangerfield/Kennedy's to start off with and of they happen to so well and continue to post big scores will then be happy to get them as upgrades.

 

[Nk29]

Your looking at it slightly wrongly, Nk29. Yes, Beams went from 100.8 to 122.9 last year, but what we are looking at, is how the player went in the season AFTER they made a jump like that. So we would only be looking at how Beams goes in 2013 to add him into those 25 players. When he made the jump into the 100's he only jumped from 84.9 to 100.8. A jump of 15.9, and we are looking for jumps of 20+ that landed them on an average over 100, like he did in 2012.

Ok that makes more sense

 

[Rowsus]

Another great read Rowsus and loving the time and effort that goes into you articles. It is sort of confirming to me that I am going down the right path and skipping the Beam/Dangerfield/Kennedy's to start off with and of they happen to so well and continue to post big scores will then be happy to get them as upgrades.

Thanks Goodies. I tend to think that might be the most sensible approach with those players, too.

 

[IDIG]

/clears team n starts again

At the market so too much info to take in right now but will give it a good analyse later today. Love your work rowsus!

 

[Rowsus]

/clears team n starts again

At the market so too much info to take in right now but will give it a good analyse later today. Love your work rowsus!

Thanks IDIG

 

[BC]

the amount of time you blokes put in to your research for the benefit of others amazes me.
You should be hired to write your own version of sc prospectus each year and make some coin out of it lol.
Great read as always, thank you

 

[Creeker]

Amazed at the time, effort and research you put into this site Rowsus. Looking foward to seeing your final starting side in late March.

 

[sven_inc]

You are certainly man-crush worthy mate.

This article has solidified my thinking on a few issues:

Odds on one of if not all of Beams, Danger and maybe others not part of the scope of this article, like Watson, Deledio, Selwood, Priddis, Thompson etc will have worse SC seasons statistically.

I guess the idea that flows on from this, is why are you picking your guns in the first place. I think realistically everyone who picks Ablett and Swan don't do it because they see scope for improvement or value each year. It's output that gets them over the line. I guess for overall team balance, you just don't want too many of them or your overall value for money will be poor.

Like you mentioned with our mate Montagna in the previous thread. Even though he pumped out a mid 120 odd and then dropped a heap to mid 110's, he was still one of the best selections for that year (top 4 was it?).

I can't realistically see any of the above bettering their averages this year, but even if they maintain it, or are within a few points below, does that make them bad selections?

What if the top 5 for overall points and averages next year are:

Ablett 130 (2012 - 138)
Swan 122 (126)
Watson 120 (121)
Beams 119 (123)
Dangerfield 118 (119)

Is the notion of reduced output overrided by the need to have the best of the best every year? Sure none improved, but does that matter if they are still the best as Ablett and Swan show each year? Or should we go against this and purely look for value in every selection? Provided that you can match a predicted point output for those that will drop, is that where the advantage lies?

To follow a slightly different angle, I think that those who did jump to the upper echelons do so for a reason. They have to be good. It'd be very unlikely to do so without some substance behind them as fantasy footballers. Unforseen injuries and role changes aside of course.

Keep up the good work mate!

 

[Nk29]

Odds on one of if not all of Beams, Danger and maybe others not part of the scope of this article, like Watson, Deledio, Selwood, Priddis, Thompson etc will have worse SC seasons statistically.

I can't realistically see any of the above bettering their averages this year, but even if they maintain it, or are within a few points below, does that make them bad selections?

Definitely agree with you on Watson and Thompson, but think that the oter three can still improve. Priddis only has to improve his kick to handball ratio to push his average up 5 ppg, Deledio won't decrease his average unless he starts getting heavy tags, and Selwood still has huge upside as his numbers were slightly down this year (thanks to lack of support from the Geelong mids which will change next year, but still improved his average by 6 ppg, so can still push a 120-125 avg next year.

 

[3rdMonkey]

@Rowsus - You can try Tooserious or FootyWire for stats. Both of them seem to have 2005 stats available. FanFooty only seems to have 2006 onwards.

Was 2005 the first year of Supercoach?

I think 2002 was the first official AFL Dream Team, but there was a precursor comp for at least 2 years prior to that through the AFL's website. And I think the paper version run in the 1990s by The Age newspaper in Melbourne was also called 'Dream Team'.

 

[Rowsus]

@Rowsus - You can try Tooserious or FootyWire for stats. Both of them seem to have 2005 stats available. FanFooty only seems to have 2006 onwards.

Was 2005 the first year of Supercoach?

I think 2002 was the first official AFL Dream Team, but there was a precursor comp for at least 2 years prior to that through the AFL's website. And I think the paper version run in the 1990s by The Age newspaper in Melbourne was also called 'Dream Team'.

Thanks 3rd, they are both sites I visit quite a bit for their stats. For some reason none of them have Abletts 2005 SC stats. I'm guessing they all copied the same source, and that source was missing them. Too Serious is good, but has more errors than Footywire (for example, they only have JPK's first 9 games listed in 2012!). If you dig, you can find 2005 in FanFooty, but once again, no Ablett 2005!

Yes, 2005 was the first year, never played any of the DT's, so can't tell you much about them.

 

[Rowsus]

the amount of time you blokes put in to your research for the benefit of others amazes me.
You should be hired to write your own version of sc prospectus each year and make some coin out of it lol.
Great read as always, thank you

Amazed at the time, effort and research you put into this site Rowsus. Looking foward to seeing your final starting side in late March.

Thanks guys. I'm a maths geek, that loves crunching numbers, and doing stats. It's worth it when people appreciate it.

 

[Rowsus]

You are certainly man-crush worthy mate.

This article has solidified my thinking on a few issues:

Odds on one of if not all of Beams, Danger and maybe others not part of the scope of this article, like Watson, Deledio, Selwood, Priddis, Thompson etc will have worse SC seasons statistically.

I guess the idea that flows on from this, is why are you picking your guns in the first place. I think realistically everyone who picks Ablett and Swan don't do it because they see scope for improvement or value each year. It's output that gets them over the line. I guess for overall team balance, you just don't want too many of them or your overall value for money will be poor.

Like you mentioned with our mate Montagna in the previous thread. Even though he pumped out a mid 120 odd and then dropped a heap to mid 110's, he was still one of the best selections for that year (top 4 was it?).

I can't realistically see any of the above bettering their averages this year, but even if they maintain it, or are within a few points below, does that make them bad selections?

What if the top 5 for overall points and averages next year are:

Ablett 130 (2012 - 138)
Swan 122 (126)
Watson 120 (121)
Beams 119 (123)
Dangerfield 118 (119)

Is the notion of reduced output overrided by the need to have the best of the best every year? Sure none improved, but does that matter if they are still the best as Ablett and Swan show each year? Or should we go against this and purely look for value in every selection? Provided that you can match a predicted point output for those that will drop, is that where the advantage lies?

To follow a slightly different angle, I think that those who did jump to the upper echelons do so for a reason. They have to be good. It'd be very unlikely to do so without some substance behind them as fantasy footballers. Unforseen injuries and role changes aside of course.

Keep up the good work mate!

I see your point, and certainly agree output overrides value..... to a certain extent.
Add Pendlebury into your list of 5 players, and I say every team should probably start with 2 of those 6, maybe 3 at a pinch. I know the game is about points, and not dollars, but there is a direct relationship between the two. The best teams, are also the teams that grow in value the quickest. If you have too many of those 6 in your team, too early, your team value is suffering with your biggest investments dropping in value. Keep in mind, a player that scores at last years average will slowly drop around 10% for the season. It is why I harp on value a little. Just imagine comparing these 2 teams. Team A goes top heavy and spends $3.5m on 6 top heavy players that will slowly reduce in value, and $6.5m on players that overall increase by say 15% early on. Team B spends $1.2m on 2 top heavy players, and $8.8m on players that increase by 15% early on. Let's give the the top heavy players a 5% loss, and guess we are talking about round 6 or 7.
Team A: ($3.5m*.95)+($6.5m*1.15) = value now $10.8m
Team B: ($1.5m*.95)+($8.5m*1.15) = value now $11.2m
Keep in mind points produce dollars, and dollars are used to produce points. It is a cycle that every team needs. With the extra $400k produced, Team B has made improvements quicker than Team A. Yes, you may say he needs to make improvements to match Team A's premiums. My answer to that is, if their non premium cattle are growing at around the same % as each other, you'd be surprised at how little difference there is in their points, BUT Team B's improvement in point scoring will increase quicker, due to more dollars being generated.
My advice is, find a way to figure out which 2 of those 6 will score the best early on (to utilise the Capt loophole), and it may just come down to guessing, and start those 2. Trade the others in when they have a slight drop, or you have the cash. The only downfall on my advice would be, if you chose the wrong 2 to start, and 2 of the others start the season with a bang, before "wilting" to your predicted averages. Their output would still be good, but you might have really payed top dollars for them. One of the keys to success is bringing in the right players at the right time. That means when they represent value on what their output will be after you bring them in. In your scenario, none of them represent value. (Even though I know you don't think/recommend that anyone will start with all 6).
I love the thought put into your responses, sven!

 

[sven_inc]

I see your point, and certainly agree output overrides value..... to a certain extent.
Add Pendlebury into your list of 5 players, and I say every team should probably start with 2 of those 6, maybe 3 at a pinch. I know the game is about points, and not dollars, but there is a direct relationship between the two. The best teams, are also the teams that grow in value the quickest. If you have too many of those 6 in your team, too early, your team value is suffering with your biggest investments dropping in value. Keep in mind, a player that scores at last years average will slowly drop around 10% for the season. It is why I harp on value a little. Just imagine comparing these 2 teams. Team A goes top heavy and spends $3.5m on 6 top heavy players that will slowly reduce in value, and $6.5m on players that overall increase by say 15% early on. Team B spends $1.2m on 2 top heavy players, and $8.8m on players that increase by 15% early on. Let's give the the top heavy players a 5% loss, and guess we are talking about round 6 or 7.
Team A: ($3.5m*.95)+($6.5m*1.15) = value now $10.8m
Team B: ($1.5m*.95)+($8.5m*1.15) = value now $11.2m
Keep in mind points produce dollars, and dollars are used to produce points. It is a cycle that every team needs. With the extra $400k produced, Team B has made improvements quicker than Team A. Yes, you may say he needs to make improvements to match Team A's premiums. My answer to that is, if their non premium cattle are growing at around the same % as each other, you'd be surprised at how little difference there is in their points, BUT Team B's improvement in point scoring will increase quicker, due to more dollars being generated.
My advice is, find a way to figure out which 2 of those 6 will score the best early on (to utilise the Capt loophole), and it may just come down to guessing, and start those 2. Trade the others in when they have a slight drop, or you have the cash. The only downfall on my advice would be, if you chose the wrong 2 to start, and 2 of the others start the season with a bang, before "wilting" to your predicted averages. Their output would still be good, but you might have really payed top dollars for them. One of the keys to success is bringing in the right players at the right time. That means when they represent value on what their output will be after you bring them in. In your scenario, none of them represent value. (Even though I know you don't think/recommend that anyone will start with all 6).
I love the thought put into your responses, sven!

Thanks Rowsus, the deeper pre-season thinking and strategising is one of the things I love about Supercoach! Always trying to unlock the mystery!

I certainly agree with what you say. You can't have too many, but I think there is room for some as long as you are clear as to what their role in your side is.

If I was choosing someone like Watson for example, I'd accept anything from about 117 and up. He would be my Matthew Boyd-style, lock in a 105-120+ each week, no frills, can go big, certainly won't go small, constant within the team. I'd most likely get around what I paid for.

So if that's why someone like him, Beams, Dangerfield etc are there in someone's team, then you can use that consistency to counteract the Stanton's, Shuey's or other "players-with-unknown-potential-upside" that we all strive to find value in for 2013.

Any drop in price is certainly a negative as that is essentially wasted money (money that someone, somewhere has nailed in value no doubt), unless it affords you enough of a balance to choose the right second player.

I'm a big believer that choices come in twos. If you save money somewhere it's irrelevant if you don't make it work for you with someone else due to the salary cap. So if you choose a known safe high scorer, which a lot of these guys could be regardless of fluctuation of averages, then the next choice you make is now safer for it potentially. Therefore may not necessarily be a "bad" choice.

Obviously the ideal is to have all your players improving, but i think the factor of consistency or a slightly more 'known' outcome (even if slightly less than the year before) has to be weighed up against a lower scorer who we attribute value

Its a whole new topic i guess but food for though nonetheless.

 

[BuddyLove]

Absolutely awesome stuff Rowsus - thanks for your hard work!


I think this article shows us a few interesting things

1. Last year there were some incredible performances!
It will be very interesting to see if this trend continues (eg. can 13 players make the same jump this year?) or if 2012 was just a particularly good year for the big improver?

2. Cotchin
The other thing that stands out for me is how impressive Cotchin has been in the past 2 years!!!
In 3 years time when you are doing these stats maybe there will be 3 people excluded after Cotchin has proven himself as one of the all time elite SuperCoachers?????


3. Its ok to chase last years points . . . . . As long as the player you are picking is good enough to be an all time great
After reading this article I don't see anything wrong with picking one of these big improvers this year, you just need to be confident that one day they might be as good as Ablett & Swan.

So have a look at the list of break out players and see if any of them could have the potential to be 'Ablettesque'


Waters
No

Walker T
Beccause of the position he plays I would have to say no but man he is a beast and wouldn't be surprised if he increased his average this year.

Ebert Brad
No

Beams D
I think I rate Beams higher than a lot of people on this site.
Next Ablett? No
Next Swan? Very Possible

Kennedy JP
No, some might disagree but no for me

Dangerfield
Definitely has the potential to become the new 'perma captain' of SC

Tuck
No

Naitanui
Absolutely and if he wasn't injured I would take ANY bet that he will increase his average this year. If Nic Nat was injury free I would predict 130 this year
and I have no doubt that he will average over 140 during his carear.

Maric I
No

Jack
No

McLean
No

Sidebottom
No

Selwood S
No, but still like him as a selection this year.