Hi Rowsus
I know this question gets thrown around occasionally but was just looking for a bit of statistical thinking behind a structural decision.
In my midfield I have... Premium, Premium Premium, A, B, C, 200K Rookie, 200K Rookie. I am considering taking a slightly conservative approach with my starting midfielders and selecting players I personally believe have bigger roles to play in their own teams than their SC price suggest (i.e Van Berlo). SO I know some people will have issues with potentially too many 200K rookies - but that's ok if we can overlook that for the purposes of this discussion!
I have $970,000 and basically two options in my head.
A: Premium (Sloane or similar)
B: 200K rookie
C: Rookie (Jed Anderson / Heeney / whoever looks to be the best non-selected Rookie come round 1)
Or
A: Wells
B: another mid pricer (350K roughly)
C: 250K rookie (roughly)
Apart from the discussing about how many mid pricers you should have (esp in the midfield) and in the knowledge that I can select another KEEPER by taking option 1 (Sloane for example) how would I be best to evaluate the two methods in hypotheticals. I.E If I nail my mid pricers and they can average above 90 ppg (or even 100) vs saving a potential trade but having the lower base from which to fatten a cash cow.
Points v $$$ is an obvious comparison but Just wondering if we assign some points to players like these how would we evaluate this comparison.
Sorry for length of question - hope it is clear!
Hi JT,
I think the best way to assess this situation is assign to expectations to each selection. Keep in mind, my number 1 rule is, have reasonable expectations! When looking at Rookies, I think we should be looking at $200k worth of growth. Not many hit it or better it, but it's what you should hope for.
In the first option, you are probably looking at:
Sloane-like Prem 114
$200k Rookie 80
Anderson/Heeney 70
This produces 264 pts/week, and $400k in dollars. It will require 4 trades to get to 3 keepers (ie 1 up, 1 down for each)
The second option:
Wells - very subjective, some people will give 80 for this seasom, others 100, let's say 95.
$350k Midprice - very subjective again. Averaged 65 last season, maybe you're hoping for 90 this season.
$250k Rookie 90
This produces 275 pts/week, and $115k + $100k + $200k = $415k, and might require 5 trades, with luck, to get to 3 Keepers.
Now, under the figures I've used there, you gain 11 pts/week, and $15k using option 2 over the other scenario, but use 1 more trade to finalise your team. In my mind it makes it close to a line-ball, but option 1 just wins. I rate a trade early or mid season worth more than 120 points and $15k. You of course may have completely different expectations to mine, and I actually haven't used my expectations, just guesses at what you might be thinking. To use the extra trade, like in scenario 2, I think I'd want a 200 point advantage, or a 150 points and $50k. A general rule of thumb is, the more trades you lock yourself into, in your initial set up, the more likely things are to go wrong. If plan A and plan B look like a real coin toss, take the one involving less trades, everytime!
What you need to do to decide, is plug your expectations in, and come up with the bottom line scenario, similar to what I did. Wells is a real interesting one. Can score well against top and bottom teams alike, but can just throw in some real low scores, too. I guess if you go with him, and you think he can average 95 - 100 for the season, you jump off as soon as his price out measures his/your expectation. I wouldn't even wait for a high B/E with him. He might go hot, jump in price, and have a B/E of 60, and not meet it. He's a "take the profit and run while it's still there" proposition in my mind. Remember, if he throws in that 60, it mightn't cost you dollars, but the score will leave a sour taste in your mouth, and his new B/E will force you to trade the next week anyway!
