Opinion Rate My Team (Team Picker Only)

[freowho]

I was just looking at the analysis by frewho of the 2015 and 2013 winners. Last years winner only had 13 keepers to begin with and DimmaWit in 2013 started with 14 keepers. I've always been of the belief that the more keepers you begin with the less trades required to complete my team. It's really got me thinking about whether this is the prudent approach, and in so doing taking away decisions like forcing in Wines and having Bird. Perhaps it's better to go Premium and rookie. Of interest is that they both started with a 5 Premium midfield and light on in defence.

Here's the nub of my thinking - what value does your SC team have to attain to be fully upgraded using some measures that are found in KLo30 and Rowsus's threads? .

A parting scenario, remember Wells $243K had to score at 85 to meet our minimum threshold after round 8 and a low rookie 60. Do you take Wells expecting 85 or a low rookie (actually you could get two for the price of one) expecting 60-62? One outperforms that average by 10, 15 or 20 points, who is the more likely? How do you use the $120K differential?

Obviously the more points the more cash generated for your bench, but anything on field should be set to an exceedingly high standard - one which we probably need to be certain of before selecting a mid pricer AND the cheaper rookies.

I've always looked for "value" but I don't think I've completely understood it and it is this lack of understanding that has meant I've missed out on the quality players.

For example, lets say I think Pendles will average what he is priced at, 116, and I think Selwood will increase his average from 105 to 110. I would have said that Selwood is better value because he is cheaper and increases his average. But I now see that this "value" only has a short life. So if supercoach went for 7 rounds you would pick Selwood. If supercoach went for 14 rounds it wouldn't matter because Pendles better average would negate Selwood's better value. But because we pick a premium hoping they will play 20+ games the higher averaging player eventually becomes better value.
Another example is where I thought paying $50k less for a player after round 6 was saving me money but I'm getting that players average for 6 less rounds than if I had started with them.
I also like KLo30's quote that a player expected to score at 60 can easily score 15-20 points more but a mid pricer expected to score at 90 is unlikely to score 15-20 points more. Who would have thought Saad and Oxley would be our best cash cows last year.
I guess the art, or the maths, is in knowing how much life a player's value has?

 

[siwel]

I was just looking at the analysis by frewho of the 2015 and 2013 winners. Last years winner only had 13 keepers to begin with and DimmaWit in 2013 started with 14 keepers. I've always been of the belief that the more keepers you begin with the less trades required to complete my team. It's really got me thinking about whether this is the prudent approach, and in so doing taking away decisions like forcing in Wines and having Bird. Perhaps it's better to go Premium and rookie. Of interest is that they both started with a 5 Premium midfield and light on in defence.

Yep its interesting indeed. I guess 14 solid keepers and the ability to get any rookie named is limiting the risk of failure with mid price and unproven premiums.

I've always looked for "value" but I don't think I've completely understood it and it is this lack of understanding that has meant I've missed out on the quality players.

For example, lets say I think Pendles will average what he is priced at, 116, and I think Selwood will increase his average from 105 to 110. I would have said that Selwood is better value because he is cheaper and increases his average. But I now see that this "value" only has a short life. So if supercoach went for 7 rounds you would pick Selwood. If supercoach went for 14 rounds it wouldn't matter because Pendles better average would negate Selwood's better value. But because we pick a premium hoping they will play 20+ games the higher averaging player eventually becomes better value.
Another example is where I thought paying $50k less for a player after round 6 was saving me money but I'm getting that players average for 6 less rounds than if I had started with them.
I also like KLo30's quote that a player expected to score at 60 can easily score 15-20 points more but a mid pricer expected to score at 90 is unlikely to score 15-20 points more. Who would have thought Saad and Oxley would be our best cash cows last year.
I guess the art, or the maths, is in knowing how much life a player's value has?

GUNS GUNS GUNS and ROOKIES it is then
5 prem guns and rookies, light on in Def (hopefully find some "value"), quality rucks and some forwards

 

[Darkie]

I've always looked for "value" but I don't think I've completely understood it and it is this lack of understanding that has meant I've missed out on the quality players.

For example, lets say I think Pendles will average what he is priced at, 116, and I think Selwood will increase his average from 105 to 110. I would have said that Selwood is better value because he is cheaper and increases his average. But I now see that this "value" only has a short life. So if supercoach went for 7 rounds you would pick Selwood. If supercoach went for 14 rounds it wouldn't matter because Pendles better average would negate Selwood's better value. But because we pick a premium hoping they will play 20+ games the higher averaging player eventually becomes better value.
Another example is where I thought paying $50k less for a player after round 6 was saving me money but I'm getting that players average for 6 less rounds than if I had started with them.
I also like KLo30's quote that a player expected to score at 60 can easily score 15-20 points more but a mid pricer expected to score at 90 is unlikely to score 15-20 points more. Who would have thought Saad and Oxley would be our best cash cows last year.
I guess the art, or the maths, is in knowing how much life a player's value has?

I agree with most of your post Freo, but perhaps not the conclusion, so I suspect I am missing something - perhaps you can clarify?

In your example, the loose change should generate you 11ppg for the whole of the season, so Selwood + 11 is still scoring more than Pendles, even in round 22. Both are likely to be players you ultimately want (110 is a mid keeper level) so in your example I would have thought Selwood is a good candidate for your starting side, with Pendles an okay starting choice, but probably more of an upgrade target.

On the other hand, if Selwood was priced at 85 and you thought he would average 90, he might be an asset upfront (because of his cheapness) but a liability later (because you won't win with a team of mids scoring 90), and a poor choice overall because the latter more than o***ets.

Essentially if you have a team full of value picks, you will struggle to use your full budget constraint - the cash ultimately needs to be used somewhere to be of value! - so you ultimately want top averaging players at a good-to-fair price, not just-okay scorers at a great price.

Have I understood you correctly, or potentially missed the point?

 

[Manikato1]

A parting scenario, remember Wells $243K had to score at 85 to meet our minimum threshold after round 8 and a low rookie 60. Do you take Wells expecting 85 or a low rookie (actually you could get two for the price of one) expecting 60-62? One outperforms that average by 10, 15 or 20 points, who is the more likely? How do you use the $120K differential?

What I have found in the Wells vs Rookie scenario is that rookies appear in the NAB Cup and hopefully continue on. If they don't you can always do a correctional trade before Rd 3 to pick up the one you missed. The attachment you have to a selection like Wells makes it harder to trade him out. People are always telling you "back your judgement" and remember Newnes in 2015 etc. The maths speak for themselves but managing your expectations can be much tougher.

 

[freowho]

I agree with most of your post Freo, but perhaps not the conclusion, so I suspect I am missing something - perhaps you can clarify?

In your example, the loose change should generate you 11ppg for the whole of the season, so Selwood + 11 is still scoring more than Pendles, even in round 22. Both are likely to be players you ultimately want (110 is a mid keeper level) so in your example I would have thought Selwood is a good candidate for your starting side, with Pendles an okay starting choice, but probably more of an upgrade target.

On the other hand, if Selwood was priced at 85 and you thought he would average 90, he might be an asset upfront (because of his cheapness) but a liability later (because you won't win with a team of mids scoring 90), and a poor choice overall because the latter more than o***ets.

Essentially if you have a team full of value picks, you will struggle to use your full budget constraint - the cash ultimately needs to be used somewhere to be of value! - so you ultimately want top averaging players at a good-to-fair price, not just-okay scorers at a great price.

Have I understood you correctly, or potentially missed the point?

Yep. I wasn't suggesting Selwood is a bad pick. I was trying to use a comparison where the value factor can get blurred. My focus on value has been too short term.

 

[Darkie]

Yep. I wasn't suggesting Selwood is a bad pick. I was trying to use a comparison where the value factor can get blurred. My focus on value has been too short term.

Thanks Freo - that makes sense. It's a fine balance. I also tend to focus strongly on value, although as a cross-check, ensure that I have a good number of the players I expect to be top scorers in their line. So long as you do both steps, I think either order is fine. The Predictions thread is probably a reasonable way of doing this (and assessing whether your predictions might be unusually rosy for the players you have picked).

http://www.supercoachscores.com/threads/2793-2016-Predictions-Top-Averaging-Players-Positions/page2

I thought your analysis of the 2015 and 2013 winners was interesting. One thing I noticed is that in the bottom table (ordered by price), the two winners were both seemingly more willing to invest in very top-end talent than you were (by about 50k per player for the first five slots). I suspect it would have been similar if you'd compared my team. So long as these big investments work out, I guess it's fine, although I have guarded pretty aggressively against the risk of them failing, particularly outside of captain's picks and very proven players (who have tended to be the same group for the most part ). It's something I am still weighing up.

 

[Enderling]

Keep saying no more till NAB starts....
View attachment 705

Starting to think trying to squeeze 6 in the midfield is my problem.
Having Wines at m6 meant Shaw>KK (Thinking Shaw must get more attention this year), having Bird as my F4 (which i don't mind tbh as it was Green before who the juries still out on) and Priddis>Shiel.
Is squeezing Wines in @ m6 loosing me points is the question.
In a perfect world i count 15 hopefully keeperish scores + bird who could hopefully av 80ish and 6 rookies on field.
Thoughts appreciated.

I like most of the players in this team (particularly the BACKS) but feel having 5 premium MIDS plus Libba is a bit too much... this line is where we generate most of our cash so I'd be keen for a 5-0-6 structure.
I know Libba seems like great value but I'm not so sure he'll reach keeper level (110 for MIDS). I guess many think he'll be a stepping stone but I would be wary of falling in to the trap of thinking 'he's averaging 100 and I have other problems to deal with' and then he stays in your team all year so I will be pure GnR in the MIDS.
Good luck.

 

[Enderling]

Here's my current team:

DEF: J. McVeigh, J. Bartel, E. Yeo, B. Smith, M. Brown, C. Byrne (R. Bonner, M. Brown)
MID: P. Dangerfield, S. Pendlebury, G. Ablett jnr, J. Kennedy, T. Rockliff, C. Mills, J. Trengove, C. Petracca (M. Hibberd, R. Mathieson, S. Menegola)
RUC: S. Martin, M. Leuenberger (T. Read)
FWD: D. Martin, L. Dahlhaus, M. Barlow, P. Ryder, B. Kennedy, S. Kerridge (L. Lowden, M. Allen)
CASH LEFT: $58,200

Obviously rookies are TBD.

A couple of (hopefully) reliable old guys up BACK with two other young 'keepers' that I feel have good upside
I like a GnR approach in the MIDS and have gone without Libba... Danger might be a POD.
I'd love to have Goldy but can't justify his price. I think Martin will be a top 3 ruck and I have to pray that Leuy will stay fit (and score decently!) to allow me to grab Goldy at some stage. Also have back up with Ryder in the FWD.
I'm most undecided on the FWD line. Will definitely take Martin if he isn't suspended and Barlow at that price but feel I need RUCK insurance with Ryder... Dalhaus may change as I am concerned about the return of Libba on his mid time.

Thoughts appreciated.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

Here's my current team:

DEF: J. McVeigh, J. Bartel, E. Yeo, B. Smith, M. Brown, C. Byrne (R. Bonner, M. Brown)
MID: P. Dangerfield, S. Pendlebury, G. Ablett jnr, J. Kennedy, T. Rockliff, C. Mills, J. Trengove, C. Petracca (M. Hibberd, R. Mathieson, S. Menegola)
RUC: S. Martin, M. Leuenberger (T. Read)
FWD: D. Martin, L. Dahlhaus, M. Barlow, P. Ryder, B. Kennedy, S. Kerridge (L. Lowden, M. Allen)
CASH LEFT: $58,200

Obviously rookies are TBD.

A couple of (hopefully) reliable old guys up BACK with two other young 'keepers' that I feel have good upside
I like a GnR approach in the MIDS and have gone without Libba... Danger might be a POD.
I'd love to have Goldy but can't justify his price. I think Martin will be a top 3 ruck and I have to pray that Leuy will stay fit (and score decently!) to allow me to grab Goldy at some stage. Also have back up with Ryder in the FWD.
I'm most undecided on the FWD line. Will definitely take Martin if he isn't suspended and Barlow at that price but feel I need RUCK insurance with Ryder... Dalhaus may change as I am concerned about the return of Libba on his mid time.

Thoughts appreciated.

Overall I quite like your selected team and your approach, however I'm a bit concerned with the selection of both Berger and Ryder in the same team. I'm not sure if I can adequately explain my concern, but I think it comes down to having 2 NQR rucks in your team. I'm not sure what you expect each to average but I wouldn't think either would go over 95 (and they may be lucky to do that). I feel like you have carefully avoided a Libba trap in the mids and replaced it with a more expensive Ryder trap in the Fwd line. I may be way off the mark, but it's the first thing I thought of when I saw your team. For what it's worth, I quite like Berger as a backup ruck at F4 but he concerns me at R2.

I also share your concern re Dahl. It will be interesting to see how he goes.

 

[Enderling]

Thanks RB,

This really comes down to the conundrum a lot of us are having... we all want Goldy but are baulking at his starting price. If we go for two other premium rucks, such as a Martin/Jacobs combo, then we will probably keep them for the year and not have Goldy at all. At his price, I think Leuy is the only realistic stepping stone to get Goldy. But as I said earlier, I don't have a lot of faith in Leuy staying on the park which therefore leads me to taking a back-up F/R at F4... perhaps someone other than Ryder... Tippet? Or bite the bullet and go in without a back-up for Leuy?

Lots to ponder.

 

[yakka]

Thanks RB,

This really comes down to the conundrum a lot of us are having... we all want Goldy but are baulking at his starting price. If we go for two other premium rucks, such as a Martin/Jacobs combo, then we will probably keep them for the year and not have Goldy at all. At his price, I think Leuy is the only realistic stepping stone to get Goldy. But as I said earlier, I don't have a lot of faith in Leuy staying on the park which therefore leads me to taking a back-up F/R at F4... perhaps someone other than Ryder... Tippet? Or bite the bullet and go in without a back-up for Leuy?

What about Leuy at F4, duel pozzy rookie ruck F/R.
Then you might be able to get a ruck combo that you are happy with..

 

[toxic]

109K left over

interested in others thoughts

Def:
Mc Veigh, KK, Brodie Smith, Aish, Brown, Brown, Wagner Byrne
Mids:
GAJ, Pendles, Rocky, Gray, Parker, Libba, BCrouch, Petracca, Gore, Dunkley, Blakeley
Rucks:
Sandi, Sauce, Cox
Fwds:
Dusty, Harley, Looney, Jed Anderson, JLyons, Kerridge, SYarran, Pickett

rookies are purely place holders and with 100K left over i have plenty of adjustment capability

thoughts?

 

[IDIG]

109K left over

interested in others thoughts

Def:
Mc Veigh, KK, Brodie Smith, Aish, Brown, Brown, Wagner Byrne
Mids:
GAJ, Pendles, Rocky, Gray, Parker, Libba, BCrouch, Petracca, Gore, Dunkley, Blakeley
Rucks:
Sandi, Sauce, Cox
Fwds:
Dusty, Harley, Looney, Jed Anderson, JLyons, Kerridge, SYarran, Pickett

rookies are purely place holders and with 100K left over i have plenty of adjustment capability

thoughts?

First thing that catches my eye is your ruck choices. Both more than capable of going top 2 and if history is anything to go by, the top 2 generally aren't the same year to year so could be a masterstroke. Of course, there is a flipside to that coin and backing both to make the jump could mean you're stuck with a negative POD vs Goldy/Martin/NN and co. I guess it's the same for everyone and for those who start Goldy/Stef you are 100-200k ahead should they all average the same.

I've read mixed reports on Aish but i guess we'll know come round 1. All in all, i like the team structure which i think will be popular throughout the serious coaches. A touch light down forward but i'm considering something similar myself.

 

[toxic]

First thing that catches my eye is your ruck choices. Both more than capable of going top 2 and if history is anything to go by, the top 2 generally aren't the same year to year so could be a masterstroke. Of course, there is a flipside to that coin and backing both to make the jump could mean you're stuck with a negative POD vs Goldy/Martin/NN and co. I guess it's the same for everyone and for those who start Goldy/Stef you are 100-200k ahead should they all average the same.

I've read mixed reports on Aish but i guess we'll know come round 1. All in all, i like the team structure which i think will be popular throughout the serious coaches. A touch light down forward but i'm considering something similar myself.

Cheers

Aish could also become Sheridan from Freo who I'm hearing / reading very good things about

 

[HawksForever]

I think I've settled on this side leading into the NAB cup. Feel free to rip it to shreds.

D: Birchall, Yeo, Smith, Malceski, Otten, Brown, (Brown, Byrne)
M: Pendles, GAJ, Rockliff, Wines, Liberatore, Hartung, Crouch B, Petracca, (Jansen, Freeman, Mathieson)
R: Martin, McEvoy, (Loersch)
F: Deledio, Bennell, Franklin, Ryder, Wells, Anderson, (Kerridge, Sumner)

Really not convinced with my McEvoy pick but think he'll get more of the action with Hale getting the boot and plan to turn him into Goldy at some point.

 

[aj74]

Someone was asking about our expectations of Aish a couple of pages back and since he has become topical again, I may as well weigh in on the discussion

The Pies were pretty keen to get him to the club. We paid 2 2nd round picks for him as well as downgrading ourselves 6 or so spots in 3 of our rounds. This is a fair bit to pay when you consider that we'd already parted with 2 first rounders for Treloar and any benefit to losing BenKen and Seedsman had been spent on Howe.

This all tells me that we have big plans for the kid. He mightn' be the fastest on 2 legs, but he still provides us with some much needed run and carry and is one of the few in our team who can deliver adequately by foot. In fact he's can be quite damaging. Cracked his jaw in one match last year and played out the game. As long as he stays on the right side of the coach, he will play.

As to how he'll score, well that's another question. His first year had him playing 21 games at 71, with 2 sub affected scores. Seemed to like scoring between 60 and 80 with a couple of decent tons (144 vs StK and 120 vs Nth) for good measure. Played well against Sydney, Freo and Geelong (including 89 and 90 against the last 2 in the final rounds of the season, he played 21) telling us that he had a decent natural tank and can score ok against quality opposition. Backing up from 2 senior SANFL premierships, the kid can clearly play.

His 2nd year was a worry. 11 games (2 as sub) for a 51 average. 5 games under 50 points.

Now it could be 2nd year blues. It could have been disenchantment at the club he was at. Could be that other teams were putting more work into him, even if he was a long way back in the pecking order up there. But what is highly unlikely is that he's forgotten how to play footy. At the very least, I'd expect a return to the 70+ average. With a more stable club that is on the up I'd back him in to improve on his first year. He will also have guys like Langdon, Varcoe, Sidebottom and probably Pendlebury hanging around the HBF taking some of the forward defensive heat away from him. If he's playing on the wing, then he will be kicking to marking targets like Cloke, Howe, Elliott and Swan, all of whom are odds on to take the mark and give him a score assist, provided we aren't talking about Cloke from 20 out dead in front.

Even in his **** year, he's been good for high teens - low 20 possessions and he uses them well. In a team that is heading back into the 8 this year (I think) he should be good for 20 games at 80+. For 275k down back, that's fine to open with, since it's on that line that we keep seeing donuts or sub 50 scores from defender rookies. He can be either last upgraded and/or, due to his DPP, used as a sub on two lines. This usefulness is compounded by him playing Sunday or later 6 times (and twice on Saturday night) before round 13, at least helping give cover if your (e) loophole has failed.

He was one of my first picked, even at his very awkward price. If he does poorly in nab though I'll be very tempted to look elsewhere

 

[aj74]

I think I've settled on this side leading into the NAB cup. Feel free to rip it to shreds.

D: Birchall, Yeo, Smith, Malceski, Otten, Brown, (Brown, Byrne)
M: Pendles, GAJ, Rockliff, Wines, Liberatore, Hartung, Crouch B, Petracca, (Jansen, Freeman, Mathieson)
R: Martin, McEvoy, (Loersch)
F: Deledio, Bennell, Franklin, Ryder, Wells, Anderson, (Kerridge, Sumner)

Really not convinced with my McEvoy pick but think he'll get more of the action with Hale getting the boot and plan to turn him into Goldy at some point.

Birchall? I looked at him early on in the piece but was burned by him a couple of years back. What's you view on his risk?

 

[jaca]

This is where i'm at now:

D: Bartel, Yeo, Smith + 5 x Rookies
M: Fyfe, GAJ, Pendles, Rocky, Selwood, Libba + 6 x Rookies
R: Martin, NicNat + 1 Rook
F: Lids, Martin, Dahlhaus, Franklin/Barlow + 4 x Rookies

All being well, that's 15 keepers. My concern is that going deep in mids means i leave fwd/defs as less of a lock - BUT these are areas that i can never get right from the outset anyway. Would lvoe Goldy, may squeeze him in if enough fwd rookies present themselves or look to take a mid-pricer.

There are a few "lock" rookies, but I'll wait til NAB Cup to fill them in.

Edit: hadn't realised Fyfye was in trouble. Might go for Danger instead?

 

[BC]

I like most of the players in this team (particularly the BACKS) but feel having 5 premium MIDS plus Libba is a bit too much... this line is where we generate most of our cash so I'd be keen for a 5-0-6 structure.
I know Libba seems like great value but I'm not so sure he'll reach keeper level (110 for MIDS). I guess many think he'll be a stepping stone but I would be wary of falling in to the trap of thinking 'he's averaging 100 and I have other problems to deal with' and then he stays in your team all year so I will be pure GnR in the MIDS.
Good luck.

Blesses with a few nice mid/fwd rookies this year

 

[Darkie]

I think I've settled on this side leading into the NAB cup. Feel free to rip it to shreds.

D: Birchall, Yeo, Smith, Malceski, Otten, Brown, (Brown, Byrne)
M: Pendles, GAJ, Rockliff, Wines, Liberatore, Hartung, Crouch B, Petracca, (Jansen, Freeman, Mathieson)
R: Martin, McEvoy, (Loersch)
F: Deledio, Bennell, Franklin, Ryder, Wells, Anderson, (Kerridge, Sumner)

Really not convinced with my McEvoy pick but think he'll get more of the action with Hale getting the boot and plan to turn him into Goldy at some point.

Hi HF, interesting team. Your mids look really strong, and your forwards quite deep. Your defs are a bit riskier, but that's probably the spot to go risky.

One thing I noticed is that the Hawks connections appear to run deep in your side. I'd just be wary that you're not favouring these players to the detriment of your side. If you're using deeper knowledge of these players to your advantage, that's obviously a different story ... Perhaps only you can judge!

On the Hawks' ruck changes, what impact do you expect those to have on Roughy's role/SC scoring? He's a name I have been considering, and I note you are open to big men in the forward line, so he might be a more proven and reliable option than a Bennell or a Ryder.