Opinion SC Gold - Most Popular Players
- Thread starter PC
- Start date
Nathan has T Mitchell in the 2% mids and TBO has S Mitchell
Would have thought Titchell would have been more than 2% but if correct I am not unhappy as I have him under consideration at the moment.
Would have thought Titchell would have been more than 2% but if correct I am not unhappy as I have him under consideration at the moment.
T. Mitchell: 1.9%
S. Mitchell: 2.8%
I just rounded them down to the lower % rank. Seriously, whether they're 1% or 2% ... they're still pretty damn unpopular
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 19,074
- Likes
- 80,339
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Current top 10 aside from rookie priced players as at 17/02/16
Player, ownership, position last week
1. Liberatore (55.41%) (1)
2. Ablett (49.06%) (2)
3. D Martin (40.65%) (3)
4. Rockliff (37.62%) (4)
5. Wells (29.42%) (New entry)
6. Lobbe (27.23%) (6)
7. O'Meara (26.66%) (5)
8. B Crouch (26.47%) (7)
9. Pendlebury (26.11%) (8)
10. Dangerfield (25.09%) (9)
So not a whole lot happening over the last week except for a huge increase in % ownership for Wells on the back of his impressive intraclub performance.
Player, ownership, position last week
1. Liberatore (55.41%) (1)
2. Ablett (49.06%) (2)
3. D Martin (40.65%) (3)
4. Rockliff (37.62%) (4)
5. Wells (29.42%) (New entry)
6. Lobbe (27.23%) (6)
7. O'Meara (26.66%) (5)
8. B Crouch (26.47%) (7)
9. Pendlebury (26.11%) (8)
10. Dangerfield (25.09%) (9)
So not a whole lot happening over the last week except for a huge increase in % ownership for Wells on the back of his impressive intraclub performance.
Nice, Ben.
I'm happy with my decision to not have Lobbe, O'Meara and Crouch. I think they're all traps that will cause headaches. The rest are in at the moment bar Pendlebury, as I've shifted back to a 4-0-4 defence and a keeper R2 (downgrading Pendles to Libba). If the DEF rookies appear as I anticipate, I'll potentially find the $$$ to turn Libba in to Pendles again.
I don't think it's necessary to start Libba, even if more than half of the teams have him. He won't be a keeper. It's a reach to think he'll score well enough for M8/9 too, I think.
Hawthorn type distribution of SC scores has already begun to feature at the kennel. Of course Libba has to be injected back in to that, and in 2017 he'll probably be their best again, but I'm thinking 98-102 for him this year.
I'm happy with my decision to not have Lobbe, O'Meara and Crouch. I think they're all traps that will cause headaches. The rest are in at the moment bar Pendlebury, as I've shifted back to a 4-0-4 defence and a keeper R2 (downgrading Pendles to Libba). If the DEF rookies appear as I anticipate, I'll potentially find the $$$ to turn Libba in to Pendles again.
I don't think it's necessary to start Libba, even if more than half of the teams have him. He won't be a keeper. It's a reach to think he'll score well enough for M8/9 too, I think.
Hawthorn type distribution of SC scores has already begun to feature at the kennel. Of course Libba has to be injected back in to that, and in 2017 he'll probably be their best again, but I'm thinking 98-102 for him this year.
Not at all mate, they just become nice PODs! The less people that have them, the less people you get to share the rewards with if they go big
I'm personally happy not to see Mumford in the top 10 for that exact reason.
I'm personally happy not to see Mumford in the top 10 for that exact reason.
We all love a POD and when they work, good times. When they don't it can be season destroying.
It's an interesting way of looking at it, but I think you have to factor the trade into it.
Let's assume Pendlebury scores 115 every week, and plays 22 games, and Libba scores 100 every week, and most Coaches trade him out at his bye (Rnd 14). Just to make it interesting, and keep things even, let's even pretend that they trade in Pendlebury, when they trade out Libba.
Rnds 1- 12, the Pendlebury owners get a 180 point head start over the Libba owners, minus the improvement the Libba owners made with the $269,900 Loose Change. The Libba owners then use a trade and $75k to turn Libba into Pendles at Round 14.
So the equation we are looking at is, do you want:
180 points + 1 trade + $75k
or
12-13 Rounds of the improvement the $269,900 brought?
Unless the $269,900 is used to upgrade a player to a genuine Keeper, thus saving a trade. Most might assume that is does, but practice might prove otherwise. While in theory the $269,900 should bring in 50/week, in practice it is more likely to pull in 30/week. That reduces the equation to something like, do you want:
1 trade + $75k
or
180-210 points?
I think most would choose the trade + $75k.
So just like the Goldstein conundrum, I would only be starting Libba over Pendles, if I was confident the Loose Change was saving me a trade somewhere else.
Let's assume Pendlebury scores 115 every week, and plays 22 games, and Libba scores 100 every week, and most Coaches trade him out at his bye (Rnd 14). Just to make it interesting, and keep things even, let's even pretend that they trade in Pendlebury, when they trade out Libba.
Rnds 1- 12, the Pendlebury owners get a 180 point head start over the Libba owners, minus the improvement the Libba owners made with the $269,900 Loose Change. The Libba owners then use a trade and $75k to turn Libba into Pendles at Round 14.
So the equation we are looking at is, do you want:
180 points + 1 trade + $75k
or
12-13 Rounds of the improvement the $269,900 brought?
Unless the $269,900 is used to upgrade a player to a genuine Keeper, thus saving a trade. Most might assume that is does, but practice might prove otherwise. While in theory the $269,900 should bring in 50/week, in practice it is more likely to pull in 30/week. That reduces the equation to something like, do you want:
1 trade + $75k
or
180-210 points?
I think most would choose the trade + $75k.
So just like the Goldstein conundrum, I would only be starting Libba over Pendles, if I was confident the Loose Change was saving me a trade somewhere else.
