How far is too far to be the 2013 SuperCoach Winner?

[Impromptu]

I know it's only round one, which has yet to be completed, but I can already see the discussions on How far is too far to be the 2013 SuperCoach Winner?

For me, SuperCoach 2013 added a few new flavours, ie changes and thus I believe the 2013 SuperCoach Winner can come from very far away from the overall leader at any given round, especially before the Bye.

The new SuperCoach rules, about with 10 midfielders, 8 defenders and 8 forwards adds a new dimension and there will be more PODs. The Rolling Lock-out and the Multi-Bye Rounds with the Top 18 Rule also brings some other elements to the equation..

It's hard to predict on how far is too far, but you may want to have a look at the tables below and compare my year with ChewyLizard's year and then add the new SuperCoach rules in 2013 to work this out.

Chewylizard's Team (2012)

Impromptu's Team (2011)

mutleyblue's Team (2010)

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500, align: left"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]

Round​

[/TD]
[TD]

Points​

[/TD]
[TD]

Overall​

[/TD]
[TD]

Trades​

[/TD]
[TD]

Balance​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

1​

[/TD]
[TD]

2355​

[/TD]
[TD]

3192​

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]

20​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[TD]

2274​

[/TD]
[TD]

2520​

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]

20​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

3​

[/TD]
[TD]

2430​

[/TD]
[TD]

141​

[/TD]
[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[TD]

18​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

4​

[/TD]
[TD]

2137​

[/TD]
[TD]

249​

[/TD]
[TD]

1​

[/TD]
[TD]

17​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

5​

[/TD]
[TD]

2282​

[/TD]
[TD]

253​

[/TD]
[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[TD]

15​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

6​

[/TD]
[TD]

2250​

[/TD]
[TD]

127​

[/TD]
[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[TD]

13​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

7​

[/TD]
[TD]

2334​

[/TD]
[TD]

141​

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]

13​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

8​

[/TD]
[TD]

2372​

[/TD]
[TD]

82​

[/TD]
[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[TD]

11​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

9​

[/TD]
[TD]

2279​

[/TD]
[TD]

54​

[/TD]
[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[TD]

9​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

10​

[/TD]
[TD]

2280​

[/TD]
[TD]

50​

[/TD]
[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[TD]

7​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

11​

[/TD]
[TD]

2523​

[/TD]
[TD]

32​

[/TD]
[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[TD]

5​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

12​

[/TD]
[TD]

2573​

[/TD]
[TD]

13​

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]

5​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

13​

[/TD]
[TD]

2583​

[/TD]
[TD]

7​

[/TD]
[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[TD]

3​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

14​

[/TD]
[TD]

2446​

[/TD]
[TD]

7​

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]

3​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

15​

[/TD]
[TD]

2388​

[/TD]
[TD]

5​

[/TD]
[TD]

1​

[/TD]
[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

16​

[/TD]
[TD]

2106​

[/TD]
[TD]

4​

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

17​

[/TD]
[TD]

2262​

[/TD]
[TD]

5​

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

18​

[/TD]
[TD]

2189​

[/TD]
[TD]

4​

[/TD]
[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

19​

[/TD]
[TD]

2288​

[/TD]
[TD]

2​

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

20​

[/TD]
[TD]

2512​

[/TD]
[TD]

1​

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

21​

[/TD]
[TD]

2343​

[/TD]
[TD]

1​

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

22​

[/TD]
[TD]

2326​

[/TD]
[TD]

1​

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD]

20​

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

 

[Impromptu]

The majority from this site picked ChewyLizard to be the winner 6 weeks out: Analysis of the Overall Leaders.

 

[aj74]

Wow... only 6 times in the top 1,000 for you and 3 times for Chewy.

Good efforts and all but it shows you don't have to dominate the comp every week in order to finish up top.

 

[Rowsus]

Wow... only 6 times in the top 1,000 for you and 3 times for Chewy.

Good efforts and all but it shows you don't have to dominate the comp every week in order to finish up top.

It's an interesting point aj74, and like so many of the subjective things in SC (what's a Premium? etc) it comes down to individual interpretation. Top 1,000 actually represents top 0.27%, or on the flip side, 99.73% of teams are behind you each week. Keep in mind, everybody's teams will have ups and downs, just as player do. I think if you finish consistently in the top 5 - 10% of Coaches in a lot of weeks, you'll go very close to winning.
Not having the exact numbers of entries to hand, I'm going to assume 360,000 in 2012, and 340,000 in 2011 (the game grows each year!). Using those figures, and looking at how Jay and Chewy faired, I think it was a reasonable domination.

[table="width: 500, align: left"]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td]Top[/td]
[td]Top[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td]5%[/td]
[td]10%[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Jay[/td]
[td]17[/td]
[td]21[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Chewy[/td]
[td]17[/td]
[td]20[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Not too many weeks out of the top 5%, and obviously, even less out of the top 10%. Given the ups and downs of scoring in the game, that's dominating. The other way I look at it, and it's only a guess, but if you had 17 weeks in the top 1,000 as opposed to the top 5% (17,000 - 18,000), you would probably win by around 1,400!!! Ahhhhhh, we can all dream of a season like that!

 

[GrainFedBeef]

Thanks Guys

Interesting comparing the two, given ChewyLizard started off poorly in first two rounds whilst Jay was strong early on. Highlights you don't need the perfect team week one, just a very good team with a smart trading style. All trades important, however, week 3-4 critical given all players yet to change pricing.

Remember looking at ChewyLizards trading patterns and from memory the three first trades was one rookie change, one premium change (Montagna i think) and one injured ruckman change (to Maric). Breaks a few of the rule to not trade a premium and one would assume an early injury (particularly in rucks) would cripple your side early (pun intended!).

Gives hope to many of us with the odd smokie not firing.

 

[GrainFedBeef]

One other observation is that its appears in Jay's year of success, because Jay was an early leader many teams were copying him (hence the articles on this site on POD and forcing other to create POD's or mimic). In Chewy's year, as he started behind, it notable there were more POD's in the first half of the season, noted by good relative rounds saw him improve and vice versa. Whereas Jay had the odd poor weekly round and overall position didn't change. Makes sense that Chewy had POD's given he needed these to catch up and that by round 12-14 these differences were down to a few.

Apologies if stating the obvious, just shows the difference in strategies needed depending where you are at round 2.

 

[Termin8er789]

Wow Chewy came storming home and finished the year of extremely strongly

 

[Damoz]

WOW! True example of Michael's win. Round 1 he was 67k, so it's possible to still win from even that rank.

 

[PC]

Thanks for that Jay - interesting stuff. Illustrates and helps me to understand the importance of trading from Round 3 to 14/16.

Struth, a lot of pressure on both of you to sit on top of the pile for so long!

 

[Impromptu]

WOW! True example of Michael's win. Round 1 he was 67k, so it's possible to still win from even that rank.

Yes, but what caught my eye was round 2 he was no better at 64K (well actually was better 3K places).

 

[Damoz]

Yes, but what caught my eye was round 2 he was no better at 64K (well actually was better 3K places).

Yeah exactly, and then gradually he got to the top (Obviously). Round 3's Trades probably helped him out a lot!

Lucky for you, you were always in the Top 200. But that may have added more pressure? HAHA!

 

[Zim^zuM]

What's also interesting in the weeks he jumped 50k places then another 8000 was with scores of 2300 and 2200 which are not huge. Well that week obviously many done badly but you get it lol. Us that have never been no where her the mark have gotten 22/2300 many many times before and are sitting on that now.

 

[Damoz]

I wonder if chewy knew he was gonna win or not after like Round 3 for example. It's actually inspirational.

It also follows Jay's Rules, of Aggressive Trading, as shown in Trading to Win (1) and Trading to Win (2)

 

[johno686]

How good was Chewys win. But going by this shows you can win by being up there from the start or 50k from the start. Guess its what you do in season that matters. Good stuff jay made me think abit about my team.

 

[meataxe]

Thanks for starting this thread Jay.

My initial comment re. being almost out of the running if you're about 250 points off from 10th position after R1 - this is based off the estimate that 10th place after each round increases loosely by what we all call "par". If this is the case, then if one is 250 points from 10th after R1, one has to average >10ppg above par for EVERY round in order to claw back.

The ways in which you can claw back this 250 points:
- form a superior team ASAP that averages more than par each week (difficult when everyone has the same info on players, and there being a restricted number of trades); or
- have a lot of "freak" rounds, coming in top 500-1000 (coming in top 500-2000 is a rubbery 150-200 points above par). These freak rounds are a lot to do with luck, imo.

Chewylizard was 350 and 534 points away from 10th position after R1 and 2, respectively. However, look at the number of top 2000s he had! 6 times in the top 2000 (including 2 consecutive rounds in the top 100), with another 2 rounds around 2500.

Impromptu had 7 top 2000 rounds during his winning season.

It is not easy to get these freak rounds, but these guys were able/fortunate enough to cobble them together.

Rule changes for 2013 that are likely to reduce the chances to claw back points against the top-ranking sides in SC:
- rolling lockout: decreases points lost for last minute omissions, being a sub, etc;
- captaincy loophole: decreases points lost for incorrect captain decisions;
- emergency floating donut: again decrease points lost for last minute omissions, being a sub, etc;
- increased trade numbers: more chances of striking the key rookies, and trading out of MT/LT injured premiums; and
- 18 player during bye rules: decreases points lost for bad/unlucky planning around the byes.

With all these rule changes, it makes it all the more difficult to have those "freak" rounds where one makes large jumps in points. And remember, any levers that you can pull, the leaders of the pack can also pull those levers too.

Anyway, sure it is possible to catch up after a bad start, how probable depends on how fortunate you are in being able to put together these "freak" rounds.

 

[aj74]

It's an interesting point aj74, and like so many of the subjective things in SC (what's a Premium? etc) it comes down to individual interpretation. Top 1,000 actually represents top 0.27%, or on the flip side, 99.73% of teams are behind you each week.
...
Using those figures, and looking at how Jay and Chewy faired, I think it was a reasonable domination.

Well OK.... Since you put it like that...

Pretty freaky though. I would have thought that to beat those powerful teams in the top couple of thousand you would consistently have to smash the top 10,000 (semi-educated guess). Yet we see from those figured that they each finished out of the top 10,000 on 10 or so occasions. I suppose that succeeding 13 times out of 23 is pretty consistent but still...

One point though: Of the 400,000 players many of them are just dabbling; have no idea; playing for their leagues, or even trying to get a $1000 round. I'm not sure that can just divide by 400k to get our stats and if we do, the results should be seen as the extreme low end of the range. I'd be interested to see the breakdown of players' goals but from personal experience, the number of guys going for the overall is well in the minority and it gets more extreme as the "never know your luck" re-prioritise for finals.

 

[Drew]

Well OK.... Since you put it like that...

Pretty freaky though. I would have thought that to beat those powerful teams in the top couple of thousand you would consistently have to smash the top 10,000 (semi-educated guess). Yet we see from those figured that they each finished out of the top 10,000 on 10 or so occasions. I suppose that succeeding 13 times out of 23 is pretty consistent but still...

One point though: Of the 400,000 players many of them are just dabbling; have no idea; playing for their leagues, or even trying to get a $1000 round. I'm not sure that can just divide by 400k to get our stats and if we do, the results should be seen as the extreme low end of the range. I'd be interested to see the breakdown of players' goals but from personal experience, the number of guys going for the overall is well in the minority and it gets more extreme as the "never know your luck" re-prioritise for finals.

Interesting that you talk about the dabblers, i was looking at the %'s of players in teams today and NicNat is still in 7.5% of team with nearly half a percent having him as captain. 7.5% of the approximate 400000 players is around 30000 who must've set up their team early on the forgotton about it, can't see any other reason why you would've kept NicNat otherwise.

 

[IDIG]

Definitely warms my heart reading this thread and also seeing that Chewy didn't trade after a poor start, i'll definitely keep this in mind for the upcoming week (when anything can happen).

Another observation is they both traded hard from round 3 onwards, presumably correcting errors and jumping on players ready to explode. I think i'll follow this template for success and trade, trade, trade...just not this week

 

[Impromptu]

I've ask 2010 SuperCoach Winner, MutleyBlues/BlueThunder for a print screen of his year. Joe will have a look for it.

 

[Fademan]

is there a downloadable version of previous supercoach scores?