Opinion 2020: Super Early Player Discussions
- Thread starter Herbie66
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 785
- Likes
- 1,660
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Those five look good to me. Zerrett was one I had penciled in some time back, although I’m less confident he has a 120 year in him now, and most of the top mids are quite durable anyway, so he might just miss out for me.
I think Kelly looks quite injury prone, so I’m happy to treat him as an upgrade target if anything. Fyfe is a personal favorite, but priced at 120 I’m happy to treat him as an upgrade target as well, hoping to get him cheaper if he does have an injury affected score early.
Ward looks the much better cheap option than Beams to my eyes. Beams is a gun player, but the fact he could be one of these cheap starting mids for the third time in his career should be a bit of a red flag!
I think Kelly looks quite injury prone, so I’m happy to treat him as an upgrade target if anything. Fyfe is a personal favorite, but priced at 120 I’m happy to treat him as an upgrade target as well, hoping to get him cheaper if he does have an injury affected score early.
Ward looks the much better cheap option than Beams to my eyes. Beams is a gun player, but the fact he could be one of these cheap starting mids for the third time in his career should be a bit of a red flag!
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,960
- Likes
- 126,628
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
I’m interested in this - what are you thinking regarding the injury risk being tied to whether you start or upgrade into them?
My thinking is:
(1) the longer I own an injury prone player, the more likely they are to hurt me with an injury. So I’d rather own them for 10 weeks than 23.
(2) some players tend to get LTIs, while some cop knocks/less serious injuries and have low TOG games with low scores than can bring their price down. These are players I would rather upgrade into, partly to avoid a low score and partly to get them cheaper.
(3) if I get to make a call on an injury prone player later, I can assess their fitness at that time. It’s possible they already have an LTI at that stage and I dodge that bullet by not starting them.
Does that make sense? I’m interested in your rationale as I’m sure you have reasons for an alternate approach, but I think we are ending up with quite different conclusions ?
My thinking is:
(1) the longer I own an injury prone player, the more likely they are to hurt me with an injury. So I’d rather own them for 10 weeks than 23.
(2) some players tend to get LTIs, while some cop knocks/less serious injuries and have low TOG games with low scores than can bring their price down. These are players I would rather upgrade into, partly to avoid a low score and partly to get them cheaper.
(3) if I get to make a call on an injury prone player later, I can assess their fitness at that time. It’s possible they already have an LTI at that stage and I dodge that bullet by not starting them.
Does that make sense? I’m interested in your rationale as I’m sure you have reasons for an alternate approach, but I think we are ending up with quite different conclusions ?
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,960
- Likes
- 126,628
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Thanks, this is an interesting one re the 2 trades element.
Rightly or wrongly, I tend to view my starting spots as being similarly valuable to my trades (I have 30 of each to work with) ... so whether I get to owning someone like Fyfe by starting him or trading him, for me isn’t really a saving (because I’m using one of 60 scarce resources, 30 starting spots and 30 trades, either way).
Given that, my starting spots tend to be focused on (1) those I am very confident I want to own at the end of the year (might as well get them from the outset, and make the more marginal decisions later with more info available) and (2) those who are cheap (given prices will inevitably change, so starting players are generally the only ones you know will be discounted - so it often makes sense to lock that in while it’s available).
Rightly or wrongly, I tend to view my starting spots as being similarly valuable to my trades (I have 30 of each to work with) ... so whether I get to owning someone like Fyfe by starting him or trading him, for me isn’t really a saving (because I’m using one of 60 scarce resources, 30 starting spots and 30 trades, either way).
Given that, my starting spots tend to be focused on (1) those I am very confident I want to own at the end of the year (might as well get them from the outset, and make the more marginal decisions later with more info available) and (2) those who are cheap (given prices will inevitably change, so starting players are generally the only ones you know will be discounted - so it often makes sense to lock that in while it’s available).
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 2,301
- Likes
- 1,721
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 3,912
- Likes
- 12,177
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Joined
- 3 May 2017
- Messages
- 2,684
- Likes
- 8,886
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
This is a good idea (@Herbie66 has mentioned something similar). One challenge with scoring KPFs differently is that CD aren’t allocating SC points for the purpose of SuperCoach, they’re doing it to measure impact for the ratings they sell to the clubs.
Creating new positions seems like a neat solution. They cut R4 and added M11 a few years back, I guess this would just be a more extreme example of that type of change.
Would likely lead to more donuts though!
Creating new positions seems like a neat solution. They cut R4 and added M11 a few years back, I guess this would just be a more extreme example of that type of change.
Would likely lead to more donuts though!
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
I do like the idea in principle of forcing teams to contain 1 or 2 key position forwards and defenders. However the problem I can see with it is generally there are only a few key position players that are capable of consistently scoring at what we have come to expect and I suspect the vast majority of serious teams would end up with the same ones.
Furthermore with only 4 or 5 spots for smaller defenders and forwards I think the same would happen there with all serious teams targeting the same perceived must haves with less room for a speculative pick.
The outcome would likely be that those 5 and 6 forwards and defenders, which is where the differences in teams usually lie, would become the same key position player in many cases.
I know teams already become very similar as we move through the season however with this I think it would become worse and it would happen from earlier in the season.
Furthermore with only 4 or 5 spots for smaller defenders and forwards I think the same would happen there with all serious teams targeting the same perceived must haves with less room for a speculative pick.
The outcome would likely be that those 5 and 6 forwards and defenders, which is where the differences in teams usually lie, would become the same key position player in many cases.
I know teams already become very similar as we move through the season however with this I think it would become worse and it would happen from earlier in the season.
- Status