Discussion 2022 Round 4: Teams & In Game Discussion

[Wheedus]

Butters
Traded Gawn last week
....to bring in Trac
for a VC role

 

[dlanod]

Obviously the table would be more accurate, when it has more data, but interestingly, if you thought Gawn was a 120 Ruck this season, then the table predicts he would score 120 x 1.32 = 158.4 tonight, he scored 160. If you thought Lycett would be a 96 Ruck this season, then he'd score 96 x 0.66 = 64, he scored 58!!!!

The problem with this part of the analysis is you're relying on "if you thought". So yes, if you thought the number that worked out to be correct you were correct but if you didn't you weren't correct - garbage in, garbage out. That's not incredibly useful.

It might be more useful to explore using this to find players' "true" averages. e.g. Gawn's scoring is consistent bar Round 1:

1. Bulldogs - 92 points / 1.01 = 91 "real score".
2. Suns - 88 / 0.78 = 113.
3. Bombers - 117 / 0.98 = 119.
4. Port - 160 / 1.32 = 121.

So in a neutral environment can we expect Gawn to score in that mid-110s range? Well, this is a single example - it would require examining other players to see if this theory holds.

 

[Professor]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512195071164432384

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/FantasyFreako/status/1512195071164432384

 

[James4]

The problem with this part of the analysis is you're relying on "if you thought". So yes, if you thought the number that worked out to be correct you were correct but if you didn't you weren't correct - garbage in, garbage out. That's not incredibly useful.

It might be more useful to explore using this to find players' "true" averages. e.g. Gawn's scoring is consistent bar Round 1:

1. Bulldogs - 92 points / 1.01 = 91 "real score".
2. Suns - 88 / 0.78 = 113.
3. Bombers - 117 / 0.98 = 119.
4. Port - 160 / 1.32 = 121.

So in a neutral environment can we expect Gawn to score in that mid-110s range? Well, this is a single example - it would require examining other players to see if this theory holds.

We need more data to be able to test a player's 'true' score using this method.

E.g Tim English
Vs Melbourne - 123/0.66 = 186.36
Vs Carlton - 99/0.65 = 152.31
Vs Sydney - 152/1.46 = 104.11

Suggests that English's 'true' average right now would be 147.59!

Interesting to keep an eye on as the weeks go by though.

 

[Leroy]

And here was I happy that Macrae and Trac scored sub 100s last week... only for Oliver to throw out at 68 this week

At least I had Butters on the bench. Come on Nick Martin!

 

[Wheedus]

At least I had Butters on the bench. Come on Nick Martin!

Masterstroke. Only dawned on me after the game had started.

 

[Montyjnr]

Player that has never been premium before scores back to back 57s....

Why the hell did we all start Zac Butters again!? Just a weird pick that goes against all logic we use to pick our other premiums and I'm now sitting here kicking myself...

Well done to those that faded the non-premium

 

[Ormos]

Player that has never being premium before scores back to back 57s....

Why the hell did we all start Zac Butters again!? Just a weird pick that goes against all logic we use to pick our other premiums and I'm now sitting here kicking myself...

Well done to those that faded the non-premium

Were you thinking that in round 1 and 2 when scored 114 and 136?
butters is a high variance player who has a massive ceiling so take the great with the ****

 

[Montyjnr]

Were you thinking that in round 1 and 2 when scored 114 and 136?
butters is a high variance player who has a massive ceiling so take the great with the ****

I was thinking this has been a nice start.

I didn't pick him to be a high variance player though - I picked him because I got sucked into the pure midfield role hype. If I wanted variance, I would've started Nick Larkey

 

[donnybuang]

Player that has never been premium before scores back to back 57s....

Why the hell did we all start Zac Butters again!? Just a weird pick that goes against all logic we use to pick our other premiums and I'm now sitting here kicking myself...

Well done to those that faded the non-premium

He was poleaxed by SPP last week. Other than that, he'd probably be averaging 110.

And here was I happy that Macrae and Trac scored sub 100s last week... only for Oliver to throw out at 68 this week

At least I had Butters on the bench. Come on Nick Martin!

I almost had the master-stroke of Butters VC. Luckily I avoided that and got Oliver VC 🤮

 

[Leroy]

Masterstroke. Only dawned on me after the game had started.

It's only a masterstroke if young Nick keeps on, otherwise it will look too silly for words.

 

[Montyjnr]

He was poleaxed by SPP last week. Other than that, he'd probably be averaging 110.

Look for our sake, I hope that is the only reason.

Trying to play hero predicting someone's "breakout year" off no premium scoring history is a pet hate of mine and I have generally tried to avoid it at all costs in the past, so this predicament has left me quite annoyed.

 

[Ben's Beasts]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512226881566781442

View: https://twitter.com/essendonfc/status/1512226881566781442?s=20&t=ZkDcRHlJlkZdJvF7LrlDQQ

 

[AngryAnt]

Gawn got his BE exactly, will end up only losing $40k odd for now.

 

[AngryAnt]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512195071164432384

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/FantasyFreako/status/1512195071164432384

<$600k just in time for first upgrade

 

[McLovin]

Were you thinking that in round 1 and 2 when scored 114 and 136?
butters is a high variance player who has a massive ceiling so take the great with the ****

His potentially short lived midfield move was supposed to reduce that variance though. So far Butters has only proven that he's got the same problem as he did previously- he gets banged up, his scoring suffers and his play becomes erratic. He'll need more than a 114 and a 136 to make up for the last two weeks.

 

[donnybuang]

It's only a masterstroke if young Nick keeps on, otherwise it will look too silly for words.

The joys of the loophole. Rookie A scores 45, I'll keep him benched. Rookie B onfield scores 35. Or Rookie A scores 85 as emg, I'll keep that. Rookie B moved to bench scores 95 😔

 

[FirstTimer]

Full Time Scores ( Fully Scaled )
Round 4

 

[mike89]

The joys of the loophole. Rookie A scores 45, I'll keep him benched. Rookie B onfield scores 35. Or Rookie A scores 85 as emg, I'll keep that. Rookie B moved to bench scores 95 😔

I don't mind that, though. Without a loophole you're just guessing, with one you're still guessing but with some information. You'll still be right more often than you're wrong.

Now looping Butters, I wish I'd thought to do that! Perfect loop agent with Durdin in the protocols too...

 

[Bermi]

Look for our sake, I hope that is the only reason.

Trying to play hero predicting someone's "breakout year" off no premium scoring history is a pet hate of mine and I have generally tried to avoid it at all costs in the past, so this predicament has left me quite annoyed.

Butters ticked a lot of boxes at the start of the season, more than the other players on my list at his price, so I selected him. If he became a Premium, then that would have been a bonus, not my prime reason for selecting him. Whose place did Butters take that you were going to select?

Currently, I am only dissappointed that Butters got injured last game, resulting in his low score and I suspect he carried that injury into last night's game.

I'm not sure that I want to trade out Butters next game, it will depend on any 'must have players' to get next round, or if I can upgrade him to a Premium. A fit Butters could get back to scoring over 100 again and I save a trade.