2023: SC Planning Thread

[Shaunpro1]

Interesting comments re Bruce from a WB training report on BF


View attachment 52532

They just have so many defenders, even if one of Jones,Darcy and Gardner is out theres still Keath,O'Brien,Crozier,Hannan and Khamis is Bruce even a lock to be ahead of any of them?

Originally thought he could jump Gardner but feels unlikely that they'd omit a guy they just gave a 3 year deal.

 

[Chumpion]

Question for those in this very interesting discussion.

What % of expensive players do you think turn out to be happy or neutral picks, and what % turn out to be disappointing?

Everyone has a different definition and expectation of what is happy/neutral/disappointing.
Using the following definition, give your answer.
Happy pick - played 20+ games - averaged 3+ more than last season
Neutral pick - played 19+ games - averaged between +2 and -10 on last seasons average
Disappointing - played 18 games or less, and/or scored more than 10 less than last season.
I will be very interested to see what peoples expectations are. The talk of "safe" picks etc. has me intrigued as to whether your expectations meet the reality.

I’m not sure about %’s but my thinking around the expensive vs bargain guys:

Expensive - you have a safety net of them filling M7/M8 (or equivalent) as you prioritise the top players. Not ideal, but generally doesn’t burn too many trades and often others prioritise bringing them in so you don’t lose much except the cash they save.

Bargain - the best case is they are a keeper, or become value M7 or M8 type. The worry is if they don’t, you don’t have a safety net.. you are either stuck with a guy that is at an awkward price (needs cash to upgrade) or you are leaking points in those positions. Or both.

So basically bargain guys have a better “best case”, but a significantly worse “worst case”. If it was easy to nail those bargain guys then we’d all do it every year.. but the reality is it doesn’t always work and it’s not easy to get the right few vs the wrong many.

So for me it all comes down to risk management.. how can I speculate some of the value of the bargain guys without being too exposed, and how can I o***et the risk of my season being over from the first few weeks.

 

[Locus Levy Lunacy]

Question for those in this very interesting discussion.

What % of expensive players do you think turn out to be happy or neutral picks, and what % turn out to be disappointing?

Everyone has a different definition and expectation of what is happy/neutral/disappointing.
Using the following definition, give your answer.
Happy pick - played 20+ games - averaged 3+ more than last season
Neutral pick - played 19+ games - averaged between +2 and -10 on last seasons average
Disappointing - played 18 games or less, and/or scored more than 10 less than last season.
I will be very interested to see what peoples expectations are. The talk of "safe" picks etc. has me intrigued as to whether your expectations meet the reality.

I'll go:

Happy 30%
Neutral 30%
Disappointing 40%

 

[donnybuang]

Question for those in this very interesting discussion.

What % of expensive players do you think turn out to be happy or neutral picks, and what % turn out to be disappointing?

Everyone has a different definition and expectation of what is happy/neutral/disappointing.
Using the following definition, give your answer.
Happy pick - played 20+ games - averaged 3+ more than last season
Neutral pick - played 19+ games - averaged between +2 and -10 on last seasons average
Disappointing - played 18 games or less, and/or scored more than 10 less than last season.
I will be very interested to see what peoples expectations are. The talk of "safe" picks etc. has me intrigued as to whether your expectations meet the reality.

I would think about 5% happy, 55% neutral and 40% disappointing. Just going by gut feel.

 

[Rowsus]

I’m not sure about %’s but my thinking around the expensive vs bargain guys:

Expensive - you have a safety net of them filling M7/M8 (or equivalent) as you prioritise the top players. Not ideal, but generally doesn’t burn too many trades and often others prioritise bringing them in so you don’t lose much except the cash they save.

Bargain - the best case is they are a keeper, or become value M7 or M8 type. The worry is if they don’t, you don’t have a safety net.. you are either stuck with a guy that is at an awkward price (needs cash to upgrade) or you are leaking points in those positions. Or both.

So basically bargain guys have a better “best case”, but a significantly worse “worst case”. If it was easy to nail those bargain guys then we’d all do it every year.. but the reality is it doesn’t always work and it’s not easy to get the right few vs the wrong many.

So for me it all comes down to risk management.. how can I speculate some of the value of the bargain guys without being too exposed, and how can I o***et the risk of my season being over from the first few weeks.

Thanks for your reply.
Totally agree with the sentiment, that expensive Mids, brought in with the expectation of being M1/M4 have the safety net of falling to M7/M8, if they perform below expectations. That is the exact reason why we need to avoid starting players, who we hope/expect to fill M6/M8. By doing so, you remove the safety net for the players with higher expectations. You face the possibility of ending up with a team consisting of 3 to 4 M7/M8 types, and that will never compete with the better teams. The same can apply to D5/D6 and F5/F6.
However, if the player you started with the expectation he will be say M2/M3, and he went say 21/127 last season, has he successfully filled an M8 spot, if he falls 16/115 this season? While the 115 is more than acceptable as an M8 average, a PIT65 of 101.4 is not acceptable for an M8.

 

[Rowsus]

I'll go:

Happy 30%
Neutral 30%
Disappointing 40%

Thanks for replying.
I have tables already made up that answer this question.
I will post them shortly.

 

[Rowsus]

I would think about 5% happy, 55% neutral and 40% disappointing. Just going by gut feel.

Thanks for replying.
There should be tables up giving the answer in about 1 hour.

 

[BarginHunter]

Is Sam Darcy a viable option due to his dpp? And price?
If he manages to pull a 2022 Daniel Rioli type season due to playing in defence that'd be something interesting to help those unsure of Fyfe, etc

 

[NT.Thunder]

Question for those in this very interesting discussion.

What % of expensive players do you think turn out to be happy or neutral picks, and what % turn out to be disappointing?

Everyone has a different definition and expectation of what is happy/neutral/disappointing.
Using the following definition, give your answer.
Happy pick - played 20+ games - averaged 3+ more than last season
Neutral pick - played 19+ games - averaged between +2 and -10 on last seasons average
Disappointing - played 18 games or less, and/or scored more than 10 less than last season.
I will be very interested to see what peoples expectations are. The talk of "safe" picks etc. has me intrigued as to whether your expectations meet the reality.

It's a really interesting question and look forward to seeing the table, I also think that midfielders will be pretty stable but the defenders and forwards probably influence the outcomes a lot more.

I'd hazard a guess
Happy pick - played 20+ games - averaged 3+ more than last season 5%
Neutral pick - played 19+ games - averaged between +2 and -10 on last seasons average 70%
Disappointing - played 18 games or less, and/or scored more than 10 less than last season. 25%

 

[Shaunpro1]

Is Sam Darcy a viable option due to his dpp? And price?
If he manages to pull a 2022 Daniel Rioli type season due to playing in defence that'd be something interesting to help those unsure of Fyfe, etc

Hes a talent but 2nd year key defenders dont have a great history of pushing up towards 70+ averages, cant help but think Jones is the better pick for a slightly cheaper price.

 

[Rowsus]

It's a really interesting question and look forward to seeing the table, I also think that midfielders will be pretty stable but the defenders and forwards probably influence the outcomes a lot more.

I'd hazard a guess
Happy pick - played 20+ games - averaged 3+ more than last season 5%
Neutral pick - played 19+ games - averaged between +2 and -10 on last seasons average 70%
Disappointing - played 18 games or less, and/or scored more than 10 less than last season. 25%

Thanks for replying.
The tables will be up shortly.

 

[Eagling]

Here's the definitive guide to whether you have a rookie, a midpricer, or a premium - only, it's not quite so simple.

If a player is between $0 - $200,000, it is a rookie.
If a player is between $200,000 - $210,000, you have rookie scoring for midpricer cost
Now things get a bit complicated; each line has it's own rules.

In Defence and Ruck, the midpricer price range is between $210,000 - $500,000.
The forward line is the same this year, although in some seasons that range can shrink to $450,000; similarly, the ruck gap can increase to $550,000
The midfield range is between $210,000 - $550,000.

Anything above those ranges are premiums, anything below are rookies - except:

this is just what you're paying for; the scoring range is a little different.

In defence and ruck, premium scoring starts at $550,000
In the forward line, $500,000
In the midfield, $600,000

This means that between $500-$550k in defence and ruck, and between $550-$600k in the midfield, you're paying premium prices for mid-pricer scoring; of course you're picking players like Young, Daicos, LDU etc in the hopes they'll breakout and move up into the premium rung of scoring.

This methodology is far harsher on what is considered a premium scorer vis a vis a premium-priced player.

For instance, in my current team, based on most consensus, I have a 12-3-15 structure.

Based on my parameters, I have a 10-5-15 structure, but I'm paying for a 12-3-15 structure (Nick Daicos and Rowan Marshall are premium price but offer midpricer scoring).

 

[Chumpion]

Thanks for your reply.
Totally agree with the sentiment, that expensive Mids, brought in with the expectation of being M1/M4 have the safety net of falling to M7/M8, if they perform below expectations. That is the exact reason why we need to avoid starting players, who we hope/expect to fill M6/M8. By doing so, you remove the safety net for the players with higher expectations. You face the possibility of ending up with a team consisting of 3 to 4 M7/M8 types, and that will never compete with the better teams. The same can apply to D5/D6 and F5/F6.
However, if the player you started with the expectation he will be say M2/M3, and he went say 21/127 last season, has he successfully filled an M8 spot, if he falls 16/115 this season? While the 115 is more than acceptable as an M8 average, a PIT65 of 101.4 is not acceptable for an M8.

It’s a fair question but not quite so clear cut. depends on when the games were missed, were they random games or out for a long run? The former it’s a poor pick but the latter probably gets traded and it becomes a different equation. You could still argue it’s a failed pick but with 36 trades and boosts, I’d probably say it’s acceptable.
Ownership is another factor, as the more POD they are the less margin for error there is.

 

[Manikato1]

Thanks for your reply.
Totally agree with the sentiment, that expensive Mids, brought in with the expectation of being M1/M4 have the safety net of falling to M7/M8, if they perform below expectations. That is the exact reason why we need to avoid starting players, who we hope/expect to fill M6/M8. By doing so, you remove the safety net for the players with higher expectations. You face the possibility of ending up with a team consisting of 3 to 4 M7/M8 types, and that will never compete with the better teams. The same can apply to D5/D6 and F5/F6.
However, if the player you started with the expectation he will be say M2/M3, and he went say 21/127 last season, has he successfully filled an M8 spot, if he falls 16/115 this season? While the 115 is more than acceptable as an M8 average, a PIT65 of 101.4 is not acceptable for an M8.

For me 16 game means a fail. If that player has a history of 20 plus games per season this would be part of your decision to pick him in the first place. But one of those ones you cannot see coming. Unlikely you pay good money for a mid that has a history of missing games. Also assumes you keep him for the entire season and the missed games are ones and two spread across the season.

Also think the fail line varies on position.

 

[Manikato1]

Question for those in this very interesting discussion.

What % of expensive players do you think turn out to be happy or neutral picks, and what % turn out to be disappointing?

Everyone has a different definition and expectation of what is happy/neutral/disappointing.
Using the following definition, give your answer.
Happy pick - played 20+ games - averaged 3+ more than last season
Neutral pick - played 19+ games - averaged between +2 and -10 on last seasons average
Disappointing - played 18 games or less, and/or scored more than 10 less than last season.
I will be very interested to see what peoples expectations are. The talk of "safe" picks etc. has me intrigued as to whether your expectations meet the reality.

I'll go

Happy 20%
Neutral 70%
Disappointing 10%

 

[Rowsus]

I'll go

Happy 20%
Neutral 70%
Disappointing 10%

Thanks for replying.
Tables up shortly.

 

[Rowsus]

The average of the 4 people who replied is:
Happy 15%
Neutral 56%
Disappointing 29%

Keep in mind, this totally subjective, and others will have different criteria and views.

There are 61 players who have started the season $570,000+ in the past 2 seasons.
The result is:
13 Happy picks (21.3%)
16 Neutral picks (26.2%)
31 Disappointing picks (50.8%)
1 DNP (1.6%)

Of the 31 disappointing picks:
29 failed because their average dropped by 10+, so were easily accessible at a much lower price, or were just not good picks.
16 failed on games counts.
Which means that 14 failed on both average and game count - that's 23% failing on both!!!

This was put together because of the number times people seemed to implying that player X is a safe pick. There are no safe picks, just some that might be more reliable than others.

 

[Rowsus]

2021

 

[Rowsus]

2022

 

[NT.Thunder]

Be interesting and more valuable I think if broken down by position.

The other thing to not get too carried away on these numbers is that a good portion of the 'disappointing' picks were injury related either pre-season interuption or during the season. A guy like Fyfe you can make a case for in regards to being injury plagued throughout his career and being a bad pick but someone like Neale in 2021 not so much, just bad luck. Some are not bad picks.