Opinion 2024 AFL SuperCoach Planning Thread

[GrainFedBeef]

Couple of other leagues have popped up unfortunately.

The 3 you named from the bottom of the table definitely stood out.

I found Merrett quite interesting. 9 of his final 12 games went over. Might look at previous years because he's been a trending 2nd half of the season pick. Just have in my mind that if Essendon are taking the season as seriously as they say they are, that he needs to be in the thick of it from the o***et.

Touk and Steele similar rises when breaking their averages. Does Steele get the edge with bye? I did notice that Rowell and Anderson's attendances came down late in the season due to Flanders and Touk. Touk's numbers aren't incredibly high compared to the previous 2 seasons average of 80, however Flanders comes in as the 4th option that those seasons really lacked.

Butters started a little slow over the first month in CBA's, and still only went over 80% once for the season. Outstanding numbers considering. Talk about Wines moving back in, but doesn't really have me concerned because his season number is on the low side anyway. If he could get a season average to near 70 he looks one of the best premium picks imo.

Understandable. I let all these leagues bubble away in the background and just look at them once finals come around. What I do like is when you get a team that gets a good start/high ranking it can give you a feel for what your team could like.

Merrett - Setterfield injured then Parish out for some forces to stop playing a 6-8 man midfield and then once he gets going, they dont take him out. Also, given they started well, he seems to have picked up CBA's and SC points once they started losing. do teams give less respect as Essendon run 2H was harder.

Wines will be interesting. Likely to see CBA's go up and someone will lose. Probably Rozee more fwd and Drew. Butters?

Touk is a little about role and competition for spot, Steele hard to say if role, speed, structure or shoulder type issue.

 

[Darkie]

I thought I would have a go at a worked example, comparing two teams - one of which avoids round zero premiums, and one of which selects an extra value pick who does play round zero (given they have an extra eight teams to choose from).

If anyone sees any flaws in the comparison, I’d be keen to hear it. If not, it seems like any round zero value picks are quite viable.


Team A
Avoids round zero premium

Pays fair value for 100 average player ie 559k

Assume 18th player scores 60

Assume 19th player scores 55


R1-6 scores, premium + 18th player (all other players are common to both sides)
100 + 60
100 + 60
100 + 60
100 + 60
100 + 60
100 + 60

Total 960 points


Team B
Selects round zero premium - assume bye in R6

Pays less than fair value for 100 player ie <559k - assume 503k (10% discount)

Reinvests loose change elsewhere to strengthen starting team - assume this is invested at the Magic Number, and earns 10ppg (ie fair value)

Assume 18th player scores 70 (+10 versus team A)

Assume 19th player scores 55


R1-6 scores, premium (or bye replacement) + 18th player

100 + 70
100 + 70
100 + 70
100 + 70
100 + 70
55 + 70

Total 975 points


Summary
Team B is ahead by 15 points after R6

Team B has a better player (originally the 18th player), averaging 70 vs 60

Team B will have also gained more value (or lost less in value) than team A, as the premium’s price reverts to fair value

 

[The Banker]

Wardlaw
17% improvement when getting CBAs.

I'm all over the kid, think he will be a superstar, but a tough call at that price this year in SC.

Especially since the club won't burn him so early in his career.

17 points.

Untapped. Like you said, club won't burn him after the hammy issues, which makes him a hard select. There may be others, but Jelly and Oliver are 2 that spring to mind that made a mockery of the mid price for a season.

Last year I went down the Settertrap route and it didn't work out. No doubting Wardlaw looks a different beast compared, but if you get middling numbers then a rookie will outperform.

It looks to be Wardlaw or bust in that midpriced midfielder range though.

 

[NT.Thunder]

I thought I would have a go at a worked example, comparing two teams - one of which avoids round zero premiums, and one of which selects an extra value pick who does play round zero (given they have an extra eight teams to choose from).

If anyone sees any flaws in the comparison, I’d be keen to hear it. If not, it seems like any round zero value picks are quite viable.


Team A
Avoids round zero premium

Pays fair value for 100 average player ie 559k

Assume 18th player scores 60

Assume 19th player scores 55


R1-6 scores, premium + 18th player (all other players are common to both sides)
100 + 60
100 + 60
100 + 60
100 + 60
100 + 60
100 + 60

Total 960 points


Team B
Selects round zero premium - assume bye in R6

Pays less than fair value for 100 player ie <559k - assume 503k (10% discount)

Reinvests loose change elsewhere to strengthen starting team - assume this is invested at the Magic Number, and earns 10ppg (ie fair value)

Assume 18th player scores 70 (+10 versus team A)

Assume 19th player scores 55


R1-6 scores, premium (or bye replacement) + 18th player

100 + 70
100 + 70
100 + 70
100 + 70
100 + 70
55 + 70

Total 975 points


Summary
Team B is ahead by 15 points after R6

Team B has a better player (originally the 18th player), averaging 70 vs 60

Team B will have also gained more value (or lost less in value) than team A, as the premium’s price reverts to fair value

I'm interested to understand this better - are you talking about a team similar to posted below or no R0 at all.

It's an initeresting concept, the forward premiums are still stumbling blocks for me as I can't see any sub $560k players with the potential to average 100ppg with a round 0 bye.

Nick Martin is in the mids as a speculative to possible be a Defender premium when DPP changes come around.

This does give good balance and possibly 13 keepers straight up.

 

[jel]

Team B
Selects round zero premium - assume bye in R6

Pays less than fair value for 100 player ie <559k - assume 503k (10% discount)

I can follow and concur with most of the reasoning, but I'm not sure where this discount comes from.

 

[Feerits Elf]

I think he's just referring to a player who is 10% underpriced.

 

[Vicwood]

17 points.

Untapped. Like you said, club won't burn him after the hammy issues, which makes him a hard select. There may be others, but Jelly and Oliver are 2 that spring to mind that made a mockery of the mid price for a season.

Last year I went down the Settertrap route and it didn't work out. No doubting Wardlaw looks a different beast compared, but if you get middling numbers then a rookie will outperform.

It looks to be Wardlaw or bust in that midpriced midfielder range though.

No one looking at Swallow from the Dees. Massive POD.

 

[donnybuang]

I guess it depends on definitions.. lot of talk about Steele/Crouch/Guthrie types that I wouldn’t necessarily class as a premium, and definitely not as a top premium.

Yeah, no way I'd see them in the uber category. Steele maybe, but that's only off the back of stories about him being a fallen premo due to carrying an injury last year.

 

[MagpiePotato]

I guess it depends on definitions.. lot of talk about Steele/Crouch/Guthrie types that I wouldn’t necessarily class as a premium, and definitely not as a top premium.

Steele is an interesting one, he averaged 123 as a 24 y/o then backed that up with a 126 average as a 25 y/o. He's just turned 28 so will be 28 for the whole season and should be in the absolute prime of his career. He should be an absolute perma-mid in this St.K side, as its really Steele, Crouch and then who??? I think injuries and playing injured have hurt his last two seasons, but Steele has averaged over 122 twice which would make him a top 4 mid let alone a top 8 mid, he's the correct age and hasn't had a role change. So i think he has the potential to be a top premium, that said i'm not starting him at this stage because of his off season ankle surgery.

 

[The Banker]

No one looking at Swallow from the Dees. Massive POD.

Interesting numbers. Got the CBA spike for 2 games with Oliver out, then the majority switch went to Brayshaw. Oliver back and his numbers dipped late in the year. No Jordan and Harmes on the low end. Have to monitor if Rivers gets any of the low end numbers too. Throw in Windsor.

Probably have to see a bit more and that's only because I took Settertrap last year after Rd 2 and he was seeing north of 80% CBA's, which dipped to 74% after 5 rounds. Sparrow is technically a 4th mid on the CBA list below, but can he lift 20% minimum to make him really viable? At least we have R0 to try and work it out.

 

[Darkie]

I can follow and concur with most of the reasoning, but I'm not sure where this discount comes from.

Thank you.

The reason for the discount is that team B has access to a much wider range of players, so there will be more good value picks available to them.

Eg other coaches have named players like Walsh, Touk, Flanders, Grundy and Gawn as round zero players they have interest in, and I would suggest that all of them are underpriced. If another coach rules out some or all of these players, they likely have to choose a more fairly priced alternative who doesn’t play round zero.

To me the key comparison is discounted round zero players versus fairly priced non-round zero players. [If both are discounted or both are fair value, there’s not much to weigh up!]

It looks to me like the required discount for a round zero player to still be viable is quite small.

 

[Feerits Elf]

So i think he has the potential to be a top premium, that said i'm not starting him at this stage because of his off season ankle surgery.

I take it you're passing on Bont then.

 

[Darkie]

I'm interested to understand this better - are you talking about a team similar to posted below or no R0 at all.

It's an initeresting concept, the forward premiums are still stumbling blocks for me as I can't see any sub $560k players with the potential to average 100ppg with a round 0 bye.

Nick Martin is in the mids as a speculative to possible be a Defender premium when DPP changes come around.

This does give good balance and possibly 13 keepers straight up.

View attachment 67640

It probably depends on what drove the selections for this team - it looks like some R0 players have made it in, while others have not.

The specific price points aren’t really important as I see it, I just chose 100 as a round number premium score for the purpose of the example. It’s the 10% discount that is key, and represents the tradeoff against the bye.

Hopefully my post from a few minutes ago helps to clarify.

Essentially if it’s a comparison of two premos:

Bye advantage + fair price

vs

Early bye + starting price discount

Then I think the starting price discount looks to be worth taking.

 

[Leroy]

It probably depends on what drove the selections for this team - it looks like some R0 players have made it in, while others have not.

The specific price points aren’t really important as I see it, I just chose 100 as a round number premium score for the purpose of the example. It’s the 10% discount that is key, and represents the tradeoff against the bye.

Hopefully my post from a few minutes ago helps to clarify.

Essentially if it’s a comparison of two premos:

Bye advantage + fair price

vs

Early bye + starting price discount

Then I think the starting price discount looks to be worth taking.

These are good numbers.

Would you take Daicos based on this?

There's a case to say he is slightly underpriced, but maybe not 10%

 

[jel]

It probably depends on what drove the selections for this team - it looks like some R0 players have made it in, while others have not.

The specific price points aren’t really important as I see it, I just chose 100 as a round number premium score for the purpose of the example. It’s the 10% discount that is key, and represents the tradeoff against the bye.

Hopefully my post from a few minutes ago helps to clarify.

Essentially if it’s a comparison of two premos:

Bye advantage + fair price

vs

Early bye + starting price discount

Then I think the starting price discount looks to be worth taking.

It would be interesting to see how it looks if multiple Rd0 premos are taken.
Is there a -ve impact if they have the same bye (eg Rd6)?
What is the effect if they are different byes.?
Is there a break point where there are too many Rd0 premos?

Might have to dust off the spreadsheet later tonight.

 

[Darkie]

These are good numbers.

Would you take Daicos based on this?

There's a case to say he is slightly underpriced, but maybe not 10%

I agree, he would need natural or role improvement to be 10% discounted.

I currently have him in part because I want him as a captain option, but he’s also virtually guaranteed to be a top defender. I also don’t think he needs a 10% discount to make taking on the bye worthwhile even outside of those factors.

You could flip the calc to see what discount makes it a breakeven tradeoff.

Given that it’s a 45 point loss replacing a premo with a rookie (under the numbers I outlined - 100 vs 55), that’s only c. 2 points per round, or around $11k if we multiply the Magic Number by 2 points. It’s actually quite small as I see it.

 

[Juzzo]

What's our old mate wogi up to? No sc this year?

 

[BigRuss]

Understandable. I let all these leagues bubble away in the background and just look at them once finals come around. What I do like is when you get a team that gets a good start/high ranking it can give you a feel for what your team could like.

Merrett - Setterfield injured then Parish out for some forces to stop playing a 6-8 man midfield and then once he gets going, they dont take him out. Also, given they started well, he seems to have picked up CBA's and SC points once they started losing. do teams give less respect as Essendon run 2H was harder.

Wines will be interesting. Likely to see CBA's go up and someone will lose. Probably Rozee more fwd and Drew. Butters?

Touk is a little about role and competition for spot, Steele hard to say if role, speed, structure or shoulder type issue.

Drew being pushed out to the wing by all accounts but will still do some tagging jobs here and there. Mids will be a predominant mix of Rozee, Butters, Wines & JHF.

Surprised there isn't more talk of JHF off his first full pre season in the Crouch/Guthrie/Wines 5th/6th mid teams considering he did 80 off significant knee surgery and 0 pre season last year.

 

[Ben's Beasts]

What's our old mate wogi up to? No sc this year?

Correct.

 

[Darkie]

It would be interesting to see how it looks if multiple Rd0 premos are taken.
Is there a -ve impact if they have the same bye (eg Rd6)?
What is the effect if they are different byes.?
Is there a break point where there are too many Rd0 premos?

Might have to dust off the spreadsheet later tonight.

I would be interested to see what you come up with.

My initial take would be:

- Taking more than one doesn’t change anything if they are from different byes. I think you would just have the same calcs but the rookie score would come in in, say, R5.

- Having multiple premiums out on the same bye does change the calcs, but not by a lot. Say the 20th scorer scores 50, versus the 19th at 55, it just means that both scores come on ground, so there’s an additional 5 point headwind for that second selection. Given that team B was ahead by 15 points, and should be even further ahead after that (as they still have a 70 player instead of team A’s 60 player), this changes the numbers but not the conclusion as I see it.

- Given the above, I don’t think there is a limit. One thing to consider is that the cost of a round zero premium does rise as you add more on each bye, and that naturally you will choose the best value pick first, meaning that they get progressively less appealing as you go, so there may be a crossover at some point … but if you assume that team B continues to benefit by 10ppg, they will end up >150 points ahead per round zero premium, so I don’t think this crossover will occur with the type of numbers we are looking at. Ie I don’t think you can have too many round zero premiums, so long as you’re getting a discount on them that isn’t available amongst the non round zero premiums.