Opinion 2024 AFL SuperCoach Planning Thread

[wogitalia]

Maybe... Maybe I'll have Grundy only

The bye theory crafting is huge.

Realistically, the bye players are pretty much the same as midpricers. The more you take, the more likely you'll get them wrong.

Basically they've got to be somewhere in that 7-10 points a round underpriced against a fair value selection without a bye to break even. If we could consistently pick guys that are 10 points underpriced, we'd be good at this. That assumption also uses fair value, if the non-bye player is also underpriced you need to be even more underpriced. Also obviously assumes you do have cover, which you should but chaos can happen.

There's definitely also a "keeper" component to factor in, if taking say Touk over Newcombe ended up with Touk being a genuine keeper and Newcombe not quite, even though Newcome may outscore through the bye, Touk is probably still a better pick.

It's doing my head in, the smart play is to avoid the byes but if I'd picked a team before we knew about byes, purely on value and expectations, I'd take all the guys I want to take now with byes and the whole preseason has simply confirmed those choices.

Like my first draft absolutely would have had Daicos, Miller, Green, Heeney, Flanders, Gawn and Grundy in it...

Then there is just the sheer popularity of the bye guys. If Daicos jumped to 135 and you don't have him, well you could just delete your team and suddenly have to spend time with your friends and family

 

[OnTopBar]

The bye theory crafting is huge.

Realistically, the bye players are pretty much the same as midpricers. The more you take, the more likely you'll get them wrong.

Basically they've got to be somewhere in that 7-10 points a round underpriced against a fair value selection without a bye to break even. If we could consistently pick guys that are 10 points underpriced, we'd be good at this. That assumption also uses fair value, if the non-bye player is also underpriced you need to be even more underpriced. Also obviously assumes you do have cover, which you should but chaos can happen.

There's definitely also a "keeper" component to factor in, if taking say Touk over Newcombe ended up with Touk being a genuine keeper and Newcombe not quite, even though Newcome may outscore through the bye, Touk is probably still a better pick.

It's doing my head in, the smart play is to avoid the byes but if I'd picked a team before we knew about byes, purely on value and expectations, I'd take all the guys I want to take now with byes and the whole preseason has simply confirmed those choices.

Like my first draft absolutely would have had Daicos, Miller, Green, Heeney, Flanders, Gawn and Grundy in it...

Then there is just the sheer popularity of the bye guys. If Daicos jumped to 135 and you don't have him, well you could just delete your team and suddenly have to spend time with your friends and family

I think that all those players you mentioned are at least 10pts underpriced, some by more which I know is your point, but who are the underpriced players that don't have the bye? Steele? Very iffy pick IMO and if you wanted you could still have him. Newcombe? A bit less iffy but the same deal. Then down to the Crouch, Martin, Amon and Wines level who could all need to be traded out at some stage.

Daicos in defence doesn't need talking about as none of the alternatives will get within a bulls roar of him, giving the opportunity of picking a couple of underpriced non bye players, Sheezel and Young for me, add to that the looping of his cover and it's fairly easy to negotiate.

Grundy is one of those that could be 20 points underpriced and I don't see an alternative, Gawn is 25 points cheaper than English, but I can see him going within 10-15pts of English, the 25 point saving could generate that return somewhere else, either in cash or points (both) which could match the output from English.

Flanders and Heeney fit the 10 point criteria (maybe more) and I can't see a viable value choice that doesn't have the bye, maybe Jackson with his role and you could realistically have him as well.

Yes, 6 of those players share 2 byes ( 3 in each) so you take a bit of a hit, that hit should be softened a bit with the stronger rookies that you get from the value keepers you've picked.

 

[randomcliche]

The bye theory crafting is huge.

Realistically, the bye players are pretty much the same as midpricers. The more you take, the more likely you'll get them wrong.

Basically they've got to be somewhere in that 7-10 points a round underpriced against a fair value selection without a bye to break even. If we could consistently pick guys that are 10 points underpriced, we'd be good at this. That assumption also uses fair value, if the non-bye player is also underpriced you need to be even more underpriced. Also obviously assumes you do have cover, which you should but chaos can happen.

There's definitely also a "keeper" component to factor in, if taking say Touk over Newcombe ended up with Touk being a genuine keeper and Newcombe not quite, even though Newcome may outscore through the bye, Touk is probably still a better pick.

It's doing my head in, the smart play is to avoid the byes but if I'd picked a team before we knew about byes, purely on value and expectations, I'd take all the guys I want to take now with byes and the whole preseason has simply confirmed those choices.

Like my first draft absolutely would have had Daicos, Miller, Green, Heeney, Flanders, Gawn and Grundy in it...

Then there is just the sheer popularity of the bye guys. If Daicos jumped to 135 and you don't have him, well you could just delete your team and suddenly have to spend time with your friends and family

You're with friends 😎😁 (even though I couldn't pick you in a line up - which might be a positive if that dinner with horse comes to fruition)

 

[Feerits Elf]

Miller is the difficult one for me. There's a couple of other mids floating around that price in Steele and Newcombe, each has their question marks but at least we know they are the clear #1 mids in their teams (and they start the season with injuries to other members of their respective midfield groups). Miller is facing stiff competition from Anderson (23), Rowell (22) and now Flanders (22) eating into his points.

Touk is definitely underpriced but I just query whether he's going to be getting those 150+ monsters anymore to push his average up. Without the bye he's in 50% of teams. With the bye I think people are looking around trying to find comparable value elsewhere.

 

[wogitalia]

I think that all those players you mentioned are at least 10pts underpriced, some by more which I know is your point, but who are the underpriced players that don't have the bye? Steele? Very iffy pick IMO and if you wanted you could still have him. Newcombe? A bit less iffy but the same deal. Then down to the Crouch, Martin, Amon and Wines level who could all need to be traded out at some stage.

Daicos in defence doesn't need talking about as none of the alternatives will get within a bulls roar of him, giving the opportunity of picking a couple of underpriced non bye players, Sheezel and Young for me, add to that the looping of his cover and it's fairly easy to negotiate.

Grundy is one of those that could be 20 points underpriced and I don't see an alternative, Gawn is 25 points cheaper than English, but I can see him going within 10-15pts of English, the 25 point saving could generate that return somewhere else, either in cash or points (both) which could match the output from English.

Flanders and Heeney fit the 10 point criteria (maybe more) and I can't see a viable value choice that doesn't have the bye, maybe Jackson with his role and you could realistically have him as well.

Yes, 6 of those players share 2 byes ( 3 in each) so you take a bit of a hit, that hit should be softened a bit with the stronger rookies that you get from the value keepers you've picked.

You can use the same underpricing argument on any midpricer you like also. Steele is actually a great example, a lot of people started him last year because he was 10 points underpriced and he went backwards by 15!

If we could reliably find all the underpriced guys, there'd be no point playing the game! End of the day, players are only underpriced for one of two reasons. 1) They've never done it before 2) something happened last year that caused them to stop doing it. We're either projecting something that hasn't happened or explaining away something that did as being an anomaly and not a regularity.

Take Heeney, he's 10-15 points underpriced on seasons he's healthy (and/or gets so injured he can't play through it) but he's gotten injured most years, so at season's end it would not be a surprise to me if he averaged 80 or 110 but there's no way I'd bet my house on him averaging 100 because the injury bet is definitely reasonable.

All I'm saying is the more we take, the more likely we get one wrong. I feel really safe with Grundy and yet he's consistently reduced his average for 5 straight seasons now. Gawn is the same only it's 3 seasons and if his 72 had counted on the weekend I'd probably be ready to jump in front of a bus. There are very good reasons to explain away both of their sustained declines but nothing is guaranteed.

To be fair, all of this also applies to other picks, I didn't think Laird and Touk would both fall of a cliff last year and be two of the worst starting mids you could pick, I thought they were nice safe picks and they ruined my season. This year I can't even see the safe picks in the midfield to be wrong about which makes it even harder to justify not chasing value but I think people should definitely be careful with taking too many round 0 guys, chances that you nail 6 or 7 of them is pretty low (I say this as someone who currently 7 of them in his team!).

Even your Daicos reasoning is flawed. If he doesn't improve by 7-10 more than whoever someone takes in place of him, your pick is behind on purely fair value outcomes. If you're not very bullish on Daicos being a 125+ type scorer, you shouldn't be starting him (I am, so I am!). If Daicos scores 117 through his bye, that's an effective 108 using a 65 replacement score. Luke Ryan is 40k cheaper to give that outcome. Daicos is somewhat unique given his 70% ownership does blue lines but that also means he's got by far the best ROI if you don't start him and are right (double edged sword alert).

I'd definitely suggest that everyone does work out the replacement value scoring based on your projection for the player you're picking, it's pretty eye opening just how hard those replacement scores do hit.

 

[wogitalia]

Miller is the difficult one for me. There's a couple of other mids floating around that price in Steele and Newcombe, each has their question marks but at least we know they are the clear #1 mids in their teams (and they start the season with injuries to other members of their respective midfield groups). Miller is facing stiff competition from Anderson (23), Rowell (22) and now Flanders (22) eating into his points.

Touk is definitely underpriced but I just query whether he's going to be getting those 150+ monsters anymore to push his average up. Without the bye he's in 50% of teams. With the bye I think people are looking around trying to find comparable value elsewhere.

Very fair, I think the 120+ days are probably behind him, albeit with his style the team having more ball could actually work in his favour and Rowell and Flanders are both predominantly short kickers also but I do think he can be a solid 110 type, which is a very reasonable M6-8 type pick priced very well.

I don't think 120+ is impossible though but it's not in my planning, call that an unexpected but glorious outcome if he does it.

That group does have an ABCS or Swan/Pendles/Beams feel to it though where they all kind of compliment each other and tend to take and hit short kicking targets. Anderson the odd one out who doesn't look short as often, but still does some times, or hit targets very often either!

I do like the balance of that group, the fact Rowell doesn't spread at all certainly is a nice factor for those going Flanders and Touk.

 

[NT.Thunder]

Miller is the difficult one for me. There's a couple of other mids floating around that price in Steele and Newcombe, each has their question marks but at least we know they are the clear #1 mids in their teams (and they start the season with injuries to other members of their respective midfield groups). Miller is facing stiff competition from Anderson (23), Rowell (22) and now Flanders (22) eating into his points.

Touk is definitely underpriced but I just query whether he's going to be getting those 150+ monsters anymore to push his average up. Without the bye he's in 50% of teams. With the bye I think people are looking around trying to find comparable value elsewhere.

I agree and is something I've been cautious of. I liked Flanders game and as a forward and cheaper price I think I'll go that way and let Miller go, also allows me to take Green in the mids and I think I'm more comfortable on him this season than Miller.

Can't have everyone right

 

[OnTopBar]

You can use the same underpricing argument on any midpricer you like also. Steele is actually a great example, a lot of people started him last year because he was 10 points underpriced and he went backwards by 15!

If we could reliably find all the underpriced guys, there'd be no point playing the game! End of the day, players are only underpriced for one of two reasons. 1) They've never done it before 2) something happened last year that caused them to stop doing it. We're either projecting something that hasn't happened or explaining away something that did as being an anomaly and not a regularity.

Take Heeney, he's 10-15 points underpriced on seasons he's healthy (and/or gets so injured he can't play through it) but he's gotten injured most years, so at season's end it would not be a surprise to me if he averaged 80 or 110 but there's no way I'd bet my house on him averaging 100 because the injury bet is definitely reasonable.

All I'm saying is the more we take, the more likely we get one wrong. I feel really safe with Grundy and yet he's consistently reduced his average for 5 straight seasons now. Gawn is the same only it's 3 seasons and if his 72 had counted on the weekend I'd probably be ready to jump in front of a bus. There are very good reasons to explain away both of their sustained declines but nothing is guaranteed.

To be fair, all of this also applies to other picks, I didn't think Laird and Touk would both fall of a cliff last year and be two of the worst starting mids you could pick, I thought they were nice safe picks and they ruined my season. This year I can't even see the safe picks in the midfield to be wrong about which makes it even harder to justify not chasing value but I think people should definitely be careful with taking too many round 0 guys, chances that you nail 6 or 7 of them is pretty low (I say this as someone who currently 7 of them in his team!).

Even your Daicos reasoning is flawed. If he doesn't improve by 7-10 more than whoever someone takes in place of him, your pick is behind on purely fair value outcomes. If you're not very bullish on Daicos being a 125+ type scorer, you shouldn't be starting him (I am, so I am!). If Daicos scores 117 through his bye, that's an effective 108 using a 65 replacement score. Luke Ryan is 40k cheaper to give that outcome. Daicos is somewhat unique given his 70% ownership does blue lines but that also means he's got by far the best ROI if you don't start him and are right (double edged sword alert).

I'd definitely suggest that everyone does work out the replacement value scoring based on your projection for the player you're picking, it's pretty eye opening just how hard those replacement scores do hit.

TBF, I did say that no one in defence would come within a bulls roar of Daicos and I too think he'll go 125+

The big advantage this year though is the extra 4 trades, they give a little insurance regarding the riskier picks.

 

[ScottishBomber]

Parish likely to miss a couple with a hammy it seems

 

[Socrates2]

Is it top 18 scoring players only for round 2?

 

[wogitalia]

Is it top 18 scoring players only for round 2?

Round 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14 & 15.

 

[Socrates2]

Round 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14 & 15.

Thanks, I meant the rounds where there is only one bye.
This season stinks because players from opening round are not really pickable bar a couple of blue chips.

 

[Feerits Elf]

This season stinks because players from opening round are not really pickable bar a couple of blue chips.

Get used to it

 

[Shannon]

I was checking the fixture for VC/Capt options over the first 6 weeks & I have noticed a mistake on the SC site with the round 4 fixtures:-



2 games on at the same time at the same venue 😂😂😂

The Port v Ess game is Fri pm at that time on the AFL site :-

 

[Feerits Elf]

When do the ownership numbers for Rd 0 players move off what they were when those players' Rd 0 games started? Would have thought it would be shortly after the conclusion of GWS v Collingwood.

Unnerving seeing Heeney at 2.7%

 

[couchPOTATO]

I was checking the fixture for VC/Capt options over the first 6 weeks & I have noticed a mistake on the SC site with the round 4 fixtures:-

View attachment 69085

2 games on at the same time at the same venue 😂😂😂

The Port v Ess game is Fri pm at that time on the AFL site :-

View attachment 69086

Well spotted, I would always recommend emailing the SC email address or tweeting Tim Michell these types of things when noticed so that it can be fixed weeks in advance rather than at the last minute.

 

[Amazing Bombers]

I was checking the fixture for VC/Capt options over the first 6 weeks & I have noticed a mistake on the SC site with the round 4 fixtures:-

View attachment 69085

2 games on at the same time at the same venue 😂😂😂

The Port v Ess game is Fri pm at that time on the AFL site :-

View attachment 69086

 

[Monya Meow Meow]

I was checking the fixture for VC/Capt options over the first 6 weeks & I have noticed a mistake on the SC site with the round 4 fixtures:-

View attachment 69085

2 games on at the same time at the same venue 😂😂😂

The Port v Ess game is Fri pm at that time on the AFL site :-

View attachment 69086

They should have paid for you some quality control

 

[Professor]

I was checking the fixture for VC/Capt options over the first 6 weeks & I have noticed a mistake on the SC site with the round 4 fixtures:-

View attachment 69085

2 games on at the same time at the same venue 😂😂😂

The Port v Ess game is Fri pm at that time on the AFL site :-

View attachment 69086

Seems right, new trial of 2 games on at the same time at the same ground, saving on umpiring costs. 😁

 

[Manikato1]

When do the ownership numbers for Rd 0 players move off what they were when those players' Rd 0 games started? Would have thought it would be shortly after the conclusion of GWS v Collingwood.

Unnerving seeing Heeney at 2.7%

I agree. That is way too high to be realistic.