Position 2025: RUCK DISCUSSION

[Darkie]

The key thing with AFL fantasy is the focus on value selections. At a premium level, a 5-10 pt expected improvement would be a minimum before you picked them. The higher mid price would need a minimum of 20 and a lower mid pricer 30. the priced at versus expected output is key. For SC we often look more at whether the mid pricer can become a keeper. Not so much for fantasy.
Starting teams have less rookies on field. This year the discussion is whether it should be 3, 4 or 5.
Short term price gains are enough for a selection. Bonner was a good selection for Fantasy last year. Cerra is a real option this year.
With prices moving after one game, a 2-3 week window might be enough.
Interestingly, rucks are causing the same dilemma for AFL Fantasy. There is a strong focus on Xerris first 6 games as a reason not to start him. But for SC we tend to think about the whole season.
Knowing that you have trades every week means you can have many luxury trades in the last 6-8 weeks. So, again, you are not as focused on the season as a whole with starting selections. This also gives the room for a few riskier injury prone selections. Day seems more viable in Fantasy than SC.
SC is still not fully in the AFL Fantasy strategy space, but it feels like it is getting closer. I think we can take some of the thinking from Fantasy to SC. I am going to try to incorporate more of it into my SC year to see.

Very interesting, thank you.

The number of trades seems to be a key change in SC in recent years, and the key difference to AF (but not the only one).

Is it still 2 trades per week for AF, c. 46 for the season? Given SC used to be 30 but is now 40, it has closed most of the gap if so.

Your point about pricing is a good one. I was thinking recently that, number of trades aside, the optimal strategy should depend on:

(1) how generous the initial cap is (which you’ve given a good flavour of - it sounds like it buys you more premiums in AF … assuming the lower rookie count isn’t just due to a lot more mid pricers?),

(2) how quickly prices adjust to players outscoring their priced-at levels (I think this depends on the price change multiplier, relative to the MN - eg in SC it would be $440 relative to the c. $5,400, or c. 8%), and

(3) how early those price changes start (price changes starting immediately in AF is good in that it facilitates earlier cash generation, but also bad in that it presumably leads to a higher number of failed picks, because you’re picking with a smaller sample size*).

There may also be some differences in rules regarding the byes (eg best 18 or not), but I assume they are likely the same (?).

Are there any other differences? Eg does AF have the flex position? I seem to recall a utility position in that format the last year I tried to navigate the platform.

*I am also not entirely clear on whether the SC price trajectory “catches up”, and even potentially overtakes, the one used in AF. Eg if a player is priced at 50 in both, and scores flat 100s repeatedly, presumably he gets to a level where he’s priced at 60 earlier in AF, because price changes start earlier - but does the big initial price move (albeit a delayed in) in SC mean that they are priced at 80 at around the same time? Is it possible that they even reach a level where they’re priced at 90 earlier in SC? You get the idea.

 

[Singapore Flyers]

Very interesting, thank you.

The number of trades seems to be a key change in SC in recent years, and the key difference to AF (but not the only one).

Is it still 2 trades per week for AF, c. 46 for the season? Given SC used to be 30 but is now 40, it has closed most of the gap if so.

Your point about pricing is a good one. I was thinking recently that, number of trades aside, the optimal strategy should depend on:

(1) how generous the initial cap is (which you’ve given a good flavour of - it sounds like it buys you more premiums in AF … assuming the lower rookie count isn’t just due to a lot more mid pricers?),

(2) how quickly prices adjust to players outscoring their priced-at levels (I think this depends on the price change multiplier, relative to the MN - eg in SC it would be $440 relative to the c. $5,400, or c. 8%), and

(3) how early those price changes start (price changes starting immediately in AF is good in that it facilitates earlier cash generation, but also bad in that it presumably leads to a higher number of failed picks, because you’re picking with a smaller sample size*).

There may also be some differences in rules regarding the byes (eg best 18 or not), but I assume they are likely the same (?).

Are there any other differences? Eg does AF have the flex position? I seem to recall a utility position in that format the last year I tried to navigate the platform.

*I am also not entirely clear on whether the SC price trajectory “catches up”, and even potentially overtakes, the one used in AF. Eg if a player is priced at 50 in both, and scores flat 100s repeatedly, presumably he gets to a level where he’s priced at 60 earlier in AF, because price changes start earlier - but does the big initial price move (albeit a delayed in) in SC mean that they are priced at 80 at around the same time? Is it possible that they even reach a level where they’re priced at 90 earlier in SC? You get the idea.

The lower number of rookies onfield is for two reasons- more likely to avoid the highest priced players if people don’t see upside, and the higher number of midpricers.
Best 18 is the same in both
Number of trades - 3 trades in the rds12-16 byes. So total of 51. But they are use them or lose them each round.
For price rises, it takes about 5 weeks to even out. It’s the first rise that makes a big difference. for the rookies, during the season it’s more likely you let one price rise happen before you pick them up. SC gives us two looks. The winner in Fantasy last year took the 2 GC boys when they were first selected and that was seen as a bold but winning move.
Double downgrades are rare. Usually one up one down. I think double downgrades would be more frequent in SC.
Fantasy doesn’t have flex. It has a utility position which is a bench position. Only 2 on the bench in the mids.
No planning towards the mid season byes. People start to look at it from about 4 rounds out. Early byes - sone discussion around 1 or 2 more Rd3 players in the basis you could trade them out in Rd3. Also because less onfield rookies, you can perhaps carry an extra one.
Lower expectations on captain score means you can take higher end premiums without absolute top ends. People are likely to accept 110.

 

[OnTopBar]

Very interesting, thank you.

The number of trades seems to be a key change in SC in recent years, and the key difference to AF (but not the only one).

Is it still 2 trades per week for AF, c. 46 for the season? Given SC used to be 30 but is now 40, it has closed most of the gap if so.

Your point about pricing is a good one. I was thinking recently that, number of trades aside, the optimal strategy should depend on:

(1) how generous the initial cap is (which you’ve given a good flavour of - it sounds like it buys you more premiums in AF … assuming the lower rookie count isn’t just due to a lot more mid pricers?),

(2) how quickly prices adjust to players outscoring their priced-at levels (I think this depends on the price change multiplier, relative to the MN - eg in SC it would be $440 relative to the c. $5,400, or c. 8%), and

(3) how early those price changes start (price changes starting immediately in AF is good in that it facilitates earlier cash generation, but also bad in that it presumably leads to a higher number of failed picks, because you’re picking with a smaller sample size*).

There may also be some differences in rules regarding the byes (eg best 18 or not), but I assume they are likely the same (?).

Are there any other differences? Eg does AF have the flex position? I seem to recall a utility position in that format the last year I tried to navigate the platform.

*I am also not entirely clear on whether the SC price trajectory “catches up”, and even potentially overtakes, the one used in AF. Eg if a player is priced at 50 in both, and scores flat 100s repeatedly, presumably he gets to a level where he’s priced at 60 earlier in AF, because price changes start earlier - but does the big initial price move (albeit a delayed in) in SC mean that they are priced at 80 at around the same time? Is it possible that they even reach a level where they’re priced at 90 earlier in SC? You get the idea.

With regards to trades, AF = 50, 2/week + 3/week over the mid season byes.

The points (1) - (3)

(1) Salary cap is similar ratio wise, initial cap is $18m but players are priced accordingly, Marshall = $1.2m, rookies $230k, Lalor $340k. Lower rookie count probably due to chasing value in the cheaper keeper range. The key is the luxury trades during and after the byes.

(2) Prices adjust quicker, but I'm not sure about the how long a spike score stays in the system, think it's around 5 weeks but different weighting in those weeks.

(3) Immediate price rises makes things difficult when choosing new rookies, start at $230k but there's no chance to look at them, 2nd game they could be $280k, 3rd $350k. TBH it's where I struggle the most.

Strategies can be quite similar between the two formats, Moriera was a back to back winner going with guns and rookies, the last few winners have gone with full on value strategies, starting a few more MP's and less rookies on field.

SC has a big advantage with the 5 boosts, theoretically meaning 5 upgrades over 5 rounds, to achieve the same in Fantasy could take 8 rounds, so a bit of work is needed to get to a completed team by the end of the byes, then luxury trading those weaker keepers over the back end. Teams that get a 'completed' team earlier have an advantage by luxury trading earlier.

I think what @Singapore Flyers is alluding to is starting more of those value keepers leading to a better spend of the overall salary cap. Maybe then targeting a few luxury upgrades with a team that's 'completed' earlier. I'm oversimplifying things there, but I think that's the gist of it.

 

[Darkie]

The lower number of rookies onfield is for two reasons- more likely to avoid the highest priced players if people don’t see upside, and the higher number of midpricers.
Best 18 is the same in both
Number of trades - 3 trades in the rds12-16 byes. So total of 51. But they are use them or lose them each round.
For price rises, it takes about 5 weeks to even out. It’s the first rise that makes a big difference. for the rookies, during the season it’s more likely you let one price rise happen before you pick them up. SC gives us two looks. The winner in Fantasy last year took the 2 GC boys when they were first selected and that was seen as a bold but winning move.
Double downgrades are rare. Usually one up one down. I think double downgrades would be more frequent in SC.
Fantasy doesn’t have flex. It has a utility position which is a bench position. Only 2 on the bench in the mids.
No planning towards the mid season byes. People start to look at it from about 4 rounds out. Early byes - sone discussion around 1 or 2 more Rd3 players in the basis you could trade them out in Rd3. Also because less onfield rookies, you can perhaps carry an extra one.
Lower expectations on captain score means you can take higher end premiums without absolute top ends. People are likely to accept 110.

Thank you, that’s super helpful. A few thoughts in turn:

- The lower number of rookies seems to be the result of two sides of the same coin to me. Perhaps it’s purely trade count driven rather than a more generous budget per se (eg if you started both comps with a lock and load style side and could never trade, you’d score/rank comparably in both).

- 11 extra trades is pretty material. The shift in SC from 30 to 40 is only halfway to 51, so a full shift in strategy would likely be an over adjustment (other factors aside).

- The fact the double downgrades are more common in SC probably tells us that cash generation is more challenging in that format. To me that suggests a somewhat more GnR structure, again all else being equal - the mid pricers will find it harder to make a lot of cash quickly, and so it comes down more to the rookies to make it, plus it’s harder to upgrade into the premos, so saving trades by starting them is more attractive.

- It sounds like coaches probably hold rookies to a similar level of maturity in both comps - is that fair? Eg you don’t find people tending to trade cash cows out 1, 2 or 3 weeks earlier in one format than the other?

- The lack of flex in AF probably suggests taking marginally more risk in SC, all else being equal. I don’t think the score distribution of the actual flex player is relevant (we just need them to play), but the ability to eliminate the lowest score does make an injury prone player or a KPF or a sub risk more appealing to take a risk on.

- The boosts are an interesting fairly recent addition in SC and I think have changed the game somewhat. Upgrade cadence used to be a very powerful but not well understood concept, now you can reset your upgrade cadence with a boost if injury or the like strikes. To me that suggests taking more risk on fallen premos who may be injury prone, for example. The presence of the boosts somewhat o***ets a lower absolute number of trades as I see it. Maybe it’s more like 42 vs 51, rather than 40 vs 51, in how we should think about it (not that the boosts are incremental, more so that they provide greater flexibility on a similar manner to having more trades overall).

- That’s interesting about the byes. I was pretty adamant that a lot of the talk about the byes last year was overdone. Whether that was the case or not, a more AF style approach would seem to fit my leaning on that issue anyway (unless it has changed again - I’m not across the byes this season yet).

- The lower captain’s scores seems like it may not change the strategy much, given that I think an SCT ratio is pretty standard as an average … eg roughly 3,000 DT points being scored per game, versus SC being fixed at 3,300 plus or minus a couple. Ie a DT 110 may be an SC 121, which I think most people would take in a similar manner. Coincidentally I use 120 as my typical guide, albeit I think the most relevant question is almost always what you expect your next best C option will score in their specific matchup etc (not some figure that we have set in our mind in advance).

 

[Darkie]

With regards to trades, AF = 50, 2/week + 3/week over the mid season byes.

The points (1) - (3)

(1) Salary cap is similar ratio wise, initial cap is $18m but players are priced accordingly, Marshall = $1.2m, rookies $230k, Lalor $340k. Lower rookie count probably due to chasing value in the cheaper keeper range. The key is the luxury trades during and after the byes.

(2) Prices adjust quicker, but I'm not sure about the how long a spike score stays in the system, think it's around 5 weeks but different weighting in those weeks.

(3) Immediate price rises makes things difficult when choosing new rookies, start at $230k but there's no chance to look at them, 2nd game they could be $280k, 3rd $350k. TBH it's where I struggle the most.

Strategies can be quite similar between the two formats, Moriera was a back to back winner going with guns and rookies, the last few winners have gone with full on value strategies, starting a few more MP's and less rookies on field.

SC has a big advantage with the 5 boosts, theoretically meaning 5 upgrades over 5 rounds, to achieve the same in Fantasy could take 8 rounds, so a bit of work is needed to get to a completed team by the end of the byes, then luxury trading those weaker keepers over the back end. Teams that get a 'completed' team earlier have an advantage by luxury trading earlier.

I think what @Singapore Flyers is alluding to is starting more of those value keepers leading to a better spend of the overall salary cap. Maybe then targeting a few luxury upgrades with a team that's 'completed' earlier. I'm oversimplifying things there, but I think that's the gist of it.

Great info, thank you!

A few thoughts:

- It looks like the cap would buy you 15 Marshalls, or 1757 AF points. In SC you could get 16.6 Marshalls, or 1856 SC. To me that suggests that even though you get more Marshalls in SC, the overall picture is comparable, given that SCT ratio being commonly around 1.1. Marshall is an unusual player in that his SCT is more like 0.95, so while he’s a natural benchmark (I think the #1 player in AF), he’s not necessarily the most representative one.

- Using the rookies, in AF the budget buys you 52.9 Lalors or 78.3 typical rookies. In SC it’s 49.1 Lalors or 88.1 typical rookies. Interestingly that is a bit ambiguous - the AF budget is more generous on one basis and less so on the other. This appears to be because Lalor is priced at a bigger premium in SC than AF. That would likely make cash gen a bit harder in SC, all else equal.

- I see your point about the luxury trades. It definitely points to worrying less about getting the absolute top liners, even with some of your upgrades (first wave upgrades?) because you’re not wedded to them for the season, at least not all of them.

- The point about price moves lasting longer is interesting.

- I struggled with the immediate price moves as well. It is probably one reason I stopped playing AF (but the platform was the biggest one).

- It is interesting you say that about Selby/Moreira. I’ve listened to his podcast, and my understanding was that he stuck strictly to the principle of not starting any players he thought wouldn’t match what they were priced at. One of the years he won I think he almost achieved that (it’s one thing to try, another thing altogether to actually avoid overpaying for a single player!). In any case, he may have gone for a GnR structure, but it seems he had a very value oriented strategy as well. It’s also interesting that recent winners have done the same thing, albeit with a different distribution of starting prices (ie more midpriced than GnR). I suspect there is something in that!

- I see what you’re saying about the value keepers. If you can slingshot or re-upgrade them if required, it takes a lot of the sting out of potentially not having a top liner from the start.

 

[Darkie]

Separately, if anyone is taking a punt on Darcy Cameron, maybe look at benching him for ANZAC Day if you can.

Scores versus Essendon (most recent first):

54
73
59
55
71
127
62