It's human nature that all things being equal, we choose a product with a brand name over a non-brand name; this applies to SuperCoach too. We need to assume that any analysis is on the basis of 'all things being equal' as if there is a product and/or price differentiation then obviously those factors come into play rather than the simple analysis of brand name versus non-brand name players.
Why do we choose a brand name over a non-brand name product? Perhaps, because the product with the brand name is marketed better, has more exposure, gives us better security or confidence in the product and everyone knows what they are getting with the brand name product.
I'll be honest and say that in SuperCoach I can sometimes be a brand name person; major confession here. It could be because sometimes it's better the Devil you know rather than the Devil you don't know. You know what you are getting with the brand name players.
For example, in SuperCoach 2011, I chose Chris Judd over Mark Murphy. Why? Because I knew what I was getting into by choosing Judd. While I believed Judd would likely get tagged before Murphy, I chose Judd before Murphy due to the Judd's brand name. As it turns out, in SuperCoach 2011, Judd averaged 115.6 (22) when priced at 118.5 whereas Murphy 118.1 (22) when priced at 111.9. Therefore, picking Judd was a fail, if you compared Judd to Murphy, but fortunately this decision did not cost me the 2011 SuperCoach Winner title.
The reason why these brand names are important is because you sometimes sub-consciously choose a brand name because you feel it's the safer option. You believe that in the worst case scenario that if the decision in choosing a brand name player is a fail, at least more people will fail with you as well, so it's a negating factor. On the other hand, when we do choose a non-brand name, let's call that player the Point of Difference (POD, it becomes a two edged situation. The POD is great if it's sucessful, but it's horrible if the POD fails as everyone else without the POD will have a comparative advantage.
Generally, if you are leading the competition or are leading in your league and want to play safe by playing the 'Numbers Games', then it is likely you trade in a brand name player. This is simply what I did in SuperCoach 2011 and is shown in my 'Trading To Win (1)' article. It really depends on what your goal or objective, which depends on the circumstances.
Another example is Rory 'Arvin' Sloane v Patrick Dangerfield. Most people would probably choose Dangerfield over Sloane. Why? Simply, because Dangerfield is the brand name compared to Sloane (on a relative basis). But people need to remember that Dangerfield will probably get tagged before Sloane and Sloane is cheaper. Therefore, if Sloane and Dangerfield average the same and play the same amount of games, then Sloane is obviously the better choice due to his initial starting price.
Recently, NK29 created a great thread to discuss Pearce Hanley. If I was to compare Hanley with a brand name SuperCoach equivalent, then it would likely be Jed Adcock. Both Hanley (90.7, 22 games, $485,200) and Adcock (90.1, 21 games, $482,300) had a decent 2012 with similar numbers. Accordingly, Hanley and Adcock were priced pretty much the same. I think in these circumstances, you back yourself and follow your instinct when deciding between Hanley and Adcock.
I think SuperCoach has evolved where, we don't necessarily need to pick players simply because of their brand name.
I know in some cases, we can associate 'brand name' with the 'premium' status, but it is not really the same thing. For example, I would definitely categorise Dane Swan and Scott Pendlebury as brand names before Dayne Beams. But to illustrate, that a brand name is simply not just the definition of a premium, we need to consider rookies. You would call Lachie Whitfield the brand name rookie for the 2012 AFL Draft and Dustin Martin the brand name rookie for the 2009 AFL Draft. With rookies, I think it's more about security, which you obviously pay a surcharge with the additional price you pay. I think with a risky ploy like an 8 Rookie Midfield, you need to select a few brand names for security.
Reading some of the posts here, overall, I think most people are doing the right thing and ignoring the Brand Name effect. However, I thought that it wouldn't hurt to give a friendly reminder and advise everyone to back your own judgment and while you may or may not be correct, so long as there is a valid reason for your decision then it is fine.
When deciding on a Brand Name and a Non-Brand Name, you need to remember it's a Risk versus Return scenario.
Why do we choose a brand name over a non-brand name product? Perhaps, because the product with the brand name is marketed better, has more exposure, gives us better security or confidence in the product and everyone knows what they are getting with the brand name product.
I'll be honest and say that in SuperCoach I can sometimes be a brand name person; major confession here. It could be because sometimes it's better the Devil you know rather than the Devil you don't know. You know what you are getting with the brand name players.
For example, in SuperCoach 2011, I chose Chris Judd over Mark Murphy. Why? Because I knew what I was getting into by choosing Judd. While I believed Judd would likely get tagged before Murphy, I chose Judd before Murphy due to the Judd's brand name. As it turns out, in SuperCoach 2011, Judd averaged 115.6 (22) when priced at 118.5 whereas Murphy 118.1 (22) when priced at 111.9. Therefore, picking Judd was a fail, if you compared Judd to Murphy, but fortunately this decision did not cost me the 2011 SuperCoach Winner title.
The reason why these brand names are important is because you sometimes sub-consciously choose a brand name because you feel it's the safer option. You believe that in the worst case scenario that if the decision in choosing a brand name player is a fail, at least more people will fail with you as well, so it's a negating factor. On the other hand, when we do choose a non-brand name, let's call that player the Point of Difference (POD, it becomes a two edged situation. The POD is great if it's sucessful, but it's horrible if the POD fails as everyone else without the POD will have a comparative advantage.
Generally, if you are leading the competition or are leading in your league and want to play safe by playing the 'Numbers Games', then it is likely you trade in a brand name player. This is simply what I did in SuperCoach 2011 and is shown in my 'Trading To Win (1)' article. It really depends on what your goal or objective, which depends on the circumstances.
Another example is Rory 'Arvin' Sloane v Patrick Dangerfield. Most people would probably choose Dangerfield over Sloane. Why? Simply, because Dangerfield is the brand name compared to Sloane (on a relative basis). But people need to remember that Dangerfield will probably get tagged before Sloane and Sloane is cheaper. Therefore, if Sloane and Dangerfield average the same and play the same amount of games, then Sloane is obviously the better choice due to his initial starting price.
Recently, NK29 created a great thread to discuss Pearce Hanley. If I was to compare Hanley with a brand name SuperCoach equivalent, then it would likely be Jed Adcock. Both Hanley (90.7, 22 games, $485,200) and Adcock (90.1, 21 games, $482,300) had a decent 2012 with similar numbers. Accordingly, Hanley and Adcock were priced pretty much the same. I think in these circumstances, you back yourself and follow your instinct when deciding between Hanley and Adcock.
I think SuperCoach has evolved where, we don't necessarily need to pick players simply because of their brand name.
I know in some cases, we can associate 'brand name' with the 'premium' status, but it is not really the same thing. For example, I would definitely categorise Dane Swan and Scott Pendlebury as brand names before Dayne Beams. But to illustrate, that a brand name is simply not just the definition of a premium, we need to consider rookies. You would call Lachie Whitfield the brand name rookie for the 2012 AFL Draft and Dustin Martin the brand name rookie for the 2009 AFL Draft. With rookies, I think it's more about security, which you obviously pay a surcharge with the additional price you pay. I think with a risky ploy like an 8 Rookie Midfield, you need to select a few brand names for security.
Reading some of the posts here, overall, I think most people are doing the right thing and ignoring the Brand Name effect. However, I thought that it wouldn't hurt to give a friendly reminder and advise everyone to back your own judgment and while you may or may not be correct, so long as there is a valid reason for your decision then it is fine.
When deciding on a Brand Name and a Non-Brand Name, you need to remember it's a Risk versus Return scenario.
