Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
Hi Guys,
there is no doubt, there are many ways to assess a player, and manage how you set your expectations for the season, and adjust them if necessary during the season.
I showed during my Share Trading series in the pre-season how dangerous it is to adjust your preseason expectation on a player too much, or too early. It can only lead to problems, or cause more problems than it fixes. To change your opinion so much, particularly on a player that has an established scoring pattern/level requires some solid eveidence that firstly, his circumstances have changed, and secondly, those new circumstances are now pretty much permanent.
I don't set as wide parameters on my predictions as Klo30 does, but that doesn't mean his method is wrong. I tend to narrow it down to a 2 or 3 point range. Now the things you have to keep in mind are, it is a season prediction, and you aren't expecting that player to score at, or very close to that level every game. You are, or should be expecting players to have highs and lows, hot streaks and cold streaks. Those variances can occur at anytime in the season. The biggest trading mistakes people make is jumping on a player with an early hot streak, that goes cold. They pay too much for the player, jumping on after 2 or 3 price rises, then trade them out again 5 or 6 weeks later when their prices have dropped $100-150k. Wasted trades, money lost, points down the drain! The best way to avoid the flavour of the month types, is to not adjust your opinions too much when a player has a hot streak early on, and not to jump on players after they've had 2 or 3 good scores. Unless they are a true Premium, those score are gone! You are paying for those scores, as the players price has risen, but you are not getting them. If you are a regular reader of my posts, you would have read me say many times "Well done to those that got on him early, but it is too late now". That will be right over 90% of the time, because very few "unsuspected" players continue a hot streak.
So what is my recommendaton when a Zorko type player, who I had pegged at around 90-92 in the pre-season, scores a big score or two early, or conversely gets an injury/sub affected really low score? Within his season expectation, I was expecting there might be say a 135 and a 130 in the mix. He hit a 161 in round 2, which is 26 higher than I might have expected his season high score to be. I will adjust his expectation up by (161-135)/22=1.18, That's all. People that might have had him pegged at around 90, that saw those 2 good early scores, and jumped him to 100-105, and worst still a "must have" are failing to recognise there will be ups and downs in every season, and they can occur at any time. Surely with an expectation of 90 they expected him to score some 120+'s and even 1 or 2 130+'s. Why go dramatic after the evidence of 2 games, and change him from a fringe F6 candidate, to a must have F1-2 player? The less evidence you base a change of opinion on, the less chances of it coming true. I keep referring to 2 players situation from last seasons of examples of this. Cloke and Dimma's decision to trade him out, right at the time so many of the "flavour of the month" type Coaches were trading him in. He was never going to be a 105+ player, even though he was averaging over 114 after round 6. He was never a realistic chance of returning the points he'd need to justify his buy in price, yet Coaches were doing everything to get him in. Crazy, and it happened because they adjusted their opinion too much, too early on too little information. J Selwood was the other example, when he hit a cold streak coming into the byes (Deja Vu anyone?). Most people would have come into the season the opinion that Selwood would average around 115-116 to match his existing level. Between round 5 and 10 he only managed 539 points in 6 matches, dropping his season average to 104. Do you declare him gone, and now say he will be lucky to reach 110, and given his current form, he might only average 100? Or do you study the situation, and find there is no underlying cause to make you believe that this current low scoring streak will continue, so you back him in to fight back, and even possibly still reach 115, even though he now needs to score at 124 to manage it? He's a quality player, with a well established scoring level, you'd be crazy when there is no known underlying factor to not back him to bounce back. As we now know, he bounced back so hard, he got his season to 118! Cloke too was well established in his scoring patterns. Why, oh why, did people think he had turned into some sort of re-invented scoring machine? In the last 16 rounds his output fell to around 88/game, and people paid a price that suggested he should return over 110/game!
So how does this apply to "new" players? Players with less than established scoring levels and patterns. To my mind, they need to have shown the ability to score at the higher level in previous seasons, preferably over a 4 or 5 game period, AND have a pattern in their pts/100%TOG, disposals/100%TOG and/or the TOG itself to justify the growth might be a new level, and not just a flash in the pan. It's why I recommended against people getting Jaensch after his price rose to around $450k. It was too late then. The bird had flown, and there was nothing in his history or numbers that suggested he could sustain his current scoring level. He might bounce back from his 56 and 38, but can you imagine how sick those coaches feel after trading him in for $450k, only to get a 56 and 38? He had never managed more than 13 games in a season, and never scored at 75 or higher in a season. There was no evidence to say this was anything other than a hot streak. A definite candidate for "well done to those that found him early, but it's too late to jump on now!". As I say, he could fight back and prove me wrong, just keep in mind, for those Coaches that traded him in, in round 6, it's only his 94 in 2 games that count towards his average now, not the early 100+ scores.
In summary, yes, I think you are looking at it incorrectly. Look for eveidence, not scores. Accept there will be both hot and cold streaks early in a season, and there is more reward in backing quality players to come back from a cold streak, than there is in backing an unproven player to continue a hot streak. Setting realistic expectations is the key to it all, and adjusting a player dramatically after a couple of early high (or low) scores is only inviting disappointment. Usually sooner rather than later.
Good trading all.
there is no doubt, there are many ways to assess a player, and manage how you set your expectations for the season, and adjust them if necessary during the season.
I showed during my Share Trading series in the pre-season how dangerous it is to adjust your preseason expectation on a player too much, or too early. It can only lead to problems, or cause more problems than it fixes. To change your opinion so much, particularly on a player that has an established scoring pattern/level requires some solid eveidence that firstly, his circumstances have changed, and secondly, those new circumstances are now pretty much permanent.
I don't set as wide parameters on my predictions as Klo30 does, but that doesn't mean his method is wrong. I tend to narrow it down to a 2 or 3 point range. Now the things you have to keep in mind are, it is a season prediction, and you aren't expecting that player to score at, or very close to that level every game. You are, or should be expecting players to have highs and lows, hot streaks and cold streaks. Those variances can occur at anytime in the season. The biggest trading mistakes people make is jumping on a player with an early hot streak, that goes cold. They pay too much for the player, jumping on after 2 or 3 price rises, then trade them out again 5 or 6 weeks later when their prices have dropped $100-150k. Wasted trades, money lost, points down the drain! The best way to avoid the flavour of the month types, is to not adjust your opinions too much when a player has a hot streak early on, and not to jump on players after they've had 2 or 3 good scores. Unless they are a true Premium, those score are gone! You are paying for those scores, as the players price has risen, but you are not getting them. If you are a regular reader of my posts, you would have read me say many times "Well done to those that got on him early, but it is too late now". That will be right over 90% of the time, because very few "unsuspected" players continue a hot streak.
So what is my recommendaton when a Zorko type player, who I had pegged at around 90-92 in the pre-season, scores a big score or two early, or conversely gets an injury/sub affected really low score? Within his season expectation, I was expecting there might be say a 135 and a 130 in the mix. He hit a 161 in round 2, which is 26 higher than I might have expected his season high score to be. I will adjust his expectation up by (161-135)/22=1.18, That's all. People that might have had him pegged at around 90, that saw those 2 good early scores, and jumped him to 100-105, and worst still a "must have" are failing to recognise there will be ups and downs in every season, and they can occur at any time. Surely with an expectation of 90 they expected him to score some 120+'s and even 1 or 2 130+'s. Why go dramatic after the evidence of 2 games, and change him from a fringe F6 candidate, to a must have F1-2 player? The less evidence you base a change of opinion on, the less chances of it coming true. I keep referring to 2 players situation from last seasons of examples of this. Cloke and Dimma's decision to trade him out, right at the time so many of the "flavour of the month" type Coaches were trading him in. He was never going to be a 105+ player, even though he was averaging over 114 after round 6. He was never a realistic chance of returning the points he'd need to justify his buy in price, yet Coaches were doing everything to get him in. Crazy, and it happened because they adjusted their opinion too much, too early on too little information. J Selwood was the other example, when he hit a cold streak coming into the byes (Deja Vu anyone?). Most people would have come into the season the opinion that Selwood would average around 115-116 to match his existing level. Between round 5 and 10 he only managed 539 points in 6 matches, dropping his season average to 104. Do you declare him gone, and now say he will be lucky to reach 110, and given his current form, he might only average 100? Or do you study the situation, and find there is no underlying cause to make you believe that this current low scoring streak will continue, so you back him in to fight back, and even possibly still reach 115, even though he now needs to score at 124 to manage it? He's a quality player, with a well established scoring level, you'd be crazy when there is no known underlying factor to not back him to bounce back. As we now know, he bounced back so hard, he got his season to 118! Cloke too was well established in his scoring patterns. Why, oh why, did people think he had turned into some sort of re-invented scoring machine? In the last 16 rounds his output fell to around 88/game, and people paid a price that suggested he should return over 110/game!
So how does this apply to "new" players? Players with less than established scoring levels and patterns. To my mind, they need to have shown the ability to score at the higher level in previous seasons, preferably over a 4 or 5 game period, AND have a pattern in their pts/100%TOG, disposals/100%TOG and/or the TOG itself to justify the growth might be a new level, and not just a flash in the pan. It's why I recommended against people getting Jaensch after his price rose to around $450k. It was too late then. The bird had flown, and there was nothing in his history or numbers that suggested he could sustain his current scoring level. He might bounce back from his 56 and 38, but can you imagine how sick those coaches feel after trading him in for $450k, only to get a 56 and 38? He had never managed more than 13 games in a season, and never scored at 75 or higher in a season. There was no evidence to say this was anything other than a hot streak. A definite candidate for "well done to those that found him early, but it's too late to jump on now!". As I say, he could fight back and prove me wrong, just keep in mind, for those Coaches that traded him in, in round 6, it's only his 94 in 2 games that count towards his average now, not the early 100+ scores.
In summary, yes, I think you are looking at it incorrectly. Look for eveidence, not scores. Accept there will be both hot and cold streaks early in a season, and there is more reward in backing quality players to come back from a cold streak, than there is in backing an unproven player to continue a hot streak. Setting realistic expectations is the key to it all, and adjusting a player dramatically after a couple of early high (or low) scores is only inviting disappointment. Usually sooner rather than later.
Good trading all.
Rowsus, not a question but a comment - love it when RAMP hits close to the number for a player (happens reasonably often, but perhaps that is my averages?)
Jacobs with a 100 avg was supposed to get 130 last week according to RAMP, got 132, perhaps it needs a little more work
Jacobs with a 100 avg was supposed to get 130 last week according to RAMP, got 132, perhaps it needs a little more work
RAMP was actually the reason I took the punt, and made Sauce my Captain last week!
Hi Lukus,
It's a tricky situation you face, and something I am nearly sure will be a problem for all Sandi owners in the not too distant future.
Focussing on your direct situation, do you spend $100k, that could be used for upgrades, and secure yourself some back up in the Rucks, or do you downgrade Pyke to Derickx, securing cash, and also making some cash, lastly, do you just ride Pyke out.
Two of the scenarios involve getting Derickx, so let's look at a likely scenario for him in the next 2 weeks.
His Price is $216,000, and B/E is -10. With Pyke out, let's assume he is out until round 11, and with his his new R1 role Derickx can score 85 for the next 2 weeks. In that scenario Derickx price rises to around $294,000, and his B/E will still be low at around 5.
If you bring in Derickx for Holmes/King you spend $114k, but you get Ruck cover for when Sandi misses a game, and you might boost your round 8 and round 9 scores by 40 - 85 points. It also gives you the opportunity, with Dericks growth, to later in the season do a one up one down on Pyke/Derickx for a Minson type and get some cash, keeping in mind, you then lose your Sandi cover.
If you bring in Derickx for Pyke you still have the threat of a Sandi out hanging over your head, though you can wear that, or more easily trade Sandi to another Ruck, now he has risen so much in price.
When comparing that 2nd option to just riding Pyke out, I think unless you are getting more than one donut, I'd prefer to ride Pyke out. You possibly intended to upgrade Pyke in round 10 anyway, and if you are prepared for the inevitable tough call WHEN Sandi has an out, I think that's the course I'd take, as it uses less trades, and still fixes Pyke in the long run.
As I said, not easy, as there are many scenarios that can Work against you.
Good luck
It's a tricky situation you face, and something I am nearly sure will be a problem for all Sandi owners in the not too distant future.
Focussing on your direct situation, do you spend $100k, that could be used for upgrades, and secure yourself some back up in the Rucks, or do you downgrade Pyke to Derickx, securing cash, and also making some cash, lastly, do you just ride Pyke out.
Two of the scenarios involve getting Derickx, so let's look at a likely scenario for him in the next 2 weeks.
His Price is $216,000, and B/E is -10. With Pyke out, let's assume he is out until round 11, and with his his new R1 role Derickx can score 85 for the next 2 weeks. In that scenario Derickx price rises to around $294,000, and his B/E will still be low at around 5.
If you bring in Derickx for Holmes/King you spend $114k, but you get Ruck cover for when Sandi misses a game, and you might boost your round 8 and round 9 scores by 40 - 85 points. It also gives you the opportunity, with Dericks growth, to later in the season do a one up one down on Pyke/Derickx for a Minson type and get some cash, keeping in mind, you then lose your Sandi cover.
If you bring in Derickx for Pyke you still have the threat of a Sandi out hanging over your head, though you can wear that, or more easily trade Sandi to another Ruck, now he has risen so much in price.
When comparing that 2nd option to just riding Pyke out, I think unless you are getting more than one donut, I'd prefer to ride Pyke out. You possibly intended to upgrade Pyke in round 10 anyway, and if you are prepared for the inevitable tough call WHEN Sandi has an out, I think that's the course I'd take, as it uses less trades, and still fixes Pyke in the long run.
As I said, not easy, as there are many scenarios that can Work against you.
Good luck
Looking like I'll go King to Derickx and hope Pyke only misses 2-3.
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 8,560
- Likes
- 11,561
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Hi Guys,
there is no doubt, there are many ways to assess a player, and manage how you set your expectations for the season, and adjust them if necessary during the season.
I showed during my Share Trading series in the pre-season how dangerous it is to adjust your preseason expectation on a player too much, or too early. It can only lead to problems, or cause more problems than it fixes. To change your opinion so much, particularly on a player that has an established scoring pattern/level requires some solid eveidence that firstly, his circumstances have changed, and secondly, those new circumstances are now pretty much permanent.
I don't set as wide parameters on my predictions as Klo30 does, but that doesn't mean his method is wrong. I tend to narrow it down to a 2 or 3 point range. Now the things you have to keep in mind are, it is a season prediction, and you aren't expecting that player to score at, or very close to that level every game. You are, or should be expecting players to have highs and lows, hot streaks and cold streaks. Those variances can occur at anytime in the season. The biggest trading mistakes people make is jumping on a player with an early hot streak, that goes cold. They pay too much for the player, jumping on after 2 or 3 price rises, then trade them out again 5 or 6 weeks later when their prices have dropped $100-150k. Wasted trades, money lost, points down the drain! The best way to avoid the flavour of the month types, is to not adjust your opinions too much when a player has a hot streak early on, and not to jump on players after they've had 2 or 3 good scores. Unless they are a true Premium, those score are gone! You are paying for those scores, as the players price has risen, but you are not getting them. If you are a regular reader of my posts, you would have read me say many times "Well done to those that got on him early, but it is too late now". That will be right over 90% of the time, because very few "unsuspected" players continue a hot streak.
So what is my recommendaton when a Zorko type player, who I had pegged at around 90-92 in the pre-season, scores a big score or two early, or conversely gets an injury/sub affected really low score? Within his season expectation, I was expecting there might be say a 135 and a 130 in the mix. He hit a 161 in round 2, which is 26 higher than I might have expected his season high score to be. I will adjust his expectation up by (161-135)/22=1.18, That's all. People that might have had him pegged at around 90, that saw those 2 good early scores, and jumped him to 100-105, and worst still a "must have" are failing to recognise there will be ups and downs in every season, and they can occur at any time. Surely with an expectation of 90 they expected him to score some 120+'s and even 1 or 2 130+'s. Why go dramatic after the evidence of 2 games, and change him from a fringe F6 candidate, to a must have F1-2 player? The less evidence you base a change of opinion on, the less chances of it coming true. I keep referring to 2 players situation from last seasons of examples of this. Cloke and Dimma's decision to trade him out, right at the time so many of the "flavour of the month" type Coaches were trading him in. He was never going to be a 105+ player, even though he was averaging over 114 after round 6. He was never a realistic chance of returning the points he'd need to justify his buy in price, yet Coaches were doing everything to get him in. Crazy, and it happened because they adjusted their opinion too much, too early on too little information. J Selwood was the other example, when he hit a cold streak coming into the byes (Deja Vu anyone?). Most people would have come into the season the opinion that Selwood would average around 115-116 to match his existing level. Between round 5 and 10 he only managed 539 points in 6 matches, dropping his season average to 104. Do you declare him gone, and now say he will be lucky to reach 110, and given his current form, he might only average 100? Or do you study the situation, and find there is no underlying cause to make you believe that this current low scoring streak will continue, so you back him in to fight back, and even possibly still reach 115, even though he now needs to score at 124 to manage it? He's a quality player, with a well established scoring level, you'd be crazy when there is no known underlying factor to not back him to bounce back. As we now know, he bounced back so hard, he got his season to 118! Cloke too was well established in his scoring patterns. Why, oh why, did people think he had turned into some sort of re-invented scoring machine? In the last 16 rounds his output fell to around 88/game, and people paid a price that suggested he should return over 110/game!
So how does this apply to "new" players? Players with less than established scoring levels and patterns. To my mind, they need to have shown the ability to score at the higher level in previous seasons, preferably over a 4 or 5 game period, AND have a pattern in their pts/100%TOG, disposals/100%TOG and/or the TOG itself to justify the growth might be a new level, and not just a flash in the pan. It's why I recommended against people getting Jaensch after his price rose to around $450k. It was too late then. The bird had flown, and there was nothing in his history or numbers that suggested he could sustain his current scoring level. He might bounce back from his 56 and 38, but can you imagine how sick those coaches feel after trading him in for $450k, only to get a 56 and 38? He had never managed more than 13 games in a season, and never scored at 75 or higher in a season. There was no evidence to say this was anything other than a hot streak. A definite candidate for "well done to those that found him early, but it's too late to jump on now!". As I say, he could fight back and prove me wrong, just keep in mind, for those Coaches that traded him in, in round 6, it's only his 94 in 2 games that count towards his average now, not the early 100+ scores.
In summary, yes, I think you are looking at it incorrectly. Look for eveidence, not scores. Accept there will be both hot and cold streaks early in a season, and there is more reward in backing quality players to come back from a cold streak, than there is in backing an unproven player to continue a hot streak. Setting realistic expectations is the key to it all, and adjusting a player dramatically after a couple of early high (or low) scores is only inviting disappointment. Usually sooner rather than later.
Good trading all.
there is no doubt, there are many ways to assess a player, and manage how you set your expectations for the season, and adjust them if necessary during the season.
I showed during my Share Trading series in the pre-season how dangerous it is to adjust your preseason expectation on a player too much, or too early. It can only lead to problems, or cause more problems than it fixes. To change your opinion so much, particularly on a player that has an established scoring pattern/level requires some solid eveidence that firstly, his circumstances have changed, and secondly, those new circumstances are now pretty much permanent.
I don't set as wide parameters on my predictions as Klo30 does, but that doesn't mean his method is wrong. I tend to narrow it down to a 2 or 3 point range. Now the things you have to keep in mind are, it is a season prediction, and you aren't expecting that player to score at, or very close to that level every game. You are, or should be expecting players to have highs and lows, hot streaks and cold streaks. Those variances can occur at anytime in the season. The biggest trading mistakes people make is jumping on a player with an early hot streak, that goes cold. They pay too much for the player, jumping on after 2 or 3 price rises, then trade them out again 5 or 6 weeks later when their prices have dropped $100-150k. Wasted trades, money lost, points down the drain! The best way to avoid the flavour of the month types, is to not adjust your opinions too much when a player has a hot streak early on, and not to jump on players after they've had 2 or 3 good scores. Unless they are a true Premium, those score are gone! You are paying for those scores, as the players price has risen, but you are not getting them. If you are a regular reader of my posts, you would have read me say many times "Well done to those that got on him early, but it is too late now". That will be right over 90% of the time, because very few "unsuspected" players continue a hot streak.
So what is my recommendaton when a Zorko type player, who I had pegged at around 90-92 in the pre-season, scores a big score or two early, or conversely gets an injury/sub affected really low score? Within his season expectation, I was expecting there might be say a 135 and a 130 in the mix. He hit a 161 in round 2, which is 26 higher than I might have expected his season high score to be. I will adjust his expectation up by (161-135)/22=1.18, That's all. People that might have had him pegged at around 90, that saw those 2 good early scores, and jumped him to 100-105, and worst still a "must have" are failing to recognise there will be ups and downs in every season, and they can occur at any time. Surely with an expectation of 90 they expected him to score some 120+'s and even 1 or 2 130+'s. Why go dramatic after the evidence of 2 games, and change him from a fringe F6 candidate, to a must have F1-2 player? The less evidence you base a change of opinion on, the less chances of it coming true. I keep referring to 2 players situation from last seasons of examples of this. Cloke and Dimma's decision to trade him out, right at the time so many of the "flavour of the month" type Coaches were trading him in. He was never going to be a 105+ player, even though he was averaging over 114 after round 6. He was never a realistic chance of returning the points he'd need to justify his buy in price, yet Coaches were doing everything to get him in. Crazy, and it happened because they adjusted their opinion too much, too early on too little information. J Selwood was the other example, when he hit a cold streak coming into the byes (Deja Vu anyone?). Most people would have come into the season the opinion that Selwood would average around 115-116 to match his existing level. Between round 5 and 10 he only managed 539 points in 6 matches, dropping his season average to 104. Do you declare him gone, and now say he will be lucky to reach 110, and given his current form, he might only average 100? Or do you study the situation, and find there is no underlying cause to make you believe that this current low scoring streak will continue, so you back him in to fight back, and even possibly still reach 115, even though he now needs to score at 124 to manage it? He's a quality player, with a well established scoring level, you'd be crazy when there is no known underlying factor to not back him to bounce back. As we now know, he bounced back so hard, he got his season to 118! Cloke too was well established in his scoring patterns. Why, oh why, did people think he had turned into some sort of re-invented scoring machine? In the last 16 rounds his output fell to around 88/game, and people paid a price that suggested he should return over 110/game!
So how does this apply to "new" players? Players with less than established scoring levels and patterns. To my mind, they need to have shown the ability to score at the higher level in previous seasons, preferably over a 4 or 5 game period, AND have a pattern in their pts/100%TOG, disposals/100%TOG and/or the TOG itself to justify the growth might be a new level, and not just a flash in the pan. It's why I recommended against people getting Jaensch after his price rose to around $450k. It was too late then. The bird had flown, and there was nothing in his history or numbers that suggested he could sustain his current scoring level. He might bounce back from his 56 and 38, but can you imagine how sick those coaches feel after trading him in for $450k, only to get a 56 and 38? He had never managed more than 13 games in a season, and never scored at 75 or higher in a season. There was no evidence to say this was anything other than a hot streak. A definite candidate for "well done to those that found him early, but it's too late to jump on now!". As I say, he could fight back and prove me wrong, just keep in mind, for those Coaches that traded him in, in round 6, it's only his 94 in 2 games that count towards his average now, not the early 100+ scores.
In summary, yes, I think you are looking at it incorrectly. Look for eveidence, not scores. Accept there will be both hot and cold streaks early in a season, and there is more reward in backing quality players to come back from a cold streak, than there is in backing an unproven player to continue a hot streak. Setting realistic expectations is the key to it all, and adjusting a player dramatically after a couple of early high (or low) scores is only inviting disappointment. Usually sooner rather than later.
Good trading all.
Hi lakb24,
I'm assuming when you started with him, that you had a plan, and that you thought he'd need Trading some stage. If you did, then now does seem like an opportune time to do it. If you had other plans, then stick to them, otherwise, he has just come off the easiest section of their seasons draw he will get. It's disappointing he couldn't get that one more good score for you, but so it goes.
It's really tough to identify who the better scoring Forwards will be from here on in, and even tougher to identify the good value ones are. I'm generally against taking players like Dahlhaus after they have strung 3 good scores together. you pay a "tax" on your purchase of a higher price caused by scores you didn't get. Having said that, his price isn't totally out of proportion, and he has a lowish B/E, so he should only be more expensive after this week. He's definitely an option. The timing sucks bye-wise, but it would be perfect to hold him this week, and straight swap him to NRoo after his price falls to around $450k for next week. To be honest, I have no confidence in any of the Forward options right now, so Dahlhaus might be as good as any, if you like him.
Good luck
I'm assuming when you started with him, that you had a plan, and that you thought he'd need Trading some stage. If you did, then now does seem like an opportune time to do it. If you had other plans, then stick to them, otherwise, he has just come off the easiest section of their seasons draw he will get. It's disappointing he couldn't get that one more good score for you, but so it goes.
It's really tough to identify who the better scoring Forwards will be from here on in, and even tougher to identify the good value ones are. I'm generally against taking players like Dahlhaus after they have strung 3 good scores together. you pay a "tax" on your purchase of a higher price caused by scores you didn't get. Having said that, his price isn't totally out of proportion, and he has a lowish B/E, so he should only be more expensive after this week. He's definitely an option. The timing sucks bye-wise, but it would be perfect to hold him this week, and straight swap him to NRoo after his price falls to around $450k for next week. To be honest, I have no confidence in any of the Forward options right now, so Dahlhaus might be as good as any, if you like him.
Good luck
Hi Guys,
there is no doubt, there are many ways to assess a player, and manage how you set your expectations for the season, and adjust them if necessary during the season.
I showed during my Share Trading series in the pre-season how dangerous it is to adjust your preseason expectation on a player too much, or too early. It can only lead to problems, or cause more problems than it fixes. To change your opinion so much, particularly on a player that has an established scoring pattern/level requires some solid eveidence that firstly, his circumstances have changed, and secondly, those new circumstances are now pretty much permanent.
I don't set as wide parameters on my predictions as Klo30 does, but that doesn't mean his method is wrong. I tend to narrow it down to a 2 or 3 point range. Now the things you have to keep in mind are, it is a season prediction, and you aren't expecting that player to score at, or very close to that level every game. You are, or should be expecting players to have highs and lows, hot streaks and cold streaks. Those variances can occur at anytime in the season. The biggest trading mistakes people make is jumping on a player with an early hot streak, that goes cold. They pay too much for the player, jumping on after 2 or 3 price rises, then trade them out again 5 or 6 weeks later when their prices have dropped $100-150k. Wasted trades, money lost, points down the drain! The best way to avoid the flavour of the month types, is to not adjust your opinions too much when a player has a hot streak early on, and not to jump on players after they've had 2 or 3 good scores. Unless they are a true Premium, those score are gone! You are paying for those scores, as the players price has risen, but you are not getting them. If you are a regular reader of my posts, you would have read me say many times "Well done to those that got on him early, but it is too late now". That will be right over 90% of the time, because very few "unsuspected" players continue a hot streak.
So what is my recommendaton when a Zorko type player, who I had pegged at around 90-92 in the pre-season, scores a big score or two early, or conversely gets an injury/sub affected really low score? Within his season expectation, I was expecting there might be say a 135 and a 130 in the mix. He hit a 161 in round 2, which is 26 higher than I might have expected his season high score to be. I will adjust his expectation up by (161-135)/22=1.18, That's all. People that might have had him pegged at around 90, that saw those 2 good early scores, and jumped him to 100-105, and worst still a "must have" are failing to recognise there will be ups and downs in every season, and they can occur at any time. Surely with an expectation of 90 they expected him to score some 120+'s and even 1 or 2 130+'s. Why go dramatic after the evidence of 2 games, and change him from a fringe F6 candidate, to a must have F1-2 player? The less evidence you base a change of opinion on, the less chances of it coming true. I keep referring to 2 players situation from last seasons of examples of this. Cloke and Dimma's decision to trade him out, right at the time so many of the "flavour of the month" type Coaches were trading him in. He was never going to be a 105+ player, even though he was averaging over 114 after round 6. He was never a realistic chance of returning the points he'd need to justify his buy in price, yet Coaches were doing everything to get him in. Crazy, and it happened because they adjusted their opinion too much, too early on too little information. J Selwood was the other example, when he hit a cold streak coming into the byes (Deja Vu anyone?). Most people would have come into the season the opinion that Selwood would average around 115-116 to match his existing level. Between round 5 and 10 he only managed 539 points in 6 matches, dropping his season average to 104. Do you declare him gone, and now say he will be lucky to reach 110, and given his current form, he might only average 100? Or do you study the situation, and find there is no underlying cause to make you believe that this current low scoring streak will continue, so you back him in to fight back, and even possibly still reach 115, even though he now needs to score at 124 to manage it? He's a quality player, with a well established scoring level, you'd be crazy when there is no known underlying factor to not back him to bounce back. As we now know, he bounced back so hard, he got his season to 118! Cloke too was well established in his scoring patterns. Why, oh why, did people think he had turned into some sort of re-invented scoring machine? In the last 16 rounds his output fell to around 88/game, and people paid a price that suggested he should return over 110/game!
So how does this apply to "new" players? Players with less than established scoring levels and patterns. To my mind, they need to have shown the ability to score at the higher level in previous seasons, preferably over a 4 or 5 game period, AND have a pattern in their pts/100%TOG, disposals/100%TOG and/or the TOG itself to justify the growth might be a new level, and not just a flash in the pan. It's why I recommended against people getting Jaensch after his price rose to around $450k. It was too late then. The bird had flown, and there was nothing in his history or numbers that suggested he could sustain his current scoring level. He might bounce back from his 56 and 38, but can you imagine how sick those coaches feel after trading him in for $450k, only to get a 56 and 38? He had never managed more than 13 games in a season, and never scored at 75 or higher in a season. There was no evidence to say this was anything other than a hot streak. A definite candidate for "well done to those that found him early, but it's too late to jump on now!". As I say, he could fight back and prove me wrong, just keep in mind, for those Coaches that traded him in, in round 6, it's only his 94 in 2 games that count towards his average now, not the early 100+ scores.
In summary, yes, I think you are looking at it incorrectly. Look for eveidence, not scores. Accept there will be both hot and cold streaks early in a season, and there is more reward in backing quality players to come back from a cold streak, than there is in backing an unproven player to continue a hot streak. Setting realistic expectations is the key to it all, and adjusting a player dramatically after a couple of early high (or low) scores is only inviting disappointment. Usually sooner rather than later.
Good trading all.
there is no doubt, there are many ways to assess a player, and manage how you set your expectations for the season, and adjust them if necessary during the season.
I showed during my Share Trading series in the pre-season how dangerous it is to adjust your preseason expectation on a player too much, or too early. It can only lead to problems, or cause more problems than it fixes. To change your opinion so much, particularly on a player that has an established scoring pattern/level requires some solid eveidence that firstly, his circumstances have changed, and secondly, those new circumstances are now pretty much permanent.
I don't set as wide parameters on my predictions as Klo30 does, but that doesn't mean his method is wrong. I tend to narrow it down to a 2 or 3 point range. Now the things you have to keep in mind are, it is a season prediction, and you aren't expecting that player to score at, or very close to that level every game. You are, or should be expecting players to have highs and lows, hot streaks and cold streaks. Those variances can occur at anytime in the season. The biggest trading mistakes people make is jumping on a player with an early hot streak, that goes cold. They pay too much for the player, jumping on after 2 or 3 price rises, then trade them out again 5 or 6 weeks later when their prices have dropped $100-150k. Wasted trades, money lost, points down the drain! The best way to avoid the flavour of the month types, is to not adjust your opinions too much when a player has a hot streak early on, and not to jump on players after they've had 2 or 3 good scores. Unless they are a true Premium, those score are gone! You are paying for those scores, as the players price has risen, but you are not getting them. If you are a regular reader of my posts, you would have read me say many times "Well done to those that got on him early, but it is too late now". That will be right over 90% of the time, because very few "unsuspected" players continue a hot streak.
So what is my recommendaton when a Zorko type player, who I had pegged at around 90-92 in the pre-season, scores a big score or two early, or conversely gets an injury/sub affected really low score? Within his season expectation, I was expecting there might be say a 135 and a 130 in the mix. He hit a 161 in round 2, which is 26 higher than I might have expected his season high score to be. I will adjust his expectation up by (161-135)/22=1.18, That's all. People that might have had him pegged at around 90, that saw those 2 good early scores, and jumped him to 100-105, and worst still a "must have" are failing to recognise there will be ups and downs in every season, and they can occur at any time. Surely with an expectation of 90 they expected him to score some 120+'s and even 1 or 2 130+'s. Why go dramatic after the evidence of 2 games, and change him from a fringe F6 candidate, to a must have F1-2 player? The less evidence you base a change of opinion on, the less chances of it coming true. I keep referring to 2 players situation from last seasons of examples of this. Cloke and Dimma's decision to trade him out, right at the time so many of the "flavour of the month" type Coaches were trading him in. He was never going to be a 105+ player, even though he was averaging over 114 after round 6. He was never a realistic chance of returning the points he'd need to justify his buy in price, yet Coaches were doing everything to get him in. Crazy, and it happened because they adjusted their opinion too much, too early on too little information. J Selwood was the other example, when he hit a cold streak coming into the byes (Deja Vu anyone?). Most people would have come into the season the opinion that Selwood would average around 115-116 to match his existing level. Between round 5 and 10 he only managed 539 points in 6 matches, dropping his season average to 104. Do you declare him gone, and now say he will be lucky to reach 110, and given his current form, he might only average 100? Or do you study the situation, and find there is no underlying cause to make you believe that this current low scoring streak will continue, so you back him in to fight back, and even possibly still reach 115, even though he now needs to score at 124 to manage it? He's a quality player, with a well established scoring level, you'd be crazy when there is no known underlying factor to not back him to bounce back. As we now know, he bounced back so hard, he got his season to 118! Cloke too was well established in his scoring patterns. Why, oh why, did people think he had turned into some sort of re-invented scoring machine? In the last 16 rounds his output fell to around 88/game, and people paid a price that suggested he should return over 110/game!
So how does this apply to "new" players? Players with less than established scoring levels and patterns. To my mind, they need to have shown the ability to score at the higher level in previous seasons, preferably over a 4 or 5 game period, AND have a pattern in their pts/100%TOG, disposals/100%TOG and/or the TOG itself to justify the growth might be a new level, and not just a flash in the pan. It's why I recommended against people getting Jaensch after his price rose to around $450k. It was too late then. The bird had flown, and there was nothing in his history or numbers that suggested he could sustain his current scoring level. He might bounce back from his 56 and 38, but can you imagine how sick those coaches feel after trading him in for $450k, only to get a 56 and 38? He had never managed more than 13 games in a season, and never scored at 75 or higher in a season. There was no evidence to say this was anything other than a hot streak. A definite candidate for "well done to those that found him early, but it's too late to jump on now!". As I say, he could fight back and prove me wrong, just keep in mind, for those Coaches that traded him in, in round 6, it's only his 94 in 2 games that count towards his average now, not the early 100+ scores.
In summary, yes, I think you are looking at it incorrectly. Look for eveidence, not scores. Accept there will be both hot and cold streaks early in a season, and there is more reward in backing quality players to come back from a cold streak, than there is in backing an unproven player to continue a hot streak. Setting realistic expectations is the key to it all, and adjusting a player dramatically after a couple of early high (or low) scores is only inviting disappointment. Usually sooner rather than later.
Good trading all.
Made me wonder though, do you think Jobe Watson could be this years 'Selwood'?
Hi Guys,
there is no doubt, there are many ways to assess a player, and manage how you set your expectations for the season, and adjust them if necessary during the season.
I showed during my Share Trading series in the pre-season how dangerous it is to adjust your preseason expectation on a player too much, or too early. It can only lead to problems, or cause more problems than it fixes. To change your opinion so much, particularly on a player that has an established scoring pattern/level requires some solid eveidence that firstly, his circumstances have changed, and secondly, those new circumstances are now pretty much permanent.
I don't set as wide parameters on my predictions as Klo30 does, but that doesn't mean his method is wrong. I tend to narrow it down to a 2 or 3 point range. Now the things you have to keep in mind are, it is a season prediction, and you aren't expecting that player to score at, or very close to that level every game. You are, or should be expecting players to have highs and lows, hot streaks and cold streaks. Those variances can occur at anytime in the season. The biggest trading mistakes people make is jumping on a player with an early hot streak, that goes cold. They pay too much for the player, jumping on after 2 or 3 price rises, then trade them out again 5 or 6 weeks later when their prices have dropped $100-150k. Wasted trades, money lost, points down the drain! The best way to avoid the flavour of the month types, is to not adjust your opinions too much when a player has a hot streak early on, and not to jump on players after they've had 2 or 3 good scores. Unless they are a true Premium, those score are gone! You are paying for those scores, as the players price has risen, but you are not getting them. If you are a regular reader of my posts, you would have read me say many times "Well done to those that got on him early, but it is too late now". That will be right over 90% of the time, because very few "unsuspected" players continue a hot streak.
So what is my recommendaton when a Zorko type player, who I had pegged at around 90-92 in the pre-season, scores a big score or two early, or conversely gets an injury/sub affected really low score? Within his season expectation, I was expecting there might be say a 135 and a 130 in the mix. He hit a 161 in round 2, which is 26 higher than I might have expected his season high score to be. I will adjust his expectation up by (161-135)/22=1.18, That's all. People that might have had him pegged at around 90, that saw those 2 good early scores, and jumped him to 100-105, and worst still a "must have" are failing to recognise there will be ups and downs in every season, and they can occur at any time. Surely with an expectation of 90 they expected him to score some 120+'s and even 1 or 2 130+'s. Why go dramatic after the evidence of 2 games, and change him from a fringe F6 candidate, to a must have F1-2 player? The less evidence you base a change of opinion on, the less chances of it coming true. I keep referring to 2 players situation from last seasons of examples of this. Cloke and Dimma's decision to trade him out, right at the time so many of the "flavour of the month" type Coaches were trading him in. He was never going to be a 105+ player, even though he was averaging over 114 after round 6. He was never a realistic chance of returning the points he'd need to justify his buy in price, yet Coaches were doing everything to get him in. Crazy, and it happened because they adjusted their opinion too much, too early on too little information. J Selwood was the other example, when he hit a cold streak coming into the byes (Deja Vu anyone?). Most people would have come into the season the opinion that Selwood would average around 115-116 to match his existing level. Between round 5 and 10 he only managed 539 points in 6 matches, dropping his season average to 104. Do you declare him gone, and now say he will be lucky to reach 110, and given his current form, he might only average 100? Or do you study the situation, and find there is no underlying cause to make you believe that this current low scoring streak will continue, so you back him in to fight back, and even possibly still reach 115, even though he now needs to score at 124 to manage it? He's a quality player, with a well established scoring level, you'd be crazy when there is no known underlying factor to not back him to bounce back. As we now know, he bounced back so hard, he got his season to 118! Cloke too was well established in his scoring patterns. Why, oh why, did people think he had turned into some sort of re-invented scoring machine? In the last 16 rounds his output fell to around 88/game, and people paid a price that suggested he should return over 110/game!
So how does this apply to "new" players? Players with less than established scoring levels and patterns. To my mind, they need to have shown the ability to score at the higher level in previous seasons, preferably over a 4 or 5 game period, AND have a pattern in their pts/100%TOG, disposals/100%TOG and/or the TOG itself to justify the growth might be a new level, and not just a flash in the pan. It's why I recommended against people getting Jaensch after his price rose to around $450k. It was too late then. The bird had flown, and there was nothing in his history or numbers that suggested he could sustain his current scoring level. He might bounce back from his 56 and 38, but can you imagine how sick those coaches feel after trading him in for $450k, only to get a 56 and 38? He had never managed more than 13 games in a season, and never scored at 75 or higher in a season. There was no evidence to say this was anything other than a hot streak. A definite candidate for "well done to those that found him early, but it's too late to jump on now!". As I say, he could fight back and prove me wrong, just keep in mind, for those Coaches that traded him in, in round 6, it's only his 94 in 2 games that count towards his average now, not the early 100+ scores.
In summary, yes, I think you are looking at it incorrectly. Look for eveidence, not scores. Accept there will be both hot and cold streaks early in a season, and there is more reward in backing quality players to come back from a cold streak, than there is in backing an unproven player to continue a hot streak. Setting realistic expectations is the key to it all, and adjusting a player dramatically after a couple of early high (or low) scores is only inviting disappointment. Usually sooner rather than later.
Good trading all.
there is no doubt, there are many ways to assess a player, and manage how you set your expectations for the season, and adjust them if necessary during the season.
I showed during my Share Trading series in the pre-season how dangerous it is to adjust your preseason expectation on a player too much, or too early. It can only lead to problems, or cause more problems than it fixes. To change your opinion so much, particularly on a player that has an established scoring pattern/level requires some solid eveidence that firstly, his circumstances have changed, and secondly, those new circumstances are now pretty much permanent.
I don't set as wide parameters on my predictions as Klo30 does, but that doesn't mean his method is wrong. I tend to narrow it down to a 2 or 3 point range. Now the things you have to keep in mind are, it is a season prediction, and you aren't expecting that player to score at, or very close to that level every game. You are, or should be expecting players to have highs and lows, hot streaks and cold streaks. Those variances can occur at anytime in the season. The biggest trading mistakes people make is jumping on a player with an early hot streak, that goes cold. They pay too much for the player, jumping on after 2 or 3 price rises, then trade them out again 5 or 6 weeks later when their prices have dropped $100-150k. Wasted trades, money lost, points down the drain! The best way to avoid the flavour of the month types, is to not adjust your opinions too much when a player has a hot streak early on, and not to jump on players after they've had 2 or 3 good scores. Unless they are a true Premium, those score are gone! You are paying for those scores, as the players price has risen, but you are not getting them. If you are a regular reader of my posts, you would have read me say many times "Well done to those that got on him early, but it is too late now". That will be right over 90% of the time, because very few "unsuspected" players continue a hot streak.
So what is my recommendaton when a Zorko type player, who I had pegged at around 90-92 in the pre-season, scores a big score or two early, or conversely gets an injury/sub affected really low score? Within his season expectation, I was expecting there might be say a 135 and a 130 in the mix. He hit a 161 in round 2, which is 26 higher than I might have expected his season high score to be. I will adjust his expectation up by (161-135)/22=1.18, That's all. People that might have had him pegged at around 90, that saw those 2 good early scores, and jumped him to 100-105, and worst still a "must have" are failing to recognise there will be ups and downs in every season, and they can occur at any time. Surely with an expectation of 90 they expected him to score some 120+'s and even 1 or 2 130+'s. Why go dramatic after the evidence of 2 games, and change him from a fringe F6 candidate, to a must have F1-2 player? The less evidence you base a change of opinion on, the less chances of it coming true. I keep referring to 2 players situation from last seasons of examples of this. Cloke and Dimma's decision to trade him out, right at the time so many of the "flavour of the month" type Coaches were trading him in. He was never going to be a 105+ player, even though he was averaging over 114 after round 6. He was never a realistic chance of returning the points he'd need to justify his buy in price, yet Coaches were doing everything to get him in. Crazy, and it happened because they adjusted their opinion too much, too early on too little information. J Selwood was the other example, when he hit a cold streak coming into the byes (Deja Vu anyone?). Most people would have come into the season the opinion that Selwood would average around 115-116 to match his existing level. Between round 5 and 10 he only managed 539 points in 6 matches, dropping his season average to 104. Do you declare him gone, and now say he will be lucky to reach 110, and given his current form, he might only average 100? Or do you study the situation, and find there is no underlying cause to make you believe that this current low scoring streak will continue, so you back him in to fight back, and even possibly still reach 115, even though he now needs to score at 124 to manage it? He's a quality player, with a well established scoring level, you'd be crazy when there is no known underlying factor to not back him to bounce back. As we now know, he bounced back so hard, he got his season to 118! Cloke too was well established in his scoring patterns. Why, oh why, did people think he had turned into some sort of re-invented scoring machine? In the last 16 rounds his output fell to around 88/game, and people paid a price that suggested he should return over 110/game!
So how does this apply to "new" players? Players with less than established scoring levels and patterns. To my mind, they need to have shown the ability to score at the higher level in previous seasons, preferably over a 4 or 5 game period, AND have a pattern in their pts/100%TOG, disposals/100%TOG and/or the TOG itself to justify the growth might be a new level, and not just a flash in the pan. It's why I recommended against people getting Jaensch after his price rose to around $450k. It was too late then. The bird had flown, and there was nothing in his history or numbers that suggested he could sustain his current scoring level. He might bounce back from his 56 and 38, but can you imagine how sick those coaches feel after trading him in for $450k, only to get a 56 and 38? He had never managed more than 13 games in a season, and never scored at 75 or higher in a season. There was no evidence to say this was anything other than a hot streak. A definite candidate for "well done to those that found him early, but it's too late to jump on now!". As I say, he could fight back and prove me wrong, just keep in mind, for those Coaches that traded him in, in round 6, it's only his 94 in 2 games that count towards his average now, not the early 100+ scores.
In summary, yes, I think you are looking at it incorrectly. Look for eveidence, not scores. Accept there will be both hot and cold streaks early in a season, and there is more reward in backing quality players to come back from a cold streak, than there is in backing an unproven player to continue a hot streak. Setting realistic expectations is the key to it all, and adjusting a player dramatically after a couple of early high (or low) scores is only inviting disappointment. Usually sooner rather than later.
Good trading all.
Super Dane Swan is another example, but reverse order in terms of cold streak and hot streak.
Don't want to pump my own tyres nor steal anyone's (Blue) Thunder, but Rowsus' comment on Dimmawit trading in Cloke in 2013 then out is similar to the strategy that I did in 2011 when I traded in and out Jack Riewoldt.
I'm not sure what to make of J Grimes. He finished 2012 strongly, and was going well early last season, until injury struck. He hasn't been able to recapture that form on a consistent basis since. He is injury prone, without having a chronic recurring injury, so it could just be bad luck. He does represent value at his current price ($419,900), but he is a risk for missed games on his history, I don't think he will fill a top 8 Defence position, but he might make a cheap D6 enabling you to use the loose change elsewhere.
Johnson M and Adcock aren't overpriced in my opinion, but at about their right prices. The better value non-round 8 bye Defs appear to be: Birchall, Murphy R and Hurn. Though the annoying thing with Hurn, apart from the risk of more injury, is his high B/E. He could quite possibly be below $400k next week, but that doesn't help you this week.
Good luck, I hope you pick the right one.
Johnson M and Adcock aren't overpriced in my opinion, but at about their right prices. The better value non-round 8 bye Defs appear to be: Birchall, Murphy R and Hurn. Though the annoying thing with Hurn, apart from the risk of more injury, is his high B/E. He could quite possibly be below $400k next week, but that doesn't help you this week.
Good luck, I hope you pick the right one.
There seem to be a few head scratching things happen each season, and one of this seasons is the yo-yo-ing MN!
By my calculations, it has gone: 5394, 5394, 5014, 5003, 4941, 4980, 5064!
The drop to 4941 was too big for a post round 3 drop, the bounce back up becomes possibly expected after that, but then we see it go back up to 5064! It is unprecedented in my time of tracking it's movement.
Here's how I work it out. We know that (or thought we knew):
Price Change = (sc - B/E)*$440, and
B/E = (Price * 3 / MN) - sc1 - sc2
where sc = score in the most recent game, sc1 = score in the game before that, sc2 the score before that.
For the next equations: PC = Price change, sc3 = the sum of the players last 3 scores
So when we throw those numbers around with a little algebra, we get:
MN = P * 3 / (sc3 - (PC/440))
Now, you need to keep in mind, that the figures we get presented with for prices and B/E's are rounded off. Prices to the nearest $100 and B/E's to the nearest whole number. This causes some variance for each set of numbers you feed into the above equation. what I usually do is calculate the MN 5 or 6 times, and just take the average. Something like this:
Hodge, his Price after round 6 was $464,600, his last 3 scores are: 85, 124, 113, and his Price changed by +$20,600 after round 7.
Plug these numbers in the equation above, and you get:
MN = $464,600 * 3 / (85 + 124 + 113 - ($20,600/440)) = 5,065.0149
Watts, his Price after round 6 was $366,000, his last 3 scores are: 52, 54, 77 and his Price changed by -$15,000 after round 7.
Plug these numbers into the equation above, and you get:
MN= $366,000 * 3 / (52 + 54 + 77 - (-$15,000/440)) = 5,057.7890
Do this process 5 or 6 times, and you can be pretty sure the average of those will be within +/-0.1% of the correct answer.
History has shown, that while the MN can fluctuate, that it generally decreases about 3 to 4 times as often as it decreases, and the net effect is a decrease of around 11 to 13 per week. That being the case, I will be working on a MN of around 5048 coming into round 8, but will not be at all shocked if it falls to something just below 5,000 when I get to recalculate it again. It makes it hard to have accurate projections, but we can only work with what we have. It was certainly easier in previous seasons!
By my calculations, it has gone: 5394, 5394, 5014, 5003, 4941, 4980, 5064!
The drop to 4941 was too big for a post round 3 drop, the bounce back up becomes possibly expected after that, but then we see it go back up to 5064! It is unprecedented in my time of tracking it's movement.
Here's how I work it out. We know that (or thought we knew):
Price Change = (sc - B/E)*$440, and
B/E = (Price * 3 / MN) - sc1 - sc2
where sc = score in the most recent game, sc1 = score in the game before that, sc2 the score before that.
For the next equations: PC = Price change, sc3 = the sum of the players last 3 scores
So when we throw those numbers around with a little algebra, we get:
MN = P * 3 / (sc3 - (PC/440))
Now, you need to keep in mind, that the figures we get presented with for prices and B/E's are rounded off. Prices to the nearest $100 and B/E's to the nearest whole number. This causes some variance for each set of numbers you feed into the above equation. what I usually do is calculate the MN 5 or 6 times, and just take the average. Something like this:
Hodge, his Price after round 6 was $464,600, his last 3 scores are: 85, 124, 113, and his Price changed by +$20,600 after round 7.
Plug these numbers in the equation above, and you get:
MN = $464,600 * 3 / (85 + 124 + 113 - ($20,600/440)) = 5,065.0149
Watts, his Price after round 6 was $366,000, his last 3 scores are: 52, 54, 77 and his Price changed by -$15,000 after round 7.
Plug these numbers into the equation above, and you get:
MN= $366,000 * 3 / (52 + 54 + 77 - (-$15,000/440)) = 5,057.7890
Do this process 5 or 6 times, and you can be pretty sure the average of those will be within +/-0.1% of the correct answer.
History has shown, that while the MN can fluctuate, that it generally decreases about 3 to 4 times as often as it decreases, and the net effect is a decrease of around 11 to 13 per week. That being the case, I will be working on a MN of around 5048 coming into round 8, but will not be at all shocked if it falls to something just below 5,000 when I get to recalculate it again. It makes it hard to have accurate projections, but we can only work with what we have. It was certainly easier in previous seasons!
Hey Guys,
I'm very wary of Hodge. I may be proven wrong, but I think there is a missed game or two still to come from him, and even possibly a red vest or two. It makes it very hard to take him with confidence. I think Gibson and Burgoyne are possibly over performing, and might be due for a "correction", which leaves us Birchall. He burnt many of us last season, and he too will probably miss a game or two, but he is 6-10% lower in price than the other 3, and is currently scoring at just below what he has managed in the previous 3 seasons, which indicates he may have some improvement to come, score-wise.
I actually traded Johnson M into my team last week, and he has been pretty consistent over the last 2.5 seasons. He is currently priced to what he is scoring, so he is no bargain, but he's not overpriced either. McVeigh is priced to 110/game, and I'd be surprised if he manages 105 from here, so he is definitely overpriced (imo). Hibberd too is starting to go beyond what is reasonable to pay, for what you might expect to get in return. I will probably go Mitchell to Birchall this week, and complete my backline with H Taylor next week. He's priced at around 77-78/game, and I am hopeful he can score at around 90-92 from here. That would give him an 86 season, which he has bettered in 3 of his last 4 seasons. His round 8 bye makes him useless this week, of course. The other one that might be worth considering is R Murphy.
Good luck
Hey Rowsus, not a question. Just wondering if it was possible to have a 'Premium Defender' special for the trade tables this week considering quite a number of teams had one of Sam Mitchell or Matt Jaensch, or even both. Players like Andrew Walker, Luke Hodge, Heath Shaw, Pearce Hanley, Shannon Hurn etc. would be appreciated by a large number of people I suspect.
I hope you enjoyed your break while it lasted by the way, seems like you have your work cut with a lot of questions to be answered
I hope you enjoyed your break while it lasted by the way, seems like you have your work cut with a lot of questions to be answered
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 11,173
- Likes
- 13,044
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Good morning Row!
I know this question has probably been asked to death but with Sam Mitchell and Brian Lake now both out for at least a month, do you think there will be role changes for players like Burgoyne/Birchall?
I need to trade out Mitchell but I'm lost with too many options!
1. Hibberd (overpriced)
2. Burgoyne (overpriced but possible more MID time)
3. Birchall (underpriced)
4. Bartel (hold Mitchell and wait for round 9 for this trade)
5. Johnson (if I have Simpson in my team, I should probably consider this guys as well)
I know this question has probably been asked to death but with Sam Mitchell and Brian Lake now both out for at least a month, do you think there will be role changes for players like Burgoyne/Birchall?
I need to trade out Mitchell but I'm lost with too many options!
1. Hibberd (overpriced)
2. Burgoyne (overpriced but possible more MID time)
3. Birchall (underpriced)
4. Bartel (hold Mitchell and wait for round 9 for this trade)
5. Johnson (if I have Simpson in my team, I should probably consider this guys as well)
Hi Rowsus, 2 questions if I may, the first is do you think at 691 behind the leader I am officially out of the running for the 50k? I was in a similar position rank wise last year but from what I recall was about 200-250 points further adrift. I think the points spread seems to be a bit tighter this year as the number of supercoach players seems to be down on previous years and maybe the ones who have dropped out are from further down the ranks leaving a higher quality this year.
2nd question is there a stage where we should stop getting cash cows in to our side if we dont have sufficient trades left to use them efficiently and get the maximum benefit from them. I ask this because last year i finished top 4 in div 7 but went out in straight sets because I ran out of trades early before I could finish upgrades. I seemed to be about 2 premiums short of of my opponents at the business end of things. What was frustrating was i had plenty of $ sitting on the bench that I couldnt upgrade, for example omeara and tmitch in the mids.
Is there a ratio I should use in regards to trades left v cash cows left to upgrade. Thanks Rowsus. If anyone else has thoughts on these questions please feel free to comment.
2nd question is there a stage where we should stop getting cash cows in to our side if we dont have sufficient trades left to use them efficiently and get the maximum benefit from them. I ask this because last year i finished top 4 in div 7 but went out in straight sets because I ran out of trades early before I could finish upgrades. I seemed to be about 2 premiums short of of my opponents at the business end of things. What was frustrating was i had plenty of $ sitting on the bench that I couldnt upgrade, for example omeara and tmitch in the mids.
Is there a ratio I should use in regards to trades left v cash cows left to upgrade. Thanks Rowsus. If anyone else has thoughts on these questions please feel free to comment.
- Status