Strategy Round 2: Trades
- Thread starter doc ron
- Start date
I have Ben Cavarra and I am not sure why you want to trade him out after 1 game?
WBDs played poorly Rd1, well below of what they are capable of and most of the players scored poorly (English 63 SC pts, Dunkley 67, Bont 76, etc.), so for Cavarra scoring only 32 is not surprising.
I'm expecting, when the WBDs start scoring well, that Cavarra will follow suit.
WBDs played poorly Rd1, well below of what they are capable of and most of the players scored poorly (English 63 SC pts, Dunkley 67, Bont 76, etc.), so for Cavarra scoring only 32 is not surprising.
I'm expecting, when the WBDs start scoring well, that Cavarra will follow suit.
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,963
- Likes
- 126,630
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Okay so I j have just logged into my SC team and was greeted with an explanation of the rule changes. I am sure you guys have already worked this out but I am unsure by the info they provided below. Take Sturt. Assume he plays Rd 2 and scores 60. His price will alter before Rd 3 and will be based on 100, 60 and 25 (the 25 being his score based on his start price). So does that mean after Rd 2 his price is based on an ave of 62 (approx.). Then Rd 3 he scores 60 again. The rolling ave now is 100, 60, 60 or around 73. Is that what they mean?
And if so they guys like McGrath priced at 399k is basically guaranteed 80 plus his rd 2 score to go with his 113 in rd 1.
Player price changes begin after Round 2 (or after a player has played two matches) to account for the shortened season, one week earlier than in previous seasons. So a cheap player like Fremantle’s Sam Sturt is set to jump in price after his next game after scoring 100 in his first match. Likewise high-priced players who flopped in Round 1 are set for a likely price drop next round. You’ll need to make trades this week to get on (or off) before the first price changes.
Note that we will continue to use a three-round rolling average to calculate prices. For Round 2, the third score used will be based on the previous season average score that each player was priced at – then returning to normal after the third round.
And if so they guys like McGrath priced at 399k is basically guaranteed 80 plus his rd 2 score to go with his 113 in rd 1.
Player price changes begin after Round 2 (or after a player has played two matches) to account for the shortened season, one week earlier than in previous seasons. So a cheap player like Fremantle’s Sam Sturt is set to jump in price after his next game after scoring 100 in his first match. Likewise high-priced players who flopped in Round 1 are set for a likely price drop next round. You’ll need to make trades this week to get on (or off) before the first price changes.
Note that we will continue to use a three-round rolling average to calculate prices. For Round 2, the third score used will be based on the previous season average score that each player was priced at – then returning to normal after the third round.
You're pretty much right.
Using Sturt as an example:
Priced at $123,900, which equates to 22.82 points.
The MN will likely drop around 2-2.5% after Round 2, because of the price rises.
Let's say the new MN will be 5330.
Sturt's B/E is calculated by 123,900 x 3 / 5330 - 100 (rnd 1 score) - 22.82 (pre rnd 1 "value") = -53.08
If Sturt scores 60 in Rnd 2, his new price will be: 123,900 + ((60 - -53.08) x 440) = $173,656, or $173,700 (+$49,800).
This will vary depending on exactly how the MN changes.
Sturt's new B/E heading into Round 3, where we might assume the MN now drops to 5260 is calculated at:
173,656 x 3 / 5260 - 100 (rnd 1) - 60 (rnd 2) = -60.96
His B/E falls further into the negative, as the 22.82 falls out of the cycle, and is replaced by the 60 in Rnd 2.
Now let's assume he scores 50 in Rnd 3.
His new price will be: 173,656 + (50 - -60.96) x 440 = $222,478 or $222,500 (+$48,800).
If Sturt scores at a consistent rate in his next 2 games, his 2nd price rise is slightly bigger than his first, due to that low score of 22.82 dropping out. In my example his 2nd price rise is just lower, as I have given him a 50 in Rnd 2, instead of the 60 in Rnd 1.
Sturt's new B/E for Round 4, assuming a new MN of 5220 would now be:
222,478 x 3 / 5220 - 60 (rnd 2) - 50 (rnd 3) = 17.86.
So as you can see, if his scoring stays in that 50-60 area, his price will tend toward the $280,000 area, or around +$160,000, but he has made most (nearly 60%) of those gains in the first 2 price rises.
I hope that makes sense.
Using Sturt as an example:
Priced at $123,900, which equates to 22.82 points.
The MN will likely drop around 2-2.5% after Round 2, because of the price rises.
Let's say the new MN will be 5330.
Sturt's B/E is calculated by 123,900 x 3 / 5330 - 100 (rnd 1 score) - 22.82 (pre rnd 1 "value") = -53.08
If Sturt scores 60 in Rnd 2, his new price will be: 123,900 + ((60 - -53.08) x 440) = $173,656, or $173,700 (+$49,800).
This will vary depending on exactly how the MN changes.
Sturt's new B/E heading into Round 3, where we might assume the MN now drops to 5260 is calculated at:
173,656 x 3 / 5260 - 100 (rnd 1) - 60 (rnd 2) = -60.96
His B/E falls further into the negative, as the 22.82 falls out of the cycle, and is replaced by the 60 in Rnd 2.
Now let's assume he scores 50 in Rnd 3.
His new price will be: 173,656 + (50 - -60.96) x 440 = $222,478 or $222,500 (+$48,800).
If Sturt scores at a consistent rate in his next 2 games, his 2nd price rise is slightly bigger than his first, due to that low score of 22.82 dropping out. In my example his 2nd price rise is just lower, as I have given him a 50 in Rnd 2, instead of the 60 in Rnd 1.
Sturt's new B/E for Round 4, assuming a new MN of 5220 would now be:
222,478 x 3 / 5220 - 60 (rnd 2) - 50 (rnd 3) = 17.86.
So as you can see, if his scoring stays in that 50-60 area, his price will tend toward the $280,000 area, or around +$160,000, but he has made most (nearly 60%) of those gains in the first 2 price rises.
I hope that makes sense.
Would a trade of Devon Smith be worthwhile to fund a trade to get Neale ? my thinking is, even though Dev is a solid player, the potential for Neale to go bang with 5-6 games up in QLD and the points might be too hard to ignore?
Only problem is I'd be bringing in more rookies on field and losing a "semiprem" like Dev... Hmm
Only problem is I'd be bringing in more rookies on field and losing a "semiprem" like Dev... Hmm
Already covered abovem tbh, but had started typing this in and might as well post it anyway. Simplest way to view it:
Player ‘priced at’ score going into season is their price divided by about 5.43k/pt (from memory).
123.9k rookies thus priced at 22.8-odd.
As I understand it, the price change formula remains unchanged.
To get price movements started after rd 2, they substitute in this ‘priced at’ score in the first calculation.
So it means for Sturt, e.g., he’ll have a 22.8 as his rd 0 ‘score’, his 100 and whatever he scores in rd 2 if he plays.
For his B/E rd 2 / rd 3, the system assumes - absent other data - that Sturt will score 100 again in rd 2 (which seems unrealistic).
That’s why his B/E sinks further between rd 2 and rd 3, because for the next price change, the 22.8 would drop out, the rd 1 100 stays in and the system assumes 100 in rd 2.
In general, rookies' price increases are accelerated vs a normal year. Heavily stylized example assuming 60 flat average, 124k starting price (also made some assumptions around the magic number decay, see table at bottom is of any interest):
In terms of price changes vs starting price (i.e. the delta between price at rd x and starting price), general results at different averages below
Table (MNs pure estimates, used to have a curve with the typical decay somewhere, but couldn't find it and didn't want to recreate it):
Cheers (apologies to anyone if I've gotten anything wrong, the above just represents my understanding).
Player ‘priced at’ score going into season is their price divided by about 5.43k/pt (from memory).
123.9k rookies thus priced at 22.8-odd.
As I understand it, the price change formula remains unchanged.
To get price movements started after rd 2, they substitute in this ‘priced at’ score in the first calculation.
So it means for Sturt, e.g., he’ll have a 22.8 as his rd 0 ‘score’, his 100 and whatever he scores in rd 2 if he plays.
For his B/E rd 2 / rd 3, the system assumes - absent other data - that Sturt will score 100 again in rd 2 (which seems unrealistic).
That’s why his B/E sinks further between rd 2 and rd 3, because for the next price change, the 22.8 would drop out, the rd 1 100 stays in and the system assumes 100 in rd 2.
In general, rookies' price increases are accelerated vs a normal year. Heavily stylized example assuming 60 flat average, 124k starting price (also made some assumptions around the magic number decay, see table at bottom is of any interest):
In terms of price changes vs starting price (i.e. the delta between price at rd x and starting price), general results at different averages below
Table (MNs pure estimates, used to have a curve with the typical decay somewhere, but couldn't find it and didn't want to recreate it):
Cheers (apologies to anyone if I've gotten anything wrong, the above just represents my understanding).