SC Teams Of The Year

[Rowsus]

[table="width: 600, class: grid, align: center"]
[tr]
[td]Pos[/td]
[td]Total Points[/td]
[td]Points[/td]
[td]Average Points[/td]
[td]Ave[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]D1[/td]
[td]Deledio[/td]
[td]2,566[/td]
[td]Deledio[/td]
[td]116.6[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]D2[/td]
[td]Scotland[/td]
[td]2,102[/td]
[td]Goddard[/td]
[td]101.2[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]D3[/td]
[td]Goddard[/td]
[td]2,024[/td]
[td]Shaw H[/td]
[td]101.2[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]D4[/td]
[td]Hurn[/td]
[td]2,010[/td]
[td]Waters[/td]
[td]100.3[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]D5[/td]
[td]Hanley[/td]
[td]1,995[/td]
[td]Scotland[/td]
[td]100.1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]D6[/td]
[td]Enright[/td]
[td]1,972[/td]
[td]Birchall[/td]
[td]94.7[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]D7[/td]
[td]Johnson M[/td]
[td]1,967[/td]
[td]Enright[/td]
[td]93.9[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]D8[/td]
[td]Rance[/td]
[td]1,911[/td]
[td]Duffield[/td]
[td]92.8[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]D9[/td]
[td]Dempster[/td]
[td]1,905[/td]
[td]Hurn[/td]
[td]91.4[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]


[table="width: 600, class: grid, align: center"]
[tr]
[td]M1[/td]
[td]Ablett[/td]
[td]2,768[/td]
[td]Ablett[/td]
[td]138.4[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]M2[/td]
[td]Watson[/td]
[td]2,661[/td]
[td]Swan[/td]
[td]126.2[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]M3[/td]
[td]Kennedy JP[/td]
[td]2,622[/td]
[td]Pendlebury[/td]
[td]124.7[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]M4[/td]
[td]Cotchin[/td]
[td]2,558[/td]
[td]Watson[/td]
[td]121.0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]M5[/td]
[td]Tuck[/td]
[td]2,522[/td]
[td]Kennedy JP[/td]
[td]119.2[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]M6[/td]
[td]Boyd[/td]
[td]2,491[/td]
[td]Selwood J[/td]
[td]117.7[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]M7[/td]
[td]Jack[/td]
[td]2,459[/td]
[td]Cotchin[/td]
[td]116.3[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]M8[/td]
[td]Thompson[/td]
[td]2,430[/td]
[td]Tuck[/td]
[td]114.6[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]


[table="width: 600, class: grid, align: center"]
[tr]
[td]R1[/td]
[td]Cox[/td]
[td]2,470[/td]
[td]Naitanui[/td]
[td]114.2[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]R2[/td]
[td]Maric I[/td]
[td]2,382[/td]
[td]Maric I[/td]
[td]113.4[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]R3[/td]
[td]Naitanui[/td]
[td]2,284[/td]
[td]Cox[/td]
[td]112.3[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]R4[/td]
[td]Jacobs[/td]
[td]2,144[/td]
[td]McEvoy[/td]
[td]104.2[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]


[table="width: 600, class: grid, align: center"]
[tr]
[td]F1[/td]
[td]Dangerfield[/td]
[td]2,615[/td]
[td]Beams D[/td]
[td]122.9[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]F2[/td]
[td]Beams D[/td]
[td]2,581[/td]
[td]Dangerfield[/td]
[td]118.9[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]F3[/td]
[td]Pavlich[/td]
[td]2,331[/td]
[td]Franklin[/td]
[td]115.5[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]F4[/td]
[td]O'Keefe[/td]
[td]2,242[/td]
[td]Pavlich[/td]
[td]111.0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]F5[/td]
[td]Sidebottom[/td]
[td]2,231[/td]
[td]O'Keefe[/td]
[td]106.8[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]F6[/td]
[td]Bennell[/td]
[td]2,146[/td]
[td]Sidebottom[/td]
[td]106.2[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]F7[/td]
[td]Harvey[/td]
[td]2,101[/td]
[td]Roughhead J[/td]
[td]103.7[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]F8[/td]
[td]Petrie[/td]
[td]2,081[/td]
[td]Walker T[/td]
[td]100.2[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]F9[/td]
[td]Roughhead[/td]
[td]2,074[/td]
[td]Chapman[/td]
[td]100.1[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

To qualify for the Averages team, a player was required to play a minimum of 16 games.

The 2 teams raise an obvious question. Which is better to take note of, a good average, or a lesser average, but more points?
There is no cut and dried answer. The first thing you need to know to answer that question is "What is your season goal?
If it is to win the overall, in MOST cases you are best to look at total points. If it is to win your league, you MIGHT be better looking at averages. If you have given hope of doing either, and want a crack at the car/weekly prize, then averages definitely suit you better.

So why the capitalised "MOST" and "MIGHT"?
Let's look at:
R O'Keefe - 21 games 2,242 points, ave 106.8, season highlights - 136, 137, 142, 143, 159.
L Franklin - 16 games 1,848 points, ave 115.5, season highlights - 130, 131, 140, 142, 236.

If you're playing for overall, O'Keefe outscores Buddy by 394 points, in his 5 extra games. To be better off with Buddy, your bench player that replaces him in those 5 games needs to average 79 points per game (394/5 = 78.8). Some of you will think this is easy. You might have a side like Chewylizard, and have 151 (Fyfe) and 120 (Pavlich) sitting on your bench. Others, like me, might have had no cover at all in the last 3, 4 or 5 weeks. Only you can decide what fits, but that is the equation that answers the question. I tend to think, MOST of the time you're better with RO'k in this situation. It is really easy to run out of coverage on the bench, especially coverage that can be relied on for 80 points.

If you are playing for League glory, you know there is going to be a blip or 2 along the way. Not many win their league undefeated. A team with Franklin, Pendlebury and Swan will probably beat a team with O'Keefe, Boyd and Thompson. But given they only played 16, 18 and 18 games this year you MIGHT lose a very important game, even a Grand Final because you couldn't get all 3 on the park at the same time.

The third scenario, of playing for the car/weekly prize is self evident. How could you not throw a Buddy in there, when he can smash out a 236?

There will follow later in the week, a list of each position in regards to rounds 1 - 10, and 11 - 23. It is necessary to put all the byes into one section for this analysis. It would seem more prudent to have them in the 2nd half of the season, as people have traded to fix their initial mistakes early, and there team is more settled, barring suspensions and LTI's by then.

I might also have a crack at the best set and forget side. That is to say, someone might have picked a side, and then never bothered to look at it again after round 1. What is the best side they could pick? Where did it finish? You have to pick 30 players, but only 25 get to play! (22 in your starting line up, plus the 3 players you had emergency on in round 1. Keeping within the starting salary cap, of course)

I also have another thing coming on depth of scoring by teams, and against teams. Maybe next week.

 

[Goodie's Guns]

Great analysis again Rowsus I knew that you would do a review like this.
Looking at the players in the averages section of the midfield it gives me confidence that i have played a good season seeing that I had all them apart from JP Kennedy who I had prides instead of, and all from about round 11.

 

[Zim^zuM]

IF someone can be bothered can they figure out through the actual fluctuation of prices what the best team possible was and its final score. Or if it was possible to end with that team of the year

 

[Goodie's Guns]

IF someone can be bothered can they figure out through the actual fluctuation of prices what the best team possible was and its final score. Or if it was possible to end with that team of the year

Ask Rowsus, he does have a thread already though.

 

[IDIG]

Great thread. This stuff always plays on my mind but in reality trading throughout almost always has more bearing of your final result than your initial team so i guess the team with averages/sufficient bench wins?

I think from both Jay and Michael's initial teams you could say they were good but not perfect but their corrective trades and also trading throughout, dodging bullets and bringing in players on their upswing got them the choccys in the end. The other thing is not jumping on players like Stanton at full price but making sure you get on the Danger/Beams type...bit of luck involved there knowing which to go for but i guess in the end almost everyone had Danger/Beams even after their upswing so they all knew something i didn't

 

[Rowsus]

IF someone can be bothered can they figure out through the actual fluctuation of prices what the best team possible was and its final score. Or if it was possible to end with that team of the year

It's a good question Zim^zuM, but the hours and hours of permutations you need to go through, makes it nearly impossible to answer. I'm sure someone could write some sort of program to work it out, but that would be beyond my capabilities.

 

[Damoz]

Nice Analysis Rowsus! Great to how each Player has gone this year on the 2 Factors. =]

 

[blue dreamer]

Thanks for this it is going in the vault for next year