Theory of Relativity

[Impromptu]

My recent article the ‘BuddyFly Effect‘ has create a friendly debate on this site and on Twitter, therefore it is appropriate I write a follow up article. The debate was about whether Buddy should be everyone’s initial team, which I indicated that Buddy will not be in my initial team. I am no Albert Einstein, however I do have a theory of relativity from a SuperCoach perspective.

Team Buddy:

• Buddy is a superstar and will average 120+
• Buddy just had 25 possession against Fremantle
• If Buddy is not performing in the forwardline, he will be moved to the midfield
• Buddy will finish easily*in the top 7 forwards and you will have to trade him in anyway
• Why waste a trade on Buddy when you know you will trade Buddy in?

Team Impromptu

• Buddy priced at an average of 110
• Buddy plays against the Pies, Cats, Crows, Eagles, Swans and the Saints in the first 6 rounds
• The weakest link, ie the Crows just won the NAB Cup and while it’s just the preseason, the Crows’ confidence will be up

Team Buddy looks clearly the winner over Team Impromptu!

However, I would like to introduce my friend, Albert Einstein and now with his help, I have adapted his ‘Theory of Relativity’. This theory is about choosing an alternative and then comparing the outcome of the original scenario with the alternative to see which is better? To illustrate this, let’s look at 2 scenarios:

1. Team Buddy chooses Buddy (obviously) and Team Impromptu chooses Adam Goodes in their initial SuperCoach teams. Team Buddy brings in Goodes in round 7 and Team Impromptu brings in Buddy in the same round. So long as Goodes plus 2 points scores more than Buddy in the first 6 rounds, then Team Impromptu wins. If Buddy scores more than Goodes plus 2 points, then Team Buddy wins. For this example, I’ll exclude the savings as it’s negligible.
2. Team Buddy chooses Buddy (again obviously) and Team Impromptu chooses Nick Riewoldt in their initial SuperCoach teams. Team Buddy brings in Riewoldt in round 7 and Team Impromptu brings in Buddy in the same round. So long as Riewoldt plus 23 points scores more than Buddy in the first 6 rounds, then Team Impromptu wins. If Buddy scores more than Riewoldt plus 23 points, then Team Buddy wins. However, what also needs to brought into the equation is the money we saved choosing Riewoldt over Buddy ($124,660). If the extra $124,660 allows us to choose a premium over a non-premium, then we have already saved a trade choosing Riewoldt over Buddy. All things being equal, we assume the money saved ($124,660) results in a benefit of 23 points elsewhere. Of course, if the money saved results in a benefit of 13 points then the equation becomes Buddy versus Riewoldt plus 13 points. On the other hand, if the money saved provides a benefit of 33 points then the equation becomes Buddy versus Riewoldt plus 33 points. The benefit is the difference between the score of the player we choose with Buddy (for example a rookie) and the player we choose with Riewoldt (for example Lake/Porplyzia), which all things equal should be 23 points, but we all know this benefit can vary.

We can make this comparison with any other forward premiums in my initial SuperCoach Team. To simply the above examples, I used difference in points, but it’s the average over the 6 weeks, so it’s Buddy’s average versus Goodes’ average plus 2 points versus Riewoldt’s average plus 23 points in the first 6 rounds.
To assess whether Team Buddy wins, it not only depends on Buddy’s score, but also on the score of Buddy’s replacement and the outcome of the money saved by not choosing Buddy. My intention is to bring Buddy in round 7, so we need to exclude Buddy’s score post round 6. Based on my planned trades, after round 6, Buddy’s score will be my score and we will all be one happy family again.

I won’t be wasting a trade as everyone will be upgrading anyway. Team Buddy upgrades to Goodes/N.Riewoldt with Team Impromptu upgrading to Buddy and therefore, we all use 1 trade.

Devize and Hungry Hawk make valid comments in the article the “BuddyFly Effect“. However with Devize, I think it is better we use Riewoldt/Goodes as an example because with Andrew Swallow, which is a good example, the issue of team structure will come into play.

A few twitter followers have said ‘You can’t win without Buddy’, which I agree. I will have Buddy in my team, just not the first 6 rounds. I have no doubt this is a risky strategy, but as you know I like to take some risks. Now the question remains who will be my alternative to Buddy; will it be Goodes or Riewoldt? Don’t forget, if Buddy is in my initial SuperCoach team, then it would be (Buddy, Goodes) or (Buddy, Riewoldt).

Note: Buddy, in the off chance you are reading this, please be nice in the first 6 weeks!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article has been migrated from SuperCoach Scores Blog to SuperCoach Scores Forum.