SuperCoach 2013 - Revenge of the Byes

[Trindacut]

Good morning Coaches,

With the current calm before the storm (finals), I put some forward thought to next year's SuperCoach set-up, and reflected on this year's arrangements surrounding the byes.

Let me begin this reflection with an acknowledgement to the unique situation posed by byes this year. The scheme that was played this year attracted a lot of negative emotions during those weekends. People who spent copious hours refining there team suffered abyssmal scores, and it wasn't uncommon to see poor ranking sides jagging wins over superior sides. Not out of skill or preperation, but out of sheer dumb lick.
Even those that played it well, did it at a cost: trades.

It could have been a little different if...:

The leagues were reverted to 16-team leagues. Why?

The entire reason players had to play their teams during the bye rounds was because there was not enough rounds to fit in 17 games, plus 4 finals.

Bring that back down to 15 and you free up an extra two weeks. You can then restructure the competition as follows:
Round 1 - No competition.
Begin SC Season in Rd 2.
3-week SC byes over Rd11-13
Finals starting as per normal.

The downside of this is that you play two less games, but then you could argue that the poor quality of the three bye games amounts to one extra proper game. I'll leave this arrangement for you to ponder, because the past is in the past, lessons have been learnt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SuperCoach 2013

The AFL Player's Association have successfully lobbied for a second bye during the 2013 home and away season. I would suggest that this second bye will actually be used  closer to the end of the year, with the first string of byes perhaps starting one or two weeks earlier (Rd 10-13) and the second set actually near the end of the year (maybe Rd 19-21). Hopefully this will leave Rd 21-24 free of interference by byes, less we have a crisis on our hands.

A quick mention on the current form of SuperCoach, and how that was effected in the bye rounds: 22 on, 8 off, means that without trades, and without any injuries or omissions, you would have at least 6 donuts over these three weeks. The timing of these donuts is likely to affect the outcome of 1-2 or all of your games. To offset this you would have to use 33% of your trades in 3 weeks, severely disadvantaging yourself for the build-up to these byes and the aftermath.

That situation is untenable for 2013. 6 of 17 games would be subject to a significant amount of luck, depending on your opponent and the timing of their 8 trades, or towards the end of the year, when those who used 8 trades will suffer most, making them easy opponents that should otherwise be tough.

Changes must be made, and I propose the following as the most acceptable alternative.


Model 1: 19 fielded, 11 benched.

Defence: 6 on, 3 off.
Midfield: 5 on, 3 off.
Ruck: 2 on, 2 off.
Forward: 6 on, 3 off.

Explanation:
An expanded bench combined with a reduction in on-field players means that the bench now composes more than 1/3 of the whole team. The bye rounds rest 1/3 of the competition each week, which in a balanced team (balanced in regards to the number of players from each club), can be covered by most of the bench.

This model will mean the requirement for trades will drop throughout the year, and maintaining a full team for all three bye round weeks is possible without doing trades, injuries and omissions excluded.

This model will not require an increase in trades, though any increase would never be turned down by us Coaches.


Model 2 is a tweak of the above model, but with a total squad reduced to 28, with a fielded defender and fielded forward removed from the equation. This reduces the overall difficulty for the game, and will invariably leave more to week-by-week performance than to team selection.

Model 3 is the 2012 model, but changing the team line-ups to model 1 during the bye rounds.

Model 4 is the 2012 model, with additionally trades (at least 8, preferably 12 (factoring in the 4 trade increase from ’11 to ’12)). (Total: 32-36)


Auxiliary Option is a consideration, not related to the setup of the byes. At the conclusion of the first set of bye rounds, the middle week allows unlimited use of trades for that week only. These trades to not subtract from your total trades for the year, and your total number of trades is reduced back down to 20. (provided Model 1, 2 or 3 is embraced).


Thanks for reading,

   - Trindacut

[Vicious Sandwhich Attack]

I'll read this in depth tomorrow Trindacut, and this is slightly off topic from what you are talking about, but I have had one thought ... How are the byes to be scheduled?

Take for example, this year Rd 11 we had Ade, Bris, GWS, NMFC, WBD, WCE.

Let's assume you are correct in Rd 10-12 byes, and Rd 19-21.
And also assume this group has the bye in Rd 10 first up like they did this year.

Does this group all play their bye together again in any of Rd 19, 20, or 21; or does it get mixed around the second time around.

Will it be 'A' or 'B'. This will have a significant impact on any strategies for next year imo (If anyone can be bothered thinking about it by then  ::)

                                            ' A'                                         'B'

Round 10 Byes            Teams A,B,C,D,E,F               Teams A,B,C,D,E,F
Round 11 Byes            Teams G,H,I,J,K,L                Teams G,H,I,J,K,L
Round 12 Byes            Teams M,N,O,P,Q,R             Teams M,N,O,P,Q,R
 
Round 19 Byes            Teams A,B,C,D,E,F              Teams A,D,G,J,M,P
Round 20 Byes            Teams G,H,I,J,K,L               Teams B,E,H,K,N,Q
Round 21 Byes            Teams M,N,O,P,Q,R            Teams C,F,I,L,O,R

I'm not sure how I will play byes in any case next year, but lets just say option B is the way they are scheduled; I may just disregard them and select the players that represent the best value overall regardless of byes as some have done this year.

[Capper]

nice write up Trindacut and also Vic.

But i still havent seen it mentioned anywhere that the byes for next year are going to be structured like they are this year.

Last year each team had 2 byes and we were given 3 extra spots on our benches and some extra money. Why wont we just got back to this system???

One thing that i would also like to be done for next year is that the DPP can be improved.
So you can move a B/M from the backs to mids, a M/F from mids to forwards and a F/B from forwards to backs with out using a trade.
Currently we can only move a like for a like. M/F from mids to fwds for a M/F

[Ringo]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/138673/default.aspx

Demetriou said the season would consist of 18 rounds of nine games and six rounds of six games.

Confirmed that byes will be similar to this year but double trouble. Question is how will they be scheduled so we wait with baited breath.

Ideally from a SC perspective this would be the perfect solutiion but probably won't happen:

We have 18 teams requiring 2 byes
Round 1 - 9 2 teams per round have a bye
Round 10 - 18 Repeat bye order as per Rds 1 -9
Leaves round 19 - 23 with no byes for SC Finals.
Bring back increased Salary Cap and 3 man bench

[Capper]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/138673/default.aspx

Demetriou said the season would consist of 18 rounds of nine games and six rounds of six games.

Confirmed that byes will be similar to this year but double trouble. Question is how will they be scheduled so we wait with baited breath.

Ideally from a SC perspective this would be the perfect solutiion but probably won't happen:

We have 18 teams requiring 2 byes
Round 1 - 9 2 teams per round have a bye
Round 10 - 18 Repeat bye order as per Rds 1 -9
Leaves round 19 - 23 with no byes for SC Finals.
Bring back increased Salary Cap and 3 man bench

oh yeh. thats right. AFL dont care about us fantasy people though :'( :( :'(

[Vicious Sandwhich Attack]

Model 1: 19 fielded, 11 benched.

Defence: 6 on, 3 off.
Midfield: 5 on, 3 off.
Ruck: 2 on, 2 off.
Forward: 6 on, 3 off.

Explanation:
An expanded bench combined with a reduction in on-field players means that the bench now composes more than 1/3 of the whole team. The bye rounds rest 1/3 of the competition each week, which in a balanced team (balanced in regards to the number of players from each club), can be covered by most of the bench.

This model will mean the requirement for trades will drop throughout the year, and maintaining a full team for all three bye round weeks is possible without doing trades, injuries and omissions excluded.

This model will not require an increase in trades, though any increase would never be turned down by us Coaches.

Would you change the pricing structure in this example? i.e. lower prices or a smaller salary cap? Taking a stock G n' R approach usually means 12-14 Prems and 8-10 rooks on field round 1. If prices stayed the same everyone would be at worst 7 Prems, potentially 5 Prems away from a 'Full Squad' in a normal 9 game round at the start of the season in this example.

Would this make it too easy for inexperienced coaches, and compress scoring ranges due to cookie cutter teams having even less difference?

[Vicious Sandwhich Attack]

One thing that i would also like to be done for next year is that the DPP can be improved.
So you can move a B/M from the backs to mids, a M/F from mids to forwards and a F/B from forwards to backs with out using a trade.
Currently we can only move a like for a like. M/F from mids to fwds for a M/F

3 way trades would do the job Tabs. I can't recall the exact trade but once this year I could have upgraded from Mid only to Def only with one trade, but it would have taken two so I left it alone..

e.g.
Hit 'T' on the Mid you want to trade.
Move Treloar from Fwd to Mid
Move Smedts from Def to Fwd (This was the step that I couldn't do)
Trade in a new Defender.

From memory in my real life example, I was trying to get DPP link with Johnson and Smedts, and move MacDonald on at the same time and this was the only way to do it in one trade.

[Capper]

One thing that i would also like to be done for next year is that the DPP can be improved.
So you can move a B/M from the backs to mids, a M/F from mids to forwards and a F/B from forwards to backs with out using a trade.
Currently we can only move a like for a like. M/F from mids to fwds for a M/F

3 way trades would do the job Tabs. I can't recall the exact trade but once this year I could have upgraded from Mid only to Def only with one trade, but it would have taken two so I left it alone..

e.g.
Hit 'T' on the Mid you want to trade.
Move Treloar from Fwd to Mid
Move Smedts from Def to Fwd (This was the step that I couldn't do)
Trade in a new Defender.

From memory in my real life example, I was trying to get DPP link with Johnson and Smedts, and move MacDonald on at the same time and this was the only way to do it in one trade.

but what if you were able to do it with out doing a trade??? If you had Smedts in your forwards, Goodes in your mids and lids in you backs , you could move lids to your mids, Goodes to your forwards and Smedts to your backs with out using a trade

[Capper]

Model 1: 19 fielded, 11 benched.

Defence: 6 on, 3 off.
Midfield: 5 on, 3 off.
Ruck: 2 on, 2 off.
Forward: 6 on, 3 off.

Explanation:
An expanded bench combined with a reduction in on-field players means that the bench now composes more than 1/3 of the whole team. The bye rounds rest 1/3 of the competition each week, which in a balanced team (balanced in regards to the number of players from each club), can be covered by most of the bench.

This model will mean the requirement for trades will drop throughout the year, and maintaining a full team for all three bye round weeks is possible without doing trades, injuries and omissions excluded.

This model will not require an increase in trades, though any increase would never be turned down by us Coaches.

Would you change the pricing structure in this example? i.e. lower prices or a smaller salary cap? Taking a stock G n' R approach usually means 12-14 Prems and 8-10 rooks on field round 1. If prices stayed the same everyone would be at worst 7 Prems, potentially 5 Prems away from a 'Full Squad' in a normal 9 game round at the start of the season in this example.

Would this make it too easy for inexperienced coaches, and compress scoring ranges due to cookie cutter teams having even less difference?

i like the one but i dont think they will do it as they want to keep the same numbers as the teams. If they did this they would probably lower the cap

[Trindacut]

- While it is possible for the AFL to maintain the same groupings for the two sets of bye rounds, I don't think there is any motivation for them to do that. I can't see there being any predictable pattern, in fact, and all of the number crunching i've done culminates to the same conclusion; you cannot stack more than 3 players from the same club in your team at any one time.

- Improving the DPP usability would definitely be a plus. They took a really good big step this year by allowing you to move a plyer during a trade. It's come up about four time this year where I've wanted to do that twice though with Tomlinson as a fwd/def. I consequently wore a donut in an effort to save more trades.

- Up until the introduction of GCS and GWS, starting a squad with 14 guns and a massive bag of rookies was extremely risky. It was only this year that I started with that setup and I definitely saw some results. That said though, I've seen a few teams that started with 3 or less GWS players and have absolutely hammered good teams due to the difference in GWS performances.

I wouldn't change the pricing structure, or the salary cap. Next year will be a bit of a return to a more classic SuperCoach, whereby the crucial middle-priced player selections were what made or broke a team. An increase in trades, or the unlimited trade week, would be a sufficient reduction in difficulty for newer coaches.

And cheers for the responses. I am looking at e-mailing this feedback to VirtualSports and seeing what I get.

[Phasir]

 The salary cap doesn't need to be increased exorbitantly to make up for the extra bench positions, they just need to lower the "magic number" I'd personally like the fantasy salary cap to be the same as the real salary cap to add to the realism.

  I'd also like there to be a full 40 man squad available to choose from with 22 playing & 18 emergencies, I reckon that'd be pretty helpful through the rounds with 6 teams missing for the byes.

- While it is possible for the AFL to maintain the same groupings for the two sets of bye rounds, I don't think there is any motivation for them to do that. I can't see there being any predictable pattern, in fact, and all of the number crunching i've done culminates to the same conclusion; you cannot stack more than 3 players from the same club in your team at any one time.

- Improving the DPP usability would definitely be a plus. They took a really good big step this year by allowing you to move a plyer during a trade. It's come up about four time this year where I've wanted to do that twice though with Tomlinson as a fwd/def. I consequently wore a donut in an effort to save more trades.

- Up until the introduction of GCS and GWS, starting a squad with 14 guns and a massive bag of rookies was extremely risky. It was only this year that I started with that setup and I definitely saw some results. That said though, I've seen a few teams that started with 3 or less GWS players and have absolutely hammered good teams due to the difference in GWS performances.

I wouldn't change the pricing structure, or the salary cap. Next year will be a bit of a return to a more classic SuperCoach, whereby the crucial middle-priced player selections were what made or broke a team. An increase in trades, or the unlimited trade week, would be a sufficient reduction in difficulty for newer coaches.

And cheers for the responses. I am looking at e-mailing this feedback to VirtualSports and seeing what I get.

- the structure resembling a true AFL list (ie. 40 man squad) would enable you to pick 3 players from the one team, understandably there won't be that many people interested in this solution as its a long shot from "Classic" fantasy footy.

- with regards to the DPP, they did make big steps this year with the trades, however they need to give DPP status to all the players that DO play in other positions, such as Dustin Martin being listed as DPP but Swan not, would there be a way to have a player only able to be selected in the initial squad as primarily a midfielder but also able to substitute to another position they're eligible to play in if there's an injury/suspension, or if the primary player from that position is unavailable, not purely for stacking the forward line with midfielders from the start (for example this year with Beams, Sidebottom, Dangerfield, Martin, Chapman, Goodes, Zorko)

- no offence to anyone of a different opinion, but unlimited trade week is a horrible idea, I shudder every time someone mentions it, it goes against the whole idea of building a team and living with your mistakes, form slumps, injuries are part of the fantasy footy life, and real footy too I suppose.  Again, the expansion of squad size would be a better alternative to this unlimited free for all trading in my opinion.

sorry if I sounded a bit rude by the way mate, I think this is a great idea and definitely submit this to VS if you can, someone has to tell them what the public want ;D