The Jukes Coefficient

[Jukes]

I have developed a formulae for basic differientiation between players/groups of players to determine which is a better option, titled by me as the "Jukes Coefficient". Below is a quote from it's first use, in the SwAblett thread from earlier today.

I reckon it's good to go with Beams and Cotchin over SwAblett. To find a quick way of valuation for players I like to add together three variables; previous season average (risk evaluation), 2013 predicted average (scoring evaluation) and the difference between these, improvement (cash value) then when comparing take into account the price difference by dividing the price difference by the magic number, 5150, and add that into the equation by adding it to the cheaper option.

I have predicted that Ablett will retain his average at approximately 125 PPG, while Swan will drop 5 points to 128, Cotchin gain 7 average to 118, and Beams 6 average to 122.

Ablett = 125 + 125 + 0 = 250
Swan = 133 + 128 + -5 = 258

Cotchin = 111 + 118 + 7 = 236
Beams = 116 + 122 + 6 = 244

That gives SwAblett a running total of 508, while CotchBeamsy a running total of 480.

Now you add price into the equation. SwAblett has a total of 1,330,600. CotchBeamsy has a total of 1,169,600. This means SwAblett costs $161,000 more than CotchBeamsy. 161000 / 5150 = 31.2621.

SwAblett = 508
CotchBeamsy = 480 + 31.2621
                   = 511.2621

Meaning CotchBeamsy shows a total of 3.2621 rating points over SwAblett. This may appear quite small seeing as their totals are both over 100, but seeing as each combination are scaled to be swung toward each other (through averages for SwAblett's benefit and pricing for CotchBeamsy's benefit) it is actually quite large.

The formula must be adjusted however for differentiating between mid-priced players.
Jukes Coefficient = Career best average + Predicted average for 2013 + xy
Then factor in price as done in the first formulae

'xy' is a relatively complex variable. To find a players xy, divide their price by the magic number in 5150. Then subtract this figure from their predicted average.

Below I have applied the Jukes Coefficient for Midpriced players for the battle between backline midpricers in Cameron Pedersen and Nathan Bock.

Pedersen: 71.3 + 75 + 17.5 = 163.8
Bock: 87.8 + 80 + 25.09 + 2.6 = 195.49
Bock wins comfortably by 32.41 points, meaning you should select Bock over Pedersen for your team.

Of course both of these formulae for premos and mid-pricers cannot be affected by other variables such as DPP and injury, although that could be factored in if you could be bothered finding an accurate proportion to the other variables.


Thoughts on these formula?

[Toga]

wow! good work jukesy, looks very thorough!

[Scrads]

Pedersen: 71.3 + 75 + 17.5 = 163.8
Bock: 87.8 + 80 + 25.09 + 2.6 = 195.49

Why does Pedo have 3 numbers added up but Bock has 4 ?

[Jukes]

Pedersen: 71.3 + 75 + 17.5 = 163.8
Bock: 87.8 + 80 + 25.09 + 2.6 = 195.49

Why does Pedo have 4 numbers added up but Bock has 4 ?

The 2.6 is Bock's price advantage over Pedersen's in terms of average. The price difference between them is 13,400. You divide that by the magic number then add the result, 2.6, to the coefficient of the cheaper player.

[Jukes]

If anybody doesn't understand how to use the formula, you can request to me players/groups of players from whom you want me to calculate the coefficients for. Gonna be hard juggling rating other teams, doing formula and managing my own side but I'll have my best shot.

[Scrads]

If anybody doesn't understand how to use the formula, you can request to me players/groups of players from whom you want me to calculate the coefficients for. Gonna be hard juggling rating other teams, doing formula and managing my own side but I'll have my best shot.

I will start you off with the change I made to my side.

Swan + Hrovat(or any other mid rookie)

or

Stants + Embley.

[Jukes]

I haven't figured out a way to calculate how to do rookies :X

[Justin Bieber]

I don't get it..l lol. But I didn't read through it full :P

[Presto]

I reckon it's good to go with Beams and Cotchin over SwAblett. To find a quick way of valuation for players I like to add together three variables; previous season average (risk evaluation), 2013 predicted average (scoring evaluation) and the difference between these, improvement (cash value) then when comparing take into account the price difference by dividing the price difference by the magic number, 5150, and add that into the equation by adding it to the cheaper option.

I have predicted that Ablett will retain his average at approximately 125 PPG, while Swan will drop 5 points to 128, Cotchin gain 7 average to 118, and Beams 6 average to 122.

Ablett = 125 + 125 + 0 = 250
Swan = 133 + 128 + -5 = 258

Cotchin = 111 + 118 + 7 = 236
Beams = 116 + 122 + 6 = 244

That gives SwAblett a running total of 508, while CotchBeamsy a running total of 480.

Now you add price into the equation. SwAblett has a total of 1,330,600. CotchBeamsy has a total of 1,169,600. This means SwAblett costs $161,000 more than CotchBeamsy. 161000 / 5150 = 31.2621.

SwAblett = 508
CotchBeamsy = 480 + 31.2621
                   = 511.2621

Meaning CotchBeamsy shows a total of 3.2621 rating points over SwAblett. This may appear quite small seeing as their totals are both over 100, but seeing as each combination are scaled to be swung toward each other (through averages for SwAblett's benefit and pricing for CotchBeamsy's benefit) it is actually quite large.

Very nice formula, but the problem is in what one predicts. Keeping the same example I predict that Swan will keep his average of 133 (no reason for him not to have as good a year as the last).
Therefore
SwAblett = 518
CotchBeamsy = 480 + 31.2621
                   = 511.2621
and the CotchBeamsy advantage over SwAblett disappears.

[Ziplock]

*yawn* career best average take their TAC cup scores for for mature players, VFL/ SANFL/ NEAFL/ WAFL/ whatever tasmania is called then do everything else the same, but  multiply the final result by about 0.75.

[Jukes]

All about opinion there Presto buddy. I've been hearing bad things about Swannies personal life (potential drug habits, rifts with teammates, early retirement plans, etc) which have swung my average prediction downward.

[henry]

All about opinion there Presto buddy. I've been hearing bad things about Swannies personal life (potential drug habits, rifts with teammates, early retirement plans, etc) which have swung my average prediction downward.

Well we've been hearing about this for a while (his weight was a major concern last year) but it hasn't affected him before. His average may drop a little though as a 133 average is so hard to maintain,

[Toga]

All about opinion there Presto buddy. I've been hearing bad things about Swannies personal life (potential drug habits, rifts with teammates, early retirement plans, etc) which have swung my average prediction downward.

Well we've been hearing about this for a while (his weight was a major concern last year) but it hasn't affected him before. His average may drop a little though as a 133 average is so hard to maintain,

my main worry is actually whether he will get pushed up to a forward pocket on a regular basis :-X

[Mr.Craig]

Now you just need to unlock the Lyon paradox.

[Toga]

Now you just need to unlock the Lyon paradox.

hahaha quality Craigy ;D