The Jukes Coefficient

[PowerBug]

Only problem with is Jukesy is that in the end the major factor of your work is the prediction of the players, which varies from person to person. :)

I like the mathematics you've put into this though, good effort.

[MTTY]

Top work Jukes!

[Football Factory]

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?

Only problem with the Pedersen vs Bock theory is Bock snapped his leg last year and Pedersen didnt, but i like the idea and effort put in Jukes

[Jukes]

Yeah as I said in the OP there's obviously blind spots like that to be alert for, such as bye, early draw, etc.

[Jukes]

Rookie and Rookie-Priced Formula; this will probably very unreliable but I'll give it my best shot.

JCE = (SA(M) - P - JS) x 2.5
      = (Scoring Ability(Multiplier) - Price - Job Security) x 2.5

Scoring Ability: The average of a player in their state competition from the last season if a newly-drafted player OR the average of a player in their 2011 AFL season. You can find most of the stats from last season for newly-drafted players in Mr Craig's rookie thread.

Multiplier: 1 if player's 2012 season was in the seniors of their state competition. 1.2 if player's last non-injury affected season was in the AFL. 0.85 if player's 2012 season or the stats taken from scoring ability were in an U18 comp/carnival. 0.9 if stats taken from reserves competition.

Price: Simple. Divide the player's price by the magic number, 5150. Subtract this from the expression.

Job Security: This is where the opinion part of the formula takes place, like the predicted average component of the formula for premiums and mid-pricers. Determine how many players are ahead in the pecking order ahead of this player for their position at the club. Don't go into specifics eg tall, short, inside, outside etc, just look at the whole position. Multiply this by 2 and subtract from the expression.



Very confusing and probably doesn't work very well but w/e. This is all an experiment(al as anything).

[Master Q]

All based on estimates... Nonetheless great work!

[Jukes]

An example; Dean Terlich vs Sam Colquhoun

Terlich: 84.6(1) - 19.94 - 14
Colquhoun: 90.1(0.9) - 19.94 - 12

Terlich = 84.6 - 33.94
Colquhoun = 81.09 - 31.94

Terlich = 50.66 x 2.5
Colquhoun = 49.15 x 2.5

Players are very close, Terlich just winning out. IMO both offer great value and should both be highly considered as two of the best backline rookies for 2012.

[GM]

Prof Juke can you give us your specs on Knights and varcoe.
Cheers

[Jukes]

Prof Juke can you give us your specs on Knights and varcoe.
Cheers

Knights: 87.7 + 80 + 30.6
Varcoe: 75.1 + 73 + 27.49 + 3.9

Knights = 198.3
Varcoe = 179.49

Knights wins comfortably, although this does not take into account the DPP of Varcoe, although I doubt that'd make up the 20 points needed.



Predicted averages taken from the following articles;
Chris Knights (Toga): http://www.fanfooty.com.au/forum/index.php/topic,67875.0.html
Travis Varcoe (ele): http://www.fanfooty.com.au/forum/index.php/topic,67883.0.html

[Toga]

Love your work Jukesy, could you do Knights vs Gray vs JJ Kennedy please? :)

[Jukes]

Knights: 87.7 + 80 + 30.6 + 4.194
Gray: 81.8 + 80 + 26.389
JJK: 79.4 + 80 + 27.13 + 0.737

Knights = 202.49
Gray = 188.189
JJK = 187.267

[Toga]

Knights: 87.7 + 80 + 30.6 + 4.194
Gray: 81.8 + 80 + 26.389
JJK: 79.4 + 80 + 27.13 + 0.737

Knights = 202.49
Gray = 188.189
JJK = 187.267

Thanks mate :)

[Jroo]

Awesome work Jukes!
Can't split Hanley and Broughton in my defence. Who wins using your formula? Cheers

[Jukes]

Hanley: 82.5 + 87 + 4.5
Broughton: 79.2 + 88 + 8.8 + 3.36

Hanley = 174
Broughton = 179.36

[Holz]

Cotchin + Christenson v Martin + Mundy