The Jukes Coefficient

[Jukes]

Cotchin + Christenson v Martin + Mundy

Cotchin: 110.7 + 118 + 7.3
Christensen: 74 + 85 + 11
$951,400

Martin: 84.8 + 92 + 7.2
Mundy: 87.7 + 102 + 14.3
$888,900

CC = 406
MM = 388 + 12.136

Cotchin + Christensen = 406
Martin + Mundy = 400.136

[SydneyRox]

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

Are you going for an early nomination for an Elxam Award - Relton Roberts/Jimmy Bartel/Stephen Milne/Barry Hall combo award?

[GM]

Hi Jukes your calculations please,thanks mate.
grimes/thomas/wines-----------broughton/varcoe/murphy
Cheers

[Jukes]

Hi Jukes your calculations please,thanks mate.
grimes/thomas/wines-----------broughton/varcoe/murphy
Cheers

Grimes: 92 + 96 + 4
Thomas: 93.2 + 103 + 9.8
Wines: (115.4(0.85) - 30.42 - 8) x 2.5.
$1,110,700

Broughton: 79.2 + 88 + 8.8
Varcoe: 75.1 + 73 + 27.49
Murphy: 101.3 + 110 + 8.7
$1,164,400

GTW: 192 + 196.2 + 149.175
BVM: 176 + 175.59 + 220

GTW: 537.375 + 10.427
BVM: 571.59

GTM = 547.802
BVM = 571.59



This may be inaccurate as I had to factor in premiums, mid-pricers and rookies.

[GM]

Cheers Jukes great info
Last one for me,could you rank these in order of priority thanks.
Robbo
thomas
grimes
goddard
broughton

[KoopKicka]

Hey Jukes

Cox and Birchall or Ryder and Grimes?


Cheers :)

[Jukes]

Cheers Jukes great info
Last one for me,could you rank these in order of priority thanks.
Robbo
thomas
grimes
goddard

Robbo: 93 + 98 + 5 + 4.4
Thomas: 93.2 + 103 + 9.8 + 4.14
Grimes: 92 + 96 + 4 + 5.3
Goddard:  97.3 + 102 + 4.7

Robbo = 200.4
Thomas = 210.14
Grimes = 197.3
Goddard = 204

Meaning,
1st. Thomas
2nd. Goddard
3rd. Grimes
4th. Robbo

[Jukes]

Hey Jukes

Cox and Birchall or Ryder and Grimes?


Cheers :)

Cox: 99.5 + 96 - 3.5
Birchall: 88.4 + 94 + 5.6
$967,800

Ryder: 90.3 + 92 + 1.7
Grimes: 92 + 96 + 4
$939,100

CB: 192 + 188
RG: 184 + 192 + 5.57

CB = 380
RG = 381.57

[Justin Bieber]

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

Are you going for an early nomination for an Elxam Award - Relton Roberts/Jimmy Bartel/Stephen Milne/Barry Hall combo award?

Already got the Relton, Jimmy and Stephin ones under my belt :P

[JackBeQuick]

Hey Jukes

Please don't take offence at the following, I appreciate that you are trying to provide some way to effectively players for selection.

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.

Coefficient is a constant number, formulae is plural of formula.

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.

I can understand what you are trying to do in including the average of the previous year. However, if you are going to add the difference between the previous years average and 2013 predicted average, you are essentially doubliing your 2013 predicted average.

so if you are assessing them with the formula JC = 2012 average + 2013 predicted average + difference

now consider: difference = 2013 predicted average - 2012 average


so, now JC = 2012 average + 2013 predicted average + (2013 predicted average - 2012 average)
                = 2012 average + 2013 predicted average + 2013 predicted average - 2012 average
                = 2013 predicted average + 2013 predicted average + 2012 average - 2012 average
                = 2*2013 predicted average

e.g. for Swan,

JC = 133 (2012 average) + 128 (2013 predicted average) - 5 (difference)
    = (133-5) + 128
    = 128 + 128 (2*128)


Buggered if I know how to actually analyse them though.

[My Chumps]

Hahaha, nice work Jukesy.
Wouldn't fully listen to it but an interesting point of view.

[Jukes]

@JackBeQuick

Pretty sure that first "formulae" was just a typo :P

By including predicted average, 2012 average and difference instead of just predicted x2 it allows you to greater compare players on multiple fronts by just reading off the formula.

2012 average lets you compare players on their history, ie scoring security. You're more likely to pick a player with a history of good scoring than a player with no past good scoring, right.

Predicted average allows comparation between players on their scoring potential for 2012.

Difference lets you see their room for improvement, ie money to gain.

Bringing price into it gives you value options.

Each of these are now together in one place, in addition to the JC result.

[JackBeQuick]

By including predicted average, 2012 average and difference instead of just predicted x2 it allows you to greater compare players on multiple fronts by just reading off the formula.

2012 average lets you compare players on their history, ie scoring security. You're more likely to pick a player with a history of good scoring than a player with no past good scoring, right.

Predicted average allows comparation between players on their scoring potential for 2012.

Difference lets you see their room for improvement, ie money to gain.

Bringing price into it gives you value options.

Each of these are now together in one place, in addition to the JC result.

I just think it is a little misleading.

1. This formula is for premiums, by definition they are not a player with "no past good scoring".
2. There are 2 values dependent on subjective assessment.
3. Players will need to improve their average to maintain their price as season progresses. (i.e. difficult to truly assess money to gain for predicted improvement. Additionally, as a premium you are not picking them to make money)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by:

Bringing price into it gives you value options.

Do you mean that in determining the difference in price and dividing by the magic number, you can determine the scoring differential based on initial pricing.

i.e. if assessed by prices, differential between Swan/Ablett and Cotchin/Beams is 31.26
     but assessing by predicted averages of Swan/Ablett 253 (128/125) and Cotchin/Beams 240 (118/122), difference is 13

That is, though you are paying for 31.26 more points in picking Swan/Ablett, but effectively (assuming predicted averages are correct) you will only score 13 more points.

[Ziplock]

*17

captain bonus ;)

[GM]

Happy new year Jukesy,
Your Analysis thanks.
boyd,knights,varcoe
or
l.mitchell,cox,thomas
Cheers