Is the gap between premium and high premium larger between DT scores or Price?

Aussie8 · January 28, 2013, 11:13:08 PM

I have been asking myself over the past few weeks if the gap between premium and high premium options in Dreamteam is larger in reference to price rather than DT scores.

Look at Dane Swan for instance, he is priced over 150k more than a player such as Redden which I find to be a massive price difference to output. Now if you take into account the GURU's estimated output the difference between these two players is around 15 DT points for round 1. Personally if I can put that extra 150k towards another position in my dreamteam at the expense of maybe (obviously nobody knows how each will score, which is kind of the point) 15 DT points then maybe I will be setting myself up for a better DT season.

I have taken the approach this DT season to pick players that have potential output slightly lower than players at the top end of the scale but for a considerably lower price the only issue I have with this kind of plan is consistency, obviously players at the high end of the scale have more consistency but at the same time each and every player can have a bad day.

What this has done for my team is given it upgrade options to look for. If my potential high premo players reach their mark in 2013 then they are keepers. If they do not money from my rookies throughout the year will give me the option to upgrade to the already establish high premos (who may or may not have dropped in price).

What is your opinion? Is the gap between premo's and high premos larger in price than output?

Subby123 · January 29, 2013, 12:00:16 AM

Pretty much sums up the dilemna of every coach!
Personally I've always thought that if you're after maximum points, always stick to the higher priced premos!
Having said that, this is the first year that I am re-thinking this stratesgy - 44 trades changes the ball game completely!

Andrew · January 29, 2013, 12:52:37 AM

Good point/observation. But I think Swan and Ablett more consistently hit the 120+ scores than anyone else, with the biggest potential of massive 150+ scores. That's why their averages are daylight ahead of the rest of the "premiums", third best only averaged 116 last year. So that extra 15 points per game (at least..!) for Swan over Redden adds up over a season - if you have Swan/Ablett for the whole season... Definitely worth the extra coin for mine.

Where it gets interesting for mine are comparing premiums who averaged 110-115 vs premiums who averaged 100-105. I'm leaning towards picking the 100-105 premiums (ie. Redden & Murphy) compared to say Boyd & Pendlebury, saving over $100k in total. Which I can then use to help afford Swan & Ablett. Both Redden & Murphy under-scored in 2012 compared to 2011, so could end up averaging around the same as Boyd/Pendlebury anyway.

Each to their own; 44 trades opens up so many strategies.

Presto · January 29, 2013, 04:03:52 AM

Quote from: Andrew on January 29, 2013, 12:52:37 AM
Good point/observation. But I think Swan and Ablett more consistently hit the 120+ scores than anyone else, with the biggest potential of massive 150+ scores. That's why their averages are daylight ahead of the rest of the "premiums", third best only averaged 116 last year. So that extra 15 points per game (at least..!) for Swan over Redden adds up over a season - if you have Swan/Ablett for the whole season... Definitely worth the extra coin for mine.

I agree.

Quote from: Andrew on January 29, 2013, 12:52:37 AM
Where it gets interesting for mine are comparing premiums who averaged 110-115 vs premiums who averaged 100-105. I'm leaning towards picking the 100-105 premiums (ie. Redden & Murphy) compared to say Boyd & Pendlebury, saving over $100k in total. Which I can then use to help afford Swan & Ablett. Both Redden & Murphy under-scored in 2012 compared to 2011, so could end up averaging around the same as Boyd/Pendlebury anyway.

Each to their own; 44 trades opens up so many strategies.

That is not true
a 100 average is equal to $515k, while 110 is $567K = only 52k more. Half of what you are saying.

Andrew · January 29, 2013, 04:36:48 AM

Quote from: Andrew on January 29, 2013, 12:52:37 AM
Where it gets interesting for mine are comparing premiums who averaged 110-115 vs premiums who averaged 100-105. I'm leaning towards picking the 100-105 premiums (ie. Redden & Murphy) compared to say Boyd & Pendlebury, saving over $100k in total. Which I can then use to help afford Swan & Ablett. Both Redden & Murphy under-scored in 2012 compared to 2011, so could end up averaging around the same as Boyd/Pendlebury anyway.

Each to their own; 44 trades opens up so many strategies.

That is not true
a 100 average is equal to $515k, while 110 is $567K = only 52k more. Half of what you are saying.
[/quote]

I should've made it clearer - you save over $100k in total choosing two cheaper premiums (Redden/Murphy) over two more expensive ones (Boyd/Pendlebury). Redden over Boyd = $62k saved, Murphy over Pendlebury = $46k saved.

Presto · January 29, 2013, 05:27:50 AM

Quote from: Andrew on January 29, 2013, 04:36:48 AM
Quote from: Andrew on January 29, 2013, 12:52:37 AM
Where it gets interesting for mine are comparing premiums who averaged 110-115 vs premiums who averaged 100-105. I'm leaning towards picking the 100-105 premiums (ie. Redden & Murphy) compared to say Boyd & Pendlebury, saving over $100k in total. Which I can then use to help afford Swan & Ablett. Both Redden & Murphy under-scored in 2012 compared to 2011, so could end up averaging around the same as Boyd/Pendlebury anyway.

Each to their own; 44 trades opens up so many strategies.
That is not true
a 100 average is equal to $515k, while 110 is $567K = only 52k more. Half of what you are saying.

I should've made it clearer - you save over $100k in total choosing two cheaper premiums (Redden/Murphy) over two more expensive ones (Boyd/Pendlebury). Redden over Boyd = $62k saved, Murphy over Pendlebury = $46k saved.
[/quote]

My apology. You are absolutely right, reading your post again I realized that it was me that misunderstood your thought

Aussie8 · January 29, 2013, 03:24:12 PM

I enjoyed reading your thoughts guys. I see that the potential 130+ scores are higher with the swans and gaj and those are definitely the options I want to upgrade to but I just cannot have them in my starting squad. I just see their price to be to much for possible output.

Fingers crossed for my sake that both swan and gaj have slow starts to the season and I can pick them up at a lower price. But hey what are the chances of that happening? haha

Andrew · January 30, 2013, 05:41:29 AM

Quote from: Aussie8 on January 29, 2013, 03:24:12 PM
Fingers crossed for my sake that both swan and gaj have slow starts to the season and I can pick them up at a lower price. But hey what are the chances of that happening? haha

Chances are pretty low of Ablett starting slow in particular, Gold Coast have some easy games in the first 8 rounds. Swan's the only one you can take a punt of, but only to average like 105 over 3-4 games... I mean come on it's Swan! Won't drop a lot and still be difficult to find the cash to bring him in (that being said I've managed it early in recent seasons, sometimes bad picks at the start can be helpful LOL).