5 premo FWDS

[fever]

quinny that first paragraph is polar-opposite wrong.

[quinny88]

About consistency will win you more league games? Explain to me how that is wrong?

[quinny88]

Lets say your key forward scores a big game winning ton every 3 weeks. That's probably realistic.
So he goes 90, 90, 130 = 100ppg avg

The mid goes 100, 100, 100 = 110ppg avg

100ppg avg each yet I win 2 out of 3

[fever]

the big scores will get you over the line as many times as the little scores will sink you.

[quinny88]

the big scores will get you over the line as many times as the little scores will sink you.

Well that hasn't been the case in my time playing fantasy footy, thought that was pretty common knowledge that consistency wins games

[fever]

Lets say your key forward scores a big game winning ton every 3 weeks. That's probably realistic.
So he goes 90, 90, 130 = 100ppg avg

The mid goes 100, 100, 100 = 110ppg avg

100ppg avg each yet I win 2 out of 3

what if you lose with the 100ave guy by 1pt 3 times out of 3, but the 130/90/90 you win 1 out of 3? we can both come up with all sorts of scenarios that justify it. if you stick with whichever has the better average you'll be right.

in your example i dont think there's a difference b/w the players.

[quinny88]

Yeah of course that can happen but it is just simple probability that if you score consistently you are more likely to win.

[locknload]

Yeah of course that can happen but it is just simple probability that if you score consistently you are more likely to win.

So you are after consistency. But Key Forwards give you anything but consistency.
The whole idea of creating your squad at the start is to minimize the trades you will have to make during the season due to a bad selection.

Your squad should be made up of players that are one of
a) will be in the top 5 scorers for the position end of season
b) will make you money (rookies or undervalued players)

I was tempted to say top 10.. but really 5 -10 are the guys you will be upgrading to throughout the year (because we did not know who they were at the start of the year)

A guy like Tex Walker will invariable hit a BE cold streak (a patch where he falls behind his BE thus causing his price to drop) and that is when you want to go after him.

And that is SC in a nutshell.
The only difference between league and overall is with overall you tend to trade a lot more aggressively.
League wins you should be hanging on to trades for finals.

As for the 5 prems.
Cox and Franklin make up 2. The other three should be players who spend time outside for the goal square.
I am personally going for the mid pricers in my fwd line (too many good ones to ignore).

[fever]

you say a lot of things like facts that aren't facts.

[locknload]

you say a lot of things like facts that aren't facts.

how so?

[Marstar]

Failing to say weather your goal is to win over all or just your league. It makes a huge difference.
Consistency is vital to winning a league premiership. If your forwards in your team scored 100 every week you would win a lot more games than if they all scored 50 one week and 150 the next week. It's simple probability.

That's absolute rubbish. 100 every week vs 50/150 split every 2 weeks = 1 win : 1 loss each 2 weeks, repeated.

However consistency 'as a whole team' is vital to making league finals. So i agree with you to an extent there.

Lets say your key forward scores a big game winning ton every 3 weeks. That's probably realistic.
So he goes 90, 90, 130 = 100ppg avg

The mid goes 100, 100, 100 = 110ppg avg

100ppg avg each yet I win 2 out of 3

This is an erroneous way of looking at it. If both of your teams are the same, bar this one player then sure you can beat them sometimes. But that match-up is not realistic. 

Assuming it was reality though, you would still be wrong.

Your 100ppg player might be more consistent with scores between 90-110. There is no way in hell he will win 2/3 match-ups.  Your KPP with 110ppg @ 70-150 will win every single time he goes over 110 but only be guaranteed a loss for going below 90. Most of their scores between 90-110 will be a coin toss. I'm not however saying that the KPP will win by a landslide either.

A real example is (2012) : Bartel (98.6 ppg) vs  Pav (111ppg)

Round 23    92   vs 120              Pav
Round 22  94    vs DNP             -
Round 21    79    vs 103             Pav
Round 20    123  vs  89              Bart
Round 19    73    vs  179            Pav
Round 18    84    vs  108            Pav
Round 17  DNP   vs 160            -
Round 16  DNP   vs 113            -
Round 15    113   vs 175            Pav
Round 14    97     vs 113            Pav
Round 13   97    vs 117            Pav
Round 12  DNP   vs DNP           -
Round 11    100   vs 99             Bart
Round 10    118   vs 93             Bart
Round 9    92     vs 113           Pav
Round 8    107   vs 48             Bart
Round 7    DNP   vs 115           -
Round 6    97     vs 148           Pav
Round 5    78     vs 95             Pav
Round 4     97    vs 87             Bart
Round 3    102   vs 93             Bart
Round 2    110   vs 66             Bart
Round 1    120   vs 97             Bart

10 vs 8 in Pav's favour and the law of averages states that Pav would have had a better chance of winning most of the match-up where one or the other were rested. I'de confidently say Pav wins 13 vs 10 over 23 rounds if they played the extra 5 games combined.

In a more realistic scenario take 3 of each:

3 KKP Fowards with a 110 average (each) will rarely lose to 3 Mids/Fwd with an average of 100 (each). Standard Deviation comes into play here but this isn't a math class.

Getting a bit lengthy but you can calculate Buddy + Pav + Tex (combined average for 2012 of 109.1 over all 23 games) vs any 3 100ppg players. You will not find 3 handpicked players to win 2/3 match-ups over 23 weeks.

[cdcanman]

Yeah of course that can happen but it is just simple probability that if you score consistently you are more likely to win.

Maths mustn't be peoples strong suit. 'Simple probability' (as opposed to 'complex probability'???) would suggest that the HIGHER you score, the more likely you are to win, not how consistently you score. It's the same as saying that Essendon will win the flag this year because they 'consistently' score 100 points per week. If their opponents are scoring 110 points per week what does their consistency matter? ILLOGICAL

[fever]

how so?

The whole idea of creating your squad at the start is to minimize the trades you will have to make during the season due to a bad selection.

agree. so far, so good.

Your squad should be made up of players that are one of
a) will be in the top 5 scorers for the position end of season
b) will make you money (rookies or undervalued players)

still agree

A guy like Tex Walker will invariable hit a BE cold streak (a patch where he falls behind his BE thus causing his price to drop) and that is when you want to go after him.

this is where it gets murky. it is pure speculation that he will hit a cold streak, not inevitable. i agree that if he does fall dramatically in price that'd be the time to get him, but then wouldn't that level of uncertainty over his performance then put into question both point a and b of the above quoted? not to mention that you also need to sell up your rookies/cash cows when they reach their ceiling in order to maximise the output of point b.

As for the 5 prems.
Cox and Franklin make up 2.

hard to argue given history.

The other three should be players who spend time outside for the goal square.

wat? surely the other 3 should be............... [see point A above]. so let's just say the franklin and cox are locked in, jj kennedy decides to dominate the competition and scores 130 week in, week out. you wouldn;t pick him?

I am personally going for the mid pricers in my fwd line (too many good ones to ignore).

And that is SC in a nutshell.

these two claims do not correlate. the fundamentals of SC are a premo/rookie structure, anything outside this- regardless whether or not it is effective- is not the norm.

[quinny88]

Yeah of course that can happen but it is just simple probability that if you score consistently you are more likely to win.

Maths mustn't be peoples strong suit. 'Simple probably' (as opposed to 'complex probability'???) would suggest that the HIGHER you score, the more likely you are to win, not how consistently you score. It's the same as saying that Essendon will win the flag this year because they 'consistently' score 100 points per week. If their opponents are scoring 110 points per week what does their consistency matter? ILLOGICAL

Yeah but if essendons opponents score 90, 2 weeks out of 3 and then 110 on the 3rd week essendon would win more games than they loose despite averaging the same score! Common sense

[quinny88]

Failing to say weather your goal is to win over all or just your league. It makes a huge difference.
Consistency is vital to winning a league premiership. If your forwards in your team scored 100 every week you would win a lot more games than if they all scored 50 one week and 150 the next week. It's simple probability.

That's absolute rubbish. 100 every week vs 50/150 split every 2 weeks = 1 win : 1 loss each 2 weeks, repeated.

However consistency 'as a whole team' is vital to making league finals. So i agree with you to an extent there.

Lets say your key forward scores a big game winning ton every 3 weeks. That's probably realistic.
So he goes 90, 90, 130 = 100ppg avg

The mid goes 100, 100, 100 = 110ppg avg

100ppg avg each yet I win 2 out of 3

This is an erroneous way of looking at it. If both of your teams are the same, bar this one player then sure you can beat them sometimes. But that match-up is not realistic. 

Assuming it was reality though, you would still be wrong.

Your 100ppg player might be more consistent with scores between 90-110. There is no way in hell he will win 2/3 match-ups.  Your KPP with 110ppg @ 70-150 will win every single time he goes over 110 but only be guaranteed a loss for going below 90. Most of their scores between 90-110 will be a coin toss. I'm not however saying that the KPP will win by a landslide either.

A real example is (2012) : Bartel (98.6 ppg) vs  Pav (111ppg)

Round 23    92   vs 120              Pav
Round 22  94    vs DNP             -
Round 21    79    vs 103             Pav
Round 20    123  vs  89              Bart
Round 19    73    vs  179            Pav
Round 18    84    vs  108            Pav
Round 17  DNP   vs 160            -
Round 16  DNP   vs 113            -
Round 15    113   vs 175            Pav
Round 14    97     vs 113            Pav
Round 13   97    vs 117            Pav
Round 12  DNP   vs DNP           -
Round 11    100   vs 99             Bart
Round 10    118   vs 93             Bart
Round 9    92     vs 113           Pav
Round 8    107   vs 48             Bart
Round 7    DNP   vs 115           -
Round 6    97     vs 148           Pav
Round 5    78     vs 95             Pav
Round 4     97    vs 87             Bart
Round 3    102   vs 93             Bart
Round 2    110   vs 66             Bart
Round 1    120   vs 97             Bart

10 vs 8 in Pav's favour and the law of averages states that Pav would have had a better chance of winning most of the match-up where one or the other were rested. I'de confidently say Pav wins 13 vs 10 over 23 rounds if they played the extra 5 games combined.

In a more realistic scenario take 3 of each:

3 KKP Fowards with a 110 average (each) will rarely lose to 3 Mids/Fwd with an average of 100 (each). Standard Deviation comes into play here but this isn't a math class.

Getting a bit lengthy but you can calculate Buddy + Pav + Tex (combined average for 2012 of 109.1 over all 23 games) vs any 3 100ppg players. You will not find 3 handpicked players to win 2/3 match-ups over 23 weeks.

Umm mate you are proving my point... Pavlich averaged a whole 12-13 points more than Bartel yet only beat him 2 more times. If Bartel averaged 111 as well so they were the same average Bartel would have out scored him most weeks