NRL Fantasy 2020 Part 9

Camo123 wrote:1. Ryan Papenhuyzen
2. Suliasi Vunivalu
3. Justin Olam
4. Marion Seve
5. Josh Addo-Carr
6. Cameron Munster
7. Jahrome Hughes
8. Jesse Bromwich
9. Cameron Smith
10. Tui Kamikamica
11. Felise Kaufusi
12. Kenny Bromwich
13. Dale Finucane
14. Harry Grant
15. Tino Fa'Asuamaleaui
16. Max King
17. Albert Vete
18. Tom Eisenhuth
19. Darryn Schonig
20. Nicho Hynes
21. Brenko Lee
22. Ryley Jacks
23.Cooper Johns
24. Chris Lewis

Milchcow wrote:

The original deadline of Tuesday for team naming was for print deadlines for Big League magazine.

Now that its dead (is it dead yet? I know Rugby League Week stopped) there's no real reason to name teams on a Tuesday other than satisfying the urges of Fantasy players (and giving them something to get angry about when the team changes by Sunday)

Do you think coaches actually enjoy naming a team several days before a game?

Mulvy wrote:Is Shibasaki left or right centre.  I hate the price point, but I'm looking at ways to cheapen my centres for $ elsewhere.

mattnz wrote:Trying to explain by example how positional difference is important. Lets assume that all these players perform well and score 10 points more than they are priced at, for simplicity (all numbers taken from MTBs site for consistency):

Team A (all players that I am deliberately avoiding):
Sua $412k priced at 28, scores 38
Stimson $390k priced at 27, scores 37
Brailey $400k priced at 28, scores 38
Lowe $430k priced at 30, scores 40
All 4 need to be in starting 17 to start the season, total cost $1,632k

Team B:
Burns $500k priced at 34, scores 44
Kikau $642k priced at 44, scores 54
Luai $249k priced at 17, scores 27
Amone $246k priced at 17, scores 27
All 4 need to be in starting 17 to start the season, total cost $1,637

So the assumption is that both groups of 4 players that may be the only differences in our 17s score on average 40 points per week better than their cost.

The difference is that in a few weeks time Team A has all these 2RF and HOK players that haven't peaked yet, and need to be upgraded, as they aren't scoring enough to justify a starting spot in their positions, or even in 14-17. If you wait for them to max out at the full 10 point difference, they need to sit in NPRs, which wastes team value, that isn't converted into points in your scoring 17.

This is much less of an issue for team B, where you can easily drop the players averaging 27 to the NPRs until they max out in value, then trade them. The 2 players performing well in their positions at CTR averaging 44 and 2RF averaging 54 don't need any attention at all until at least the byes.

That is why position matters and the expected scores in each position equally matter as the season progresses.

my tv broke wrote:Pat Carrigan named captain in Glenns absense this week

mattnz wrote:

The difference is horsey can fill that awkward FRF position, none of the others can

StormTrooper96 wrote:

NAS getting a rest? Tui would go to bench come round 1.

If Tino can see 35 minutes off the bench that could be one of those slow burning money makers?

Milchcow wrote:

The original deadline of Tuesday for team naming was for print deadlines for Big League magazine.

Now that its dead (is it dead yet? I know Rugby League Week stopped) there's no real reason to name teams on a Tuesday other than satisfying the urges of Fantasy players (and giving them something to get angry about when the team changes by Sunday)

Do you think coaches actually enjoy naming a team several days before a game?

mattnz wrote:Trying to explain by example how positional difference is important. Lets assume that all these players perform well and score 10 points more than they are priced at, for simplicity (all numbers taken from MTBs site for consistency):

Team A (all players that I am deliberately avoiding):
Sua $412k priced at 28, scores 38
Stimson $390k priced at 27, scores 37
Brailey $400k priced at 28, scores 38
Lowe $430k priced at 30, scores 40
All 4 need to be in starting 17 to start the season, total cost $1,632k

Team B:
Burns $500k priced at 34, scores 44
Kikau $642k priced at 44, scores 54
Luai $249k priced at 17, scores 27
Amone $246k priced at 17, scores 27
All 4 need to be in starting 17 to start the season, total cost $1,637

So the assumption is that both groups of 4 players that may be the only differences in our 17s score on average 40 points per week better than their cost.

The difference is that in a few weeks time Team A has all these 2RF and HOK players that haven't peaked yet, and need to be upgraded, as they aren't scoring enough to justify a starting spot in their positions, or even in 14-17. If you wait for them to max out at the full 10 point difference, they need to sit in NPRs, which wastes team value, that isn't converted into points in your scoring 17.

This is much less of an issue for team B, where you can easily drop the players averaging 27 to the NPRs until they max out in value, then trade them. The 2 players performing well in their positions at CTR averaging 44 and 2RF averaging 54 don't need any attention at all until at least the byes.

That is why position matters and the expected scores in each position equally matter as the season progresses.

my tv broke wrote:Maybe Lisone can generate a cult following down at the Gold Coast, a bit of a George Rose esque vibe. He's usually good for two big runs per game. Line him up to take the kick off return/first carry off the drop out, then sub him off. Would love to see him skittle some blokes. The GC actually need to find a few characters in their team to get the fans to warm to them.. They are so bland.

BBowler wrote:Let's say you introduced this 4 x 4 startegy last season (with the benefit of hindsight) who are the equivalent of the 8 players you mention below?

Rippin and Tearin wrote:

Im surprised no-one has pointed out that its not position that matters in Matt's argument, its picking guns that are value. I.e. in this hypothetical world, lets just say for arguments sake all these guys are 2RF. Does anything change?

Rippin and Tearin wrote:

Im surprised no-one has pointed out that its not position that matters in Matt's argument, its picking guns that are value. I.e. in this hypothetical world, lets just say for arguments sake all these guys are 2RF. Does anything change?