2016 NRL.com Fantasy thread part 4

Random wrote:Remember to sign up for the Fantasy Fanatics Leagues

https://www.nrlfantasyfanatics.com/t160-nrl-fantasy-fanatics-ex-sportal-2016-leagues-registration

Milchcow wrote:

Mead kills it. Underpriced by about 15 points if he gets the fullback spot.

I think its doubtful though and he'll end up on the wing.

Hoffman is nothing special (fullback or otherwise) these days

Milchcow wrote:

Coming back to this. This is a poor way to make a team.

The most expensive players are the ones who had the highest averages last year. So by bringing in heaps of them you are betting that they will all match or better the season before.
Its more likely that at least a couple of them will suffer from regression to the mean and drop a bit in average - meaning you are wasting cash.

RTS is a prime example - he smashed all sorts of records for run metres last year. Sure its possible that he'll go even better in 2016 and break his own records. more likely he won't be able to repeat his record breaking feats and you are just wasting cash that could be better spent elsewhere

The way to fill a team is to look at points per $.

You get T salary cap of $6.8 million
A minimum of $1.04m must be spent on non-playing reserves.
That leaves you wish $5.760m to spend on your 17
A theoretical point costs $8935. So if every single player hit exactly their average every week, you'd score 644 points (excluding captain for the time being) no matter who you picked.

Obviously not everybody scores at their average.

Even if he is a relative flop, Jackson Hastings is almost certainly going to score more than his priced average of 17.
Lets just say he manages an average of 30. That means instead of 644, you are scoring 657 points a round.
Lets say Clinton Gutherson beats his average of 15 and also scores 30. Now you are up to 672.

But Cameron Smith only averages 59 this year, down from last years 61. Now you are down to 670.
That's just a small drop in itself, and it may not matter - but if you got Seggy instead, and he increases his average to 59, not only is that now the same as Cam Smith, but you've also saved $69k (7.7 points) to spend elsewhere.

So all this talk of guns, mid rangers, cows is pretty much irrelevant.
The only things you should care about are priced average and expected average - and you want to try and maximise the gap between the 2 (in the right direction)

The exceptions/footnotes to this are

Captain - Its OK to not get great value from your captain (and also a VC choice for backup), due to double points.
So its OK for your captain to not increase on last years average, if he is giving you reliable big scores that others can't.

NPRs - you won't get very far with an 18-25 that don't play and make money. It is going to be necessary to spend more than the minimum here in order to generate cash for future upgrades, and also have some reasonable scores on offer to cover 1 week injury/suspension.

Bye planning/Origin - Some guys might be worth a bit less value normally, but become worthwhile due to having good byes.

Milchcow wrote:

Coming back to this. This is a poor way to make a team.

The most expensive players are the ones who had the highest averages last year. So by bringing in heaps of them you are betting that they will all match or better the season before.
Its more likely that at least a couple of them will suffer from regression to the mean and drop a bit in average - meaning you are wasting cash.

RTS is a prime example - he smashed all sorts of records for run metres last year. Sure its possible that he'll go even better in 2016 and break his own records. more likely he won't be able to repeat his record breaking feats and you are just wasting cash that could be better spent elsewhere

The way to fill a team is to look at points per $.

You get T salary cap of $6.8 million
A minimum of $1.04m must be spent on non-playing reserves.
That leaves you wish $5.760m to spend on your 17
A theoretical point costs $8935. So if every single player hit exactly their average every week, you'd score 644 points (excluding captain for the time being) no matter who you picked.

Obviously not everybody scores at their average.

Even if he is a relative flop, Jackson Hastings is almost certainly going to score more than his priced average of 17.
Lets just say he manages an average of 30. That means instead of 644, you are scoring 657 points a round.
Lets say Clinton Gutherson beats his average of 15 and also scores 30. Now you are up to 672.

But Cameron Smith only averages 59 this year, down from last years 61. Now you are down to 670.
That's just a small drop in itself, and it may not matter - but if you got Seggy instead, and he increases his average to 59, not only is that now the same as Cam Smith, but you've also saved $69k (7.7 points) to spend elsewhere.

So all this talk of guns, mid rangers, cows is pretty much irrelevant.
The only things you should care about are priced average and expected average - and you want to try and maximise the gap between the 2 (in the right direction)

The exceptions/footnotes to this are

Captain - Its OK to not get great value from your captain (and also a VC choice for backup), due to double points.
So its OK for your captain to not increase on last years average, if he is giving you reliable big scores that others can't.

NPRs - you won't get very far with an 18-25 that don't play and make money. It is going to be necessary to spend more than the minimum here in order to generate cash for future upgrades, and also have some reasonable scores on offer to cover 1 week injury/suspension.

Bye planning/Origin - Some guys might be worth a bit less value normally, but become worthwhile due to having good byes.

jstands wrote:George Burgess had a pretty poor season by his standard.
Yet his average still sits at almost 51 points.

I think he is one we should be giving more attention to

Welshy87 wrote:

avg is slightly less with brother Sam in the side

jstands wrote:The only player in my team who is priced over 500k is Smith. Seems a little light

jstands wrote:

I always thought he played better with Sam in the side, or am I imagining that?

jstands wrote:

I always thought he played better with Sam in the side, or am I imagining that?

Welshy87 wrote:

Random wrote:Remember to sign up for the Fantasy Fanatics Leagues

https://www.nrlfantasyfanatics.com/t160-nrl-fantasy-fanatics-ex-sportal-2016-leagues-registration

We have the SUG as proof but you can see your teams 2015 ranking when you log in, i was sniffing around the site and found some legacy rankings and league info etc

Tumbled from L1 last year into L3/4 this year (based on SUG), a poor years for the Welsh lads  

Milchcow wrote:



Coming back to this. This is a poor way to make a team.

The most expensive players are the ones who had the highest averages last year. So by bringing in heaps of them you are betting that they will all match or better the season before.
Its more likely that at least a couple of them will suffer from regression to the mean and drop a bit in average - meaning you are wasting cash.

RTS is a prime example - he smashed all sorts of records for run metres last year. Sure its possible that he'll go even better in 2016 and break his own records. more likely he won't be able to repeat his record breaking feats and you are just wasting cash that could be better spent elsewhere

The way to fill a team is to look at points per $.

You get T salary cap of $6.8 million
A minimum of $1.04m must be spent on non-playing reserves.
That leaves you wish $5.760m to spend on your 17
A theoretical point costs $8935. So if every single player hit exactly their average every week, you'd score 644 points (excluding captain for the time being) no matter who you picked.

Obviously not everybody scores at their average.

Even if he is a relative flop, Jackson Hastings is almost certainly going to score more than his priced average of 17.
Lets just say he manages an average of 30. That means instead of 644, you are scoring 657 points a round.
Lets say Clinton Gutherson beats his average of 15 and also scores 30. Now you are up to 672.

But Cameron Smith only averages 59 this year, down from last years 61. Now you are down to 670.
That's just a small drop in itself, and it may not matter - but if you got Seggy instead, and he increases his average to 59, not only is that now the same as Cam Smith, but you've also saved $69k (7.7 points) to spend elsewhere.

So all this talk of guns, mid rangers, cows is pretty much irrelevant.
The only things you should care about are priced average and expected average - and you want to try and maximise the gap between the 2 (in the right direction)

The exceptions/footnotes to this are

Captain - Its OK to not get great value from your captain (and also a VC choice for backup), due to double points.
So its OK for your captain to not increase on last years average, if he is giving you reliable big scores that others can't.

NPRs - you won't get very far with an 18-25 that don't play and make money. It is going to be necessary to spend more than the minimum here in order to generate cash for future upgrades, and also have some reasonable scores on offer to cover 1 week injury/suspension.

Bye planning/Origin - Some guys might be worth a bit less value normally, but become worthwhile due to having good byes.

SI wrote:

Do you mean you can still find last years leagues on the Fantasy site, or do you mean on Sportal?

SoylentGreen wrote:

I'm not arguing with any of that, and if you look at my actual team I've based it on exactly those considerations. All I'm doing is playing around with an alternate team using an extreme selection method to see how it will play out.

You made the pertinent point that talking about guns/midrange/cheapies etc isnt really relevant and it's more about picking the players priced under their potential average.

I make the hypothesis that the strike rate of picking those players from rd1 is quite low, and gets lower as you move from the base price players (like Hastings, who like you say will almost certainly score well over his priced average) and into the midrangers. On the other hand, the proven "guns" tend to remain guns. Sure, they might drop a bit, so will many of the midrange players - but the guns will score more points in the meantime. So to test this theory I made a team with a top and a bottom but no middle.

All just a bit of fun really