| 0 |
Subject: Tour Championship: Sep 24-27
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 11:55
Only 42 rosters have four active golfers this week. Not sure whether that is related to the limited trades (although there are many teams with inactive golfers who have trades available), the difficulty in affording an fully active foursome, the week layoff, or disinterest. Probably some combination of the above.
57 Slocum, Heath
50 Toms, David
30 Senden, John
28 Harrington, Padraig
27 Dufner, Jason
27 Watney, Nick
23 Na, Kevin
22 Kelly, Jerry
21 Glover, Lucas
17 Perry, Kenny
15 Johnson, Zach
15 Gay, Brian
15 Verplank, Scott
13 Furyk, Jim
12 Woods, Tiger
11 Stricker, Steve
10 Cink, Stewart
10 Marino, Steve
10 Goosen, Retief
9 Mickelson, Phil
8 Weir, Mike
8 Els, Ernie
8 Ogilvy, Geoff
7 Leishman, Marc
7 Mahan, Hunter
4 Donald, Luke
4 O'Hair, Sean
3 Johnson, Dustin
3 Cabrera, Angel
2 Yang, Y.E.
|
| 1 | JeffG
Leader
ID: 01584348
Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 12:54
|
None of my 4 teams have an active foursome this tourney. Price is one reason. Another was blowing my 'trades' on golfers who I was speculating before the last tournament would do well enough to qualify or hold their eligibility for this week's event.
|
| 2 | Mastersman
ID: 88492414
Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 15:49
|
In my case it was a combination of both price and trades. The minimum price for a 4-man team in 4180, and only 2 of my 5 teams are above this. Factor in the 2 trades, and I'm toast. I don't have any suggestions for next year, but I have thoroughly enjoyed this game this year and will definitely be back next year. Thanks, Guru, and Cheers!
|
| 3 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 18:26
|
You could always put in one $500K (inactive) player to save some funds, allowing for three actives. But perhaps the trade limitations this year thwarted that approach.
My sense is that next year I'll eliminate any special limitation on trades for the final two tournaments. Too confusing, and not enough benefit. That doesn't necessarily mean that rosters for this final week will be any "fuller", however.
Last year, the Tour championship was not even included in GuruGolf. I opted to end the season with the next-to-last FedEx tournament, since the Ryder Cup came the week before the Tour Championship and I figured people would lose focus.
This year, with no intervening event, the 2 week gap still probably took its toll.
I'll decide next January. I'd welcome any thoughts.
|
| 4 | Balrog
Dude
ID: 02856618
Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 20:34
|
In my case, I couldn't resist (had to) use the two trades to make a foursome for the BMW. Due to monetary considerations (I already had Tiger) I couldn't pick up anybody else who was guaranteed to go for the championship. I thought about going with just three (by getting a non-playing cheapie) and getting Slocum (who was guaranteed to go to the end) for the BMW, but decided to roll the dice (more fun!).
Either way, I would have been done trading for the year after I made my BMW trades.
|
| 5 | JeffG
ID: 47112621
Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 21:49
|
On one of my teams I had two inactive golfers going into this week, and two trades left but no combo of two pickups for that price. So like Guru suggested in the blurbs I picked up Wie for $500 and at least could add 1 active golfer for this week.
I think if we all still had the trades stored up instead of reset, there were some do-able active foursomes for the remaining budget. We could have all easily put together a full foursome for the week. Key for a no-cut week. However in this limited field event and just the years best performers to choose from (meaning likely higher prices golfers) we may all converge to the same low cost golfers who crashed the final field.
What I mean is with the median roster value at $4300 going into this week, with only 4 golfers in the field costing under $1100, if you want a full foursome, we'd pretty much all have the same guys. Although that does reward the folks who were able to gain roster value during the year.
Maybe this format works.
|
| 6 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 11:58
|
"My sense is that next year I'll eliminate any special limitation on trades for the final two tournaments. Too confusing, and not enough benefit. That doesn't necessarily mean that rosters for this final week will be any "fuller", however."
Agreed--there's a definite roster value limitation in place.
If you want to experiment, and reward roster value (instead of rewarding semi-randomly based on who gets into the Tour Championship), consider bumping up all prices artificially over the last few weeks (say, add $20 per player per week to prices). That would reward RV if you want to do that.
|
| 7 | Yankee
ID: 547391711
Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 14:42
|
I see 2 schools of thought -
1. You pick golfers during the year who will get you the highest price increase from week to week, thereby increasing your roster value.
2. You pick golfers during the year who play in consecutive weeks to save trades, thereby increaing your number of trades.
Now at the end of the season, you lose all the trades that you have managed to save through research and such, but there is no change in any roster values.
I say, leave them both alone, but freeze BOTH the prices and trades - for example if at the start of the playoffs you have garnered a roster value of $4700 and 6 trades saved up, then thats what you have to play with for the rest of the playoffs - with no price increases or winner trades awards....
|
| 8 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 15:19
|
That isn't a half-bad idea.
|
| 9 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 17:47
|
My only concern is the KISS principle.
Might be better to just let the season play out using regular rules, and let the chips fall...
|
| 10 | Liters
ID: 222291714
Sun, Sep 27, 2009, 18:06
|
Congradulations Guru, now you and Tiger won your own events this year. Good year, great game see you next year.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|