| 0 |
Subject: Roster value discussion: Is $5M more THAT superior
Posted by: Species
- Leader [07724916] Tue, Jan 11, 2005, 13:44
A topic I wanted to throw out for discussion.....roster value.
- How critical is it now?
- With the number of viable cheap players, is it overrated?
- Do those in the top 50 who are $5M, $6M ahead of the rest of the pack have a distinct advantage?
In this upcoming trading week I'll be getting LBJ and McGrady from Q-Rich and Wade, leaving me with only roughly $400k of my $67.5M RV unused - hence, only Dave and I and maybe a couple other teams can even afford that roster. When Garnett is in play it takes up an extra $3-4M over typical 'stud' forwards. When you want LBJ, McGrady, Marion and Stoudamire plus 1 or 2 of the $7M guards, your available RV gets eaten up fast. In my particular case, my extra RV is being taken up by Brad Miller's $7M at C instead of a Nazr/Okur level guy.
Can guys like \m/ and Blooki stay afloat with a $6M RV disadvantage? The Senator is $5M back, and guys like JCS and OMG are ~$5.5M back. It's one thing when these big RV's are 400 pts back....but when they're in the top 50, it has to have those above looking back.
Or........is it more of an exception when the RV powerhouse actually gains a notable advantage, given the wide availability of cheaper alternatives?
In my case, certainly I'd rather have Brad Miller over a Mohammed/Okur. But Mohammed/Okur have shown over periods of time to be Miller's equal or even superior....but over the long haul it would seem to be an advantage for Miller.
Just curious. |
| 1 | Blooki
Sustainer
ID: 449292712
Tue, Jan 11, 2005, 13:49
|
I would like to think that they can stay afloat. ;)
|
| 2 | Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Tue, Jan 11, 2005, 13:59
|
You know what I mean, dude! If you want to take the TITLE, how much is enough (and DON'T say 85 million!)? Nevermind just being happy with a top 20 finish....what would it take to win? Can you really compete $4, 5 or $6 million down?
|
| 3 | Blooki
Sustainer
ID: 449292712
Tue, Jan 11, 2005, 14:22
|
I'm probably the wrong guy to speak on this since I was ecstatic with my WWR 25 last season. Call me unambitious, but a top 20 would make this season a success for me.
Here's my $0.02 anyways...
I think it's still a bit too early to say. The significance of RV depends largely on the playing field. During any given stretch of the season there may be an overabundance of outstanding cheapies and/or dense stud schedules.
I began the season trying especially hard to make RV because I have never been good at it. But somewhere amidst the poor trade management and missed TSNP opportunities I drew a tentative assumption that RV would NOT be as big a factor as years past due to the following reasons:
- Prices are more elastic causing RV to be easier to make.
- TSN did a poor job pricing players to begin the season (studs were cheaper this year).
- Grant Hill seems likely to stay on all competitive rosters.
I can see how some of these statements may support RV importance as well though, so I admit that my argument is rather weak. But as a result to this thinking, I began playing for TSNP over TSND (which historically has been a style I was better suited for anyways).
Only time will tell if my rather severe RV deficiencies will hold up. If Wade, Hughes, Hill and/or the other grossly underpriced players, then I will obviously find myself in some trouble, but I guess that's the bet I made when I switched priorities.
|
| 4 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jan 11, 2005, 14:45
|
Teams with inferior RV can compete, but there is less margin for error. You need to have the right cheapies, and you need to be very efficient at making roster moves.
I think the big advantage of higher RV is that it doesn't require as much "luck" - or, in the words of the first paragraph, it provides greater margin for error. You don't need to rely as much on owning the correct cheapie. Also, there are occasional periods when the schedules for many top players all align. It can be quite an advantage to be able to load up during those periods.
That said, it is not reasonable to expect that all high RV teams will beat all lower value teams. Some of the high value teams will simply not make the best choices. And if there are a dozen teams with inferior value, it's reasonable to expect several of them to be quite productive. So, while having high RV is clearly an advantage, it is neither necessary nor sufficient.
|
| 5 | barilko6
ID: 421150249
Tue, Jan 11, 2005, 14:59
|
Wow...
Is this ever drawing a similarily eerie parallel to real sports...
|
| 6 | angryCHAIR
ID: 98192416
Tue, Jan 11, 2005, 15:02
|
thanks for reminding me how dire my future trades
are...ugh!
|
| 7 | MadDOG
ID: 35015710
Tue, Jan 11, 2005, 16:06
|
I think right now an extra 5 million could be a big difference. There is so many options right now. So many guys I want.
Kidd, Lebron, Nowitski, Hughes, Wade, on and on. Matter of fact I think the teams with high roster values are going to start to pull away in the next month or so.
|
| 8 | Dave R
Dude
ID: 3010361110
Tue, Jan 11, 2005, 16:56
|
Leave it to Species to start this thread ;)
While I agree that roster value is important, I don't think it's necessarily the ultimate formula for success.
What exactly does that extra 5 million dollars get you.....? The same roster with Hughes instead of Brunson, or Tmac and Lebron instead of Hughes and and Bibby for example. Over the long term the "studs" will win out.
But keep in mind that the average duration a player remains on a roster is what, 2 weeks? I don't know. So it still comes down to proper management of your roster and playing the schedule.
Certainly the more loaded your roster is the better your chances are. And there is still the element of luck, picking the right players at the right time.
|
| 9 | JCS
ID: 13050122
Wed, Jan 12, 2005, 04:06
|
Nothing to add, just wanted to thank Species for mentioning me in the opening post, makes me feel good ;-)
|
| 10 | deejay
ID: 201021308
Wed, Jan 12, 2005, 08:48
|
i think it depends how you use the "extra" money ,but off course it is clearly an advantage
|
| 11 | Rand
Donor
ID: 083231216
Wed, Jan 12, 2005, 09:38
|
JCS, Species mentioned me last year in one of his discussions, for some reason it made me feel real good too:) No mention this year because apparently I'm struggling just to stay in the top 300! And my RV stinks, so its not like I'm laying back playing possum. The bigger the RV, the better the options. Right now, all the lower RV guys can hope for is that their QRich equals the other guys Steve Francis. Or you just have the proper alignment of stars (or studs).
By the end of the game, I don't imagine the RV will matter as much for those competing for the top prize. At that point, I reckon everyone in the top 50 will be able to afford just about anyone they need. Players are priced so reasonably this year that by the end of this season almost everyone will have a fairly star studded line-up. Probably averaging over 8 million a player, and with guys like McBaby and Francis priced so cheaply for their estimated production, it could be anyone's game despite an RV difference of 5-6 million.
|
| 12 | Addicted
Dude
ID: 4611592518
Wed, Jan 12, 2005, 10:36
|
A lot of the pricing of the players, is from injuries last year / this year. Kidd, Baron to name a few. Also some of the studs are / were not available for a period of time this year (JONeal / AK 47). And some teams are playing so well that the pricing of the stud player isn't worth his point production (Duncan).
Then you have the 6 / 7 million dollar men who will be priced in the 8 / 9 million next year (Hughes / Wade).
And of course there's G. Hill who everybody knew was underpriced and was waiting for the season / career ending injury to happen. (Webber's been healthy also...).
But overall I'd say pricing is down about 1M this year (except for Garnett). And the price chances are a little higher this year.
Just a note on RV. I've got a manager in one of my auto-leagues that has been hovering around 51M all year and still completing in the top 3. I don't think he'll last to much longer as his FV dropped under 50 this AM (I'll probably drop him an email and point him here, so he can enjoy the game better).
If you play your cards right you can compete with a lower roster value. But it would take a lot of luck and skill to stay in the Top 20 with 5M less than the other managers.
--Addicted--
|
| 13 | Gmoney
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Wed, Jan 12, 2005, 10:47
|
Addicted,
On that note last years champ Dr. D (hardwoodfloor)is dropping rather quickly as his RV is well under 60 million. He got by last year by only being a 4-5 million behind at the end but he is close to 10 million back already.
To address the original post, I think anything 6 million or more is significant as you compare teams right now with this schedule. A high RV team could have the exact same team as a lower RV team going into this week with once exception 2 million dollar Wally S at Forward for the low team verse 8 million T-Mac or LBJ at Forward. Over the next 2-3 weeks, which is about how long several players can be held, this difference would be devastating.
|
| 14 | smallwhirled
ID: 5500816
Wed, Jan 12, 2005, 11:04
|
Out of all the TSN games, hoops is the most exact. Studs get you 40, cheapies get you high 20s....maybe. Right there is the difference with a 5 mil advantage. I think teams with higher RV will begin to dominate towatds the end of the year. Like everyone said, there is so much room for error.
Unlike other TSN games, namely baseball, there will be points when lower RV teams just won't be able to get in to some guys and have to go a different route.
If you guys, Species, Dave R, Addicted, etc, sorry if I left people out, can max out efficiently while being able to save a couple of trades, I would try to max every time. No reason to keep cash in the bank when you have such an advantage.
|
| 15 | Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Wed, Jan 12, 2005, 11:43
|
Good thoughts, all.
The consensus here is correct. A higher RV of course is optimal but in the hands of a dope - who cares how high your RV is if you can't use it efficiently. The idea of all of the studs aligning at once is where those with superior RV can use it to their greatest advantage.
As I noted above, the difference for me is basically one player. Looking at the Senator's roster, we are identical save for 2 players: He has Okur and Krstic to my Brad Miller and Wally S. (as soon as I move Q-Rich to LeBron after tonight). Over the long haul I'd hope that Miller can outpoint his Okur/Haywood/whoever significantly enough to make a dent. Give me 7-10 TSNP/g and I'll be thrilled.
Should be fun to see what happens. My inkling is that, overall, there is about 50-60% of the time where a $5M RV advantage will make a tangible difference. Other times I'll have $2-3M lying around unused while others max out. I guess we'll just have to see.
|
| 16 | skinneej
Leader
ID: 040625911
Wed, Jan 12, 2005, 14:45
|
The short answer to the original question is Yes, with an if...the long answer is No, with a but!
This is one of those issues that I like to examine from time to time for my own benefit, but I will share my recent observations. First, I need to place things into context. I took a quick look at last year's final gurupie standings. While there are some very good non-gurupie players, the top 100 is dominated by those that visit and use this site. The first observation is that last year no team made the top 50 with less than 70 mil. Of those the highest value was 77.26 which finished 10th and the lowest was 70.56. The highest finish of a team that had less than 70 mil was 90th place.
Each year I force my self to chase the trains early for the gains, and then I tend to lose sight after a month and start going for points while not continuing to increase RV. My team last year finished at 210 with a RV of 66.49 which I only could find one other team that had a higher finish with a lower RV. All in all my team was pretty efficient with the lower RV. So, the "million" dollar question is how many points does each million gain you per trade week? Well, I will attempt to answer that.
To begin, I looked at the next 21 days (3 trade weeks) and ran the sartibles with 15 day averages. The assumptions are that the best possible rosters at each RV level would not change over that 21 day period. Of course trading will occur as some will dump TMac, Hughes, Arenas, Billups etc. after the first week, but for comparison sake this should give a good idea. The results are as follows:
RV: 56M. Total Points (21 days): 4711
RV: 58M. Total Points (21 days): 4768
RV: 60M. Total Points (21 days): 4815
RV: 65M. Total Points (21 days): 4957
RV: 68M. Total Points (21 days): 5009
So over the next 3 trade weeks, a player with only a 56M RV will lose about 300 points to a team with 12M more. That is about 8 points per million per week. Doesn't sound like much, does it? That was less than I thought it would be. Now some caveats need to be made. First, due to scheduling the next 21 days allows many lower priced players to be very attractive. Several teams have 5 game weeks so the extra games are allowing players to not lose as many points as if they were playing equal games as studs. As was mentioned above, the aligning of the stud schedules will come and those with less money will be left on the outside looking in. But, for the time being, enjoy playing with the big dogs!
|
| 17 | Gmoney
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Wed, Jan 12, 2005, 15:04
|
Skinneej,
Your Numbers are in line with what I would have projected in the scenario above without all the detail (nice job).
If the difference between two rosters is Wally vs T-Mac using averages you would expect to lose about 15-20 pts a game multiplied by 12 games over a three week period and you have 180-240 pts gained by the same team with a higher RV. Of course the game is more complicated than that with schedules and trades coming into play but as it has been said, the higher RV folks can't really lose ground. The lower RV folks can only hope to maintain until the schedules break up again.
|
| 18 | Addicted
Dude
ID: 4611592518
Wed, Jan 12, 2005, 20:16
|
Just to add to the lower RV discussion:
My worst team right now is at 61.86M
Today I became a Tradaholic and used 4 trades.
This is my team for this week:
TMac - 8180
Hughes - 6130
Iguodala - 2810
Brunson - 1360
Garnett - 13140
James - 8710
Wally - 2050
Hill - 1000
Amare - 8760
Dirk - 9250
TRV 61390
You could easily swap out any of these cheapies.
And get similar performance.
My top team has a similar lineup, different cheapies.
--Addicted--
|
| 19 | Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Wed, Jan 12, 2005, 22:02
|
Similar team here Addicted.....looks like the 1 difference is, essentially, my Nash to your AI:
1,360 Brunson, Rick
6,130 Hughes, Larry
8,710 James, LeBron
8,140 Nash, Steve
9,020 Marion, Shawn
8,180 Mcgrady, Tracy
13,140 Garnett, Kevin
1,000 Hill, Grant
8,760 Stoudemire, Amare
2,760 Mihm, Chris
67,200
|
| 20 | cmoon
ID: 3610162717
Wed, Jan 12, 2005, 22:26
|
I think the higher RV teams have a huge advantage, but surely the lower RV teams already gained their advantage by playing for points instead of RV early in the game. If they were not playing for points, why is their RV still low?
I am thinking the High RV chasers should be behind in points and need to catch up. The fact the high RV teams are already at the top, kind of says they are simply better players this year. They wont win due to higher RV, they'll win because they used the schedule better i guess.
|
| 21 | Addicted
Dude
ID: 4611592518
Wed, Jan 12, 2005, 22:30
|
Species,
You've been looking at ALL my teams, haven't you!!! (Did I ever give you my TSN password?)...
Or is it like minds, think alike.
I see you had / have B. Miller. I just traded him to Dirk, and it was one of the toughest decisions I had to make this year.
As you can see, there's your 5M difference.
Of course my worst team also is WWR 1100 or so.
I had a brain cramp, 1st game of the season, and didn't realize I hadn't filled my last roster spot.
Cost me 300 pts / TSND.
So I've been using that team as a test bed for players sitting on the edge of gravity. But it's been fun moving up in the league.
--Addicted--
|
| 22 | skinneej
Leader
ID: 40625911
Thu, Jan 13, 2005, 13:58
|
Just to follow up on the my post from yesterday, the team that the sartibles said was the best over the next 21 days with a max RV of 65M scored 427 points last night. Anyone get that or do better? My best team had 369 with 9 playing so I didn't quite achieve that.
|
| 23 | Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Mon, Jan 31, 2005, 11:49
|
I checked the numbers since I authored this post....methinks that while I've improved, others have certainly outmanaged me in the past 20-odd days:
1/11:
I was at 47 WWR w/12834.5 TSNP
RV= $67.58 (2nd in Gurupie Standings)
Gescom = $66.12 w/12741.5 TSNP
Ryan = $ 65.72 w/12650.5 TSNP
1/31
Species = 16 WWR, $70.00 w/17284 TSNP
Gescom = 31 WWR, $69.92 w/17171 TSNP
Ryan = 49 WWR, $69.94 w/17122 TSNP
Over that period I have gained 10 points on Senator Urine - despite a $4.25M RV advantage. I've added a whopping 20 TSNP to my lead over Gescom while losing $1.5M in RV advantage. Ryan has kicked my rear by gaining 22 TSNP and gaining like $1.8MM on me.
Moral: I suck and can't manage my RV! lol
It's funny, I debate with Dave R. a lot about, at this point in the game and with the RV advantages that we have, that we can afford to "eat" some losses for trade conservation or superior TSNP. I thought I had done well by not trading Amare and Marion during the freefall, but hindsight tells me perhaps that wasn't the case.
Anyway, it's just interesting to see what different managers can accomplish.....and also interesting to see that even with some DNP's and bad luck that I can't put a dent into SU's lead over me. Grrrr.
|
| 24 | smallwhirled
ID: 470502212
Mon, Jan 31, 2005, 13:15
|
Interesting. I chat with SU quite a bit, so the first thing I looked at when I looked at 1/11 was his trades, and he had 0. Suprising that he has been able to hang on with all of his DNPs. Not that he is the only one, but I first thought that he had his trade advantage. Back in December he had 6 or 7 trades more than the rest of us and went on some crazy run to move from the middle of the pack to the top. He says that it did save his season because he made a lot of RV during that time so he can at least be competitive.
Regardless, I still think it's extremely important. It's the difference between my Jaric and someone else's Wade. That's still significant. 2 years ago, D. Dawkins blew by everyone except Guru I think with first off a trade advantage that he parlayed into a huge RV and he blew by everyone and almost won the thing.
|
| 25 | Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Mon, Jan 31, 2005, 13:37
|
Agree sw....I was shocked when I noticed how little I had gained. But in a sense it's kind of like the wild card in baseball. Would you rather be 2 games out but in a 5 team dogfight, or alone in 2nd in the wildcard but 3 games out. Leaping into the teens is a good first step, and we'll go from there.
Hopefully my plan to use nearly all my RV after tonight will work. After tonight, I'll only have Hill and Nailon, and my next cheapest guy will be Bibby.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|