| 0 |
Subject: The $85 million question
Posted by: azdbacker
- Donor [1832261] Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 01:27
With regards to Ira: How has the dampened price changes affected this season's game, and what sort of RV will be needed for a contending team this year? I would venture a guess that it will be much less money this year than any prior year, as the overproducing cheapies are not rising in value quickly enough. I decided to test this, and came up with this season's best possible roster, using total points so far this year:
G: Payton, Carter, TMac, Miller.
F: Duncan, Brand, Garnett, Malone.
C: Shaq, Mutombo.
Total Cost: $98.84 - Total Points: 8715.5
This team would obviously be the ideal as it stands so far. But do we really need that much money to win this game?
I made a couple changes, including some popular cheapies. Try this roster out:
G: Payton, Carter, Barry, Tinsley.
F: Brand, Gasol, Kirilenko, J. Jones.
C: Divac, TMac2.
Total cost of this team is $54.60 million, well within most Gurupies' budgets. Total points are 7083. This team would've cost $49.85 to draft at the start of the season. Assuming you drafted this team and MADE NO TRADES, you would be sitting at WWR #103. Obviously, that would be a good position to be in with all those trades left. Assume a couple logical schedule-based trades, and you'd be #1 with at least a dozen trades left. I didn't run any program to see if this was the best possible draft or not, I just ran through the sartibles a bit.
What does this all mean? I have no idea. ;)
Just seems like the cheapies like Gasol, Kiri, Tinsley, Haywood, Nailon, etc... may be long holds this year (if production continues) - as their price will never rise enough to make others' competitive value-wise.
That's about all I have right now - hopefully this might spark a decent discussion. We haven't had many of those lately.
;)
azd |
| 1 | citizenkane.org
ID: 1411541
Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 01:39
|
Very, very interesting azd. Especially the team having made no trades that would have a WWR of #103. I've been haulin ass all year using all my trades and my ranking is 185.
|
| 2 | blue hen, almighty
Leader
ID: 27048221
Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 01:48
|
98 million in hoops? With a smaller roster? Wow. Where was that optimizer... I knew it was around here somewhere.
|
| 3 | azdbacker
Donor
ID: 1832261
Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 01:53
|
See, I don't have any previous data to compare that against. I don't know if that is normal or not, this early in the season. I think we all feel that RV is not nearly as important as normal, but it's hard to say if that's true or not. One might argue that with smaller price changes, smaller RV differentials are more important than ever. But I don't see anything to make me think that players like Tinsley and Kirilenko and others (assuming current levels of play) will ever reach a price that makes you consider trading them, other than during a poor schedule.
The fact that this is the first season I ever tried to attain a high RV irritates me a bit. Of course, nobody said life (or Smallworld/TSN) was fair.
|
| 5 | KnicksFan
Donor
ID: 57832250
Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 03:10
|
FWIW, on January 1st of last basketball season, the highest Gurupie roster value was $77.08 million. This season it will be around $60 million.
|
| 6 | Tim G
Donor
ID: 2082201
Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 04:41
|
Nice sarting azdbacker. I agree about the good cheapies and schedule, also some of the overpriced studs might gravitate to where we can buy them someday.
|
| 7 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 13:40
|
This just depreses me everytime someone sorts these out.
rfs
|
| 8 | Ditka85
ID: 3311211214
Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 14:24
|
Azd,
You made me think about Ira's post. Thanks, that was so damn funny.
|
| 9 | C-Dawg
ID: 810291914
Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 14:42
|
last year toward the end of the year we saw rosters with payton, kobe, garnett, webber, shaq, among other high priced superstars all on the same roster....i don't think we will be seeing such high caliber rosters this year. Personally I think it's a good thing, more thinking and planning involved.
|
| 10 | Jazz Dreamers
ID: 561123723
Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 15:19
|
One good thing about the smaller roster values is that I think that it is much more possible for a team that is not in the top ten right now to make a run at #1 overall. Last year, by this time of the season, the top teams had RVs of around 70 - 80 million, going up, and they would have had to really mismanage their team to let other teams far below them catch up. When you can afford Shaq, Kobe, Carter, Payton, Webber, Garnett etc. on your team, it's pretty hard not to be able to read a schedule. So the battle for #1 quickly fell to a competition of just a handful of teams. (In some seasons, the race for #1 seems to have been wrapped up by the All-Star break.) In contrast, with rosters that are still constrained significantly, it is possible that a top manager will make a couple of bad (or just unlucky) moves, because it is very difficult to optomize a roster with money constraints. That gives a chance to a team ranked #50 or #100, say, to soar in the WWRs if they make all the right moves in the second half.
Of course, this is a moot point to some teams (e.g. the Jazz Dreamers) who don't quite have what it takes to be #1 just yet. But it still means that your managing decisions the rest of the season can still greatly affect where you end up in the final standings -- much more so than in years past. That should make for, in my opinion, a more exciting March and April.
|
| 11 | the infinite pusssy
ID: 279311515
Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 15:27
|
fyi knicks fan - i'm already past $59 mil, so i'm looking at $61-62 mil come 2002
|
| 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?)
|
|