| 0 |
Subject: Barbells vs. Bellies
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 09:55
First, this is not about weightlifting nor about the Belly Division. It's about optimal roster construction.
For the TSN Ultimate game, we start the year with an average of $5000K to spend per player. We have a range of player values to choose from. We can "barbell" all or part of our roster, combining a high priced stud with an ultra-cheapie, or we can select players priced near the middle (the "belly") of the price curve.
Most likely, the best approach is usually a combination of these two. But sometimes I think we tend to work too hard to get an extra stud or two on the roster, which forces us to balance with an extra cheapie or two. If there are ample cheapies available, that's not a problem. But it seems that a lot of teams have been groping among the likes of Giricek, Ginobili, Jaric, Gadzuric, McCoy, etc., and maybe that's not the best way to go about roster contruction. As of today, there are only 2 players priced below $1m who are averaging better than 20 TSNP/G - Amare Stoudamire and Malik Allen. And there is certainly no guarantee that they'll stay above that mark. Meanwhile, last year only three studs managed to average better than 45 TSNP/G (Duncan, Garnett, and Webber). So, is it better to combine a stud plus a cheapie who might combine for 60 TSNP/game, or to go for more players in the $5-6m area who should be able to produce comparable points.
Obviously, schedule variations play an important role. With trades limited, I sometimes think you are better off to have a few studs so that you can use your limited trades to maneuver among them for maximum scheduling benefit.
And obviously, if there are cheapies who are clearly outperforming the field, you have to own them.
But what about the rest of the roster? Do you try to include a few extra studs, thereby forcing you to dig deeper into the cheapie realm? Or do you aim for the belly of the curve, where there are many more choices to pick from, and perhaps many more opportunities to differentiate?
There are all sorts of related issues. Trading flexibility and schedule management can be vastly different for players in differing price ranges. Focusing solely on optimizing a static roster can miss the potential benefits of greater trading flexibility.
Rather than blathering on, I think I'll pause and see what you have to offer on this topic. |
| 1 | leggestand
ID: 501029817
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 10:04
|
IMO, I am a fan of the stud-cheapie roster when the season begins. Of course you will have a couple of mid-money players, but I like having two or three studs with the same amount of cheapies. Once the season begins, I think you need to have guaranteed points, and the studs give that to you. Another concern is money, which is where the cheapies come in. I like the stability the studs give you (both in points and cash), which allows me to latch on to cheapies, not so much for points, but for the cash they can provide me.
Both ways have positives, though. I have made two free teams this year, and decided to try the two ways. My mid-money team is doing better, but I feel it is more so based on luck as I started with Arenas, Bobby Jackson, and Kurt Thomas. I could of easily had Miles and Rasheed on that team, as they seemed like great options at the start of the year.
|
| 2 | Logan47474
ID: 35882411
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 11:40
|
Guru, thanks for visiting a topic that has had be up late these past few nights.
And leggestand, I would normally agree with you on all counts. However, one of the tenets of barbelling is that you expect to have your studs producing at their maximum. As you say, "you need to have guaranteed points, and the studs give that to you." But sometimes the situations aren't so cut and dry. For example I offer my current predicament. I barbelled to begin the season, and relied (among others) on Tim Duncan to produce what I expected to be a huge number of points. This of course forced me to have a handful of cheapies on my team. I'm sure you can understand with my dismay when Timmy came up with some 30's and 40's and even a 22.5 point night. Now I'm struggling to maintain a position in my division, and even though Duncan's schedule is great for a while, I'm about to trade him--and the barbelling philosophy for the time being--for some more "belly"-type players.
I apologize for the length of this post, but the topic has been eating at me for a while. I guess in summation I would have to say that you go with what the situation and the players demand. It's all very well and nice to have a set philosophy to run your team throughout the season, but, like life, I think one needs to be able to flow with the bumps and dips that unfold during the season. So for now, I'm going belly up.
|
| 3 | Logan47474
ID: 35882411
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 11:44
|
As a humorous side note, I should add that this season I decided to perform a really scientific experiment. I bought three teams, and swore to myself that I would barbell on one, belly on another, and ABSOLUTELY not touch the third and then use that huge number of stockpiled trades towards the end of the season to shoot up through the rankings.
Needless to say, after about one day into the season, my trade-trigger finger took control of my mind and soul, and I've completely demolished all three teams, several times over.
Sometimes I hate this game.
|
| 4 | leggestand
ID: 501029817
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 11:50
|
Good point Logan. If your stud does not perform to expectations (as you said with Duncan), then you can get in a heap of trouble. I did not pick up Duncan on my barbell team, and went with McGrady and Kobe. I have since switched to Dirk (last week) and Webber (this week), and I think I am going to move into Kobe next week (out of Dirk).
You are right when you say you have to adapt, and can't just go with one philosophy all season. I like to begin the season with the barbelling strategy to build up cash (you won't lose too much cash on Duncan even if he doesn't perform early in the year).
|
| 5 | Logan47474
ID: 35882411
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 12:23
|
I wish I had made your pickups, leggestand. I would add, however, that while you might not lose too much cash on Duncan, you're not going to make a lot either. I think the potential for money gains AND losses is greater with belly players. As we saw with Kwame, he made a lot of people a ton of cash. But he also lost people a fair amount when his schedule went south. Duncan started the season at around 12 mil., if I recall correctly. And there's no way he would make much more than that, unless he was consistently putting up 80 point games. To my dismay, he's not. So I'm going with some cheaper bellies that, combined, will hopefully net me more points (and cash) than Duncan and one of my garbage players.
|
| 6 | leggestand
ID: 501029817
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 12:38
|
When you say stud-cheapie team - do you have all studs and cheapies, and no middle ground players?
I like to keep a couple mid-priced players for trains, like Kwame and Arenas, if there is a lot of money to be made.
You are right that Duncan will not increase (or decrease) too much, which is why I like the studs as it hedges my money gains and losses. The cheapies, and some mid-priced, players are the ones who make (and lose) a ton of cash. By having a couple of "safe" players, it allows me to use my trades to avoid large drops in price to my cheap players. For example, in the ultimate game, on a team with 3 studs - I have 3 trades per week to move my cheapies and mids around to avoid large drops and jump on large gains(save one trade per week to swap studs). Three trades a week for 7 players should be more than enough to build a strong roster/roster value. On the other hand, if you have 10 mid-priced players, you have 10 players that are volatile, and you may see your self using more trades than you would with the stud lineup.
As I said before, no way (barbel or belly) is right or wrong, it is just preference, and I don't think anyone who decides to go one route all season will have a chance to win because you must adapt to players/schedules/injuries/etc.
|
| 7 | Bungers
Leader
ID: 389553115
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 13:39
|
If you can't decide between these strategies and it drives you to drink and put on weight, could we agree to call the mixing of the two approaches "BarBelly". :)
|
| 8 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 30831210
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 14:57
|
I think one problem with the Belly of the curve is that these players get "gravity-belly" It can be expensive to own a player like Malik Rose or Tony Delk at a cost of $30K/day! The studs/cheapies do move up and down, but if you can time your jumps on/off you can turn this to your advantage. There is no way to turn gravity to an advantage.
Of course, Arenas and some other mid-priced players ride price movers. Thee are always exceptions.
Barbell for me!
|
| 9 | roy2013
Sustainer
ID: 582201212
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 15:18
|
If you're short on trades for a few days, riding a player in gravity for a few extra days if he's producing points can sometimes help you avoid other major $$$ crashes, when widely-owned players sustain injuries, which becomes even more of a problem if the injury coincides with some major planned sell-off days. These could cost you up to 100-200 K for a few days, vs holding the -30 K that's producing.
Not sure if it's an "advantage", and one can question why there aren't enough trades available, and that gravity player is on the roster to begin with, but Rose is a great example, I think, of a producer who might have been drafted and has been in gravity since draft.
MiTH thread kind of comments on this idea of holding less-owned producers if it helps avoid big crashes elsewhere.
MiTH thread
|
| 10 | KnicksFan
Donor
ID: 3974252
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 15:25
|
As the season rolls on, is it more important to use your money to upgrade a mid-priced player to a stud, or to upgrade a cheapie to a mid-priced player? For example, consider a roster of 4 studs, 2 mid priced guys, and 4 cheapies (<2 million), that is attainable with the roster values we have now. As your RV increases, should you use the money to create an extreme barbelled team, or to make it a high-end belly team? It seems that people prefer to start the season with a barbelled team and as the season progresses they move toward the high-end belly team, rather than just buying more studs.
|
| 11 | leggestand
ID: 501029817
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 15:33
|
Thats exactly what I try to do KnicksFan. Barbell at the start and upgrade the cheapies to bellys as the season progresses.
|
| 12 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 15:47
|
That depends entirely on how productive your cheapies are IMO. I think in general diminishing returns kick in if you are trying to upgrade midrange players. That is, it's much more expensive to bump from 30 TSNP/g to 40 TSNP/g than it is to go from 20 TSNP/g to 30 TSNP/g. However, if your cheapies are getting you 30 TSNP/g then why bother?
|
| 13 | leggestand
ID: 501029817
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 16:36
|
True Ender. But if you can afford to upgrade your players 5-10 TSNP/g (all schedules equal) - isn't it worth it, even if it costs you 4 million dollars? As the season progresses and belly and studs are more affordable, I would like to get as many points as possible, and don't really care how many TSNP/g they get per million.
|
| 14 | Logan47474
ID: 35882411
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 17:05
|
leggestand,
That raises a good question--at what point during the season does getting points begin to outweigh roster value. For instance, one of my teams is in a division with all my friends. Bragging rights are worth more than gold here. I'd love to spend every day of the season in 1st place, if possible, but I realize that sometimes increasing my roster value might cost me some points (moving into a "cheapie" train from a higher point-producing belly with a bad schedule for instance).
I think a worthwhile spin-off of this discussion thread might consider the different goals you have for your team at various points during the season. Obviously the primary goal is to win it all. But if you can't do that (if you're me), and all you want to do is to destroy your friends, might not the methods to achieve these respective goals differ slightly?
|
| 15 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 17:15
|
WHy does it matter if you are in first place now? I don't understand the need to be in first place the most day. It's where you place on the last day that counts.
|
| 16 | blackjackis21
Sustainer
ID: 26749279
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 17:31
|
I'll second that.
|
| 17 | KnicksFan
Donor
ID: 3974252
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 17:35
|
LOL BlackJackis21, nice pun (whether you meant it or not)
|
| 18 | Dave R
Leader
ID: 12441623
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 17:39
|
That was nasty
|
| 19 | blackjackis21
Sustainer
ID: 26749279
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 17:40
|
Honestly didn't think about it... all the better.
|
| 20 | leggestand
ID: 501029817
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 18:03
|
Logan,
I have played smallworld basketball for four years now, and I am still learning every year (probably even every week). I also am in the free game with 5 friends, and the bragging has already started (I am in 3rd, but have the highest RV by far) by the guys in 1st and 2nd place. I think that the switch from concentrating on RV to points happens naturally. I look at my team now and it is barbelled, but two months down the road, I will probably have 2 studs and 4 bellys, due to my RV increasing and allowing me to upgrade my cheapies.
It might be easiest to make an example:
Lets says I have Hilario and Malik Allen. If I make 1M off both of them (in Kwame's case he made 1.4M in the free game, I think), then I have 1M upgrade to make if I sell Hilario (for the upgrade, hopefully to a player that will be posting similar gains) and drop Allen for a new cheapie (at approximately Allen's original bought price). As the cycle continues, my team should start moving into a stud-belly lineup without me saying to myself that it is time to change strategies.
|
| 21 | JC REB
Leader
ID: 5212816
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 18:12
|
As a first time ultimate hoops player, I have struggled with this topic as well as management of trades strategy, so I am grateful to see this thread. I have currently 2 studs, 2 upper priced bellies/ 2 mid priced bellies, 4 cheapies, and enough cash in hand to move an upper level belly to a stud, which I plan to do this weekend. My hope long term is to do the same as I do in baseball, upgrade the power positions(in this case F/G) to studs as soon as $$$ allows, then rotate studs only for maximum starts. I am still very much in the dark about the proper management of trades at this point in the season, i.e. chasing money trains or starts, or conserving trades for later use, so I am just trying to do a little of each, hoping that an effective strategy will become clear soon.
|
| 23 | Logan47474
ID: 35882411
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 18:50
|
Ender--
I was really only half-serious about my division ranking complaints. I realize that it's where you finish that counts, but just for the sake of discussion, maybe you (or anyone) can answer me this from what you've seen in previous years:
Is it possible (or even worth it) to start in 1st place, and then just scramble-scramble-scramble to stay there? And if you aren't in 1st place, how does one go about making a move to get there at the end of the season, particularly if the other managers ahead of you are following the same general strategy as you are?
If I remember correctly from last year, the managers who were in 1st for most of the year were nowhere near the top at the end. CMIIW, but didn't Dave make his run to victory from pretty far back in the pack?
And TF--
Don't you think that something to consider with that analysis is the fact that the very inconsistency of the mid-range players might make them MORE attractive, rather than less? Granted, it's an optimistic viewpoint (and admittedly I should avoid this viewpoint as Murphy's Law runs my world), but I think that the potential for the mid-range players to have a higher than average point total per night is greater than that of the cheapie, hence their higher price. I'd rather gamble on that than putting my money on a cheapie and a stud combination like Duncan and Ginobili. But maybe that's just my dissatisfaction with both of them talking...
P.S. Ender--how did you come by your name?
|
| 25 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 21:33
|
Logan,
I have been the guy in the lead who has grabbed it early and held it early for the duration. I have been the guy who grabbed it and lost it late. I have also been the guy who went on a run down the stretch and claimed it in the end. I can say this, I don't manage any different no matter what position I am in in the division. I will concede that I have made picks just to be different from the owner I was chasing or leading. I have allowed his trade situation to dictate which advantageous schedule to take advantage of. However, for the most part I go with the players that I can afford with the strongest schedules who I expect to perform the best regardless of who else has them. Trying to differentiate will bite you in the arse as often as it will push you ahead. SO I guess I'm not giving you a straight answer because I can't tell you what to do to come from behind or when to make a move. I will tell you that it's okay to sacrifice a small amount of points early for money because money earned in the first half is useful for a longer period of time than money made in the second half. Points are worth the same no matter when you score them.
I take my handle from "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card.
|
| 26 | Edgar
ID: 51055130
Fri, Nov 15, 2002, 09:36
|
Surely there has alway been discussion between barbelling and not barbelling. And surely the answer will be: sometimes on strategy works sometimes the other. A conclusion that is obvious but clearly not really helpful in managing our teams. My golden rule is to find players, regarless of their price, that seem attractive to me based on their play, schedule, price upside, durability (can you hold them for a long period) and point production. In forming a roster you look at which players are available and seem good values at these points. At this point this led me to the conclusion the best cheapies available are at forward: Allen, Buckner, Hilario and Stoudemire. Belly players that I like at forward are Grant Hill, maybe Rashard Lewis and Mashburn (GF). Studs that seem a good value are Brand, Garnett, Webber and still Duncan.
At guard I like the cheapies less. On the other hand there are some guards that seem like a good value right now like Arenas (still), McKie, Magette, Jackson that are belly players. Studs at guard seem to be McGrady, Kobe and Baron who all have pretty good schedules. So my guards turn out a little more expensive because I don't like the available cheapies and I do like the studs and belly players. At centeryou have Z, Olowakandi, Thomas (bad schedule) and Bradley as the best values right now. This quit simply sums up the players (surely forgot a few) that are good values right now. I always try to construct a team from those players and avoid others.
|
| 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?)
|
|