As we all know round three is upon us and that means one thing community, PRICES ARE A CHANGING.
As I mentioned a little last week, there was a time when trading after round two wasn’t an essential acquisition but as the rules have changed and we now have 30 trades, I strongly advise to use both trades this week. Any coach who thinks by holding their trades they will gain an advantage later on in the year will be badly mistaken, and without the use of corrective trading this week, they could be left a long way behind the leaders.
Of course there will be many trade options and player combinations on offer to the thousands of coaches out there, and not all of them will work out to be successful. We often get blinded by the past scores, break evens and projected price rises and falls without fully understanding some or all of those concepts.
A mate of mine who shall remain nameless to save him embarrassment made one of the most mind blowing trade errors I have ever seen in this game. He went into the season with a three gun, five rookie backline strategy and picked Goddard, Gibbs and Hanley as his three guns. After round one he traded Hanley out for Hartlett. Now encase you don’t know how that has worked out so far, Hanley scored 83pts in round one and Hartlett scored 123pts. In round two after he swapped these two players, Hanley scored 160pts and Hartlett scored 38pts. Now I’ll give you all a minute to either stop laughing or crying or both, depending on how much empathy you have for this man before I explain his reasoning.
I asked him what he was thinking and while his reasoning was completely flawed, in a very weird way I could kind of understand it from his view point. You see he informed me that he was tossing up between Hartlett and Hanley for his third premium defender and last minute went to Hanley. After round one when Hartlett outscored Hanley by 40pts he thought he had backed the wrong horse. He told me he thought Hanley’s breakeven was too high after his “low” score and that if he wanted to get Hartlett in he would have to act now because after his “massive” score his breakeven was really low and would soon shoot up in value. He wanted to be able to use two corrective trades on other parts of his team after round two so he made the trade last week. Of course he wouldn’t have made this mistake if he had read last week’s article “Trade Temptations” and followed the two golden rules when trading (recap here). However what was more alarming to me was the fact that when I quizzed him on how he worked out Hanley was going to have a massive breakeven he said he thought a score of 83 would result in a massive breakeven. The thing is he didn’t actually know what kind of breakeven or projected price fall Hanley was looking at because he didn’t quite understand how the breakeven or prices were calculated. I’m guessing if he did then there is a good chance he wouldn’t have made this trade.
So this scenario got me thinking, here we have quite an experienced Supercoach player, who by the way finished in the top 5000 last season (yes, bet you didn’t see that coming) making such a basic trading error because he still doesn’t quite understand how players values and breakevens are calculated. So if he doesn’t know then there are probably a lot of other coaches out there who are in a very similar position. Coaches who could be about to make their corrective trade based on what they are assuming will happen with players prices, and not what will actually happen to their players prices. Fear not beloved community this Mad Irish B**tard isn’t going to leave any of you in the dark any longer.
I am going to give you a very good example of just how easily fooled by breakevens we can be. I am going to use Gary Ablett and Patrick Dangerfield as perfect examples.
Pop Quiz: Ablett ($740,500) has scored 277pts and Dangerfield ($636,000) has scored 170pts over the first two rounds. If they both score 120pts in each of the next two rounds, who will have lost more value after round 4 ??
Answer: Ablett. Ablett will have lost $51,200, while Dangerfield $36,400
Even though Ablett has gotten off to a far better start to the year than Dangerfield, under this scenario where they both score 120 in each of their next two rounds Ablett will have dropped more in Value than Dangerfield. This is because Ablett’s great start and Dangerfields bad start are accounted for in round one where Ablett scored 178pts and Danger scored 63pts. These scores are then only in the three week rolling average (used to calculate the players value) for one week and thus really count for nothing in the larger scheme of things. Ablett’s score of 99 from round two will now be in his rolling average for two weeks and will account for large portion of his drop over the next two weeks. However this score is still less consequential than every other score from here on out, as they will now appear in their rolling average for three weeks.
So going back to my hapless friend who went Hanley to Hartlett because he was worried about their respective breakevens, it actually really doesn’t matter what a player scores in round one because it is only going to affect their price after round three only. Scores in round two will affect their price after round 3 and 4, and then scores in round three will affect their scores after round 3, 4 and 5.
I know many of you are considering corrective trades on under performing premiums this round but before you jump the gun make sure you really understand what you are gaining and what you are losing. I don’t want to be back next week telling a similar story to the Hanley to Hartlett trade mentioned above.
And for all of those who are undecided on which premiums should you keep or who should you be trading in, check out Flesh for Fantasy tomorrow night with Mr Crimmins. A must read.
Best of luck with those trades
Mick the Mad Irishman