Cow Talk – On the Edge of Seventeen

“Small or Far Away” Father Dougal on Cows

 

Hi Everybody!

 

A seventeen round season. Ok, time to look at that. RIght now we don’t know anything else for sure, so I’m going to focus on what we do know, which is the effect of having just seventeen rounds. The good news is that when I started working this, I realized it was just a variant of some things I have already done. Huge time savings!

The big question from the shorter season is how does that alter the balance of points now v points later? The longer the season, the more benefit from buying better players a week or two later. Shorter season means less time for investments to pay off. And we will still have investments, since there are eight spots off field for money makers to go, and they have to be filled.  

Cowpound interest: The benefit we get from a player having more rounds on the pitch with which to score points.

https://supercoachtalk.com/cow-talk-round-1-cowpound-interest/ 

Extracted Time/Cash Value:  (Player’s price – Price of Downgrade Target ) * the number of weeks left to play.  Used to tell when cows are ripe. 

https://supercoachtalk.com/cow-talk-round-4-5/

All these cowculations can be run with a 17 week season instead of 23. Below I grabbed some rooikes from last season’s Cow Talk  R4 -> R5

 

Sam Walsh, after just 4 rounds. Had he averaged exactly 96.5, which was his average at the time, he would have been most valuable to downgrade on R7, and to upgrade on R9.  

Below is the same chart but for a seventeen week season.  The timing of his maximum values are the same but those maximum values are much lower because that value is used over fewer games. 

So, 5,239,900 v 3,602,400.  The current magic number as of R7 of last year was (about) 5248. That means he would have been worth 998 points of value and  686 points of value. That’s 66.5 and 68.6 points a round. 

So what? Well, could you have spent that money on another player who would have scored more points? Um, no! He came at a low, low price of $207,300! Ok, he is an extreme example, but still the point, he was at a huge discount vs buying a better player somehow. Let’s look at someone who scored less well. 

 

Petrocelli 23 week season. Peak extraction value is 1,592,820 at R9

Petrocelli 17 week season. Peak extraction value is 1,041,200 at R8. 

1,592,800 at R9 of 22 means 303.5 over 14 rounds (21.68/round) 

1,041,200 at R8 of 17 means 189.4 over 10 rounds (18.94/round) 

 

So, could we have gotten someone who would have scored more points and made up those differences for the money. No! Petrocelli came at the low, low price of $123,900 for that 48.5 average.  We only paid for a 22.5 average. 

So, as far as starting with cows? Keep doing it. Cows can be the most highly discounted players there are. The only reason we don’t fill our team with them is at some point we have so much leftover money for each remaining roster spot, that we need to spend it on keepers.  (Rule of Cow-quisition#1!) That’s why we fill our teams with the good cows first. 

What we do see, no surprise, is we get far fewer points from cashing cows in. So, then the question is, is there a way to get more points early to try and beat teams with heavy cow investment? 

Well…Say we have a player who will score 115 priced at 115 for a cost of $624,500, and a cow priced at  22.8 who costs $123,900. Total cost is $748,400. If the cow scores 40, then you are getting a total of 155 points.   If you buy two mid-pricers who cost $374,200, and they average more than 77.5 then you are ahead on points. (The mid-pricers are priced at  an average of 68.9 each.)  

Now say the cows score at a 50 average. Now you are getting 165 points for your $748,400. Two mid-pricers costing $374,200 will need to average 82.5 to be even. 

Now say the cows score at a 60 average. Now you are getting 175 points for your $748,400. Two mid-pricers costing $374,200 will need to average 87.5 to be even. 

So, it really depends on how well the cow does. A cow with an unexciting 40 average on the field combined with a premium is not as good as two average mid-pricers.  A cow who scores at a 60 average takes two very good mid-pricers to keep up. 

So the lesson is that a good cow on the field along with a premium is probably  better than two mid-pricers on the field costing the same. But, a bad cow on the field with a premium is probably not as good as two good midpricers. 

So, good cows are good and bad cows are bad!  

How about non-cow changes? Well, if we downgrade a premium to a good mid-pricer, then we can upgrade a cow…..which is not a non-cow change. 

We can rearrange the money we spent on non-cows to get the best possible discounts and maximize our points/dollar! Which we should be doing already…..

Ok, so if we harvest the first set of cows rounds 6-10, then we only have 11-7 rounds for the downgrades to get ripe….I’m not seeing how that matters….

I’m just not seeing any reason to change how we set up our teams because of the reduction in the number of rounds! Since cows are all highly discounted sources of points, they are still a really important part of our teams. We already want to avoid low scoring cows on the field. We already want to take advantage of highly discounted players. We already want to get the most points for the money we spend on non-cows. The season is more than long enough for the first and many of the second crop of cows to get ripe. Maybe there is something I am missing, but I am just not seeing a reason to change things because of the shorter season. If I have missed something, please, please,  point it out in the comments

Of course, there could be other changes that will prompt changes. I’ll post on those as soon as I can after we find out about them. 

I did all this way fast, so please pardon me if it is in some way screwy. I don’t think it is….more than normal….

 

Thanks for reading!  

 

---

Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom