The Iron Law of Pods
So, the swords and shields thing I think isn’t super useful, looking back. The idea was swords are players who help you pull ahead of your competition. Shields are players who you have because they are highly owned and have the potential to put you behind the competition if they do well. But, really, that goes against the more basic idea of “Just pick who you think are the best players, and do not worry about who else owns them.” The rest of the post talks about just picking the best players, which is the opposite of Swards and Shields, so what was I thinking? I’d just ignore that part.
The Iron Law of Pods, however, that’s a thing. It is:
“The earlier and better a POD, the less time they remain a POD.”
If a player with low ownership starts doing really well, people are going to bring him in. The longer he does well and the better he does the more people will bring him in, until he is no longer low owned and thus no longer a POD.
The Inverse Law of Pods:
“The worse a POD performs, the longer he stays a POD.”
You pick someone with low ownership and they do badly, their ownership will end up staying the same if you are lucky, and more likely, dropping. So, they are a point of difference, but a bad one. Not so good.
Before prices rise the first time after round two, there is a flurry of corrective trades. Who comes in when those trade are made? Players who did well. The better they have done, the higher the percentage of teams that don’t have them will bring them in. Suddenly your POD is not a POD anymore. Of course, you had them for a few rounds when other teams didn’t, and you didn’t have to use a trade to get them in. If you picked them because you thought they were good player, even when others didn’t, well done. If you picked them because of low ownership and maybe they would be good, you got lucky.
If you picked someone with low ownership and they spud up, nobody else buys them. Some people sell them. You either have to keep them, taking up a useful spot on your team, or sell the, using a trade and maybe money. Not so bad before round 3, but bad after that as they prices drop. If there was a player you liked but avoided because you wanted someone different, well, you did succeed in getting someone different. Probably would have been better off picking someone good instead of someone different, and hopefully you learned a lesson for next season.
I feel like most of the Superoach content community pushes the idea of PODs because it give them something to write / talk about. Writing about good players who are flying under the radar, that is a genuine service.
To the people who missed them. Those with better radar probably do not like it.
Fair, but I’d rather have fun talking about players than not. Anyways….
Umm…so right….pointing out good players is good. Pointing out players likely to be bad is also good. But, suggesting players who are not likely to be good but suggesting they should be on teams because of low ownership and not because they are good players, is bad.
Make it simple for the hamster?
Put players you think will be good on your team and don’t put players you think will be bad on your team, and pay no attention to ownership when deciding who to put on your team!!!
I think he just made it simple for me.
Freo Tragic Summed this up well too: “Basically there’s no use going a POD unless you truly think they are going to be good at SC period.” Yes, that, exactly that.
The Rusty Curse of Pods:
“After you trade out an under-performing POD, he will most likely start doing well.”
Not a rule, but just the Supercoach gods rubbing it in.
Anyways, taking a player because they have a low ownership is a bad idea, because if they are a good pick, soon others will have them, and if not you have a bad pick. Take players because they are good players or good picks, regardless of their ownership.
Thank for reading!
Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom
3 thoughts on ““Stuff” Father Dougal Says – The Iron Law of PODs”
Great read.. Gold
Well summed up FD
Pick players you think will do well and if they have low ownership that’s bonus.