Euroleague Fantasy Challenge

[semigod]

Marcelinho Huertas
Ender Arslan
Drew Nicholas
Sasha Vujacic
David Lighty
Emir Preldzic
Andrei Kirilenko
Furkan Aldemir
Kevin Seraphin
Giorgi Shermadini

[GozGoz]

Hi Everyone; I was visitor this forum for 4 years until now... Cause for me writing is not important, see peoples opinion more important...

But This time i need to write for see people opinion =)

So Lets Go:

Point Guards:
Sergio Llull-Real Madrid-72 (Good Guard Expensive But)
Ender Arslan-Galatasaray-38 (Not So good But Cheap and his team will give him a lot of min )

Shooting Guards and Small Forwards
Emir Preldzic-Fenerbahce Ulker-55 ( In euro cup he is best in TR team and he is good in ulker so and price is 50 around )

David Logan-Panathinaikos5656- ( he has points and asists price is cool )
Tarence Kinsey-Anadolu Efes-53 ( good at efes points and 30 min around every match)
Pietro Aradori-Montepaschi-36 ( he is cheap i think he can make 7-8 point a macth)

Power Forwards and Centers
Andrey Vorontsevich-CSKA Moscow-48 ( he has 10 points and some ribounds)
Steven Smith-Panathinaikos-52 ( i hope he play like like he played in eurocup)
Kosta Perovic-FCB Regal-51 ( i hope again he will better this year in barca )
Furkan Aldemir-Galatasaray-22 ( in his team take good min and good points around 10 and very cheap )

Total : 483 =) I want to Save 17 for Second Week =)

[GSBasket]

is there anyone who knows how to leave private league? i've tried to find the "leave" button, but...

edit: btw is it allowed to create more teams?

thanks in advance.

Admin of the Private League (founder, organizer etc.) can delete your team.

And also, you can create lots of teams.

@Ardaque

100+ teams joined our league. Who'll be the champion this year?

PS: Im sorry, my English is bad.

[ARdaQue]

Admin of the Private League (founder, organizer etc.) can delete your team.

And also, you can create lots of teams.

@Ardaque

100+ teams joined our league. Who'll be the champion this year?

PS: Im sorry, my English is bad.

We will see the real champion on the court bro
I am working hard in order to analysis the clubs and players before the Euroleague starts.

As you know; its not a inherit, its only sweat

[Andros]

Do we have private league ???????????

[GozGoz]

yes do we andros =)

[AirBall]

Kosta Perovic-FCB Regal-51 ( i hope again he will better this year in barca )

He will play 5 mins per game in the best case... You just waste your credits on him...

He is useless...

[kyosphere]

yes do we andros =)

care to say the name and the password of it???

[Deschain]

Wanna give it a try with this;

Calathes/Arslan
Preldzic/Vujacic/Markoishvili/Gecevicius
Pleiss/Hines/Fischer/Aldemir

many key/role players in mid-level teams are replaced with different players, it's an odd feeling to see many traditional players getting 10 mpg.

[GSBasket]

I opened Interbasket private league.

League: Interbasket
Password: ibnforums

My username is GSBasket and the team name's K4N.

[Gonzaka]

I opened Interbasket private league.

League: Interbasket
Password: ibnforums

My username is GSBasket and the team name's K4N.

I'm in. My team is Flopperland FTW.

[AirBall]

Why Seraphin played just few mins against GC?

[Gonzaka]

Why Seraphin played just few mins against GC?

Because he said his foot hurts and after that, Ivanovic became angry with him. "It's more a problem of head than of foot", something like that said Dusko after the game.

[ARdaQue]

I opened Interbasket private league.

League: Interbasket
Password: ibnforums

My username is GSBasket and the team name's K4N.

I am in, too

[Andros]

I am in FART POWER will rule this year

[christodoulou76]

I noticed that someone posted their fantasy team and it had a 9 players and 1 LPP model. LPP (least priced player) is someone with a minimal price (usually below 10 credits) chosen to complete the roster but not expected to contribute any score to the team.

Why do people adopt the 9 + 1 LPP team model? Because it allows them to increase the average credits of the remainder of their players:

10 player team model: avg credits is 50/player
9 +1 LPP team model: avg credits of non-LPP players is ~55/player

But it might not be a good idea to have a 9 + 1 LPP team model in week 1 of the competition. Why?

1) Too many cheap options left on the table
2) Too much risk to have 65+ priced players on your team
3) risk too concentrated, not spread out to 10 players; less hedged

So if it is bad to have a 9 + 1 LPP team model in Week 1, why would it be beneficial to adopt such a model in future weeks?

1) The goal in weeks 2-5 is credit accumulation more than scoring points (I will post more on this in the future). Higher priced players can accumulate more value.

60 credit player can go up a max. of 9 credits.
40 credit player can go up a max of 6 credits.

Since you can only purchase 3 players per week, if you want to maximize credit accumulation it is preferable to pick up the three highest priced players who are guaranteed to gain maximum credits in the next week (GMP). Since you are choosing higher priced players, this will increase the average price/player on your team. You probably will not have enough credits to buy 3 or even 2 high-priced GMPs in Week 2. One way to achieve this is to move to a 9 + 1 LPP team model. This would enable you to buy 2 high priced GMPs +1 LPP. (in future weeks you could try to pick up more high-priced GMPs)

2) There is less risk to a 9 + 1 LPP model in Week 2 because certain players are GMPs. With a team like this, you would have 2 GMPs, 1 LPP and 7 regular players. So only 7 of 10 players carry any serious risk of losing credits.

[christodoulou76]

A team's credits will fluctuate over the course of the season. Your success in the game depends on your ability to significantly increase your team credits over time.

Max Credit Accumulation:
Week 1: 500
Week 2: 575
Week 3: 661
Week 4: 760

It is unrealistic, obviously, to expect your team credits to increase at this rate. A more realistic (yet still difficult to achieve) goal might be:

Week 1: 500
Week 2: 525
Week 3: 570
Week 4: 615
Week 5: 650
Week 6: 675

Team credit accumulation occurs primarily in weeks 2-6. Why is that? It is because a player's price is based on the following formula: (SUM of VAL*4)/# of games played; with the stipulation that a player's price can't increase or decrease more than 15% each week. As the # of games played increases, additional VAL scores do little to change the overall price. This is easy to demonstrate with a hypothetical situation. Let's assume a player starts at a price of 50 and scores 20 VAL each week.

Player Price
Week 1: 50
Week 2: 57.5
Week 3: 66
Week 4: 76
Week 5: 80
Week 6: 80

What this means is that you have to place an emphasis on credit accumulation vs. score increase in weeks 2-6. You still want to score well, but credit accumulation is paramount. This can create a dilemma. Why?

After Week 1, several players who are guaranteed or nearly guaranteed to maximally increase their credits (GMPs) will emerge. However, some of these players will have simply scored highly in Week 1 as a fluke (e.g. Guillermo Rubio last year). You might become convinced that they will not score highly in the weeks to come. But, since they are guaranteed to maximize their credits, you might decide to buy them anyway in order to increase your team credits.

The decision on whether to pick up GMPs unlikely to repeat their good performance (but still expected to maximize their credits regardless of their score) depends on your level of confidence in your predictive abilities and your position in the game standings. If you are near the top, you might want to gamble on players who might not be GMPs but you think will score highly in weeks to come. You still want to accumulate credits, of course, but can take a few risks here and there with non-GMPs. If you are way behind in the standings and not confident in your predictive abilities, it might make sense to load your team with GMPs to ensure credit accumulation in the critical weeks 2-4 of the game. By Week 4, few if any players will be GMPs.

Appendix: So what might a GMP look like? Let's say a player is priced at 30 credits at the beginning of the season. That player scores 25 in Week 1. This means that even if the player only scores 5 in Week 2 and 5 in Week 3, his price will go up the maximum of 15% during those weeks:

Price (Score):
Week 1: 30 (25)
Week 2: 34.5 (5)
Week 3: 39.7 (5)
Week 4: 45.6

[afroditi]

that is an ANALYSIS!

A team's credits will fluctuate over the course of the season. Your success in the game depends on your ability to significantly increase your team credits over time.

Max Credit Accumulation:
Week 1: 500
Week 2: 575
Week 3: 661
Week 4: 760

It is unrealistic, obviously, to expect your team credits to increase at this rate. A more realistic (yet still difficult to achieve) goal might be:

Week 1: 500
Week 2: 525
Week 3: 570
Week 4: 615
Week 5: 650
Week 6: 675

Team credit accumulation occurs primarily in weeks 2-6. Why is that? It is because a player's price is based on the following formula: (SUM of VAL*4)/# of games played; with the stipulation that a player's price can't increase or decrease more than 15% each week. As the # of games played increases, additional VAL scores do little to change the overall price. This is easy to demonstrate with a hypothetical situation. Let's assume a player starts at a price of 50 and scores 20 VAL each week.

Player Price
Week 1: 50
Week 2: 57.5
Week 3: 66
Week 4: 76
Week 5: 80
Week 6: 80

What this means is that you have to place an emphasis on credit accumulation vs. score increase in weeks 2-6. You still want to score well, but credit accumulation is paramount. This can create a dilemma. Why?

After Week 1, several players who are guaranteed or nearly guaranteed to maximally increase their credits (GMPs) will emerge. However, some of these players will have simply scored highly in Week 1 as a fluke (e.g. Guillermo Rubio last year). You might become convinced that they will not score highly in the weeks to come. But, since they are guaranteed to maximize their credits, you might decide to buy them anyway in order to increase your team credits.

The decision on whether to pick up GMPs unlikely to repeat their good performance (but still expected to maximize their credits regardless of their score) depends on your level of confidence in your predictive abilities and your position in the game standings. If you are near the top, you might want to gamble on players who might not be GMPs but you think will score highly in weeks to come. You still want to accumulate credits, of course, but can take a few risks here and there with non-GMPs. If you are way behind in the standings and not confident in your predictive abilities, it might make sense to load your team with GMPs to ensure credit accumulation in the critical weeks 2-6 of the game. By Week 4, few if any players will be GMPs.

Appendix: So what might a GMP look like? Let's say a player is priced at 30 credits at the beginning of the season. That player scores 25 in Week 1. This means that even if the player only scores 5 VAL in Week 2 and 5 VAL in Week 3, his price will go up the maximum of 15% during those weeks:

Price (Score):
Week 1: 30 (25)
Week 2: 34.5 (5)
Week 3: 39.7 (5)
Week 4: 45.6

[Chopin]

A team's credits will fluctuate over the course of the season. Your success in the game depends on your ability to significantly increase your team credits over time.

Max Credit Accumulation:
Week 1: 500
Week 2: 575
Week 3: 661
Week 4: 760

It is unrealistic, obviously, to expect your team credits to increase at this rate. A more realistic (yet still difficult to achieve) goal might be:

Week 1: 500
Week 2: 525
Week 3: 570
Week 4: 615
Week 5: 650
Week 6: 675

Team credit accumulation occurs primarily in weeks 2-6. Why is that? It is because a player's price is based on the following formula: (SUM of VAL*4)/# of games played; with the stipulation that a player's price can't increase or decrease more than 15% each week. As the # of games played increases, additional VAL scores do little to change the overall price. This is easy to demonstrate with a hypothetical situation. Let's assume a player starts at a price of 50 and scores 20 VAL each week.

Player Price
Week 1: 50
Week 2: 57.5
Week 3: 66
Week 4: 76
Week 5: 80
Week 6: 80

What this means is that you have to place an emphasis on credit accumulation vs. score increase in weeks 2-6. You still want to score well, but credit accumulation is paramount. This can create a dilemma. Why?

After Week 1, several players who are guaranteed or nearly guaranteed to maximally increase their credits (GMPs) will emerge. However, some of these players will have simply scored highly in Week 1 as a fluke (e.g. Guillermo Rubio last year). You might become convinced that they will not score highly in the weeks to come. But, since they are guaranteed to maximize their credits, you might decide to buy them anyway in order to increase your team credits.

The decision on whether to pick up GMPs unlikely to repeat their good performance (but still expected to maximize their credits regardless of their score) depends on your level of confidence in your predictive abilities and your position in the game standings. If you are near the top, you might want to gamble on players who might not be GMPs but you think will score highly in weeks to come. You still want to accumulate credits, of course, but can take a few risks here and there with non-GMPs. If you are way behind in the standings and not confident in your predictive abilities, it might make sense to load your team with GMPs to ensure credit accumulation in the critical weeks 2-6 of the game. By Week 4, few if any players will be GMPs.

Appendix: So what might a GMP look like? Let's say a player is priced at 30 credits at the beginning of the season. That player scores 25 in Week 1. This means that even if the player only scores 5 VAL in Week 2 and 5 VAL in Week 3, his price will go up the maximum of 15% during those weeks:

Price (Score):
Week 1: 30 (25)
Week 2: 34.5 (5)
Week 3: 39.7 (5)
Week 4: 45.6

I totally agree, many GMP-s are ok short term (or even bad) but surely bad long term and no serious team should have many of GMP-s in. Unless of course if player is really great and underpriced from the beginning. But you should have that player from the beggining anyway if your scouting and knowledge is good. I think that it is better in the long run to buy great players that have low avarage in first two weeks. They can "cost" you some credits first week or two when you buy them. You can keep those players for 4 or 5 weeks and the avarage index rating in those games are very high for the great players that underperformed in the first two games. That is repeating year after year...

btw. Christodoulou76, great posts!

[christodoulou76]

All of us want to eventually end up with a fantasy team full of the best Euroleague players. At the beginning of the season, most of us will only have 2-3 of these players on our teams because the best players have very high prices at the outset. We will hope that they have a few bad games and we can pick them up later. There is, however, a complication with this strategy. This complication can best be demonstrated with an example.

Let's say you think David Andersen will be one of the best players in this year's Euroleague. But he is priced at 78 credits. Too high. So you don't pick him up and wait. To your delight, he does terribly in Week 1 only scoring 7. His price plummets to a much more affordable 66.3. Great, you say, I can pick him up now. Not so fast. If you do, his price is almost guaranteed to plummet in the next week. Even if he scores 25 in Week 2, his price will go down the maximum to 56.4. So you can't pick him up because credit accumulation is so important in Weeks 2-6 of the game. So when are you supposed to pick up David Andersen? To put it more generally, when should we purchase the (currently) high-priced players that we all predict will be among the best this season?

The quick answer is after Week 6. Why is this? Because between now and Week 6 two things will, or at least should, happen.

1) Your team credits should go up to 600+, hopefully 650+.
2) The prices of all top players (except 3-4 perhaps) will settle to high but reasonable levels (near 80). This means they will be relatively affordable and unlikely to drastically decrease in price in the future.

Let's say you have a team price of 600 after Week 6. That means that your average credits/player is 60. This means you can have a 9 + 1 LPP team with an average price of non-LPP players of 65. This means you can have a team with six 80-credit players, three 40-credit players and 1 LPP.

The best strategy in Weeks 1-3 is to distinguish between the good and bad medium-price players (40-65 credits). At least 5-6 of these players will be among the top players in the league this year. If you have these players on your team from the outset, you will gain 20-30 credits per player as they increase their price to ~80 credits in Weeks 1-6. This will give you the required credits to go from 500 to 600+ team credits.

The problem is that you will not accurately predict who all of these players are in Week 1. Also, some of the top medium-price players will have a bad Week 1 (which means you probably should wait until Week 6 to pick them up). The first week is so important because you have only 3 trades per week. This means that if you want to maximize your credit accumulation in Weeks 2-6, your team in Week 1 must contain 4-5 underpriced players. Then, you can keep these 4-5 underpriced players and add 3 other underpriced players, to create a team that has 7-8 players likely to gain credits in future weeks. If, on the other hand, you only have 1-2 underpriced players in your Week 1 team, it will be much more difficult to generate enough credit accumulation in Weeks 2-6 to reach your 600+ credit goal.

One other thing to consider: expected future price. Let's compare two hypothetical players priced at 50 in Week 1. Player 1 scores 25 in Week 1; Player 2 scores 15 in Week 1. Player 1 has a higher expected future price than Player 2 and might be worth picking up. If both players score 20 in future weeks, this is what their prices will be:

Player 1: 50, 57.5, 66, 76, 85, 84
Player 2: 50, 57.5, 66, 73, 75, 76

So there is a greater opportunity cost to not picking up Player 1 than there is to not picking up Player 2. Of course, one must also consider which player is likely to continue performing well in future weeks. (more on this in a future post). But all other things being equal, a player with a higher expected future price is better to purchase.

We also need to consider those players with a negative expected future price. Going back to our David Andersen example, let's look to see what happens to his price if he scores a disappointing 7 in Week 1 but then rebounds (forgive the pun) and scores 20 each week after that.

Andersen: 78, 66, 56, 63, 67, 70

On the basis of this, it makes sense to wait until after Week 3 to pick Andersen up. His bad Week 1 performance has made him undesirable for the time being (because we need to accumulate credits in Weeks 2-6), but worth picking up after Week 3 when he starts gaining value again. The basic rule is do not pick up players who have a negative expected future price in Weeks 2-6.