NRL Fantasy 2024 Part 3 - Half the height we want

mattnz wrote:Is that the same field the NRL games are being played at in Las Vegas?

Yep, Allegiant Stadium

if you want to check NRL on an NFL field, this is a game from 2004

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0uLfihhco8

Milchcow wrote:
if you want to check NRL on an NFL field, this is a game from 2004

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0uLfihhco8

I know the Aussies probably didn’t take it too seriously but 1st half was legit one of the most surprising 40 mins of footy I’ve ever seen

robelgordo wrote:
I know the Aussies probably didn’t take it too seriously but 1st half was legit one of the most surprising 40 mins of footy I’ve ever seen

It was the week after the tri-series final. Aussies were definitely in holiday mode

Dear ChatGPT:

How would Rugby league On a gridiron sized pitch impact the fantasy scoring of the rugby league players? Make a particular reference to the differences in tackle count, attacking opportunities and the roles of middle forwards and outside backs


ChatGPT4:
Switching Rugby League to a gridiron-sized pitch would significantly impact fantasy scoring, tackle counts, attacking opportunities, and the roles of players, especially middle forwards and outside backs, due to the differences in field dimensions and the strategic implications of those differences.
Field Dimensions

A standard Rugby League field is about 68 meters wide and 100 meters long, excluding in-goal areas. In contrast, a gridiron (American football) field is about 53.3 yards (48.8 meters) wide and 120 yards (109.7 meters) long, including end zones. This means a gridiron field is narrower and slightly longer, which would have several implications:

Tackle Count: The narrower width would likely lead to a higher tackle count as play is more concentrated in a smaller area, making it easier for defenses to close down attacking plays. This could increase the fantasy value of players known for their defensive work rate.

Attacking Opportunities: The reduced width might limit wide attacking plays, making speed less of an advantage on the edges but increasing the importance of strong, direct running and playmaking abilities in central areas. This could shift some of the focus away from outside backs and increase the value of versatile middle forwards or halves who can create opportunities in tight spaces.

Middle Forwards: The roles of middle forwards could become more critical, both in defense and attack. Their ability to gain ground and create space in a narrower field would be at a premium, possibly increasing their fantasy scoring potential through more hit-ups, offloads, and tackles.

Outside Backs: With less space to exploit on the wings, outside backs might find fewer clear-cut scoring opportunities, potentially lowering their fantasy scores. However, their role might evolve to focus more on intricate play and support around the ruck, requiring them to adapt to a style that emphasizes skillful ball handling and support play over outright speed and evasion.

Strategic Play: The dynamics of kicking and strategic play would also change. The longer field might increase the value of players with strong kicking games, as territory becomes even more critical. This could affect fantasy points related to kicking for position, forcing dropouts, and scoring opportunities created from kicks.

In fantasy terms, players who adapt best to these changes and whose skill sets are suited to the altered dimensions and flow of the game would see their value change. For instance, a prop with a high work rate and good offloading ability might become more valuable than a winger who relies on space to score tries. Fantasy leagues would need to adjust their scoring systems to reflect the increased importance of tackles, playmaking in tight spaces, and strategic kicking.

Dear ChatGPT

How much of my round 1 team should I pick solely on the basis of them playing their first game on a narrow field?

Milchcow wrote:
Dear ChatGPT

How much of my round 1 team should I pick solely on the basis of them playing their first game on a narrow field?

Everyfink is marginal innit?

Slight increase to Haas attractiveness, slight decrease to Teddy.

L-Jimmy wrote:

Everyfink is marginal innit?

Slight increase to Haas attractiveness, slight decrease to Teddy.

Players closer together could mean extra slapsies while crab running across the field. Teddy gonna come out with 25 tackle busts

Ok ok time to amp up for fantasy.

Good to see the madness has already begun thinking of the 1% tail events where starting with Haas is a bad idea.

MattNZ post your team please so I can get aroused and get it out of my system before I try to attempt to be logical.

My PODS for this year looking like Cotter, SOS and Robson.

Yikes just saw that Carrigan/Reynolds video. Wtf

StuDogg101 wrote:Yikes just saw that Carrigan/Reynolds video. Wtf

me to just looked reynolds pushing him & carrigan not wanting to hurt him so he's just going with it...sometimes this happens when the boys are on it...they both looked hammered which begs the question who filmed it & put it in the public arena if i was carrigan or reynolds i wouldn't be happy.

White Lightning wrote:

me to just looked reynolds pushing him & carrigan not wanting to hurt him so he's just going with it...sometimes this happens when the boys are on it...they both looked hammered which begs the question who filmed it & put it in the public arena if i was carrigan or reynolds i wouldn't be happy.

Someone who doesn't belong in that circle

Just to be clear, I never meant to suggest starting with Haas was bad, just that there is more potential upside in looking for a player with value in lieu of him.  It just may be higher risk higher reward. Also that the benefit doesn't necessarily come directly from the Haas replacement, but from being able to afford a better value option in another position (say Cotter who I couldn't otherwise afford with Haas)

And yes, as pointed out I was misusing the term "game theory". I was using it instead of the term "optimisation". My mistake.

Edit: and honestly I am probably speaking more of perfect scenario/omniscient optimisation. Being a game of partially available information means that there will always be a massive luck factor and real world optimisation is different from the theoretical optimisation. My approach to learning new games is to start at theoretical optimisation then pare that back until I find the correct balance to give myself a fighting chance. Also: I'm probably someone who is quite on the spectrum, so I obsess over this search.

Obbeats wrote:Just to be clear, I never meant to suggest starting with Haas was bad, just that there is more potential upside in looking for a player with value in lieu of him.  It just may be higher risk higher reward. Also that the benefit doesn't necessarily come directly from the Haas replacement, but from being able to afford a better value option in another position (say Cotter who I couldn't otherwise afford with Haas)

And yes, as pointed out I was misusing the term "game theory". I was using it instead of the term "optimisation". My mistake.

Edit: and honestly I am probably speaking more of perfect scenario/omniscient optimisation. Being a game of partially available information means that there will always be a massive luck factor and real world optimisation is different from the theoretical optimisation. My approach to learning new games is to start at theoretical optimisation then pare that back until I find the correct balance to give myself a fighting chance. Also: I'm probably someone who is quite on the spectrum, so I obsess over this search.  

I think you were pretty much bang on. It was good chat. Not really sure anyone actually disagreed, it’s more just different assessments on the imperfect info and forecasting element, risk/variance appetite etc

Heard from a friend that Carrigan wouldn’t give up his window seat.

Off topic, but we had a happy healthy baby girl on Friday morning at 3am. So far been a constant sleeper so a nice easy intro into parenthood so far.

I think Reyno trod on his new shoes