Short Conundrum: Pay up or avoid Supercoach stud?

G’day Supercoaches,

As we approached the BBL season, the big $304,200 question separating coaches was about whether we should or shouldn’t have been starting with Matthew Short in our Supercoach team.

To some, the thought of spending 15% of our salary cap on one player seemed ridiculous, however 54% of coaches ended up thinking that it was too risky to not start with him in their teams.

We now have one game of data to help us decide what to do in Round 2 – Seven runs from six balls and 1/16 from two overs for 41 Supercoach points – however, we are not any clearer on the right approach that we should be taking.

Subscribe to our premium content for BBL14! Get access to additional articles throughout the season. Gain eligibility to our major unlimited league prize money, our Whatsapp community with team news for every game, team feedback, and contributor trade and skipper plans every week and plenty more. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Embed from Getty Images

Those who started Short would have been happy seeing him hammer the first delivery of the match to the boundary through covers, but probably not so much with the delivery that rattled his stumps in the second over.

Similarly, non-owners would not have been happy to see him preparing to bowl the first delivery of the second innings but probably felt better after watching that first delivery being dispatched with contempt to the boundary.

A final score of 41 probably left non owners feeling more confident with their decision, however, owners will take solace with that score being his “floor” given it was a “bad” game for the Strikers.

The unfortunate hamstring injury to Fabian Allen will most likely be seen as another positive by owners for Short’s future bowling opportunity.

The reality is that it is still too early to tell which decision was the right one and we are not really going to know who was correct until the end of the season, when we look back to see what the eventual winner did.  My gut feel is that when we do look back at the top 10-20 coaches, there will be a mix of teams that did and didn’t start with Matt Short.

Our teams are bigger than Matthew Short alone. For those who did start him, it will be more about how they approached the other 16 players in their squad and spent the remaining 85% of their salary cap when compared to those coaches who set up their whole squad when starting without him.

Read our detailed notepad on all the player performances from Round 1

Embed from Getty Images

Now the first round is done and dusted, what should we do?  Will those who started him, hold him or trade him out after watching his first game? Will those who didn’t start him, bring him in or continue to fade him?

The one thing that we can’t change is the past, so we need to focus on what will be best for our team between now and season’s end.  We now have a round of data for our planning, so we need to stay adaptable as our priorities will change from what we may have been planning leading into the season.

The best approach from here will be different for different coaches depending on how we went in Round 1, how our team is set up for Round 2 and future rounds, or whether we have any pressing issues such as injuries that need dealing with and how that influences our trades overall.

By my calculations, Short is going to drop in price by somewhere around $15k and have a breakeven approaching 250 for his Round 2 double. That is not a huge cash advantage to nonstarters and Short is more than capable of scoring more than 200 points over two games given he is opening the batting and likely to bowl regular overs. 

That will be a win for owners even if he doesn’t reach his breakeven because he is likely to be their captain or vice-captain and therefore get that score doubled.

However, if he follows up with two more 41’s, he could lose a further $50k. The unknown will be the points advantage or disadvantage depending on what alternative players coaches were able to select instead of Short.

Embed from Getty Images

Now let’s look at what value we would expect from Short due to the fixture. The table below shows the average score involvements we would expect per round depending on when we trade a player in and out of our team.  Due to every team playing 10 games over nine rounds, any player we start and hold for the whole season will average 1.11 score involvements per round if they play every game.

I find it useful to work out the true value of a player based on when he is in my team to help compare players between different teams. I just divide his price by the corresponding figure that matches when I plan to trade him in and out, then weigh up if I think that is a fair price for that player given his role in the team.

If we were to look at the Strikers fixture and trade Short in for his Round 2 double, then straight out again, he would average 2.00 score involvements for the round he is in our team. So effectively, we would be paying half price. If we were to trade him in in Round 2 and hold him for the rest of the season, he would average 1.13 score involvements per round.

There will be people who look at his fixture and decide to trade him in and straight out again for both of his doubles in Round 2 and Round 4.  This could be good for average score involvements against price paid but would be offset by making extra trades, and after all, he could still be a handy single game player.

There will be coaches who may have decided to start him or trade him in now and hold him until before his bye to get a 1.40 or 1.50 score involvement average.  However, the more astute coaches will realise that it is more than these basic figures given Short is a genuine captain option for our teams given his role.

Seeing Double: Preview the Round 2 Double Game Weeks

Therefore, the table below factors in his captaincy value. He is not only a genuine captain option for his Round 2 and Round 4 doubles, but also in Rounds 5, 7 and 9 when there are no teams on the double.

I have chosen to multiply his score involvements for those rounds by 1.5 (rather than 2x) because there is a 50/50 chance that he will be our captain.  He will either score well enough as vice-captain that we take it, or he won’t. Same goes for another vice-captain, meaning there is a 50% chance we make him captain that round.

This changes the average score involvements per round in our calculator significantly.  For instance, anyone who started Short and holds him for the season, will average 1.5 score involvements from him per round.

Even with this improved figure, it still means that people holding Short for the whole season paid $304,200 / 1.50 = $202,800 per average score involvement.

Those who waited to bring him in for Round 2 to hold for the rest of the season will pay approximately $290,000 / 1.56 = $185,900 per average score involvement.

So, the challenge now for non-owners after that slight price advantage, is do they risk a double round without him and hope he drops more in price before his next double?  If he was to drop another $50k he could be priced at $240,000 / 1.42 = $169,000 per average score involvement by then.  We then need to consider if the wait and potential points risk is worth that $17k benefit?

So, what would I do?

If I started Matthew Short, I would most likely hold. He opened the batting and bowled two overs, so his role from last year seems to be there.  It will just come down to how much he can repeat that form. If he didn’t bowl in his first match, I may well have a different view.

He is in over 50% of teams, which is likely to rise in Round 2, so there is not a lot to be lost on the main pack if he does fail. I would only consider a sell if my team performed so badly in Round 1 and was in such a mess that I needed his cash value to get low priced mistakes out of my team and more quality double game players into my team.

For those who didn’t start with Short, I can still see merit in both getting him in Round 2 or holding off a little longer due to his price.

Embed from Getty Images

However, to hold off, I think a coach would need Jamie Overton in their team.  He showed in game one that he could be a genuine vice-captain (or captain) alternative to Short in Round 2 if he keeps his role.

Given they both play for the same team, the captain benefit can only apply to one of them. 

Therefore, if I was leaning towards Overton being my captain, I would be seeing if I could trade in two quality double game players rather than Short and a cheaper player.

However, if I wanted Short to be my captain, I would certainly be aiming to get him in this round. There will be cheap player options who will have low breakevens due to having a good score in Round 1 (eg Konstas) who we could bring in alongside Short so that he is more affordable.  It will just come down to finding that balance between cash generation and not falling too far behind those maximising points from doubles in Round 2.

There are no clear winners from the Matthew Short decision yet, but decisions over the next couple of rounds will start separating the pack. 

Good luck with whatever you decide is the right move for your team and try not to get caught Short!