2015 WXV Awards and 2015 Rules Discussion

[Holz]

for once can people think about the comp and not Dublin.

That's a bit rich. I was thinking of the competition when I suggested that since teams like Dublin, Mexico City, Christchurch and PNL have maxed out caps that they shouldn't be able to trade in Liberatore and O'Meara without having to give up equal points. You tried to direct the attention towards another team but we're onto you. It shows that you're a good coach for taking advantage of the rule, but the rule is wrong in terms of what is good for the competition.

Under an effective points cap how can TMac and Selwood be worth as much as Fyfe, Beams, Liberatore and JOM?

Dublin can trade TMac for Libba and then go out and get Fyfe too and it'll fit under the cap.
Then you can trade Selwood for JOM and you can get Dayne Beams in as well and it'll all fit under the cap.
Swap a 75 averaging player for Daisy who has limited points and you're laughing.

Do all that and it basically gives you a 34000 cap vs everyone elses 30000.

Obviously you won't get Fyfe but you'll collect depth players like Grundy who you shouldn't be able to afford but can because you've got Libba's 0 points.

Dublin (or Mexico City, or PNL or Christchurch) being unbeatable due to an inequal cap hurts Beijing more than them having to trade Aaron Black would.

im under the cap with libba at 1600 or 0. Yes I could go out and get fyfe, but i still need to trade him in. I can afford Grundy as i said with libba at 1600 with list management.

Beijing cant though.

The thing is Meow we actually fundamentally agree on the issue. I dont think injury players should be focussed on because there are much bigger flaws with the cap. Its like worrying about a tail light on your car being out when you have no steering wheel.

no idea where that analogy is going.

I said i would stop talking about it, so I will.

the injury thing is like 1% of the in-equal cap issue. Lets say I dont trade for Libba or trade him for a guy who has played all year.

Am I then allowed to voice my opinion without bias?

[Vinny]

There is way too much to read on this issue, but players like Libba shouldn't be on zero for the cap. Using their average of the previous year, a number should be reached. Both of your proposed ideas have been lost in the thread so I don't whose idea I like. :P

[Ricochet]

There is way too much to read on this issue, but players like Libba shouldn't be on zero for the cap. Using their average of the previous year, a number should be reached.

[Holz]

There is way too much to read on this issue, but players like Libba shouldn't be on zero for the cap. Using their average of the previous year, a number should be reached. Both of your proposed ideas have been lost in the thread so I don't whose idea I like. :P

mine is 30% of the higher year. Which equates to about 5 games missed. the reason is guys coming off mass injuries often dont bounce back 100% and there should be some discount (much like in real SC)

the negative effect of guys like Aaron Black is reduced as young players often are on the fringe and it lets teams have those speculative picks on the bench.

with the 10% rule guys who miss 2 games each year are priced as much as guys who miss a whole year and thats unfair. 5 a year seems a better number.

it bumps up guys like libba 70% and doesnt do too much damage on older player and fringe guys.

whats not to like?

[meow meow]

Haha Holz you're always allowed to voice your opinion. I'm just using Dublin as an example since they're already ridiculously strong an it accentuates my point. I would use maxed out points capped Christchurch but nobody rates us.

[Holz]

Haha Holz you're always allowed to voice your opinion. I'm just using Dublin as an example since they're already ridiculously strong an it accentuates my point. I would use maxed out points capped Christchurch but nobody rates us.

to be fair your unbias as you have alot of injured players so would be pushed up with the rule. I agree with your fundamentals just not the 10%. I think 30% is a good number that minimizes the negatives of having 100% and 10% deductions.  Both made some really good points and i think this is a good middle ground. I would happily change my vote to a yes if it was 30%

Dublin is the posterboy for all discussions.

However I just want to shine a light on Mexico.

3 grand finals 2 championships and finishing 1,2,3,1

something has to be done to stop them :P

[RaisyDaisy]

With all this talk about points cap and how injured players like Libba shouldn't be able to have a zero value for the year - not once has anyone recognized the fact that the teams who have these players have had to go a long time without them in their side, and that has had big impacts on their teams performance so letting them keep them without points to the cap seems like a bloody fair trade off considering they didn't get to play for the team all year

It's crippling enough that we didn't have Libba all year. To be penalized further by having BS points added on top is a joke

I'm just using Libba as he seems to be the prime example. but this applies to all injured players

[Holz]

With all this talk about points cap and how injured players like Libba shouldn't be able to have a zero value for the year - not once has anyone recognized the fact that the teams who have these players have had to go a long time without them in their side, and that has had big impacts on their teams performance so letting them keep them without points to the cap seems like a bloody fair trade off considering they didn't get to play for the team all year

It's crippling enough that we didn't have Libba all year. To be penalized further by having BS points added on top is a joke

Me Me Me

[Ringo]

I reckon if we are to keep a points cap which seems to be the general opinion then each year Admin allocates a point value to all players including a realistic value for injured players at end of the season and that we have to stick with this. Know all the argument is about Libba but there are others as well that can be argued as well. JOM for one and using Tom Rockliff as an example now surely he is worth more than 1066 of the cap. Hence why I say although more work for Admin he should assign values rather than complicating it with averages past % etc. 

[meow meow]

I'll change the 90% to 70% and have a look at what it does for all players/caps.

30% would have Liberatore at a 74 average across 17 games.

20% has him at 85 across 17 games.

Would you settle for 20% Holz?

[Vinny]

@RD

You aren't being penalised, it is bad luck that the player got injured. The cap is there to ensure equality in the competition when trading, not about the literal points that they got that effected the teams performance. Libba is a premium player and his share in the cap should reflect that.

[Purple 77]

Probably the wrong thread to discuss this btw.

[Holz]

Meow"I'll change the 90% to 70% and have a look at what it does for all players/caps.

30% would have Liberatore at a 74 average across 17 games.

20% has him at 85 across 17 games.

Would you settle for 20% Holz?"


I think we need to look at guys like Aaron Black too.

[ossie85]

Of course if the AFL didn't let teams tank that'd be dandy.North deliberately trying to lose to gain an advantage

Yep, really stupid. They don't want to travel to Adelaide and so they're ensuring it doens't happen.

Honestly, even though some other comps had their grand final last week, I think it's tough luck if you have players being rested. You should have depth to cover the issue, same with injuries and suspensions.

Holz, I'd be surprised if you'd be caring so much if teams like the Giants and the Suns were resting because you don't even have any best XV players from those teams.

JROO's clearly not that fussed about it, but you're up in arms because the fantasy world isn't perfect for Dublin to win and stroke your ego some more.

Yeah I'm not fussed because I actually have depth  :P

But yes agree with Holz, it's the GF so obviously everyone would love to see the best two teams at full strength

Posted this in the other thread but, there is a really easy solution.

WXV Grand Final in Round 22.

Play the Rep games in Round 23 where the coaches have an unlimited pool of unrested players to pick from.

It means we play an extra game over the bye rounds which can work like how British did this year. Some player scores from Week 11 and 12 count for one game, scores from 12 and 13 count for the second game and scores from 13 and 14 (not bye round) count for the third game.

that method is attrocious. Why bring round 14 into it? Just play 2 rounds over the 3 bye rounds, the only way it would work.

[meow meow]

I reckon if we are to keep a points cap which seems to be the general opinion then each year Admin allocates a point value to all players including a realistic value for injured players at end of the season and that we have to stick with this. Know all the argument is about Libba but there are others as well that can be argued as well. JOM for one and using Tom Rockliff as an example now surely he is worth more than 1066 of the cap. Hence why I say although more work for Admin he should assign values rather than complicating it with averages past % etc.

That's why we apply the 70/80/90% to all players. Rockliff would be worth whatever % we decide on, based on his previous output instead of a made up figure to be decided on by admin. All it takes is an extra column in a spreadsheet.

Rocky 2015 = 1006 points = 59 average over 17 rounds

Or 2014 scores
Rocky @ 90% = 1720 = 102.2
Rocky @ 80% = 1529 = 89.9
Rocky @ 70% = 1338 = 78.8

Which one is a more accurate pricing?