2015 WXV Awards and 2015 Rules Discussion

[DazBurg]

Maybe that would stop the top teams collecting all the old guys. They have to factor in the decline then decide if it is still worth it.

Umm, Shiels scores more than Gunston so that's why he costs more. Pretty simple stuff. Gunston may be ranked higher in his position but Shiels adds 10 WXV points while Gunston adds 9. That's what the game is about after all.

but as holz pointed out
hodge is worth more then most defenders
priddis is worth more then most mids

but most will be unwilling to pay for there true vaule as they are older

Isn't that already the case? Doesn't have a whole lot to do with the points cap change. Plus you know, you could keep them and not do a Buenos Aires. It might mean you have to let go of one of your depth players who plays every week in the AFL but never for PNL. That's the whole point of the cap.

was merely responding to you saying top sides should stop collecting the older guys

but my point is it just isn't worth us trading them and getting SFA back :P

[Holz]

Purps forgot a rule change.

Every team trades Holz their best 3 young players

or

Every team trades Holz their best 5 young players.

#theworldsrevolvesarounddublin

:P

I wouldn't be suprised to see a every team can poach a Dublin player rule come in the way things are going

[meow meow]

Purps forgot a rule change.

Every team trades Holz their best 3 young players

or

Every team trades Holz their best 5 young players.

#theworldsrevolvesarounddublin

:P

I wouldn't be suprised to see a every team can poach a Dublin player rule come in the way things are going

This isn't an anti-Dublin issue. It's trying to make the points cap actually work. Do you seriously think that Liberatore should be worth 0 points? It's a loophole that needs closing or we may as well get rid of the cap completely.

[Memphistopheles]

Loving the discussion.

Both sides have some valid points.

I agree that guys have 0 cap for missing a season with injury when they were a gun before that is not right.

But, if we're going to make them worth points we need a higher cap because otherwise no-one will be able to hold on to a semi decent team without having no depth.

I also agree that forwards, defenders and especially rucks are more valuable in the WXV than midfielders

However, I can't see any way in which you could work out an easy cap system to represent this. It would be far too complicated to try and work a system that reflects this accurately because of the fact that this isn't real life - it's a game.

In real life AFL teams have a salary cap and can pay players whatever they like to fit within this cap. However, if they don't offer a player enough then they can choose to walk and be traded to another club who offers them more money. And, other clubs can target out of contract players and offer them better deals or more money to leave their current club.

The key position players are the main exponent of this, like Tom Boyd last year, and being a rarer commodity they can demand higher prices.

But, in WXV players can't do this. They are not real and have no power so Goldstein can't got to Dublin and say give me more money or I leave for Mexico. Or meow can't say to Priddis come to Christchurch and we'll give you a three year deal instead of the one year deal PNL is offering.

So in the interests of making this game and the cap work as good as it can I think introducing a rule where players who don't play at all due to injury (or miss X games) is something we can achieve. But, creating that market where players have the power like in the AFL is not possible.

[Ringo]

I have been agonising over this as well because of perceived unfairness.  Even with players who miss big chunks with injury.

Feel free to discuss these ideas further,

If a player misses a whole season due to injury his previous years points value is decreased by 20% simillar to values in fantasy competitions.

For players missing large chunks of current season I propose
Those missing 5 - 10 games add 10% of this years total
Those missing 10 - 15 games add 15% of this years total
Those missing 15+ games add 20% of this years total.

% open for debate. Feel this will allow for those players who may decline in form from previous years or increase in previous years.

Cap would need to be revised though to accommodate.

[Purple 77]

Would it be possible to work out the amount of games every single player missed solely through injury though?

Actually, as I say these words, I could use this site

http://www.aflplayerratings.com.au/Search/CurrentPlayers

As it says where each player played, and whether they did or not due to injury or suspension I think.

If we were to go that way, I think coaches would need to say to me that "Hey Purps, this guy missed X amount of games this year and deserves a discount", and I'd look at this site, and confirm it. Then the discount would be awarded.

I'm not entirely sure I would go through each of the 819 AFL players on lists this year and determine their injury discount, so it would need to be the responsibility of the coaches to bring a player up to my attention.

[Holz]

Purps forgot a rule change.

Every team trades Holz their best 3 young players

or

Every team trades Holz their best 5 young players.

#theworldsrevolvesarounddublin

:P

I wouldn't be suprised to see a every team can poach a Dublin player rule come in the way things are going

This isn't an anti-Dublin issue. It's trying to make the points cap actually work. Do you seriously think that Liberatore should be worth 0 points? It's a loophole that needs closing or we may as well get rid of the cap completely.

To be fair i have been saying that this should happen since its been introduced. unless you make it highly complex it causes lots of problems.

Issue is there is no simple fix. For example look at this one.

Player A:
2014: plays 8 games in worlds for 100 average then gets a major injury
2015: misses the start of the season with that injury and averages 100 in the last 8 games.

Player B:
2014: plays all 17 games of the worlds season gets the same injury after averaging 100
2015: misses the same amount of time as player A but as a result of when the injury happens plays no world games.

Player A costs 1700 or best case 1530 points
Player B costs 800 despite having the exact same average and scoring.

or maybe a guy like lids.

Plays 13/17 each year with small injuries. averages 100 lets say

1300 cap thats less then player A coming off a serious injury.

[Holz]

If we have to do it i think the cap should be much bigger.

Lets say a season is 17 games. with a 10% discount thats 15.3/17 games.

So anyone who missed 2 games and averaged the same gets their cap bumped up. People are saying its ridicolous for a player who missed the whole season to cost zero. Thats a valid point.

However why not have it like 30%.

so thats 11.9/17. So only players who have missed more then 5 games are affected. This will take out form drops in players. and a guy like Libba counts a good ammount of points.

Instead of the Full 1870 or the 10% 1683 he costs 1309 which yes isnt probably as much as he will score next year. But its not cheap by any means.

That way guys who miss 5 games in both season cost the same as someone who misses a whole season (seems more fair to me)

there are loads of guys like that. Rocky Sloane etc.. missed loads of games its unfair to have Rocky as a 130 average guy with

130*17*0.9 = 1989 thats a load of points still.

1547 with the 30% rules is far more fair for a guy who has been injured alot.

[Ricochet]

The smaller the cap the better for the comp.

In saying that it will obviously have to be adjusted slightly if we're bringing in this rule.

[Holz]

The smaller the cap the better for the comp.

In saying that it will obviously have to be adjusted slightly if we're bringing in this rule.

how it heavily restricts trading and depth as it is. Its not like the top teams have 30 players playing each week and are hoarding all the talent. If you look the top teams typically struggle in the 2s so there is lack of depth as it is.

As it stands i could probably lose the grandfinal because my stars get rested and the cap has meant i cant have adequate cover. I cant even trade Sloane for two stars as thats worse for my cap.  i know people will say spread the stars around but A. I have already said trading in two good players is worse for the cap and B. I need those players to push for a flag. I only just made it into the grandfinal.

[Ricochet]

The smaller the cap the better for the comp.

In saying that it will obviously have to be adjusted slightly if we're bringing in this rule.

how it heavily restricts trading and depth as it is. Its not like the top teams have 30 players playing each week and are hoarding all the talent. If you look the top teams typically struggle in the 2s so there is lack of depth as it is.

As it stands i could probably lose the grandfinal because my stars get rested and the cap has meant i cant have adequate cover. I cant even trade Sloane for two stars as thats worse for my cap.

Because it makes you trade proven performers for young players, or if you don't you suffer with lack of depth.

You can't deny it doesn't even out the comp

[Nige]

The smaller the cap the better for the comp.

In saying that it will obviously have to be adjusted slightly if we're bringing in this rule.

how it heavily restricts trading and depth as it is. Its not like the top teams have 30 players playing each week and are hoarding all the talent. If you look the top teams typically struggle in the 2s so there is lack of depth as it is.

As it stands i could probably lose the grandfinal because my stars get rested and the cap has meant i cant have adequate cover. I cant even trade Sloane for two stars as thats worse for my cap.

Because it makes you trade proven performers for young players, or if you don't you suffer with lack of depth.

You can't deny it doesn't even out the comp

Holz does what he wants.  :P

[Holz]

The smaller the cap the better for the comp.

In saying that it will obviously have to be adjusted slightly if we're bringing in this rule.

how it heavily restricts trading and depth as it is. Its not like the top teams have 30 players playing each week and are hoarding all the talent. If you look the top teams typically struggle in the 2s so there is lack of depth as it is.

As it stands i could probably lose the grandfinal because my stars get rested and the cap has meant i cant have adequate cover. I cant even trade Sloane for two stars as thats worse for my cap.

Because it makes you trade proven performers for young players, or if you don't you suffer with lack of depth.

You can't deny it doesn't even out the comp

i can deny it. There are only a few teams who need help. I have stated numerous times that i would like to see lots and lots of draft concessions to solve the problem directly. The cap completely distorts the whole system as has been seen in the numerous issues with it.

Instead how about New Dehlie gets a priority pick in the first round and in the second round.I dont mind going down in the drafter order 3-4 spots if the teams in need get higher draft picks.

this is what I would do

1      New Delhi Tigers
2      New Delhi Tigers
3      Buenos Aires Armadillos
4      Buenos Aires Armadillos
5      Cairo Sands
6      Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
7      Seoul Magpies
8      Beijing Thunder
9      London Royals
10      Tokyo Samurai
11      Cape Town Cobras
12      Toronto Wolves
13      New York Revolution
14      Pacific Islanders
15      Berlin Brewers
16      Moscow Spetnaz
17      Christchurch Saints
18      Mexico City Suns
19      Paris Nice Lyon
20      Dublin Destroyers

21      Cairo Sands
22      New Dehli Tigers
23      Beunos Aires Dillos
24      Cairo Sands

25      New Delhi Tigers
26     Buenos Aires Armadillos
27      Cairo Sands
28      Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
29      Seoul Magpies
30      Beijing Thunder
31      London Royals
32      Tokyo Samurai
33      Cape Town Cobras
34      Toronto Wolves
35      New York Revolution
36      Pacific Islanders
37     Berlin Brewers
38      Moscow Spetnaz
39      Christchurch Saints
40      Mexico City Suns
41      Paris Nice Lyon
42      Dublin Destroyers

43     Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
44     Seoul Magpies
45     Beijing Thunder
46     London Royals
47     Tokyo Samura


Honestly if you cant rebuild with pick 1,2, 22 and 25 then your doing something wrong. I did with less and with no cap. In fact no cap i claim was one of the reasons i could rise. Dillos get 3 4 23 26 even Cairo get 5 21 24 27

heavy draft concessions and ensuring the coaches at the bottom are competent (they are) then there are no issues let it build naturally.

I dont have heavy restrictions on me and all that happens is i get 20 and 42 instead of 19 and 39. Im unaffected the bottom teams are helped massively. Just draft and trade well and you are fine.

The issue has been people have drafted poorly with their priorities If people arent going to research and pick the high drafted guy when they shouldnt why should others be punished.

For example sorry to pick on anyone here. But i just took 2013.

If you have the number 1 pick in the draft and you waste it on a KPF with the pick 1 then there isnt much you can do about that. That pick has currently done nothing in SC however Kade Kolodjashnij, Marcus Bontempell, Jack Billings and Luke McDonald have.

Billings and Shaz have been injured but still have massive Sc potential.

In that draft if you drafted SC players

The bottom 2 sides in my system could have

Billings KK Shaz Mcdonald  (my top 4)

then with the 20-25 picks guys like Blake Acres Patrick Cripps Lewis Taylor Zach Merrett Marco Paparone Jake Kolodjashnij



Direct solution is always better than distorting the whole market with flaws.

[Ricochet]

Don't disagree with that at all, I've always said the best way to help struggling teams is through draft picks (giving them something valuable to trade or use to pick a young gun). But the cap is still pretty important because it means you can't build an unbeatable powerhouse team with great depth as well. The cap forces you to find a balance

[Holz]

Don't disagree with that at all, I've always said the best way to help struggling teams is through draft picks (giving them something valuable to trade or use to pick a young gun). But the cap is still pretty important because it means you can't build an unbeatable powerhouse team with great depth as well. The cap forces you to find a balance

It forces you to have a powerhouse team with no depth and given I will have late draft picks from here on out. Unless the people ahead of me draft poorly and trade poorly then I cant keep my team strong forever.