Top-Up Draft

[Jukes]

Guys, I've said this before: mixing the order up based on what coaches think is purely SUBJECTIVE. Nobody will 100% agree on an order there. I ordered by total points in 2015, because that is the (most recently calculated) hole that the players that will not play in 2016 have created in a 100% objective method. There is no fool-proof method of determining how much the value of points by a defender or forward is greater than the value of points by a midfielder.

We play a game based on statistics (i.e. supercoach points) not opinion on how good a player is/performs (i.e. Jukercoach)

[kilbluff1985]

but everyone but you agrees Stanton shouldn't be #2

and Hurley averaged more then Hooker

[elephants]

I'm not one to throw around accusations willy nilly but this is a pretty terrible look Jukes. There are so many better ways to order players in terms of value... heaven forbid just copy the world's system?

Monfries wasn't even best 22 and if anything the reining premiers shouldn't be getting the benefit on any doubt of value.

[nas]

@Jukes, Pick #17 is Panthers > David Myers.

[Pkbaldy]

As someone with no players involved this is my personal opinion on the Draft Order;

1. Anaheim Mighty Ducks (Dyson Heppell)
2. Anaheim Mighty Ducks (Michael Hurley)
3. Houston Bombers (Cale Hooker)
4. San Francisco Grizzlies (Brent Stanton)
5. Anaheim Mighty Ducks (Michael Hibberd)
6. Colorado Avalanche (Jobe Watson)
7. Chicago Sharks (Patrick Ryder)
8. Colorado Avalanche (Ben Howlett)
9. Chicago Sharks (Stewart Crameri)
10. Las Vegas Sinners (Jake Carlisle)
11. Ottawa Otters (Jake Melksham)
12. San Francisco Grizzlies (Angus Monfries)
13. Anaheim Mighty Ducks (Travis Colyer)
14. Carolina Panthers (Tom Bellchambers)
15. David Myers (Quito Quetzals)
16. Las Vegas Sinners (Heath Hocking)
17. Houston Bombers (Tayte Pears)

[nas]

As someone with no players involved this is my personal opinion on the Draft Order;

1. Anaheim Mighty Ducks (Dyson Heppell)
2. Anaheim Mighty Ducks (Michael Hurley)
3. Houston Bombers (Cale Hooker)
4. San Francisco Grizzlies (Brent Stanton)
5. Anaheim Mighty Ducks (Michael Hibberd)
6. Colorado Avalanche (Jobe Watson)
7. Chicago Sharks (Patrick Ryder)
8. Colorado Avalanche (Ben Howlett)
9. Chicago Sharks (Stewart Crameri)
10. Las Vegas Sinners (Jake Carlisle)
11. Ottawa Otters (Jake Melksham)
12. San Francisco Grizzlies (Angus Monfries)
13. Anaheim Mighty Ducks (Travis Colyer)
14. Carolina Panthers (Tom Bellchambers)
15. Carolina Panthers (David Myers)
16. Las Vegas Sinners (Heath Hocking)
17. Houston Bombers (Tayte Pears)

Rectifying the mistake.

[powersuperkents]

To be fair, it cannot be subjective if almost everyone is in agreement. Yes total points in one objective way of determining the process, however it is still a very short-sighted method.

All of the dissenting coaches are not subjectively asserting their opinions... they are merely utilitising more than one objective method of assessment (I see age of the player being a crucial determinant, value in one's team being another, with the points per game loss inflicted upon the club also being considered). The Worlds XV seems like a fair objective criterion to follow (obviously that league has put much more thought into determining the draft order than we have).

Total points is also bias because it allows you to prioritise Monfries over Watson, who averaged almost 30 points per game more than Monfries. I'm a power supporter and I think Monfries is a spud (and I wouldn't even compare him to Watson let alone consider him more valuable). The fact that you went total points over average points (which is a far more accurate and equitable assessment of player value) calls the whole process into question, esp. after you stated that you would determine the order by average points or total points on a previous thread - the fact you considered two options and chose the one that favoured yourself personally, without providing a reason for your selection, is very suspicious.

Again, average points have their short-comings as well. On the one hand, we can determine how valuable a player was one season and how useless another player was. Conversely, the reason for a player's low value could come from a one-off injury interrupted season - e.g. Liberatore & O'Meara would be considered low priority under this standard.

The only answer is to utilise more than one objective method of assessment. That way the process can mitigate the extent of any unfair result

http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,103723.240.html

"On the order - average or total points is the only OBJECTIVE way of sorting players so that's what we're going with. There is no certain method to convert the value of a d/r/f's points to a midfielder's points."

[kilbluff1985]

another thing i don't get why didn't we vote on it like most things we do

[Jay]

I think it would be pretty easy to come up with an agreed order tbh. Everyone seems pretty reasonable about this.

[popedelio]

if we are going with the position for position route, it doesnt really matter what pick i get since ryder is the only ruckman, meaning I only get selection on the list of top up ruckman hahahaha

[nas]

if we are going with the position for position route, it doesnt really matter what pick i get since ryder is the only ruckman, meaning I only get selection on the list of top up ruckman hahahaha

Myself as well re Bellchambers. Least there are 3 to choose from.

[kilbluff1985]

jukes ignoring the thread hype

[Jukes]

Not ignoring, just thinking

If you guys can come up with a fairly agreeable order (like that of pk's) that y'all are happy with I'd be fine to implement it.

Also, I'm leaning towards letting people pick players from whatever position they'd like.

[nas]

Not ignoring, just thinking

If you guys can come up with a fairly agreeable order (like that of pk's) that y'all are happy with I'd be fine to implement it.

Also, I'm leaning towards letting people pick players from whatever position they'd like.

Myself would prefer position for position. Specially re ruck situation.

[Jukes]

How about maybe something like only teams who lost a ruck can pick up a ruck, but backs, mids, and forwards are interchangable?

OR

Have them ordered into levels by rarity of good players in each position, like:
1. Rucks
2. Backs
3. Forwards
4. Mids
And you can only pick players at or below your lost player's level, i.e. if you lost Bellchambers you can pick any player, if you lost Monfries you can only pick forwards and mids, and if you lost Watson you can only pick mids.