WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[Holz]

Got a number of trade targets 28 or older Holz?

Honestly find that quite insulting. I care about the competition and even though i hate the cap, I will back the decision of Purp 100%, so while i dont like it i put in alot of time and effort into making the cap do what Purp intended it to do. I looked at flaws in the current model and worked on making it as correct as I could. You can't argue that older players dont have a flat or downwards trend and young players have an upwards trend.

If you looked at the cap changes when Ossie ran the 28 or older you should actually see that I went from like 50k under the cap to 50k over the cap because of the age rule.

For the record im targeting 1 player over the age of 30 and im looking at a few players in the 19-22 year old age bracket. That will not influence my voting on any rules, I take voting seriously as everyone should do and do what is best for the comp.

To say im putting in all this effort to give Dublin an advantage is

A. Incorrect as it may end up hurting Dublin. (honestly not sure if i benefit or lose, because I really don't care its not about individual teams its about the competition)

B. Highly insulting and disrespectful.

[Nige]

Got a number of trade targets 28 or older Holz?

Honestly find that quite insulting. I care about the competition and even though i hate the cap, I will back the decision of Purp 100%, so while i dont like it i put in alot of time and effort into making the cap do what Purp intended it to do. I looked at flaws in the current model and worked on making it as correct as I could. You can't argue that older players dont have a flat or downwards trend and young players have an upwards trend.

If you looked at the cap changes when Ossie ran the 28 or older you should actually see that I went from like 50k under the cap to 50k over the cap because of the age rule.

For the record im targeting 1 player over the age of 30 and im looking at a few players in the 19-22 year old age bracket. That will not influence my voting on any rules, I take voting seriously as everyone should do and do what is best for the comp.

To say im putting in all this effort to give Dublin is

A. Incorrect as it may end up hurting Dublin.
B. Highly insulting and disrespectful.

Bit of an overreaction.

It was actually a genuine question.

[Holz]

Got a number of trade targets 28 or older Holz?

Honestly find that quite insulting. I care about the competition and even though i hate the cap, I will back the decision of Purp 100%, so while i dont like it i put in alot of time and effort into making the cap do what Purp intended it to do. I looked at flaws in the current model and worked on making it as correct as I could. You can't argue that older players dont have a flat or downwards trend and young players have an upwards trend.

If you looked at the cap changes when Ossie ran the 28 or older you should actually see that I went from like 50k under the cap to 50k over the cap because of the age rule.

For the record im targeting 1 player over the age of 30 and im looking at a few players in the 19-22 year old age bracket. That will not influence my voting on any rules, I take voting seriously as everyone should do and do what is best for the comp.

To say im putting in all this effort to give Dublin is

A. Incorrect as it may end up hurting Dublin.
B. Highly insulting and disrespectful.

Bit of an overreaction.

It was actually a genuine question.

This is the rule discussion thread, you know that statement was intended to either have a go at me or to take credibility away from my rule discussion or both.

[JBs-Hawks]

#scrapholzscap

[Adamant]

I dunno about everyone else, but with regards to trade talks, I couldn't give 2 showers about a player's cap worth unless the deal is going to put me under the cap.

[Purple 77]

I dunno about everyone else, but with regards to trade talks, I couldn't give 2 showers about a player's cap worth unless the deal is going to put me under the cap.

[Purple 77]

regarding your percentages over the years btw Holz, it's currently 33% each year, not 50, 25 and 25.

Also, more than willing to entertain the idea, but you'd need to present a purely random sample of at least 50 players for us to get an informed view on it.

[Holz]

I dunno about everyone else, but with regards to trade talks, I couldn't give 2 showers about a player's cap worth unless the deal is going to put me under the cap.

It does influence other teams though and considering we are voting on a competition wide change than people need to think about the competition as a whole and not their own team.

The cap is staying so just need to think what rules best do what the cap is intended to do. I believe i have put overwhelming evidence that if you where setting up a new cap it would be with the new rules.

[Nige]

regarding your percentages over the years btw Holz, it's currently 33% each year, not 50, 25 and 25.

Also, more than willing to entertain the idea, but you'd need to present a purely random sample of at least 50 players for us to get an informed view on it.

Feels like you've made this request a few times, not sure why it hasn't been done.

[Holz]

regarding your percentages over the years btw Holz, it's currently 33% each year, not 50, 25 and 25.

Also, more than willing to entertain the idea, but you'd need to present a purely random sample of at least 50 players for us to get an informed view on it.

I thought you said the current year counted twice?

so 2017 2017 2016 2015?

if it is indeed 33% each then thats even worse.

Do we really need 50?

I have picked break out players (Kelly, Oliver), Declining Players (Golsy, Priddis, Shaw), Injured declining players ( Birchall), Injured Guns (Gawn), Guys who missed most of the year (Lids), Superstars ( Dmartin).

If it is indeed 33% 33% 33% then all those example are further away from the correct value. So kelly is not 95 he is infact 89 which is shocking for a 112 young gun.

I really can go through with 50 players. But i have to manually do all the inputs as i dont have access to any spreadsheets.

I have yet to see one case where the rule has broken down. Im not sure what doing 50 will achieve, in my view i have shown its better for all those categories. When the orginal cap was put in place, people where far far more in the drark about how it works. I still dont understand how the orginal system fully works, yet it was passed.

[Purple 77]

It's hard to present a neutral argument is all when you've hand picked the examples. It kinda feels like you've just picked the extremes on both ends and making a judgment based off that. They could be quite relevant and accurate of the population, it's just we aren't able to make that judgement based of 1-2% of the players in the AFL.

But also understand it's not an easy task, and requires a bit of time. I might have a go at it, but I don't really want to  :-X

[Nige]

But also understand it's not an easy task, and requires a bit of time. I might have a go at it, but I don't really want to  :-X

Absolutely understandable, but surely the onus is on the individual who suggested and is lobbying hard for their idea.

[Holz]

It's hard to present a neutral argument is all when you've hand picked the examples. It kinda feels like you've just picked the extremes on both ends and making a judgment based off that. They could be quite relevant and accurate of the population, it's just we aren't able to make that judgement based of 1-2% of the players in the AFL.

But also understand it's not an easy task, and requires a bit of time. I might have a go at it, but I don't really want to  :-X

Dont worry i will do it. I picked extreme examples as they show how the rule works.

Ill just pick the first 40 names alphabeticall and grind through it plus the extreme examples. So can you confirm that you dont double count the current year? as im pretty sure i had it 33% 33% 33% but was then told the current year double counted so changed it to 50% 25% 25%

[Purple 77]

It's also not REALLY 33% each year.

It's the total amount of points they've scored divided by the games they've played in the last 3 years.

so like, 10 games @80,  then 20 games @70, and 5 games @90, doesn't equal an 80 average.

It's (10 x 80) + (20 x 70) + (5 x 90), divided by (10+20+5)

= 800 + 1400 + 450, divided by 35

= 2650/35

= 75.7

[Purple 77]

but yeah, can confirm no year is weighted higher than the others