WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[RaisyDaisy]

Is there any reason why we don't just use SC salaries? I mean, I know they change throughout the year but surely there is a simple solution there somewhere. Eg, 100 avg = $520k, 2nd round rookie and beyond = 117k etc and so forth.

Just base it off player averages like SC does and take out everything else. Age, missed games, discounts etc it's all too flowering complex

All this discount stuff, played x amount of games etc. It's all too confusing

If a player has only played less than whatever games, or missed an entire season through injury etc, then the team that owns that player should be entitled to the discount value of that player the following year because that player not playing that season cost them being a player down.

It would be nice if our cap prices/formulas just reflected what SC does, and was made SIMPLE

At the end of the day, just tell me what the min and max caps are and we'll be right

We went through so much last year with cap talk. Do we really need to do it again?

This much discussion means something is very obvious - it's too confusing and has problems

Let's just use something based off how SC does it. It's so much simpler

End of year season average = price
1st rounder rookies are worth more than 2nd and beyond

[Holz]

Is there any reason why we don't just use SC salaries? I mean, I know they change throughout the year but surely there is a simple solution there somewhere. Eg, 100 avg = $520k, 2nd round rookie and beyond = 117k etc and so forth.

Just base it off player averages like SC does and take out everything else. Age, missed games, discounts etc it's all too flowering complex

All this discount stuff, played x amount of games etc. It's all too confusing

If a player has only played less than whatever games, or missed an entire season through injury etc, then the team that owns that player should be entitled to the discount value of that player the following year because that player not playing that season cost them being a player down.

It would be nice if our cap prices/formulas just reflected what SC does, and was made SIMPLE

At the end of the day, just tell me what the min and max caps are and we'll be right

We went through so much last year with cap talk. Do we really need to do it again?

This much discussion means something is very obvious - it's too confusing and has problems

Let's just use something based off how SC does it. It's so much simpler

End of year season average = price
1st rounder rookies are worth more than 2nd and beyond

not a bad solution really, but then what about the rookies.

I know the cap is a drainer and it get talked about every year as no matter how you do it its flawed and warps the market and in my opinion it hurts the rebuilding older teams like PNL and assists the young gun teams like Seoul and Dublin to continue to dominate.

But i made my rule purposely complex so that there are less issues. I just went throughs loads of examples where it is better.

Heath Shaw v Sam Docherty
Max Gawn and Grant Birchall
Merrett Kelly and Oliver


My rule incorporates what you are saying with a few more levels of sophistication.

I think its the least flawed cap out there, if people can give examples where it breaks down please post them but im just picking random examples and it seems to be working.

[meow meow]

flower, not this shower again.

A 50 spud is worthless. 2 of them is still worthless. They cost as much as a 100 average player in SC and that's why we don't and shouldn't use that system. Read the discussion from the previous years, it's all covered there.

[RaisyDaisy]

flower, not this shower again.

A 50 spud is worthless. 2 of them is still worthless. They cost as much as a 100 average player in SC and that's why we don't and shouldn't use that system. Read the discussion from the previous years, it's all covered there.

But with this current system, aren't there plenty of examples where 2 50 spuds are still worth the same as a 100 avg player?

I'm sure we can find 2 spuds that are worth the same as Oliver etc

[meow meow]

flower, not this shower again.

A 50 spud is worthless. 2 of them is still worthless. They cost as much as a 100 average player in SC and that's why we don't and shouldn't use that system. Read the discussion from the previous years, it's all covered there.

But with this current system, aren't there plenty of examples where 2 50 spuds are still worth the same as a 100 avg player?

I'm sure we can find 2 spuds that are worth the same as Oliver etc

No, it is not. Os put in the work to create a pricing system that reflects value much more accurately.

Holz's discount idea has merit since it's proven that players decline with age. That's the only thing that should potentially be added to the already excellent formula.

[RaisyDaisy]

No, it is not. Os put in the work to create a pricing system that reflects value much more accurately.

Holz's discount idea has merit since it's proven that players decline with age. That's the only thing that should potentially be added to the already excellent formula.

Then what am I missing here?

H Shaw   $600,000
B Goddard   $567,000   
T Goldstein   $723,000
JP Kennedy   $721,000   
S Mitchell   $594,000   
D Mundy   $593,000   
M Priddis   $676,000   
S Pendlebury   $782,000

M Kreuzer   $440,000   
Jos Kelly   $444,000           
C Oliver   $412,000
J Lloyd   $381,000   
R Burton   $235,000

Because that doesn't look right to me. I don't see that as a reflection of accuracy

[Holz]

flower, not this shower again.

A 50 spud is worthless. 2 of them is still worthless. They cost as much as a 100 average player in SC and that's why we don't and shouldn't use that system. Read the discussion from the previous years, it's all covered there.

But with this current system, aren't there plenty of examples where 2 50 spuds are still worth the same as a 100 avg player?

I'm sure we can find 2 spuds that are worth the same as Oliver etc

No, it is not. Os put in the work to create a pricing system that reflects value much more accurately.

Holz's discount idea has merit since it's proven that players decline with age. That's the only thing that should potentially be added to the already excellent formula.

correct Ossie's formula is great. It fixes the spud issue.

thank you for support on the age discount idea.

I think having the sliding scale from games played is better then the current 50% this year, 25% last year, 25% the year before.

but really im just tinkering with ossie's idea.

[Holz]

No, it is not. Os put in the work to create a pricing system that reflects value much more accurately.

Holz's discount idea has merit since it's proven that players decline with age. That's the only thing that should potentially be added to the already excellent formula.

Then what am I missing here?

H Shaw   $600,000
B Goddard   $567,000   
T Goldstein   $723,000
JP Kennedy   $721,000   
S Mitchell   $594,000   
D Mundy   $593,000   
M Priddis   $676,000   
S Pendlebury   $782,000

M Kreuzer   $440,000   
Jos Kelly   $444,000           
C Oliver   $412,000
J Lloyd   $381,000   
R Burton   $235,000

Because that doesn't look right to me. I don't see that as a reflection of accuracy

The issue with this is ossie's formula uses 50% of this years score but 25% of the last 2 years score.

Thats why i changed it to

"18+ games: 100% of the current season is their average
11-17 games: 50% of the current average 30% of last years and 20% of the year before
6-10 games: 35% of the current average 40% of last years and 25% of the year before
5 or under: 20% of the current average 50% of last years and 30% of the year before.
0 games: 60% of last year and 40% of the year before. "

Ossies formula is great its just the original base average that i disagree with.

Under the current cap Kelly is priced at a average of 95 because his previous 2 years average of 78 is valued as high in his formula as his 111 average this year.

under my cap Kelly is priced at the 111 average to reflect his true value given he will play 20+ games and this year is the best indicator of his form.

Like wise Shaw is priced at a base of 97 in the previous cap. Because his previous 2 years average of 109 is valued as highly as his current 85 average. I price him at a base of 85 because he has clearly had zero injury and the 85 reflects his current form.

[RaisyDaisy]

Really like the sounds of your tweaks Holz

Could you maybe do a random list of say 10 players - showing both Os price and your price side by side?

A good mix of variety. Prems, mid pricer, spud etc

[meow meow]

Seoul deserve some credit for taking their picks at the draft. Everyone wants to trade away their picks for ready made players. Seoul drafted well and took the time to develop their list, they paid their dues. Having a handful of players cost below their real output for a year (they'll balloon soon enough) is good encouragement for people to draft rather than taking the cheap and easy option.

That's also why the olds deserve a discount. It'll encourage people to hang onto their veterans so they remain a bit more competitive rather than bottoming out and becoming irrelevant every week.

[meow meow]

Holz's method does look superior though.

[RaisyDaisy]

Seoul deserve some credit for taking their picks at the draft. Everyone wants to trade away their picks for ready made players. Seoul drafted well and took the time to develop their list, they paid their dues. Having a handful of players cost below their real output for a year (they'll balloon soon enough) is good encouragement for people to draft rather than taking the cheap and easy option.

That's also why the olds deserve a discount. It'll encourage people to hang onto their veterans so they remain a bit more competitive rather than bottoming out and becoming irrelevant every week.

All good points :)

By the sounds of things, we'll either leave the cap as is, or make Holz suggested tweak

That's enough rule talk, now let's get back to trade talking  ;D

[Holz]

Really like the sounds of your tweaks Holz

Could you maybe do a random list of say 10 players - showing both Os price and your price side by side?

A good mix of variety. Prems, mid pricer, spud etc

only issue is i dont know how his formula actually works in terms of pricing I can do the base pricing which is the original average that ossie and i use.

Kelly: Holz 111, Ossie 95
Shaw: Holz 85, Ossie 97
Gawn: Holz 105, Ossie 101
Birchall: Holz 80, Ossie 74
Heeney:Holz 98, Ossie 86
Priddis: Holz 93, Ossie 102
Goldstein: Holz 98, Ossie 108
D.Martin: Holz 118, Ossie 112
K.Simpson: Holz 93, Ossie 96

then it goes through his formula but on the basis of it he has Kelly Shaw similar in price and then Priddis more expensive. I have Kelly the most then priddis then shaw.

I also think there should be a age discount so Priddis Simpson Birchall Shaw come down in price a little in my formulara.

So as an example I end up pricing Birchall at a 76 because of his age.

[RaisyDaisy]

Nice

Gets my vote :)

[Nige]

Seoul deserve some credit for taking their picks at the draft. Everyone wants to trade away their picks for ready made players. Seoul drafted well and took the time to develop their list, they paid their dues. Having a handful of players cost below their real output for a year (they'll balloon soon enough) is good encouragement for people to draft rather than taking the cheap and easy option.

That's also why the olds deserve a discount. It'll encourage people to hang onto their veterans so they remain a bit more competitive rather than bottoming out and becoming irrelevant every week.

Pretty good point this one.

Except I think there's already this stupid notion across basically all the comps that you have to trade away all your older players, bottom out (to some extent) and be irrelevant for at least a season. It's possible to transition and remain competitive, it's just that nobody really has.