WXV Discussion

[GoLions]

I'd love to introduce a worth-while incentive to keep drafted players btw, either included in a cap or separate.

"Homegrown" or "one-club" players should attract a loyalty bonus IMO

Or alternatively, the poacher needs to pay/give up more to get them.

E.g. if someone is a one club player or in your leadership group, gotta pay up twice their salary and lose your first rounder.

[ossie85]

Each individual player doesn't have their own price right?

What about positions? We would need to break down the groups, but lets say we have 450-500k

Is a 450-500k defender worth more than a 450-500k mid? I would think so, so how does that get included in the valuations?

The dollar value groupings would need to be tight too Can't just have something like 400-500k, because the high end up players in that group are much better than the low end, but that would value them the same

Each player would have an individual price - based on last 3 years average.

Position prices wouldn't matter, as everyone in that position would be relative to each other

Holz it would be a lot of thought in the off season, just the same in regular


The argument thar it isn't fair to change the rules 5 years in, while undestantable, doesn't really apply. We change rules all the time

You can keep any player you want to keep, but maybe not every player.

[Holz]

Each individual player doesn't have their own price right?

What about positions? We would need to break down the groups, but lets say we have 450-500k

Is a 450-500k defender worth more than a 450-500k mid? I would think so, so how does that get included in the valuations?

The dollar value groupings would need to be tight too Can't just have something like 400-500k, because the high end up players in that group are much better than the low end, but that would value them the same

Each player would have an individual price - based on last 3 years average.

Position prices wouldn't matter, as everyone in that position would be relative to each other

Holz it would be a lot of thought in the off season, just the same in regular


The argument thar it isn't fair to change the rules 5 years in, while undestantable, doesn't really apply. We change rules all the time

You can keep any player you want to keep, but maybe not every player.

the ideal strategy is now not to have 10 stars 5 solid players and then no bench. Those teams get destroyed.

having 20 good players would be the optimal thing because you can just steal a gun from one of the teams with 10 stars.

here is a serious question besides being a interesting thing what is this actually trying to add to the comp?

[GoLions]

Each individual player doesn't have their own price right?

What about positions? We would need to break down the groups, but lets say we have 450-500k

Is a 450-500k defender worth more than a 450-500k mid? I would think so, so how does that get included in the valuations?

The dollar value groupings would need to be tight too Can't just have something like 400-500k, because the high end up players in that group are much better than the low end, but that would value them the same

Each player would have an individual price - based on last 3 years average.

Position prices wouldn't matter, as everyone in that position would be relative to each other

Holz it would be a lot of thought in the off season, just the same in regular


The argument thar it isn't fair to change the rules 5 years in, while undestantable, doesn't really apply. We change rules all the time

You can keep any player you want to keep, but maybe not every player.

the ideal strategy is now not to have 10 stars 5 solid players and then no bench. Those teams get destroyed.

having 20 good players would be the optimal thing because you can just steal a gun from one of the teams with 10 stars.

here is a serious question besides being a interesting thing what is this actually trying to add to the comp?

Forced equality? :P

[iZander]

Each individual player doesn't have their own price right?

What about positions? We would need to break down the groups, but lets say we have 450-500k

Is a 450-500k defender worth more than a 450-500k mid? I would think so, so how does that get included in the valuations?

The dollar value groupings would need to be tight too Can't just have something like 400-500k, because the high end up players in that group are much better than the low end, but that would value them the same

Each player would have an individual price - based on last 3 years average.

Position prices wouldn't matter, as everyone in that position would be relative to each other

Holz it would be a lot of thought in the off season, just the same in regular


The argument thar it isn't fair to change the rules 5 years in, while undestantable, doesn't really apply. We change rules all the time

You can keep any player you want to keep, but maybe not every player.

the ideal strategy is now not to have 10 stars 5 solid players and then no bench. Those teams get destroyed.

having 20 good players would be the optimal thing because you can just steal a gun from one of the teams with 10 stars.

here is a serious question besides being a interesting thing what is this actually trying to add to the comp?

Forced equality? :P

I think there comes a time when if equality is forced too much it defeats the purpose of the game. There is meant to be a winner.

[Holz]

Each individual player doesn't have their own price right?

What about positions? We would need to break down the groups, but lets say we have 450-500k

Is a 450-500k defender worth more than a 450-500k mid? I would think so, so how does that get included in the valuations?

The dollar value groupings would need to be tight too Can't just have something like 400-500k, because the high end up players in that group are much better than the low end, but that would value them the same

Each player would have an individual price - based on last 3 years average.

Position prices wouldn't matter, as everyone in that position would be relative to each other

Holz it would be a lot of thought in the off season, just the same in regular


The argument thar it isn't fair to change the rules 5 years in, while undestantable, doesn't really apply. We change rules all the time

You can keep any player you want to keep, but maybe not every player.

the ideal strategy is now not to have 10 stars 5 solid players and then no bench. Those teams get destroyed.

having 20 good players would be the optimal thing because you can just steal a gun from one of the teams with 10 stars.

here is a serious question besides being a interesting thing what is this actually trying to add to the comp?

Forced equality? :P

lets just scrap the ownership of players and have this :P

[GoLions]

Each individual player doesn't have their own price right?

What about positions? We would need to break down the groups, but lets say we have 450-500k

Is a 450-500k defender worth more than a 450-500k mid? I would think so, so how does that get included in the valuations?

The dollar value groupings would need to be tight too Can't just have something like 400-500k, because the high end up players in that group are much better than the low end, but that would value them the same

Each player would have an individual price - based on last 3 years average.

Position prices wouldn't matter, as everyone in that position would be relative to each other

Holz it would be a lot of thought in the off season, just the same in regular


The argument thar it isn't fair to change the rules 5 years in, while undestantable, doesn't really apply. We change rules all the time

You can keep any player you want to keep, but maybe not every player.

the ideal strategy is now not to have 10 stars 5 solid players and then no bench. Those teams get destroyed.

having 20 good players would be the optimal thing because you can just steal a gun from one of the teams with 10 stars.

here is a serious question besides being a interesting thing what is this actually trying to add to the comp?

Forced equality? :P

lets just scrap the ownership of players and have this :P

#Karen2017

[ossie85]

Stop saying opinions as fact Holz.

Imo This would bring:
- a better and fairer equalization measure than the current cap
- a new strategic element to the game
- a somewhat more realistic approach

Additionally, this rampant negativity that you bring Holz does not elevate the conversation. Disagreeing is fine but saying that the sky is falling for everything, not reading what was actually written, and threatening to quit doesn't help.

I respond to every query and concern you have, and the next thing you do is find something else query and concern. Never do offer alternatives or solutions that others do, or even have a general conversation, it is always just trying to bring the opposing idea down.

So let's just talk. Discuss. Don't try to make this a war of attrition. You know what? You'll win that war, but be wary of what you lose along the way.

I won't be annoyed if this doesn't go through. I will be annoyed if other ideas aren't shared because they are nitpicked into oblivion. We should be trying to innovate at all times, and that means a place that people can feel free to discuss l. Some people have already decided to not bother discussing things.

[ossie85]

Each team could separate players into 3 groups, however they like, and only 1 player at most can be poached from each group

[Holz]

Stop saying opinions as fact Holz.

This would bring:
- a better and fairer equalization measure than the current cap
- a new strategic element to the game
- a somewhat more realistic approach

Additionally, this rampant negativity that you bring Holz does not elevate the conversation. Disagreeing is fine but saying that the sky is falling for everything, not reading what was actually written, and threatening to quit doesn't help.

I respond to every query and concern you have, and the next thing you do is find something else query and concern. Never do offer alternatives or solutions that others do, or even have a general conversation, it is always just trying to bring the opposing idea down.

So let's just talk. Discuss. Don't try to make this a war of attrition. You know what? You'll win that war, but be wary of what you lose along the way.

I won't be annoyed if this doesn't go through. I will be annoyed if other ideas aren't shared because they are nitpicked into oblivion. We should be trying to innovate at all times, and that means a place that people can feel free to discuss l. Some people have already decided to not bother discussing things.

how can you say dont say opinions as fact then post this.

- a better and fairer equalization measure than the current cap

that is a very opinionated comment, I woudl say it provides as worse and less equal measure then the current cap




I have suggested that for no cap and gave very valid reasons that have been pretty much shot down in the past. Given that i always said those that were most hurt where the dillos of this world.

I have suggested suggestions for teams how to stop the top teams (including Dublin) and that is to stop trading youth for older players and the solution is fixed as a matter of time. The true way of equalizing the comp with time as opposed to a rudimentary forcing square blocks into circle holes. This has been largely ignored. I posted up Moscow and Mexico and not one post about it.

Issues with trade voting and the clear bias that is involved and suggestions of a board or a dictatorship, largely ignored.

I highlighted exactly how a cap system would work and ideas and suggestions how to deal with player changes of values, but a new comp.

I totally understand what your trying to do and i am discussing it, however if I would like to see if any teams are strongly in favour of this and clearly there are teams that will be strongly against it.

I also dont understand how some aspects need to be more realistic and other not so. Voting on other teams trading in the AFL would be a farce. Free agency involves lots of other factors, people can control loyalty, go home factors and one of the biggest is top teams largely benefit from free agency the most. my question is has free agency created equality in the AFL or a greater diversity? my opinion is greater diversity.

Also how unequal is the comp actually?

my apparently invincible team has lost to Pacific, New York and PNL

[Ricochet]

Just saw Dustin Martin's heat map, possible D/M?

:P

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-07-26/the-stats-files-is-dustin-martin-doing-enough-damage

Heat maps have nothing to do with positions haha

If this is true i have been misinformed. This is what i read.

There are a range of factors that go into making the decision to upgrade a player. The major ones being;

Where players get their possessions. This can be highlighted by heat maps (which the regular Joe punter can find via the ‘coach’ section of the AFL Live app if you have purchased the season pass) which show hot spots for disposals and also the percentages in forward and defensive halves. Darker areas on heatmaps show more traffic for possessions.

Which zones they get their touches. Like the above dot point, these are broken down into forward 50, defensive 50, midfield zone, forward half, defensive half, attacking midfield and defensive midfield adding more than what the heat maps show.

Where players line up. Where players are situated for bounces and stoppages have a factor on DPP additions. The biggest one for this that have been found this year is that a lot of wingers are getting a lot of ball in the back half, despite not playing as a defender. More on that later.

It is a mix of the above and looking into other stats that can help finalise decisions such as centre bounce attendances, game play for different teams, among others.

Holz...
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,105230.0.html

[Holz]

Just saw Dustin Martin's heat map, possible D/M?

:P

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-07-26/the-stats-files-is-dustin-martin-doing-enough-damage

Heat maps have nothing to do with positions haha

If this is true i have been misinformed. This is what i read.

There are a range of factors that go into making the decision to upgrade a player. The major ones being;

Where players get their possessions. This can be highlighted by heat maps (which the regular Joe punter can find via the ‘coach’ section of the AFL Live app if you have purchased the season pass) which show hot spots for disposals and also the percentages in forward and defensive halves. Darker areas on heatmaps show more traffic for possessions.

Which zones they get their touches. Like the above dot point, these are broken down into forward 50, defensive 50, midfield zone, forward half, defensive half, attacking midfield and defensive midfield adding more than what the heat maps show.

Where players line up. Where players are situated for bounces and stoppages have a factor on DPP additions. The biggest one for this that have been found this year is that a lot of wingers are getting a lot of ball in the back half, despite not playing as a defender. More on that later.

It is a mix of the above and looking into other stats that can help finalise decisions such as centre bounce attendances, game play for different teams, among others.

Holz...
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,105230.0.html

fair enough.

this was for AF on DT Talk so maybe they are different. If it is different then i conceded this is the one thing AF does better then SC.

[Ricochet]

Just saw Dustin Martin's heat map, possible D/M?

:P

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-07-26/the-stats-files-is-dustin-martin-doing-enough-damage

Heat maps have nothing to do with positions haha

If this is true i have been misinformed. This is what i read.

There are a range of factors that go into making the decision to upgrade a player. The major ones being;

Where players get their possessions. This can be highlighted by heat maps (which the regular Joe punter can find via the ‘coach’ section of the AFL Live app if you have purchased the season pass) which show hot spots for disposals and also the percentages in forward and defensive halves. Darker areas on heatmaps show more traffic for possessions.

Which zones they get their touches. Like the above dot point, these are broken down into forward 50, defensive 50, midfield zone, forward half, defensive half, attacking midfield and defensive midfield adding more than what the heat maps show.

Where players line up. Where players are situated for bounces and stoppages have a factor on DPP additions. The biggest one for this that have been found this year is that a lot of wingers are getting a lot of ball in the back half, despite not playing as a defender. More on that later.

It is a mix of the above and looking into other stats that can help finalise decisions such as centre bounce attendances, game play for different teams, among others.

Holz...
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,105230.0.html

fair enough.

this was for AF on DT Talk so maybe they are different. If it is different then i conceded this is the one thing AF does better then SC.

Nah i've checked that as well. CD decide both

[ossie85]

Holz i realised the opinion thing after i posted it, and edited my post soon after to add imo - this was done before you posted your reply, but a valid point.

Realism can only go so far when you don't have to worry about a player's needs or a club's financial position

[RaisyDaisy]

Each individual player doesn't have their own price right?

What about positions? We would need to break down the groups, but lets say we have 450-500k

Is a 450-500k defender worth more than a 450-500k mid? I would think so, so how does that get included in the valuations?

The dollar value groupings would need to be tight too Can't just have something like 400-500k, because the high end up players in that group are much better than the low end, but that would value them the same

Each player would have an individual price - based on last 3 years average.

Position prices wouldn't matter, as everyone in that position would be relative to each other

Holz it would be a lot of thought in the off season, just the same in regular


The argument thar it isn't fair to change the rules 5 years in, while undestantable, doesn't really apply. We change rules all the time

You can keep any player you want to keep, but maybe not every player.

I can already imagine the hours and hours I need to spend (waste) on looking through an 800+ player list every time I want to see how much someone is worth, and then there is everything else associated with it like reviewing current cap space, calculating how much we can afford to spend etc etc

I'm not trying to be negative at all. Like I previously said, I just think there is so much more to this than what has been talked about and it would turn into quite the beast of work for everyone

Ultimately, if we go through all of this, the only thing that matters at the end of the day is the end result. Is all of this worth what the result would be? Is all of this going to really change things?

Mexico and Dublin are the top teams because their recruitment and coaching got them there. We then have 10 teams who are all capable on their day so I personally don't have an issue with the current equality in Worlds, especially when  I see how old Mexico's list is and the lack of genuine up and coming star power Dublin has in depth

I feel like this undoes everyone's previous work. I know we can poach them, and they can poach us etc but the work load involved and impact it has on previous years of work seems unjustified atm. I guess you could say I'm interested still, but I'd need much more convincing because there are plenty of flow on effect, management and general questions marks that have not really been considered