ORRFU Rules Discussion Thread

I agree especially with point (g) I look forward to reading these match day reviews. I believe last year there were at least 6 missed write ups my team did not receive. Everyone's not immune even I probably missed one, but I think everyone needs to lift there game in this department

 

In terms of teams I'm all for let coaches do what they please with there lists, this having to delist 4 players who that benefiting?? Forcing list turnover is tiresome.

 

I did some quick analysis to have a look at average team scores over the past decade and from what I see, the 28 player squad size did the job of reducing donuts and particularly helped out the lower scoring teams.

The 28 and 4 change came in before the start of the 2017 season. You can see in the table below that from 2017-2019, the lowest score improved and standard deviation of scores reduced. Side note: I excluded forfeits and bye affected rounds from the data. Then 2020 came along and fucked things up, driving the standard deviation of scores back up and they've stayed there since. What's consistent though is the rule change raised the floor and, you could argue, competitiveness of lower scoring teams.



Now I don't know if the standard deviation reverting back to pre 28 and 4 levels is due to coaches having adjusted to the rules and manage their list differently from 2020-2023 compared to 2017-2019, or it's a hangover from the pandemic. 2023 was really the first year the draftees didn't have any interruptions to their U18 campaign. Since it generally takes somewhere between 3-6 years for draftees to hit their straps, maybe we're experiencing the variability of draft success/failure over this period. It wouldn't surprise me. I still see shopping strips where half the shops are empty and life in general is still recovering from the pandemic years. We won't really be able to say for sure for another few years.

To put the next table together, I ranked each team by the total points they scored in the H&A season each year, then calculated their average score. I've excluded the forfeit affected scores so some averages may not line up with the rank (but it's just 2014 and 2015 that's affected and 2014 scores aren't accurate). You can see the same effect the 28 and 4 rules had on lower scoring teams. From a range of somewhere between 900-1060 for the bottom 2 teams in 2014 to 2016, the average score improved to a range of about 980-1100 for 2017-2019. It looks like we can see the same higher floor for 2023.


What's evident is that each year there is/are 1-3 standout teams. It looks like 2 teams were above the pack last year, you could argue for 1-3 in 2022, and 1 or 2 in 2021. It's not really different to 2014-2016.

Is this really a problem? I looked at the finishing positions of all AFL teams for the same period and had a look at the number of different teams that won the premiership, finished at the top (end of H&A season), top 4, top 8, bottom 10, bottom 4 and bottom. I also aligned current teams with their original (eg Manangatang and Nuytsland, Pearcedale with Carnamah).



There is very very little difference. 7 different teams have won the AFL premiership, 6 in FU. 8 different teams have won the AFL minor premiership, 6 in FU. Every single team has been in the top 8 at some stage over the past decade in our league (with the exception of the current Horsham but they were Gisborne previously).

No matter how many players we need to delist or move, almost every team is going to hang on to their strongest core. You could argue the AFL is like a keeper league so we're going to see the same thing here. A period of dominance from some teams, a period of being down the bottom. Also, if your rise up the ladder coincides with other strong or perhaps stronger teams, you may be unlucky not to win a premiership...I'm thinking of St Kilda 2009-2010 and Collingwood 2002-2003. We may not see some teams lifting the FU cup for decades. No I'm not trying to break hearts and shatter dreams. Our league result seem to mirror the AFL so what we've seen there we're likely to see here.

What would a more competitive and entertaining league be? One where everyone has a shot a winning the premiership each year or at least more often than what we have now? If that's the case, increasing list sizes and access to players only lifts the floor and it doesn't tax the top, so to speak. You'd probably need to do something drastic like looking at teams starting from scratch every year, or increasing list turnover to a number that requires a considerable chunk of each squad to go - for example you can only keep 10 players.

ORFFL has squads of 26 or 28 (I can't remember the exact number) that gets cut down to 20 at draft time. Yet, in the 12 years that league existed, 1 team has won the FL premiership about 6 times.

Having no restrictions on list management except list size reduced the number of draft picks taken at draft time. Increasing the squad size to 28 reduced the quality of the player pool at MSD. Mandating 4 delistments meant that fringe players had fewer takers and ended up getting delisted.

Personally, I enjoy 28 and 4. I also think that moving to 28 and no restrictions may bring some benefit to lower ranked teams. Maybe my logic and memory is off but I seem to remember that we had fewer PSD picks taken in 2015-2016. If there are fewer picks taken at PSD, teams with more holes to fill (more likely to be lower ranked teams) will have earlier access to players with better potential rather than in rounds 3 or 4 currently. This would also mean those teams unlikely to take part in the draft would be more willing to part with earlier round picks and I'm sure we saw this in 2015-2016 where round 3 picks held little value. The quality of the player pool at MSD will improve. Let's not forget that since 2014, the AFL introduced their own MSD and SPP increasing the number of players available (maybe it's only 18 in total) and will continue to increase in number and quality when Tassie comes on board in 2028 and probably and 20th team in the next 10 or so years...the AFL isn't going to like having a bye each week and won't want to let go of the chance to schedule a 10th match each weekend for more broadcast $$$.

 

just throwing a left field suggestion out there. What if the top four teams at the end of the year don't get a first round draft pick in the PSD the next year. So the worst team would get picks 1 and 15, 2 and 16 etc? Thus giving the struggling teams a better shot at rebuilding through the draft.

 

@fresh just looking at that table of average scores, it's pretty apparent if you compare the first 3 years with the last 3 years that the top 6 teams are generally scoring higher now and the bottom 6 teams are generally scoring lower now. The gap from top to bottom is now wider.

I understand that larger lists avoids donuts and therefore makes lower teams more competitive. However, a loss is a loss, percentage doesn't help when you don't make finals. At best it's the difference between winning say 3 games for the season and winning 6 games. It doesn't help them actually contend for finals or the flag, it's top 15 players that do that.

Surely you'd accept that a weaker draft pool hurts the teams with the higher draft picks?

Personally I don't care much whether we have equalisation measures or not. It just seems silly to make changes for that reason and then keep the changes when it's clear they don't work.

 

Goodness gracious…. Should we abandon scoring too so everyone feels like they’ve won? Better yet, let’s do away with trading and the ability to ‘own’ a player. Everyone can use Max Gawn every week. That should keep the Karen’s satisfied.

Doesn't sound like you're ambivalent. Sounds like you're only concerned with your own self-interest as usual. You always have a crack at anyone that suggests anything that you don't like.

Apparently I shouldn't make suggestions because I don't contribute to the community. Isn't making a suggestion a contribution? The suggestion was not simply to suit myself, it was for the betterment of the competition. Not sure how you missed that, it was a pretty detailed explanation. However, unlike you, yes I am open about my own bias on issues and how I'm effected.

I'm not sure who you think you're standing up for. As I pointed out, there's no narkiness here between anyone else and yet you seem to have a problem with at least 4 other people in this group. You're quite happy to name-call others but insist they don't mention you. Then talk about MY hypocrisy. You've carried on like a schoolyard bully here for the last 10 years and I can guarantee I wouldn't be the only one relieved if your form of contribution was a lot less. Is it really that hard for you to play nicely with others?

 

Im on the same page as you, a weaker draft pool definitely hurts teams with higher picks. Increasing squad sizes reduced the pool of draftable players, particularly at MSD.

On a team basis, yes, 2023 average scores for lower teams have dropped compared to 2015 and 2016. Personally, I'm not yet convinced it's because of the 28 and 4 rule. I can't rule out in my head it could be pandemic related due to u18s being affected for 3 years. That's made it harder to evaluate talent and get picks right...Holmes is a good example of that I think, he probably wouldve gone higher had he had more exposed form.

Top team scores have gone up. I thought perhaps this was pandemic related as well but thinking about it maybe my logic isnt so logical. Maybe you're right, it's because the available player pool is lower quality as a result of larger squad sizes.

 

I can't speak for all of my fellow cellar dwellers but I deliberately traded out my experienced players for draft picks so I could rebuild. So the stats are going to be skewed

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

I'm going to do a check of the average scores (in regular season) for the PSD and MSD. Should be done tomorrow

 

Top 6 for each

 

Don't like this idea at all. Picks are a just a small part of list management, since I joined the competition my first draft I had 2 top 5 picks and since then I've only had one other pick , pick 8 I believe last year. Every other season it's been pick 16,17 or 18. Early picks don't guarantee success but if we are thinking out of the box I'd be more inclined to say the bottom 8 teams are not allowed to trade out there first pick.

 

My two cents…

I, like Ron, made a conscious effort to trade out my experienced players to focus on youth. I traded out Grundy, Neale, Laird, Docherty and Cameron. Keeping them would have made me competitive, but it didn’t think I had enough in the other 10 players to actually finish top 4 and have a crack.

Some coaches are good at drafting, some good at trading/identifying trade targets before they break out. Each coach will play their own way and I’m fine with that.

TBH what needs to stop is the judging of other parties deals, personalities, actions, just judgement in general. We’re interacting on a digital platform where every thing is open to the reader’s interpretation and I know none have spoken up, but every time someone calls out another coach for “winning” a trade it’s quite disparaging to both of the involved parties. The insinuation that someone has been hoodwinked and lost is likely more insulting to the so called “loser” of the trade as they’re deal is made out to be ridiculous.

I won’t name any of them, but there are other coaches who have done well out of deals, but they never seem to be mentioned, it’s always one guy that’s selling ice to the Inuits. The assumption that the coach is approaching other coaches to make the deals and then gladly ripping them off is naive. Would there not be a chance that they were approached for a deal? That they were made an offer or asked to discuss a player/pick?

I’ll use the most recent example that was shared on the board regarding McVee. Yes it’s early days, but he showed composure and kicking skills last year, and this year seems to be taking some kick ins and is being used more coming out of defence. So, did one coach rip the other off by getting a high pick (albeit there were other swaps involved), or did the other coach identify a young player about to break out, pay a high price before it happens, rather than waiting 12 months and paying even more? Every single transaction has two sides, we don’t know everyone’s motivation or strategy, so to start calling things within days of a deal being reached just doesn’t seem right.

I generally seem to overpay for players as I view ORFFU as a game and whilst a failed pick/trade may hurt, the trade interaction/experience and then anticipation justify the price for me. I have often traded future picks based on assuming where I’ll finish, only to finish much lower and then rob myself of access to elite shits. Did the other coach rip me off? Or did I make a dumb decision? Open to interpretation really, but…meh, I’m having fun whilst not being at the top of the ladder.

I think that the sooner the judgement of others is stopped, the better off we’ll be.

 

With the whole equalisation thing, I agree that squad sizes enable good teams to stash youth in their 23-26 list positions. But there is always a flip side and that is the squad size also enables the rebuilding team to take a heap of chances knowing that not all will work out and then churn them after a season or two.

Like Fresh mentioned, the only way to really make each season open to all would be to either redraft each year or cut very deep, personally cutting deep would have to be back to 10, as the best 15 of the top teams will still smash the best 15 of the bottom. You need to get starters off the top teams list to make a difference and then you need coaches to draft them.

Would someone take Nuytsland’s 11th best player at pick 1 rather than daicos/reid/…probably not. So the player slides to where pick 10? Where does he go? One of the higher teams, not a bottom side that will be blinded by the next Walsh, etc. So likely these guys end up back at their original clubs as no one will be delisting a gun kid or player averaging over 90 that will tempt some of us away from the untried youth with potential.

For every pick taken there is a player no longer on a list so if we took 68, then we nearly delisted 4 each anyway. Not sure how many were retirements, but maybe that’s the metric to be accounted for. Each club has to return 4 players to the draft pool, if you have 3 retirees then you’d still have to move 4 more to top up the pool, So delisting where retirements don’t count.

Considering most players will take at least 3 years to break out, there’s potential for a few teams to jump, but, seeing as elite players will go for 10+ seasons, it’ll take many years to see the generational change, it’s always happening, but isn’t as evident until players retire and we don’t hear their names called anymore. So we likely see the same in ORFFU with teams going through cycles in line with the rise and fall of stars, however as our players are spread across the 18 sides, some will feel it more than others at different times.

I’m happy to reduce list sizes, have mandatory delistments, whatever. If it shakes it up, makes it more enjoyable for others then why not. Caveat being that change for change’s sake is not good. Has to be properly thought out and worked. Wouldn’t happen until next season either as there is a heap to work through.

 

Using weighted averages (total score from the top 6 over total games played)
PSD14 92.61
PSD15 87.60
PSD16 88.30
PSD17 70.82
PSD18 74.63
PSD19 79.67
PSD20 74.05
PSD21 76.04
PSD22 82.72
PSD23 84.38

Though 2017 marked a shift in the meta towards new recruits instead of established names. Now both are in close competition as we saw with Sheezel and Wood being tied on 50 votes.
Also notable with 2014, this was just an additional topup to the base 20. So this was effectively rounds 21-26 in the inaugral draft

 

Yeah, but part of that was me botching the trade period last year. I kept trading players for picks without thinking about my side.

 

Well I wasn't expecting the 'Spanish Inquisition' over the McVee trade (no one ever does according to Monty Python I guess ). I'm not going to post PM trade discussions publicly, but I can assure you that neither Insider nor myself pressured or bullied the other coach into a trade. I also don't have 'trade favouritism's' with certain coaches. I read through every offer that is sent my way and decide based on its merits. I've had to clean out my defence completely since taking over this team, so getting a young running defender that is playing every game and SC scores are trending up will always be of interest.

Everybody runs their team differently, but the main trade issues I've encountered are:
Timing - I like to get my trades and draft picks sorted out prior to the start of the draft. Therefore I'm more likely to end up trading with those that are on the site throughout January. I still read and respond to the offers after this, but chances are the players/picks I was interested in trading have already left my team.
Research - For example, a coach has only a couple of decent scoring forwards, and receives a trade offer that would involve them trading one of them out. It's probably better to look for coaches that have excess decent scoring forwards to offer that trade to first.
One-Sided Howlers - Yes, we all get them.

In terms of equalisation, I'd prefer to provide 'slight' boosts to teams that are achieving a low number of wins each season over multiple seasons, rather than penalising coaches performing strongly regularly. Good team management should be rewarded (Flags, Finals, Lucky Finds, Hall of Fame, etc.), rather than penalised. I'm not attached to the 4 list changes every season, but if removing that rule reduced trading, that's not ideal.

 

MSD14___ 74.51 (11-20)
MSD15___ 87.33 (14-20)
MSD16___ 87.00 (16-20)
MSD17___ 84.49 (14-20)
MSD18___ 82.85 (15-20)
MSD19___ 83.03 (15-20)
MSD20___ 72.90 (8-17)
MSD21___ 79.66 (15-20)
MSD22___ 88.21 (15-20)
MSD23___ 59.79 (16-21)

 

Last MSD had the equal least picks, 34. Equal to 2017. But the next lowest average was 2020 with 47 picks, the most picks taken.

 

I have to be held accountable for 2023 to a point. I drafted Mitchell, Dow & Brockman, early with a view to the future, there were higher averaging players that I overlooked to draft my targets.