Rules & Changes discussion

Discussion in 'ORFFA' started by Bandit, Aug 29, 2019.

Tags:
  1. Bandit

    Bandit Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,416
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    Vote thread is up: http://tooserious.net/forum/threads...ting-draft-changes.90550/#SMKKeF643XfiozEA.97
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Bandit

    Bandit Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,416
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    2 more weeks for you to get any rule change discussions in folks... hope you are all well!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. TheTassieHawk

    TheTassieHawk SC fanatic Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    3,376
    Equalisation - Drafts, Salary Caps, Free Agency and Delistment Rules are some of the mechanisms for how equalization is achieved in real world sporting competitions.

    Given the keeper league nature of ORFF* leagues drafts and delistment rules are both in place whilst the other 2 mentioned are not. Another way would be to contract to 16 teams and distribute players from the 2 former teams via a contraction draft favouring lower ranked teams.

    I have considered some ideas around how to improve equalization and would like for the following to be considered for voting, with the proposed change to be effective from the 2021 ORFFA Pre-season Draft (based on the final 2020 ORFFA ladder positions).

    Rounds 1 and 2 would be unchanged. Rounds 3 and 4 and Rounds 5 and 6 would change as follows.

    Rounds 3 and 4 are combined. The wooden spooner receives pick 37 as their round 3 pick and pick 38 as their round 4 pick (rather than pick 55). Similarly the 17th placed team receives picks 39 and 40 as their 3rd and 4th rounders instead of 38 and 56. This continues with the minor premiers receiving picks 71 (instead of 54) and 72.

    Rounds 5 and 6 are combined. The wooden spooner receives pick 73 as their round 5 pick and pick 74 as their round 6 pick (rather than pick 91). Similarly the 17th placed team receives picks 75 and 76 as their 5rd and 6th rounders instead of 74 and 92. This continues with the minor premiers receiving picks 107 (instead of 90) and 108.

    Refer to the following table for all the numbers involved in the full proposal.
    ORFFAdraftPROPOSAL.png

    This approach recognizes the scope for lower ranked teams to improve their draft pick value and higher ranked teams to reduce their draft pick value recognising that in most cases ladder position has a strong correlation to list strength and therefore value of individual players on team lists. Teams are not in any way forced into trades or loss of players but presumably there would be greater incentives for stronger lists to trade solid players in exchange for better picks beyond the first 2 rounds. Teams could also trade in or out future 1st and 2nd round draft picks up to 18 months in advance without any change to the status quo.

    Weaker teams should accumulate slightly better players through trades or via the draft and hence be able to be competitive a year or two quicker rather than being certain non finalists for 5 or more years at a time and most importantly increase the level of competitiveness and interest in the home and away portion of the ORFFA season.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  4. Len

    Len Cockburn Knightrider Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    8,645
    Likes Received:
    3,855
    I don't mind it at all.
    FWIW I ran the league through SC values at the start of this year, there is no direct correlation between the value of a team and finishing position, per below, so I don't see the value of a salary cap (having previously been a supporter).
    upload_2019-10-20_21-10-32.png
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. graeme

    graeme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,153
    Likes Received:
    1,502
    I've had a little think about why there is not a strict correlation between team value and position at the end of the H&A series. Two observations:
    1. SC prices (I carefully chose to used the word price, not value) reflect the previous year's performance. Yes, there are some adjustments (injuries) and some price ranking from draft position. But overall it is an historic measure. Table position reflects this year's performance of the team. So, not strictly but for simplicity's sake, we are comparing forecast and actual. There is always likely to be a variance. Further, I am not sure it is strictly valid to rate this year's SC average price with last year's performance as that does not reflect post season trading.
    2. Teams have different agendas. IIRC, the cows started 2019 with seven rookie or close to rookie priced players. I saw them as a succession plan and accepted that they may not play; other coaches had a different approach to successions. However, in the cows case the seven rookie prices are reflected in the team's average price. As it turned out some of them did play. However, this should not obscure the point I am trying to make. We select 15 players each week (we hope selection = plays) and four emergencies. So perhaps averaging by the most expensive 15 players maybe a better proxy than averaging across 28)?

    Now I am not criticising Len's work - far from it; I love data analysis. It is a great starting point. I am just trying to point out why team prices are not good predictors of performance in the hope that we can find a way to agree on some form of equilisation (if that's the consensus view).
     
    • Like Like x 4
  6. Bandit

    Bandit Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,416
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    Just remember my financial plight when I am trading with you guys... just trying to get another lump of coal to put on the fire to keep the kids warm. I will come under the inevitable salary cap pressure when these guys all start to hit their straps
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Bandit

    Bandit Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,416
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    In terms of the rule change proposal... I will preface this by saying I am not sure we need much in the way of equalisation. Most (if not all) clubs have got themselves to where they are by choices they have made. Some have been very aggressive in list redevelopment (Lefties, Nuffers), some are putting off recruiting youngers guys for as long as they can (Chooks, Cockies), some are in the middle (Vultures, Misifts), and some have no idea what they are doing (Spelunkers).

    That being said, if there is enough sentiment to change the draft for the 2021 season, then happy to put it to a vote... we have a bit of time to kick this around (with the only consideration ebing that 2021 PSD draft picks can be traded as I type)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Len

    Len Cockburn Knightrider Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    8,645
    Likes Received:
    3,855
    I expected a more linked outcome, but once I saw the results it was clear there are simply too many variables involved, including those you've highlighted.
    2017 was shown for historical refernce, 2018 because it drove the salaries and 2019 for the outcomes.
    I'll do the same this year, just for interest's sake, like you I am a data nerd :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Len

    Len Cockburn Knightrider Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    8,645
    Likes Received:
    3,855
    For those not involved (Bandit obviously was), there was a concern raised "in house" about whether we needed to address equalisation at the start of the year.
    We round tabled it but couldn't find a solution (if indeed one was required) that would have impact on the "rebuilders" without having an overly negative impact on the remainder.
    I think @TheTassieHawk 's solution treads that fine line, and as such I endorse it.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. That KI Guy

    That KI Guy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    2,460
    I'm on the fence with this one.
    Don't mind the concept but hold the view that there are teams currently residing in the bottom half of the ladder that have made conscious decisions to rebuild in such a way that they are not competitive in the short-medium term. Thus pick concessions (though most welcome ;)) may not be used in such a way to improve their competitiveness. Anyways, happy vote if that's the way forward.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. jimbowan

    jimbowan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    336
    I am against this it makes absolutely no sense to me. Teams at the bottom have made decisions to take flyers on younger players, especially in the drafts, with the hope they pan out. Others, like myself I guess, have had a more balanced approach where I normally use my latter picks on old warhorses to fill my team out for injury cover.

    There's also the fact a lot of these teams traded their best players for draft picks and then chose unproven rookies whom may have not turned out. Tough I say! That's their choice!

    Sorry if I seem unforgiving but teams at the bottom have made the choice to be there for the present with the hope that in the future they will turn it around, like Gundagai did.

    I dont see they need even more draft capital to do so quicker. In 3 years if the ladder positions are reversed that will have been my decision to ride my players til their grave and I wont expect handouts to get better again quicker.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  12. graeme

    graeme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,153
    Likes Received:
    1,502
    I don't quite see this as black and white as my learned colleague. I agree there are some teams undertaking a rebuild, but it is hard to define how long this process will take. Bandit and KIGuy fall into this category. There are some success stories from the rebuild process - for example, snoz and Jen. But there are a couple of teams that are just not improving. To simply describe them as rebuilds and ignore their plight may not be helpful when perhaps there is an endemic problem. They have not been able to trade there way up the rankings; whether that is because of bad trading or bad luck I am not sure.

    Maybe we need to consider some form of individually targeted assistance before we start losing members who do not feel they can be competitive? But who to assist?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  13. TheTassieHawk

    TheTassieHawk SC fanatic Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    3,376
    We are now 2 weeks on from my proposal above - @Bandit - can we please have direction as to whether this is up for debate, needing to be voted on or has been declined to be taken further ?
     
  14. TheTassieHawk

    TheTassieHawk SC fanatic Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    3,376
    Bump
     
    • Like Like x 3
  15. Bandit

    Bandit Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,416
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    Apologies @TheTassieHawk I have been AWOL for a couple of weeks dealing with some family crap.

    Now that I am over that hurdle, I am always happy to put it to a vote, which i will do in the next couple of days.

    As always, the first vote with be a simple yes or now as to if we need to change the draft. If that gets a 2/3 majority vote, then we will then discuss what changes we want to vote on.

    Let me get through this week at work and I will throw the vote up.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. graeme

    graeme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,153
    Likes Received:
    1,502
    Are you ok Banditto? Not like you to not be on top of this.
     
  17. Bandit

    Bandit Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,416
    Likes Received:
    1,444

Share This Page