So we had a little discussion earlier as to whether we should change the list management rules or not, and here is a poll to find out where everyone sits. Quite simply: Are you happy with the 4 player list turn-over as it stands, and should we maintain it, or, would you prefer to see it changed? If there's any more discussion to be had, have it here - try to convince the fence-sitters either way.
I don’t think 4 cuts deep enough for most of the teams. The draft ends up with the new crop, those that will maybe never get drafted and failed picks delisted by coaches. Not a heap to choose from past pick 25 or so.
The Addicts teams have a list of 20 with 12 on the field, and 5 players need to be moved on at the end of each season. We have a list of 28 with 15 on field and 4 need to be moved on.........just throwin' it out there..
Whilst I'm in favour of change, I'm concerned that increasing the number of delistings each season will significantly decrease the number of team to team trades we see each season. What are the team to team trade numbers like in the Addicts each season?
I would prefer to review the figures pre- and post-mandatory delistings. Have the lower-ranked teams shown improvement? Has trading decreased? Additionally, it would be helpful to analyze the data before and after the list expansion. Hard data is crucial in determining the best course of action for the competition. While my gut feeling leans towards supporting list changes, I would vote to revert all changes if hard facts supported it.
I should have made it clearer by stating Addicts is a 10 team Comp, and not 18, trading is virtually non-existent, with Draft Picks not allowed to be traded.....my bad
All good. Wasn't asking to poke holes in your argument. Just wanted to try to understand what impact changes may have on trading. I've voted for change, but maybe in a different way to others. I'd prefer to see the 4 list changes a season rule change to either something like '10 list changes over a rolling 3 year period' so coaches can better control their premiership window and rebuilding phases, or just remove the delistings rule in general.
Can we have some more opinions by coaches , this is a very important vote ...... so far it looks like coaches want to increase mandatory delistings vs no mandatory delistenings
I can have a look at it this evening. I've got trades for 5 or 6 years of trades saved so will just need to add a few more years and I can quickly put something together. I'm happy to look at some of the scoring data in more detail too if that's what you're after? Not quite sure if there's something specific you'd like to see.
Thank @fresh , look forward to what you can put together. Would it be too difficult to gather scoring data for the bottom eight teams over the years ? pre mandatory and after mandatory de-listings ?
I haven't checked any of the data but I pulled out trades and draft picks over the years. I couldn't be bothered doing the 2014 and 2015 drafts and I've also added in a few notes about list rule changes, hopefully I got these lined up with the right year. It doesn't look like we had a trade period for the 2020 MSD due to the compact fixture. It looks like that in 2018 when the rule of needing to take 4 PSD picks came into effect, draft picks taken increased but total trades made didn't change much. When we changed the rule to be 4 list changes over the year before the 2021 season, total trade numbers and draft picks taken both decreased. I've copied the below table from the rules discussion thread but what I've done is ranked the total points scored across the H&A season by team, then taken that team's average score. The blank in 2016 is simply due to 2 teams having finished on the exact same total points scored so pretend that the value next to the 8th ranked team is the same as the 7th ranked one. I've excluded 2014 because I don't think the scores for that year are accurate. When the squad sizes were increased to 28 in 2017, you can clearly see that the bottom 2 teams saw their average scores increase. When looking at the entire period from 2015 to 2019, there isn't much difference in the top 10 team average scores across 2015-2019. But it looks like that perhaps teams ranked 11-16 saw a slight drop in their average scores. 2020 was pandemic affected so I wouldn't bother with average scores from that year too much. When we had another list management rule change in 2021 to 4 changes across the year, there isn't a big difference in average scores from teams ranked 5-18. However, the top 4 have improved their scoring. In summary: When we changed to mandatory 4 PSD picks from 2018-2020, the number of draft picks taken increased, trade volume didn't change. When we changed to 4 list changes across the year from 2021, trade picks taken and trade volume decreased, and average scores for the top 4 ranked teams increased.
Nice work Fresh. Jumping into this late, but Fresh’s stats showing the reduction in draft picks and trades support my thoughts that the rules as currently drafted make the game less interesting. I’m less fussed about equalisation (the Smugglers used to be good, the rules changed and now we suck, but that’s more to do with my level of commitment over the past few years) the major issues as I see them is the PSD is pretty dull, MSD is a non-event and trading has fallen by 40%. So that’s why I voted to change the rules, the good players will always be good and we can’t force equalisation so that each team wins a flag once every 18 years, but as someone who has traditionally enjoyed the trading aspect of the game anything that can be done to bring that back should be encouraged.
@fresh love your work. This is exactly what everyone needed to see as you cannot deny the facts, from what I take from this is the rule changes has had a negative effect on the bottom teams not able to hold onto talent, trades have decreased which in effect is the most enjoyable part of the preseason ( in season trading should now be on the table ). Mandatory list changes need to be removed from the competition, let coaches do as they please.
I see things differently. My interpretation is that things improved for the bottom teams when we changed to 4 PSD picks, but then went backwards when we changed to 4 changes, which I voted for. My preference would be returning 4 players to the draft pool each preseason, retirements don’t count. Putting 72 players back, on top of the next crop and the dregs, would make the draft more relevant. It may affect trading, which I wouldn’t want as a side effect, so we’d need to ensure it’s not a disincentive. Remove the MSD from any mandatory requirements as not all coaches are fans and there’s few picks taken. I think it’s good to see that we have a majority voting for change, we just need to make sure the change is for the better. Something we’ll need to be mindful of is current strategy, as some may have already traded out future picks, anticipating making some trades to meet compliance.
As a coach thats spent 3 seasons taking a bottom team to a 'reasonably' competitive team now (might be speaking too soon), my squad of 28 tells a story. 8 of my players were there when i took over 12 of my players are trade ins 4 are PSD 4 are MSD Trading is vital to any rebuild. My vote is for minimal enforced changes. More trading!
Neither 4 delistments or 4 mandatory changes have made any impact on bottom teams so why would we want to continue ? We changed to 4 list changes to due trades decreasing and trades have still decreased. I believe PSD rounds 3 and 4 are still relevant as many talented players are still available. MSD is not there to help the top teams that's why it seems irrelevant to some of us, therefore 90% of teams take 4 picks in PSD anyway so why mandate it?
I’m using this as a reference: When we changed to mandatory 4 PSD picks from 2018-2020, the number of draft picks taken increased, trade volume didn't change. When we changed to 4 list changes across the year from 2021, trade picks taken and trade volume decreased, and average scores for the top 4 ranked teams increased. I’m talking about returning players to the pool. Some coaches take 4 picks after two retirements, this does nothing to enhance the draft. As above, when allowing trades to be taken into account, picks and trades dropped. To trade or not is a mindset and strategy issue. Some of us like to trade more, others less. I don’t think any list changes short of enforcing trading will change this. But by removing trades and retirements from the 4 list changes there’ll be more interest in the draft and the picks will potentially be of higher value, which would hopefully stimulate trading.
No real need for a time limit. Any potential change won't be implemented until next year at the earliest.