FFBRL End of Season Rerating and Drafts

[Misanthrope]

Sure, Scott isn't 9/6, but then Cam Smith isn't 10/9 either.

My issue is Scott is a strong player who should be rated well. Context is important. He had Gidley, Mullen and Walsh in front of him; thats more why he didn't crack the NRL.

I think both of you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The difference in stats that micky suggested is tiny. 33 tackles instead of 30 to make a given stat isn't going to destroy ESL players or punish them. And we've not even agreed that is the system we'll use :lol:

Why would I push to bash the shit out of ESL players when half of my side is comprised with ESL players I've carefully picked out?

EDIT: If we're arguing that the ESL is a more open, attacking competition - fine. Their attack stats will be good. But then you're also arguing that their defense should be reduced.

 

[Drew-Sta]

I won't belabour it. I just feel the ESL cops a bad wrap and its not quite justified

 

[Misanthrope]

I won't belabour it. I just feel the ESL cops a bad wrap and its not quite justified

:lol: Not quite would indicate that it's a little bit justified, wouldn't it? :sarcasm:

 

[Misanthrope]

Off the ESL topic for a moment, I think it may behoove us to finalize the stats sooner rather than later. Obviously the NRL season has some time to go yet, but we needn't wait for that. I think given we have to finalize squads, salary cap, and contracts in time for the end of our FFBRL season - it might be best to use stats from Rounds 1-20 rather than wait for the conclusion of Round 26.

That gives us more time to iron out bugs and get our squads decided, and it means we shouldn't have a months-long gap between seasons again.

 

[Drew-Sta]

:lol: Not quite would indicate that it's a little bit justified, wouldn't it? :sarcasm:

:lol: I'm too dry for my own good.

15 years ago it was a rubbish comp. Its not anymore. I think thats my point.

 

[Drew-Sta]

I'm ok to draw a line in the sand and start this sooner too.

 

[MrCharisma]

* I would like to see all ratings prior to making my squad nominations

Not an unreasonable request.

* A clear and concise document for the salary cap is tabled, pinned and agreed to by all (Most of this is already done; I just want everyone to be ok with it and aware of it).

I'd be uncomfortable with this request, mainly because this is intellectual property that I don't want other fantasy football competitions stealing. What I can share with you at this stage is it is a formula based on players statistics... both increasing with high numbers, and decreasing with low numbers.

MrC; my entire job is excel based, so if you need help applying these stats via formula's etc, let me know and I can help.

I'd love help. At the moment I think we need to agree what feeds into the Attack and Defense rating of each position.

How is SL players being done?

I'm worrying about NRL first and finding a formula. I'm comfortable that it can be replicated, however; as later discussion has broken out... what is the quality of NRL vs. ESL.

 

[Shaun Hewitt]

What are we doing re-squad size?
Talks were previously was to reduce it??

 

[Misanthrope]

It'll depend on what the general consensus is. We can reduce it (the 50 'year' limit is designed to match 25 players), or we can slightly lift the contract years to accommodate 29.

 

[Misanthrope]

Okay, so the main thing MrC is going to need is our decision on what stats are going to matter for the ratings in each position.

For example:

- Fullback: Tries, Try Assists, Line Breaks, and Tackle Breaks.
- Winger: Tries, Line Breaks, Tackle Breaks, and Metres.
- Centre: Tries, Linebreaks, Try Assists, and Tackle Breaks.
- Five Eighths/Halfbacks: Try Assists, Tries, Line Breaks, Tackle Breaks, and Line Break Assists.
- Props/Second Rowers/Locks: Metres per hitup, Tackle Breaks, Offloads.
- Hookers: Metres per hitup, tackle breaks, line breaks, try assists.

The above is just an example, and not necessarily my own thoughts on the matter.

Defense seems a pretty easy one - tackles made versus tackles missed seems simplest.

 

[Bazal]

Now that I have my internet back I have a question regarding ratings. What are we going to do to rate the things stats can't quantify? I have always said stats only tell half the story...so what about the other half? These aren't robots who do everything the same way as each other and can therefore be measured the same as every other player

 

[Misanthrope]

Now that I have my internet back I have a question regarding ratings. What are we going to do to rate the things stats can't quantify? I have always said stats only tell half the story...so what about the other half? These aren't robots who do everything the same way as each other and can therefore be measured the same as every other player

Player rerate requests will be used to cover those players whose stats don't necessarily reflect their ability.

As MrC put it:

The current system (of a bunch of us deciding ratings for a bunch of players) only manages to rate about 5% of the players in the database. The rest just stay as they were until they're challenged.

This way, we'd rate 95% of the database and the remaining 5% would be those whose stats don't reflect their ability. That's when we'd employ the democratic solution. It's considerably less time consuming only having to do this upon request.

If last year's complete lack of ratings showed anything, it's how inefficient the 'rate every player' system we've had in place is.

 

[Bazal]

That's fine, but not exactly what I was driving at. Defence, for example. Nathan Hindmarsh was a 10 for years despite probably only being a 9 tackler, because of the work he did off the ball (chasing kicks, closing gaps, chasing breaks, diving on loose balls and so on). Or in attack, a prop who runs into the line and stops, but churns out 125m a game at 10m a run because he takes all the kick offs...is he as valuable and should he be rated higher than a bloke who maybe only makes 95m a game at 9m, but bends the line every run, gets a quick play the ball and kicks the side on for the next run. Hookers are another great example...how do you quantify the quality of ball they give?

I realise those might be needlessly complicated, but the point is the same...stats don't tell the whole story. The stat based approach is fine, particularly for players in the pool or off contract so that we can just rate them and be done with it, but I certainly don't want to have to challenge 12 times a year because we're using nothing but raw stats.

 

[Misanthrope]

That's fine, but not exactly what I was driving at. Defence, for example. Nathan Hindmarsh was a 10 for years despite probably only being a 9 tackler, because of the work he did off the ball (chasing kicks, closing gaps, chasing breaks, diving on loose balls and so on). Or in attack, a prop who runs into the line and stops, but churns out 125m a game at 10m a run because he takes all the kick offs...is he as valuable and should he be rated higher than a bloke who maybe only makes 95m a game at 9m, but bends the line every run, gets a quick play the ball and kicks the side on for the next run. Hookers are another great example...how do you quantify the quality of ball they give?

I realise those might be needlessly complicated, but the point is the same...stats don't tell the whole story. The stat based approach is fine, particularly for players in the pool or off contract so that we can just rate them and be done with it, but I certainly don't want to have to challenge 12 times a year because we're using nothing but raw stats.

I'm pretty sure I just answered this :lol: If your guy isn't getting the rating he deserves because of stats not telling the whole story, you use a challenge and state your case. The raters will either agree or disagree.

It's exactly like the current system, except the stats legwork is already done. You're just stating the case for why the stats don't tell the whole story.

 

[Bazal]

My point is more that we should have something in place to rate everyone fairly the first time, rather than just blanket-stat rating everyone. That's the issue I have...you're saying that we'll blanket-stat rate, and then we challenge for those who do more than stats suggest. I'm saying I think we should have more than just stat based rating in the first place. Otherwise we need to increase the challenges, because stats will always lie in one way or another. Plus the game changes so much next season that the whole thing becomes irrelevant anyway.

The other danger is you say "this rating needs X stats". I go "well my hooker maybe doesn't make the dummy half runs or try assists needed to reach that rating stats wise, but his service is the best in the game and he chooses his runs perfectly", but the ratings guys go "no, he needs to fit this stat profile, get stuffed" when challenged and I have no stats on those things because they aren't measurable. IMO there needs to be leeway allowed from the get go.

 

[Misanthrope]

Are you suggesting an alternative?

As I see it, our current system is woefully flawed (as evidenced by the fact we didn't even get a rerate last season) and this system at least addresses that.

I think you're also underestimating just how comprehensive the stats MrC has collated are. They may not tell the entire picture, but they ought to tell a huge chunk of it for the vast majority of players.

As to your second concern, given who the raters are likely to be, I don't think you've got much to worry about. I would nominate myself, MrC, you, and Dutchy since we're all familiar with the dangers of rating solely based on stats.

 

[Bazal]

Not at all, I think the stats approach is an excellent one that will cover most of it. I'm just wary after the ratings guidelines fiasco in the ASRL a few years ago, where they were used to get ratings that never should have happened, and to an extent the rubbish ratings getting handed out over there now because the stats are given so much importance. Curtis Rona is a 9!! I know it's a different game but the potential problems are there for us too.

How about...we have the panel, whoever that may be, go over the contracted players at rating time and discuss any who maybe don't fit the stat profile. Let the coaches challenge anyone they pick up in the draft or at CB, but just get the contracted guys right the first time. It's a minor change, but it just gives every ratings period as much accuracy as possible. At least for the main squads.

 

[Misanthrope]

Not at all, I think the stats approach is an excellent one that will cover most of it. I'm just wary after the ratings guidelines fiasco in the ASRL a few years ago, where they were used to get ratings that never should have happened, and to an extent the rubbish ratings getting handed out over there now because the stats are given so much importance. Curtis Rona is a 9!! I know it's a different game but the potential problems are there for us too.

How about...we have the panel, whoever that may be, go over the contracted players at rating time and discuss any who maybe don't fit the stat profile. Let the coaches challenge anyone they pick up in the draft or at CB, but just get the contracted guys right the first time. It's a minor change, but it just gives every ratings period as much accuracy as possible. At least for the main squads.

That sounds perfectly okay to me. For that to work, we really need to be able to tell MrC what stats = what rating ASAP though. As it is, we've only got eight rounds left before finals. I'd like for people to be able to start planning for 2015/16 as early as possible.

 

[soc123_au]

How about an X factor rating is considered after stats are looked at? For defence how hard a player hits causing errors & in attack we consider off the ball work & how much interest a player gets from the defence creating space for others. There aren't stats for that shit, but we all know who those players are.

 

[Misanthrope]

Could work. Would we need to go through and give every player an X-Factor rating?