the points system

[R-1]

It's tough to delineate because the AFL to RL areas shade into each other on a gradient. Goulburn would be mostly RL, Canberra and Wagga pretty mixed, Albury about 90% AFL.

[Reggi]

Riverina has consistently produced players. Should be no zone south of the murrumbidgi.

On tge points system, clubs have had a simulator for months so they should now how it worksp

[giant]

While we continue to see GWS' youngsters raided and cajoled, I'm happy for them to have a bit of a leg up with the Riverina zone. Will becoming increasingly tough for them to compete otherwise.

[Ludwig]

Ok folks, spent some time with a spreadsheet and plugged in our likely worse scenario. The movement of picks upwards was really interesting as multiple picks were collapsed into one high pick. Our later picks rose by 9 places adding substantially to our Dunkley points. It was why we worked to get pick 69 from the Bullies, it became pick 58 eventually.

The key positions I took were Mills bid on at 3 which is as high as he will be bid on. Then I got a little soft on the other four key academy players, if they go higher our position is better, Hopper at 5, Kennedy at 10, Keays at 14, Hipwood at 17.

That leaves us with picks 45 (347), 54 (220), 58 (170) & 63 (112), total 849 sufficient for pick 22.

That's what I came up with a few days ago (posted on the Trade target discussion thread pst #1480):

I think it's pretty clear now that we expect, or know, that Dunkley will nominate us and that we plan to draft him. As it works out, we should be able to draft Dunkley without going into deficit or perhaps a small deficit if he goes anywhere in the second round, even early. This is based on Mills being bid at #3. Anything after that will be a cakewalk. It is only an estimate, but I think that all our picks above 40 will be elevated by around 5 or 6 due to us along with GWS and Brisbane using multiple picks to acquire first round players. This should equate to around 250 additional points. So even with having to fork up 1787 value points for Mills if Melbourne bid for him, we should still have around 650 points to use for Dunkley, which equates to a pick 22. So we should be okay.

But I actually underestimated the value. If you are correct, and I hope you are, then the 849 points would equate not to pick 22 but rather pick 17, since that surpasses the value points after the 20% discount.

[Ludwig]

I'm one of the two authors yeah. Glad you're interested! This post explains the guts of what we're trying - Valuing trades, draft picks and players ? a review of the theory | Hurling People Now

I do recall now that after reading this article that I felt it was a fairer system than the one derived by the AFL. It also makes more sense than the current value points schedule given that it's less radical. When you consider how cautious the AFL is about making rules changes, e.g. reducing the interchanges, it became clear to me that the AFL came up with the most top-end skewed system as a specific target against us drafting both Mills and Dunkley. Mills at the time was considered a #1 pick and Dunkley was around 5 or 6, so the AFL thought their system would kill us. Now that the threat is over, you may get a call from Gillon about your system.

You've done some really good work there. If you can find paying some customers, it could be worth refining.

[707]

Sorry, head was still spinning after all that spreadsheet work!

849 points is of course equal to pick 17 on the discounted scale.

To clarify, my scenario was done by us having to match Mills at pick 3, GWS having to match Hopper at pick 5, GWS having to match Kennedy at pick 10, Brisbane having to match Keays at pick 14, Brisbane having to match Hipwood at pick 17.

It is possible that Mills may last until 6/7, Hopper could be bid on before Mills, Kennedy could go higher as he appears a real talent. These scenarios make it even better for us.

I just wanted to be sure we could get Dunkley without 2016 deficit if Mills went at 3. Only in really surprising circumstances would we need to go into deficit and in fact on the other end of the scale, could end up with surplus picks. I reckon we have done really well and to land Mills, Dunkley, Talia & Sinclair would see us with a win in this years trade/draft period.

[Ludwig]

Now that it seems pretty clear that we will land Mills and Dunkley without much hassle, will clubs even bother to bid on them when the only thing they would get out of it would be to land in our bad books. Perhaps the first target will be GWS, who are in a somewhat tighter position with 2 top 10 prospects and several other quality academy players as well. But they have even more power given the number of picks they will have next year.

The next phase of the points system (the actual live show) may yield some clues about how clubs view the power of the academy clubs to make or break trades. This may well be the big deterrent against vexatious bidding.

[R-1]

I'd be surprised if the Swans bore a grudge for, say, Melbourne bidding for Mills at 3. They should. They want a mid and most of the draft watchers place him around that mark - slightly better than Parish and one of the threr best mids along with Hopper. That's market value and we should be happy to pay it.

[R-1]

I do recall now that after reading this article that I felt it was a fairer system than the one derived by the AFL. It also makes more sense than the current value points schedule given that it's less radical. When you consider how cautious the AFL is about making rules changes, e.g. reducing the interchanges, it became clear to me that the AFL came up with the most top-end skewed system as a specific target against us drafting both Mills and Dunkley. Mills at the time was considered a #1 pick and Dunkley was around 5 or 6, so the AFL thought their system would kill us. Now that the threat is over, you may get a call from Gillon about your system.

You've done some really good work there. If you can find paying some customers, it could be worth refining.

It's funny. I'm convinced the AFL's logarithm valuation (a direct copy of the NFL chart btw) undervalues later picks but I'm not convinced our output values chart works better as a pick-trading currency. It'd be really easy to stack later picks using our values and I'm not sure clubs would go for that. Might write some thoughts on the two value charts soon.

[i'm-uninformed2]

I'd be surprised if the Swans bore a grudge for, say, Melbourne bidding for Mills at 3. They should. They want a mid and most of the draft watchers place him around that mark - slightly better than Parish and one of the threr best mids along with Hopper. That's market value and we should be happy to pay it.

I'd be dirty largely because I thought last years bid on Heeney at two was a deliberate act of spiteful revenge by Roos after being moved on from the Acamedy that he knew would also feed Fat Eddies narrative

[Mug Punter]

Ok folks, spent some time with a spreadsheet and plugged in our likely worse scenario. The movement of picks upwards was really interesting as multiple picks were collapsed into one high pick. Our later picks rose by 9 places adding substantially to our Dunkley points. It was why we worked to get pick 69 from the Bullies, it became pick 58 eventually.

The key positions I took were Mills bid on at 3 which is as high as he will be bid on. Then I got a little soft on the other four key academy players, if they go higher our position is better, Hopper at 5, Kennedy at 10, Keays at 14, Hipwood at 17.

That leaves us with picks 45 (347), 54 (220), 58 (170) & 63 (112), total 849 sufficient for pick 22.

Have we worked out yet if we are limited to drawing down points only on "live" draft picks at Draft night yet or is it on all picks per the draft order now?

Because if it is only on live picks then we will currently have 33,36, 37, 44 and 54 in play which will mean we only have the downgraded pick 44 and upgraded pick 54 to use. This may not be enough so I think we will need to de-list someone which will bring Pick 72 as a live pick and which can be upgraded.

If you can use all picks I think that will be addressed and we will only be able to claim points on live picks for acquiring academy and F/S. It doesn't make any sense to be able to use points on a pick that the club cannot access. And it will stop unrealistic pick swapping, which we were not guilty of but of which GWS were. That is the only change I could see in response to any moaning form Eddie et al

If you are limited to only using points with live picks then GWS may be stuffed and may not be able to afford both Kennedy and Hopper if they go early enough. They certainly will have to pass on Himmelberg

[R-1]

I'd be dirty largely because I thought last years bid on Heeney at two was a deliberate act of spiteful revenge by Roos after being moved on from the Acamedy that he knew would also feed Fat Eddies narrative

Nah. Heeney was just rated as worth pick two.

[R-1]

Just to add to what others have said - I ran a check too, and I think once the GWS and Brisbane boys have gone, our late picks should rise about 8 slots and net another 200 points or so. That'll let us match Mills at 3 and Dunkley around 20 without deficit.

[707]

Just to add to what others have said - I ran a check too, and I think once the GWS and Brisbane boys have gone, our late picks should rise about 8 slots and net another 200 points or so. That'll let us match Mills at 3 and Dunkley around 20 without deficit.

The higher up the GWS and Brisbane players go the more picks they use, the higher our later picks go.

Hopper at 5, Kennedy at 10, Keays at 14, Hipwood at 17 raise all our picks by 9 places. They could all go higher raising our picks even further.

We're sweet.

[ugg]

I can't wait until the Hawthorn honchos raise this "rort" with the Herald Sun