Analysis Improving the bidding system

[BloodySwan]

I don't mind academies (Northern academies, NGAs) and father-son selections, but its application needs to be refined.
A bigger price needs to be paid for matching bids in the top 5.

For example, teams should only be able to match bids for academy/NGA players with their next pick. Using Bulldogs as an example, if the bid comes at number 1 and Bulldogs' next selection is number 14, then they must use pick 14 to match the bid and take on a deficit next year. No using 5 or 6 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders to collect points. They actually need to figure out how to trade UP the draft to minimise the deficit rather than trading down. If they can get a top 5 pick by trading their first (14) with a future first, then that should do it. They should be finding a way to get Adelaide's pick 1 so that they don't go into a deficit next year. If they don't want to take on the deficit from a bid, then they can choose not to match the bid. If they match, then they'll be wiped out of next year's first round which is fair considering they are getting the best talent in this year's pool.

Another example is Sydney. If they select Logan McDonald with pick 4 and Hawthorn bid on Campbell with pick 5, then they must match the bid with their next pick even if it is in the 30s. if they match with a pick in the 30s, they basically have to sit out of next year's draft with the large deficit they accrue. If they want Campbell, they should be using pick 4 to select him so that they can avoid a deficit rather than selecting Logan at pick 4 and matching a bid at pick 5 with a collection of 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders. If they rate McDonald higher than Campbell, then they select McDonald and Hawthorn select Campbell.

If the reason for the academy is having NSW players on your list, then Campbell should be requesting a trade to Sydney in a couple of years right?

Handing out top-end talent because they collected picks in the 20s, 30s and 40s is ridiculous. If a team has a highly rated NGA/academy/FS, they should be trading INTO the draft to match or trade up before the bid to select the player with their first pick rather than trading out of the draft.

It's worth mentioning, the Doggies wouldn't have been able to match for JUH in the same way they did this year. You can only go into the draft with as many open spots as you have on your list. The dogs had to use 6 picks to match for points. Any other year that wouldn't have been possible. This will force clubs to have points closer to how you have described it.

 

[Suma Magic]

Got a link to the underlying working?

It’s an old uni project that worked out the line of best fit given all pick for pick trades that have occurred. So no link sorry. I’ll probably add the new trades data in and update it, then I’ll be happy to share it.

 

[JayJ20]

I don't agree that it's easier. I think having fewer rules about matching bids makes things much simpler. And it would achieve the same outcome.

Reducing the value of lower picks still keeps everything the way it currently is. I don't believe it simplifies the bidding system enough because it's already complex. My point is, I don't believe stocking up on 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders should be a part of the bidding system. My proposal simplifies the bidding process because it actually takes away the current rule of gathering enough points using any pick in the draft. It makes only your next pick relevant. Though reducing the value is a better system than the current one, I don't believe it takes away from the problem enough.

Matching with the next pick will remove any way for teams to stock up on points. What they can do is trade whatever they have to a willing team so that they can limit the deficit or remove it by trading up before a bid. 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders become irrelevant because only the next pick after a bid matters.

I actually want a system that encourages teams to trade up and select the academy/NGA/FS before a bid comes so that they don't go into a deficit. In Sydney's case, I want them to be encouraged and almost forced to select their academy player with their first pick before a bid comes so that they don't double dip by selecting a player in the open draft. Sydney and Bulldogs shouldn't be walking away from the draft with no deficit next year.

 

[Suma Magic]

Reducing the value of lower picks still keeps everything the way it currently is. I don't believe it simplifies the bidding system enough because it's already complex. My point is, I don't believe stocking up on 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders should be a part of the bidding system. My proposal simplifies the bidding process because it actually takes away the current rule of gathering enough points using any pick in the draft. It makes only your next pick relevant. Though reducing the value is a better system than the current one, I don't believe it takes away from the problem enough.

Matching with the next pick will remove any way for teams to stock up on points. What they can do is trade whatever they have to a willing team so that they can limit the deficit or remove it by trading up before a bid. 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders become irrelevant because only the next pick after a bid matters.

I actually want a system that encourages teams to trade up and select the academy/NGA/FS before a bid comes so that they don't go into a deficit. In Sydney's case, I want them to be encouraged and almost forced to select their academy player with their first pick before a bid comes so that they don't double dip by selecting a player in the open draft. Sydney and Bulldogs shouldn't be walking away from the draft with no deficit next year.

I think that an efficient points system where clubs aren’t incentivised to use lower picks is preferable to what you are proposing. It would have the same effect in that the dogs and swans would have had to trade future picks to pay the cost of matching, or had to have their future first pushed back.

Happy to agree to disagree on the approach.

 

[JayJ20]

I think that an efficient points system where clubs aren’t incentivised to use lower picks is preferable to what you are proposing. It would have the same effect in that the dogs and swans would have had to trade future picks to pay the cost of matching, or had to have their future first pushed back.

Happy to agree to disagree on the approach.

At least we can agree this year was an absolute farce with how compromised it was.

 

[Suma Magic]

At least we can agree this year was an absolute farce with how compromised it was.

My main concerns are:
1. clubs getting discounted access to players that would have been awesome anyway
2. clubs using the flawed points curve to increase the points they have to match
3. the discrepancy in total discount that different clubs receive over the medium term (the 20% and the benefits possible under point 2).

I don’t mind if the draft is compromised, so long as clubs are paying close to market value for players.

 

[master bate]

Smarter people than me have either worked this out and justified it or have a better way to describe it, but my problem with the points system is a bit like this.

Pick 10 = 1395
Pick 27 + 28 = 1380

According to that system 27 and 28 for 10 is a fair deal. But no team has done a deal like that and teams put a higher price on 10. And it seems very clear why. With pick 10 you get a player you rate very highly, a shot at a superstar. And even if it's only a shot at a superstar that potential is always going to cost a premium when teams know mid range picks have a far lower chance of getting a game changing talent.

If gets even worse when:
Pick 10 = 1395
Picks 38,39, 40 = 1340

You need 3 list spots, you need to give them all 3 years on the list to develop, you need 3 players high enough on your board that you actually want to pick. You need to know that at least 1 of them probably wouldn't be available if you had pick 70 at the end of the draft. There's so many reasons why even if the statistical return is the same the actual reality is no team is doing that deal.

The points make sense when a team is trading apples for apples. If it's pick 15 and 40 for 20 and 30. Ok, you slide up a bit and down the other side, all is fair. When it's one high pick being created from a bunch of lower picks that's apples for oranges. No sensible amount of oranges (late picks) will add up together to create what teams really want which is an apple (early pick).

The system has to reflect that if you're getting a top pick you have to give up something at the top too.

 

[FreeAgent1]

Agree with this.

discounts should go especially for f/s- that discount makes no sense.

there should be “equality review”

NSW/QLD - get to keep academies and maximising only 2 picks can match a bid.
VIC - get to keep GF at MCG
SA/WA- get priority fixtures, fewest 6 day breaks and best travel arrangements.

then we can stop with the “Afl love your club” BS

 

[The Inbetweener]

Agree with this.

discounts should go especially for f/s- that discount makes no sense.

there should be “equality review”

NSW/QLD - get to keep academies and maximising only 2 picks can match a bid.
VIC - get to keep GF at MCG
SA/WA- get priority fixtures, fewest 6 day breaks and best travel arrangements.

then we can stop with the “Afl love your club” BS

How does VIC keep to get GF and MCG benefit Marvel teams who don’t even get to play finals on their home ground? That’s the biggest inequality of them all in my opinion and couldn’t imagine it happening at any other major sport

 

[eastfreo75]

How does VIC keep to get GF and MCG benefit Marvel teams who don’t even get to play finals on their home ground? That’s the biggest inequality of them all in my opinion and couldn’t imagine it happening at any other major sport

AFL is a business for the VFL.

Fairness never comes into it, it’s about the bottom line.

The AFL wants to grow the pie in the Northern states and they use points to assist the likes of the Swans to get cheap high quality players.

 

[Pykie]

I don't think anyone would have an issue with the Northern Academies if they came inline with the new NGA rules.

IF NGA is eventually no matching prior to pick 40.

It should possibly be no matching prior to pick 20 for the Northern Academies.

I think F/S should be inline with that same pick 20 rule.


The general supporter has no issue with them strengthening their squads with second and third round pick with locals.

The issue is double dipping on top 10 picks and a regular conveyor belt of discounts in the first handful of picks ~ Campbell, Blakey, Mills, Heeney.....

 

[go_the_dockers]

I don't think anyone would have an issue with the Northern Academies if they came inline with the new NGA rules.

IF NGA is eventually no matching prior to pick 40.

It should possibly be no matching prior to pick 20 for the Northern Academies.

I think F/S should be inline with that same pick 20 rule.


The general supporter has no issue with strengthening their squads with second and third round pick locals.

The issue is double dipping on top 10 picks and a regular conveyor belt of discounts in the first handful of picks ~ Campbell, Blakey, Mills, Heeney.....

I like these ideas.

Also, pick 1 should be worth 4000 to 5000 points, with first round picks after this worth more (the same curve as now) to make clubs pay up for top talent and to stop them trading down the order to get points.

 

[Pykie]

I like these ideas.

Also, pick 1 should be worth 4000 to 5000 points, with first round picks after this worth more (the same curve as now) to make clubs pay up for top talent and to stop them trading down the order to get points.

In this scenario you can't match top 20 picks in any system.

So the top 20 pick values become largely irrelevant for anything other than trading.

 

[BloodySwan]

The AFL said from day 1 that the points value would change throughout it's time. I'm surprised that this hasn't been adjusted since it's introduction

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Who benefits most from NGA/Zone/Academy?
+
Any adjustment to the bidding system will reduce the effectiveness of matching (by making top picks comparatively more valuable)
=
No incentive for AFL to make any changes.