Competitions 2012 AFC Draft Game - The Discussion and First Round Judging Thread

[ringo200]

So - how public to we want to make the final table?

All 18 in order? With score? With scores listed by voter? What's too much?

Are you ranking teams by total points added up or by placings? We all seem to be working on a different scale here. FAITH's giving out 90s and the best score I gave anyone was 70 so a good score from FAITH is worth more than a good score form me.

Are the rankings pretty consistent, the same sort of teams at the top of each list?

I'v got no problem with it all being made public, people seem to be taking things in the right spirit and not taking it too personally when someone else disagrees with their opinion.

EDIT: On second thought I'm not sure what we really gain out of making it all public, the only thing could really come out of it is people getting annoyed.

 

[Footypie32]

Are you ranking teams by total points added up or by placings? We all seem to be working on a different scale here. FAITH's giving out 90s and the best score I gave anyone was 70 so a good score from FAITH is worth more than a good score form me.

Are the rankings pretty consistent, the same sort of teams at the top of each list?

It doesnt really matter how harshly you judge the teams compared to others. Im sure your top team is pretty close if not the same as Faiths. There are 18 judges and all the scores will average out. I wouldnt worry to much about it...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Can the points be...

18 points - highest ranked team
17 points - 2nd ranked team
16 points - 3rd ranked team
Etc

...for each poster. That takes away any soft/harsh influence if one of us gives the top team 90 points and another gives the top team 70.

I reckon make the /100 votes public including who gave what. The minutiae of each category eg 'what each poster gave your midfield out of ten' can probably be kept under wraps. Will just lead to arguments.

 

[Footypie32]

How many ratings have you received Kristof? Starting to notice any patterns yet?

 

[Footypie32]

Can the points be...

18 points - highest ranked team
17 points - 2nd ranked team
16 points - 3rd ranked team
Etc

...for each poster. That takes away any soft/harsh influence if one of us gives the top team 90 points and another gives the top team 70.

I reckon make the /100 votes public including who gave what. The minutiae of each category eg 'what each poster gave your midfield out of ten' can probably be kept under wraps. Will just lead to arguments.

Agree with most of this. Should be ranked like a ladder 1-18. With making scores out of 100 public, only problem with this is those that havent voted yet may give higher ratings knowing others will see them. Doesnt effect me- will happily make my ratings public- after results have come out!

 

[Hank93]

Can the points be...

18 points - highest ranked team
17 points - 2nd ranked team
16 points - 3rd ranked team
Etc

...for each poster. That takes away any soft/harsh influence if one of us gives the top team 90 points and another gives the top team 70.

I reckon make the /100 votes public including who gave what. The minutiae of each category eg 'what each poster gave your midfield out of ten' can probably be kept under wraps. Will just lead to arguments.

This sounds like a good idea. I've only done one team so far and they got a 70. I thought they were one of the stronger teams so I might be one of the harsher scorers.

I think it's a little unrealistic to give a team a 90 when the talent is spread across 18 teams.

To me the All Australian team is the yardstick as a perfect 100. (Though I think the 2011 AA team would have scored "poorly" for structure)

 

[FAITH]

Are you ranking teams by total points added up or by placings? We all seem to be working on a different scale here. FAITH's giving out 90s and the best score I gave anyone was 70 so a good score from FAITH is worth more than a good score form me.

Are the rankings pretty consistent, the same sort of teams at the top of each list?

I'v got no problem with it all being made public, people seem to be taking things in the right spirit and not taking it too personally when someone else disagrees with their opinion.

EDIT: On second thought I'm not sure what we really gain out of making it all public, the only thing could really come out of it is people getting annoyed.

Sorry ringo just a slight mistake. My highest score was 80, lowest 55.
I said that if a couple teams traded 1 or 2 types of players in they would get closer to 90.
Alot of teams in the 65-75 range.

 

[hendo8888]

I've only done 3 teams.
2 got 63.5, 1 got 57.5. But I forgot to factor in Structure (worth 15).
The 2 teams that got 63.5, using my own prejudices and formula would have scored completely different (1 that I think is quite strong, 1 that isn't). So I will rank everyone with this formula and may do a bit of 'adjusting' if I feel the formula doesn't represent my rankings.

 

[BACCS]

So - how public to we want to make the final table?

All 18 in order? With score? With scores listed by voter? What's too much?

All of the above.

 

[BACCS]

Can the points be...

18 points - highest ranked team
17 points - 2nd ranked team
16 points - 3rd ranked team
Etc

...for each poster. That takes away any soft/harsh influence if one of us gives the top team 90 points and another gives the top team 70.

I reckon make the /100 votes public including who gave what. The minutiae of each category eg 'what each poster gave your midfield out of ten' can probably be kept under wraps. Will just lead to arguments.

Nothing like a good old BF argument Carl! I say everyone should post how they ranked each person, will be interesting reading...

 

[Footypie32]

Nothing like a good old BF argument Carl! I say everyone should post how they ranked each person, will be interesting reading...

Am happy for Kristof to put up everyone's rankings, but honestly cbf'ed doing 17 write-ups!

 

[Mego Red]

Are you ranking teams by total points added up or by placings? We all seem to be working on a different scale here. FAITH's giving out 90s and the best score I gave anyone was 70 so a good score from FAITH is worth more than a good score form me.

Are the rankings pretty consistent, the same sort of teams at the top of each list?

I'v got no problem with it all being made public, people seem to be taking things in the right spirit and not taking it too personally when someone else disagrees with their opinion.

EDIT: On second thought I'm not sure what we really gain out of making it all public, the only thing could really come out of it is people getting annoyed.

My plan was to standardize the scores by dividing each score by the sum of that voters total submitted scores - it will find the middle ground overly generous scores down and those that are a bit harsh.

 

[FAITH]

I dont mind if Kristof lets everyone know who my top 4 or 6 are in terms of my rankings.
Prefer that my bottom 4 wasnt made public though

 

[Mego Red]

Thinking about it - I don't think it's fair that voters scores are made public.

I THINK I'll list the top eight in order (perhaps with percentage), and then list the bottom eight alphabetically.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

I was actually wanting to make mine public. I am not really fussed if I offend, it is what it is... For the record I have a 2 way tie for 1st, both on 79... Can I put it up?

 

[Mego Red]

Yes, but not until after Thursday at 11am, and I've received all scores.

 

[Allefgib]

My votes in.

First was 0.5 points ahead of a tie for second. After that it dropped off and spread out a bit.

Max: 81
Min: 59
Mean: 70.8
Mode: 80.5
Median: 66.5

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

Completed 15 scores, with 2 more to go. The hardest thing I have found so far, is rating a team's structure because so many different structures exist in the AFL. West Coast's structure is completely different to Carlton, but both are top 5 teams and their individual styles and type of players work for them. I have really enjoyed the analytical side however.

 

[hendo8888]

I have done my first draft of the rankings.
I'm going to do my rankings slightly different.
Will use the given formula. Then use my own formula. Rate both of these out of 40, then give a final ranking out of 20 as a pure 'how do I rank this team's ability to win the premiership'.
With my first draft, some teams scored a fair bit less or more than I'd expected using the given formula.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

All will be clear at seasons end and that was what I selected my team for but with the point scoring I would of liked flexibility and durability in there. For example my Key Forwards are stacked with Cloke, Pavlich and Kreuzer but Pavlich can swing in the middle or go back ( won his fist all australian cap as a defender). Kreuzer is obviously resting up forward and is a ruckman. This flexibility isnt recognised in this scoring system..... I also had 3 10/10 for midfield...2 were durable, 1 will be lucky to play half the games, all 3 got the same points..... ( Yes Carl, your team was one of the durable one's)

 

[FAITH]

Yes, but not until after Thursday at 11am, and I've received all scores.

How many of the 18 have you received so far, is there a clear standout?
Have to admit there was a clear winner from my rankings just wondering if anyone else is similar?

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

A couple around the mark in my scores, with an 84, 81, 81 but also one team that I didn't rate highly at all, with just 54.

 

[Allefgib]

Did it all again with my own criteria.
Reviewed scoring to be consistent between them (i.e. my effective key forwards shouldn't be too different, in fact probably the same, as kristof's key forwards - experience for kristof i compred to my premiership experience, experience profile, stars caetgories etc etc)

Winner didn't change (wasn't a clear winner.. but I reckon most would have this team winning)
Bottom 2 didn't change.
Few others didn't change.
Some had some MASSIVE swings up and down the ladder (2 moved down 6 places, 1 moved up 7, couple of others jumped up 4 spots). Those who rose/fall seemed to have done this off the back of key forward/midfield.

Will be happy to reveal/discuss/debate in full once the official stuff is over.

 

[Footypie32]

All will be clear at seasons end and that was what I selected my team for but with the point scoring I would of liked flexibility and durability in there. For example my Key Forwards are stacked with Cloke, Pavlich and Kreuzer but Pavlich can swing in the middle or go back ( won his fist all australian cap as a defender). Kreuzer is obviously resting up forward and is a ruckman. This flexibility isnt recognised in this scoring system..... I also had 3 10/10 for midfield...2 were durable, 1 will be lucky to play half the games, all 3 got the same points..... ( Yes Carl, your team was one of the durable one's)

I think you can determine the selection criteria in different ways. Yes, I included Kruezer as a back up ruck as I assume most people would, but did not include Pav as a mid, otherwise if you took Pav and Kruezer out of your forward line, it wouldnt rate as highly. They cant play both positions at once!

 

[Mego Red]

You also don't have to use my formula - as long as I get a rating out of 100 that you think represents how you feel about the teams.