Opinion The AFL should introduce a 'points' system to facilitate trading

[H00t]

I've actually modelled it extensively and it works. You've posted your gut reaction.

I think you're arguing about allocating picks based on final points balance as opposed to an auction?

Note that no team is giving up their first pick by trading in a mid-level player - at worst they are pushing it back a couple of sports, which is a genuine trade-off some would be willing to make.

Why can only good teams do this? All teams can trade away future points to target a specific draft, but good teams will have fewer expected future points to trade. A bottom side could easily trade away say 2000 future points to build their balance for a strong draft, and still would be expected to have plenty of points the following season.

It's an entirely valid strategy to target a high pick one draft and forgo a high pick the next. But it's not manipulating the system like you suggest. In an auction picks will be bought for their market value.

Think it through.

They would use points. And yes, this would affect the position of the picks they can take, that is what teams are trading off. The bottom side could take pick 1, pick 19 and pick 37, or they could take pick 2, pick 24, pick 40 and a good player from another side (worth around pick 20).

An auction is an even worse idea. Let’s make bottom teams have to pay even more to get access to picks they would otherwise just be given.

Even worse being pushed back with an early pick. Especially when those early picks are so valuable. Dropping even a spot or two can mean missing out on top talent.

Only good teams can afford to target specific drafts as weaker teams need to constantly get new players in to improve. Only those with a set best 22 have the luxury of targeting specifics.

It is manipulating when it’s taking away from the teams lower down the ladder who would normally be benefitting from those picks. Academy and f/s already take a lot out from lower teams before making it even harder for them to get picks.

 

[H00t]

Actually, it’s super easy, barely an inconvenience...

You know how human civilisation moved away from bartering and adopted money? We did that because money makes trading goods massively simpler. It’s the exact same thing here.

Clubs get a points allocation based on their ladder position. They are no longer forced into coming up with massively convoluted (“I’ll give you two sheep, a chicken and a bag of rice for your donkey”) trades for players. They just use points to purchase them instead. The player wants to go, the clubs agree on a price, and it is a done deal. It's a thousand times easier than we do it now.

Everyone complains about how massively unfair the current system is for the poor (lower-ranked) clubs. That is incredibly hard to fix because we are stuck using a barter system. A points system makes fixing it really easy. We can tax the rich clubs and give discounts to the poor clubs in a million different ways.

Hahaha… works for trading goods doesn’t work for a trading situation.

Do people really complain that much? Because any points system I’ve seen makes it worse for everyone not better.

And the one thing it supposedly fixes (player value) doesn’t actually change much as club’s list managers will never make trades easy. Under any system. Especially not when every point is important. It makes trades harder. Especially for non star players.

 

[weevil]

An auction is an even worse idea. Let’s make bottom teams have to pay even more to get access to picks they would otherwise just be given.

Even worse being pushed back with an early pick. Especially when those early picks are so valuable. Dropping even a spot or two can mean missing out on top talent.

Only good teams can afford to target specific drafts as weaker teams need to constantly get new players in to improve. Only those with a set best 22 have the luxury of targeting specifics.

It is manipulating when it’s taking away from the teams lower down the ladder who would normally be benefitting from those picks. Academy and f/s already take a lot out from lower teams before making it even harder for them to get picks.

Hahaha… works for trading goods doesn’t work for a trading situation.

Do people really complain that much? Because any points system I’ve seen makes it worse for everyone not better.

And the one thing it supposedly fixes (player value) doesn’t actually change much as club’s list managers will never make trades easy. Under any system. Especially not when every point is important. It makes trades harder. Especially for non star players.

Whoosh.

Dude, if your shtick is to just blindly disagree with people without even bothering to read or understand what they are saying to you, this conversation is going to be really uninteresting.

If you want to be taken seriously, please take a breath, show that you have even a basic understanding of the arguments being made before you reply. It's not worth bothering to reply otherwise.

 

[Chiz]

An auction is an even worse idea. Let’s make bottom teams have to pay even more to get access to picks they would otherwise just be given.

Obviously you didn't read the OP...

But if you think this will affect the bottom sides' access to picks, do you know what you can do? Just give more points to the bottom sides. As weevil has pointed out, a points system can be made much more flexible.

Even worse being pushed back with an early pick. Especially when those early picks are so valuable. Dropping even a spot or two can mean missing out on top talent.

And whoever is willing to pay the most for top talent will get it. The bottom sides are advantaged here as they are allocated more points. But it's not as though the very bottom side is the only one that would benefit from pick 1 - if another side is willing to pay more, they should be entitled to.

Only good teams can afford to target specific drafts as weaker teams need to constantly get new players in to improve. Only those with a set best 22 have the luxury of targeting specifics.

I don't buy this argument at all. But even if it was true, it would hold under the current system.

It is manipulating when it’s taking away from the teams lower down the ladder who would normally be benefitting from those picks. Academy and f/s already take a lot out from lower teams before making it even harder for them to get picks.

Ironically your point about FS/NGA taking away from the bottom sides is a strong case for moving to a points system.

Take this season for example - if Richmond bid on NGA players at picks 3&4 (which have already been pushed back from 2&3 due to West Coast's compensation pick), these picks shift back to 5&6. Altogether this costs Richmond 1205 points, the equivalent of pick 11. It costs Brisbane 115 points, the equivalent of pick 47. Under a points system, they would still miss out on taking these players, but they wouldn't lose any points - hence they would be able to bring their later picks forward.

 

[wantok]

An Auction system based on ladder position allocating draft points and order would be interesting and fair eg. West Coast receive 7000 points and Pick 1 and then bid on their 1st choice eg Harley Reid for 3000 points. Richmond Counter with 3100 . West Coast then decide to match or let him go and retain their points. They then get to make the next offer and use 2800 points to choose a player. The Auction moves on to North and they make their choice etc . Another team counters and forces North to match etc. Each team chooses how to use their Draft points.Each team has a finite number of points and choose their own strategy to use rhem. Do you go for the gun early and use a large proportion of your Bank or go for three or four players in the 1500 to 2000 range?May the best list Managers win. Would certainly liven up Draft night! Academy and FS cost a fixed sum. Eg 2000 for your first match 1500 second 500 third etc.

 

[weevil]

An Auction system based on ladder position allocating draft points and order would be interesting and fair eg. West Coast receive 7000 points and Pick 1 and then bid on their 1st choice eg Harley Reid for 3000 points. Richmond Counter with 3100 . West Coast then decide to match or let him go and retain their points. They then get to make the next offer and use 2800 points to choose a player. The Auction moves on to North and they make their choice etc . Another team counters and forces North to match etc. Each team chooses how to use their Draft points.Each team has a finite number of points and choose their own strategy to use rhem. Do you go for the gun early and use a large proportion of your Bank or go for three or four players in the 1500 to 2000 range?May the best list Managers win. Would certainly liven up Draft night! Academy and FS cost a fixed sum. Eg 2000 for your first match 1500 second 500 third etc.

Yeah, it offers so much flexibility and so many options.

It could be a completely open auction where anyone can bid first, or you could keep it more structured by retaining the draft order but allowing others to bid. I suppose if the club with the current pick does not actually want it, they can just put in a lowball opening bid.

Set prices for F/S Academy is interesting. What if a club has two gun kids in the same draft? I had it pegged that the club with F/S or Academy had the right to match the highest bid.

It would make draft night massively more contested, tactical and interesting. But I think it could take some of the drama out of trades. Because they would be so straightforward. There would be very little need for insanely complicated deals.

 

[Chiz]

It would make draft night massively more contested, tactical and interesting. But I think it could take some of the drama out of trades. Because they would be so straightforward. There would be very little need for insanely complicated deals.

From a 'how much media can be generated' perspective (which is probably high on the AFL's agenda), I suspect it would take some drama out of trades, but we'd probably see more trades go through.

 

[weevil]

From a 'how much media can be generated' perspective (which is probably high on the AFL's agenda), I suspect it would take some drama out of trades, but we'd probably see more trades go through.

Oh yeah, that’s a good point, there would probably be a truckload more trades, the AFLPA and managers would love it.

Draft night would def be more spicy, probably a bit more like a poker game.

 

[Rourke]

Late to this thread, but I did propose this in person to the AFL in 2010. Eventually it got bastardised into DVI, and the AFL promptly forgot what they were aiming to do with it. Your arguments are sound: clubs currently barter properties with uncertain value. Everything flows better with a currency. Unfortunately the accumulated Academy rort through shorter drafts and mismatched currencies has tarnished the 'Points' brand.

To me the main question is around the broadcast: instead of auctioning picks, the broadcaster will want to auction players. This isn't like the IPL with professional millionaire players, it's 18yo kids. So an AFL Draft auction has to be silent, to some extent. You could still have exciting moments like a club going 'all in' with their remaining points to try and snag someone.

Anyway, I wish the concept better luck in the future.
DOS

 

[weevil]

Late to this thread, but I did propose this in person to the AFL in 2010. Eventually it got bastardised into DVI, and the AFL promptly forgot what they were aiming to do with it. Your arguments are sound: clubs currently barter properties with uncertain value. Everything flows better with a currency. Unfortunately the accumulated Academy rort through shorter drafts and mismatched currencies has tarnished the 'Points' brand.

To me the main question is around the broadcast: instead of auctioning picks, the broadcaster will want to auction players. This isn't like the IPL with professional millionaire players, it's 18yo kids. So an AFL Draft auction has to be silent, to some extent. You could still have exciting moments like a club going 'all in' with their remaining points to try and snag someone.

Anyway, I wish the concept better luck in the future.
DOS

Yeah, TV would love it, but auctioning kids is def not a good look. They did not even reveal the identity of the F/S/Academy kids who had pending matches this year. So there would be zero chance with an auction...I’m sure if it did go to an auction TV would have gaudy animated graphics of which cattle were still left in the paddock.

The issue is that a fully points-based system is a huge change, but it doesn’t necessarily solve the key issue of allowing the draft to be an equalising mechanism, while also supporting player pathways in important emerging markets.

I like the idea of applying a points tax on F/S/academy picks if there are multiple for the same club in the same year. Maybe add 10% more to the value of each additional player in a single year. But ultimately, they could do that in the current system already.

 

[Chiz]

Late to this thread, but I did propose this in person to the AFL in 2010. Eventually it got bastardised into DVI, and the AFL promptly forgot what they were aiming to do with it. Your arguments are sound: clubs currently barter properties with uncertain value. Everything flows better with a currency. Unfortunately the accumulated Academy rort through shorter drafts and mismatched currencies has tarnished the 'Points' brand.

Thanks for sharing the paper - I had no idea this is where the DVI came from. Disappointing the AFL only half committed to the proposal - if you are going to use points for one aspect of the draft (FS/NGA picks), why not use it for everything and make it harder to rort.

To me the main question is around the broadcast: instead of auctioning picks, the broadcaster will want to auction players. This isn't like the IPL with professional millionaire players, it's 18yo kids. So an AFL Draft auction has to be silent, to some extent. You could still have exciting moments like a club going 'all in' with their remaining points to try and snag someone.

I also think an auction is open to manipulation, such that the order of players auctioned off won't match their value order.

Anyway, I wish the concept better luck in the future.
DOS

Thanks - glad to see smart people have worked on the same concept.

 

[weevil]

Thanks for sharing the paper - I had no idea this is where the DVI came from. Disappointing the AFL only half committed to the proposal - if you are going to use points for one aspect of the draft (FS/NGA picks), why not use it for everything and make it harder to rort.

I also think an auction is open to manipulation, such that the order of players auctioned off won't match their value order.

Thanks - glad to see smart people have worked on the same concept.

Every time I’ve talked about this stuff people come out of the woodwork saying they have thought about it a huge amount too. It’s a footy nerd favourite.

 

[Chiz]

Every time I’ve talked about this stuff people come out of the woodwork saying they have thought about it a huge amount too. It’s a footy nerd favourite.

The fact that many nerds are in favour of it suggests it's probably the way the AFL should go. I've heard plenty of arguments against it too, but nothing convincing.

 

[RUNVS]

Been saying for years the AFL need a points system for the draft and trade period, moving from a barter system to a currency based system. It would make trading far easier and give teams far greater say in how they rebuild than the current system.

Teams would be able to bid for picks on the day, meaning they can go for specific players, also meaning if the bottom team wants they could either bid for pick 1, or not, and instead go for more players, so bid for picks 7 and 8 for instance, which would cost less.

Also would fix the academy system. If lets say Carlton bid 1247 points on pick 15, and then select a Sydney Academy player, the Swans would need to spend 1247 points to match that bid.

 

[Rourke]

I also think an auction is open to manipulation, such that the order of players auctioned off won't match their value order.

This is the trickiest part to get right with incentives. It doesn't matter that the order is 'wrong', because you reorder the players after the Draft is over to give them an ordinal number. But it does matter that clubs can manipulate which player gets auctioned next. This was my proposal, but someone will come up with a better one:

• The club with the most remaining Points gets to nominate the next player. What if they don’t match the top bid, do they keep getting to nominate players?
  • Use it or lose it. I think you’d allow a club two consecutive nominations, and if they don’t exercise their right they get taken out of the rotation for a while. Similarly if they tried to game the system by nominating someone who is nowhere near the top
  • This is the biggest uncertainty for me. You could auction the right to the abstract Next Pick instead of a specific Player, but then you revert to the frustration of the current broadcast. The AFL could use prior information to pre-set the first 20 players to be bid on. There are other ways to do it

 

[RUNVS]

This is the trickiest part to get right with incentives. It doesn't matter that the order is 'wrong', because you reorder the players after the Draft is over to give them an ordinal number. But it does matter that clubs can manipulate which player gets auctioned next. This was my proposal, but someone will come up with a better one:

• The club with the most remaining Points gets to nominate the next player. What if they don’t match the top bid, do they keep getting to nominate players?
  • Use it or lose it. I think you’d allow a club two consecutive nominations, and if they don’t exercise their right they get taken out of the rotation for a while. Similarly if they tried to game the system by nominating someone who is nowhere near the top
  • This is the biggest uncertainty for me. You could auction the right to the abstract Next Pick instead of a specific Player, but then you revert to the frustration of the current broadcast. The AFL could use prior information to pre-set the first 20 players to be bid on. There are other ways to do it

What about bidding for picks?

So lets say pick 1 is up, each team is given 2 minutes to lodge the amount of points they are willing to bid for that pick and the player they want. This would be a blind auction so no other team knows what anyone else is doing.

Then after the 2 minutes someone goes up on the stage and says something like "with 1920 points North Melbourne have successfully bid for pick 1 and have selected Bou Callihan. Bidding for pick 2 is now open"

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

What about bidding for picks?

So lets say pick 1 is up, each team is given 2 minutes to lodge the amount of points they are willing to bid for that pick and the player they want. This would be a blind auction so no other team knows what anyone else is doing.

Then after the 2 minutes someone goes up on the stage and says something like "with 1920 points North Melbourne have successfully bid for pick 1 and have selected Bou Callihan. Bidding for pick 2 is now open"

This, with one modification (to support FS/Academy/NGA).

If the player nominated is an aligned player (FS/Academy/NGA/etc) - the aligned club can choose to MATCH (no discount).

Clubs still awarded points in reverse ladder order (you could even start by simply replacing the picks with the equivalent DVA).

...

I'm 99% sure you'd see top 5 picks double in price.

 

[RUNVS]

This, with one modification (to support FS/Academy/NGA).

If the player nominated is an aligned player (FS/Academy/NGA/etc) - the aligned club can choose to MATCH (no discount).

Clubs still awarded points in reverse ladder order (you could even start by simply replacing the picks with the equivalent DVA).

...

I'm 99% sure you'd see top 5 picks double in price.

Completely agree with that.

So we would have, just using this year as an example

"with 812 points GWS have bid on pick 14 and have selected Sydney Academy player Harry Kyle. Sydney now have 2 minutes to match the bid"

and it is up to Sydney if we want to spend 812 points to get pick 14 and take Harry Kyle.

I also like the bidding idea because it means teams can be so much more strategic in their drafting strategy. West Coast for instance might have pick 1 in the current system, but there are no WA kids who are in the pick 1 range, but in the points system, if there are some WA kids who are rated lets say 7th and 12th, or something like that, West Coast can save points not worrying about the first few kids, and focus on getting the WA boys, something they could not easily do with pick 1.

Or another team may have pick 3 and really really needs a KPD, but there are no KPD's in that draft range. With a points system that is not an issue, and they can simply wait until a KPD enters a particular range and then start bidding for picks.

 

[weevil]

What about bidding for picks?

So lets say pick 1 is up, each team is given 2 minutes to lodge the amount of points they are willing to bid for that pick and the player they want. This would be a blind auction so no other team knows what anyone else is doing.

Then after the 2 minutes someone goes up on the stage and says something like "with 1920 points North Melbourne have successfully bid for pick 1 and have selected Bou Callihan. Bidding for pick 2 is now open"

I have always seen it as a regular auction, but just for picks. Clubs are free to bid on any pick whenever they want, and bids come in in real time until “going once, going twice, sold”. And with that pick, the winning club selects the player they want.

Always open to other ideas though.

 

[Chiz]

I have always seen it as a regular auction, but just for picks. Clubs are free to bid on any pick whenever they want, and bids come in in real time until “going once, going twice, sold”. And with that pick, the winning club selects the player they want.

Always open to other ideas though.

As long as the auction is for picks (rather than players), it shouldn't really matter if the auction is silent or not (in terms of incentives). But a silent auction could really change the strategy, as you wouldn't know which players other clubs are targeting - e.g. could see clubs paying more for players than necessary.

 

[Chiz]

This is the trickiest part to get right with incentives. It doesn't matter that the order is 'wrong', because you reorder the players after the Draft is over to give them an ordinal number. But it does matter that clubs can manipulate which player gets auctioned next. This was my proposal, but someone will come up with a better one:

• The club with the most remaining Points gets to nominate the next player. What if they don’t match the top bid, do they keep getting to nominate players?
  • Use it or lose it. I think you’d allow a club two consecutive nominations, and if they don’t exercise their right they get taken out of the rotation for a while. Similarly if they tried to game the system by nominating someone who is nowhere near the top
  • This is the biggest uncertainty for me. You could auction the right to the abstract Next Pick instead of a specific Player, but then you revert to the frustration of the current broadcast. The AFL could use prior information to pre-set the first 20 players to be bid on. There are other ways to do it

Yeah this one is tricky - there isn't necessarily an incentive for the club with the most remaining points to nominate their preferred player, so I agree they shouldn't get to keep choosing if they keep getting outbid.

An alternative could be to have the players nominated in reverse-order-of-finish (which no trading of nomination rights), irrespective of points balance. This way no club gets to nominate twice in a row.