Fantasy Scout yearly ranking reform - Feedback
milivella
the "yearly ranking" reform, and I've had some feedback about it (I
thank the senders!). BTW, Michael rejected the reform (in Fantasy
Scout one rejection is enough to trash a proposal).
Here I'll post my proposal and the feedback that I've received, in
order to hopefully open a debate.
My proposal was:
1. There is a separate ranking for each year of pick. [So there will
be a ranking for players picked in 2010, a different one for players
picked in 2011, and so on.]
2. Then there is a meta-ranking based on the rankings of each year.
This meta-ranking is based on: most 1st places; as a tie-breaker,
most 2nd places; as a tie-breaker, most 3rd places; and so on. [Like
at the Olympics.]
3. For 2007-09: there is only one ranking, that is based on the old
rules (scout score = average score of his players) and counts double.
[So who will win it will have two 1st places in his tally.]
4. But since 2010, a scout can:
- pick a player (up to 12 players in each year)
- select one of the players that he has picked in that same year as
his "key player" (if no selection is done, the first player picked in
a given year is the key player in that year). The key player is the
only one who scores points. [So score of a scout in a given year =
score of his key player. Scout ranking = key player ranking.]
I added the reasons behind the proposal, but basically I've written
about them in the previous thread
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.soccer/browse_thread/thread/319b5d6fa7e062fb
so I can skip them here.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
I vote against this proposal, because
1) it is not clear to me at what point you designate your key player
-- could it be as late as December 31 once you know all the scores
or
do you have to pick which one is key at the time he is picked (in
which case why pick 12 at all ?)
2) One loses the interest in players picked in previous years, so
what's the point. My interest in this game has mostly been to go
for
very young uncapped players that I think will develop into stars -
not
for the Guizas, Arbeloas and Llorentes. However, this new scoring
system provides a disincentive to own players early - much better to
wait to pick them when they are more likely to score - and then it
becomes a game of chicken about how long we are willing to wait to
pick eg. Remy.
Even though I am not likely to win at this game, the pleasure is in
watching whether my predictions come true. I was gratified to see
Mata and Remy getting their first (of many, I hope) caps, and to see
my boys so well represented in the German U21 winning team
(Beck, Khedira, Ozil) and Tasci getting regular caps. Javi
Martinez
and Diego Capel were also playing for Spain in U21.
I think this "one key player" rule needs, at the very least,
rethinking or reformulation. Or maybe I have misunderstood.
---
How often can we change "key" player,
for example, in the course of a year[?]
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
I guess that I've not been clear enough, and so you've thought that I
was proposing "yearly ranking" as "points earned in a given year by
players picked in that year"; indeed, it's "points earned *in their
total career* by players picked in a given year". I hope that this
clarification will make you change your opinion about the proposal. :)
However, here is my reply to your single points:
> 1) it is not clear to me at what point you designate your key player
> -- could it be as late as December 31 once you know all the scores
> or
> do you have to pick which one is key at the time he is picked (in
> which case why pick 12 at all ?)
It could be as late as December 31, but at that time you don't know
all the scores! You know the scores of that first year, but the
players keep scoring points for all their career.
Example: in 2010 I pick Okaka (in March) and Poli (in September), and
in December Okaka has 1 cap while Poli is still uncapped. But in time
for Christmas I select Poli as my key player anyway. If Poli will
score 100 points before retiring in 2015, I'll gain 100 points (what
Okaka will do doesn't bother any more).
> 2) One loses the interest in players picked in previous years, so
> what's the point.
No, because they keep scoring point. In fact, we'll have a lot of
rankings running at the same time: one for the players picked in 2010,
one for the players picked in 2011, etc. They keep to be updated until
at least one of the (key) players is active.
Example, continued: in 2011, I'll have to pick some players and select
one of them as key player, but I'll also have to hope that Poli will
be capped and score (and the same is of course true for all the
players picked in 2007-09).
> My interest in this game has mostly been to go
> for
> very young uncapped players that I think will develop into stars -
> not
> for the Guizas, Arbeloas and Llorentes.
Exactly. As I've explained in my mail, the reform is designed to
incentive risky and early picks (of possible future stars) over sure
picks (of average players). Because your goal is reaching the 1st
place for that year, so picking the best player eligible in that year.
> However, this new scoring
> system provides a disincentive to own players early - much better to
> wait to pick them when they are more likely to score - and then it
> becomes a game of chicken about how long we are willing to wait to
> pick eg. Remy.
See previous point.
> Even though I am not likely to win at this game, the pleasure is in
> watching whether my predictions come true. I was gratified to see
> Mata and Remy getting their first (of many, I hope) caps, and to see
> my boys so well represented in the German U21 winning team
> (Beck, Khedira, Ozil) and Tasci getting regular caps. Javi
> Martinez
> and Diego Capel were also playing for Spain in U21.
I totally agree with you, and I've written something similar in the
FAQs
http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/faqs.htm
"Of course the spirit of the game is what you want it to be, but [...]
it's likely what will eventually give you pleasure is seeing the
players you have picked slowly growing and having a better career than
the players picked by the other scouts (and kidding your opponents for
this!)."
I'm happy that we share the same feelings about the game. :)
(In general, I'm not proposing anything that changes the nature of the
game, but only - I hope - something that adapts the game to the way we
are intuitively playing it.)
> I think this "one key player" rule needs, at the very least,
> rethinking or reformulation. Or maybe I have misunderstood.
I guess that you've misunderstood it. Of course this doesn't
automatically mean that the rule doesn't need a rethinking! Please
male me know what you think.
> How often can we change "key" player,
> for example, in the course of a year[?]
As many times as you want.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
I dont understand the rule of only one player scoring
points. What about the others? Who scores points?
The key player? Then why would I pick more than
one player each year?
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> I dont understand the rule of only one player scoring
> points. What about the others?
They don't score points.
> Who scores points?
> The key player?
Yes.
> Then why would I pick more than
> one player each year?
1. To have a larger poll from which select the key player (you have
time until December 31 to do it).
2. To take good players away from other players. E.g. Kaka, Messi and
Ronaldo are all eligible: if you pick only one of them, you are
leaving the other two to your opponent! It's better to pick all of
them, and then calmly select your preferred one as key player.
Please tell me whether I've persuaded you. :)
--
Cheers
milivella
Enzo
I see. No, I dont like the idea. What we have now is fine.
However, if you propose this as another game within the game,
it is ok with me.
milivella
> I see. No, I dont like the idea. What we have now is fine.
OK.
> However, if you propose this as another game within the game,
> it is ok with me.
I don't think that it's possible, because the present rules and the
ones that I proposed imply different picking strategies.
--
Cheers
milivella
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
> Enzo:
>
>> I see. No, I dont like the idea. What we have now is fine.
>
> OK.
I agree with Enzo. There is too much tinkering and these proposals will
make the game overly complicated. It should be one cap = one point, one
goal = one point. I believe I suggested a yearly ranking last time we
discussed proposals. Same system, one goal, one cap = 1 point. Most
points in a calendar year wins and I still think you need a squad limit.
The more people join up the more players you have to track.
--
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
milivella
> I agree with Enzo. There is too much tinkering and these proposals will
> make the game overly complicated.
I respect your opinion, but let me explain why the reform that I have
(in a admittedly confusing way) proposed doesn't make the game more
complicated than it is now; indeed, it makes it *simpler*. To be
clear, I'll use a simple example involving two scouts, A and B.
Actual rules
Picks:
- 1980: A picks Matthaeus, Altobelli, Butcher, Van Breuklen, Tigana,
Conti, Stopyra, Luisinho. B picks Robson and Carlos.
- 1981: A picks Littbarski, Gullit, Munoz, Kieft, Vierchowod, Bagni,
Maceda, Bellone. B picks Rijkaard and Dossena.
Score:
- A's score is the average score of the 16 players he has picked:
(173+86+77+73+53+52+44+36+91+83+63+54+47+45+44+36)/16=66.06
- B's score is the average score of the 4 players that he has picked:
(116+37+83+39)/2=68.75
- B's score is higher, so B wins.
My proposal
Picks:
- 1980: A picks Tigana, B picks Robson.
- 1981: A picks Gullit, B picks Rijkard.
Score:
- 1980: B/Robson (116) wins over A/Tigana (53).
- 1981: A/Gullit (83) and B/Rijkard (83) draw.
- Total: B 2 first places, A 1 first place. B wins.
What version seems to you more complicated? the one with one scout
picking 16 players and the other one 4, and the given by a long
formula? or the one with 2 players picked per scout, and the score
given by the comparison of two numbers?
> It should be one cap = one point, one
> goal = one point.
So it is in my proposal. I haven't proposed to change the scoring
system at all. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
> I believe I suggested a yearly ranking last time we
> discussed proposals. Same system, one goal, one cap = 1 point. Most
> points in a calendar year wins
Of course you can propose it. It looks interesting to me, but consider
- as I've already told you - that in a given year, different NTs play
a different number of matches: e.g. this year, having Spanish and
Brazilian players would have helped. And anyway there is the problem
to switch from the actual system to yours, because scouts who has
picked few players so far would be harmed by the reform (and will vote
against it).
> and I still think you need a squad limit.
There is such a limit: you can't pick no more than 16 player per year.
You could propose a different limit, though.
> The more people join up the more players you have to track.
This is the reason why I proposed to have just one scoring player per
year. In the example above, it means tracking 4 players instead of 20
(and it's just 2 scouts playing for 2 years: the difference is higher
when you add more scouts and more years).
--
Cheers
milivella
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
> - A's score is the average score of the 16 players he has picked:
> (173+86+77+73+53+52+44+36+91+83+63+54+47+45+44+36)/16=66.06
> - B's score is the average score of the 4 players that he has picked:
> (116+37+83+39)/2=68.75
> - B's score is higher, so B wins.
I'll give you a better example.
From a squad of 30 players, player A earns a total of 40 caps in one
year. His score is 40/30 = 1.33
From a squad of 10 players, player B earns a total of 30 caps in one
year. His score is 30/10 = 3.00
The way the scoring works the players with LESS caps but a higher
average wins and that's because that scout has picked less players, took
less risks. In the scouts ranking Alessandro is top with a score of 5.6
from 28 caps. Andrea is 3rd in the rankings with a score of 2.88 from
SEVENTY TWO caps. 72 caps > 28 caps. That's how it should work and
that's why the system is screwed. Scouts should NEVER, EVER be penalised
for picking players that don't win caps because that is the basic
objective of the game, to try and predict future internationals. You
either need to set a minimum squad size or better still drop the average
scores all together.
milivella
> The way the scoring works the players with LESS caps but a higher
> average wins and that's because that scout has picked less players, took
> less risks. In the scouts ranking Alessandro is top with a score of 5.6
> from 28 caps. Andrea is 3rd in the rankings with a score of 2.88 from
> SEVENTY TWO caps. 72 caps > 28 caps. That's how it should work and
> that's why the system is screwed. Scouts should NEVER, EVER be penalised
> for picking players that don't win caps because that is the basic
> objective of the game, to try and predict future internationals. You
> either need to set a minimum squad size or better still drop the average
> scores all together.
So why are you against my reform, that *drops the average scores all
together*?
In fact, under the rules that I proposed each scout would have just
one player per ranking. So if in 1957 you picked Pele (169 points) and
I picked Bellini (51 points), you would have won (the 1957 ranking),
because 169 > 51. Isn't this what you desire? (It's not a rhetorical
question.)
(However, I don't totally agree with your assertions about the nature
of the game and about the scoring system based on the average. But
it's not the object of debate here - unless you want to propose a
different system -, so I'm skipping that part.)
--
Cheers
milivella
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
> So why are you against my reform, that *drops the average scores all
> together*?
Because I didn't see it, because there's too much tinkering. The scoring
should have been made clear and sorted out long ago. There wouldn't be a
need for reform if the system was fair which it clearly isn't.
milivella
> > Subject : Fantasy Scout yearly ranking reform - Feedback
> > From : milive...@gmail.com
>
> > So why are you against my reform, that *drops the average scores all
> > together*?
>
> Because I didn't see it, because there's too much tinkering.
Fair. Anyway, I think that I have could exposed it in a better way.
> The scoring
> should have been made clear and sorted out long ago.
Of course all the limits of the actual system are faults by me and me
alone (I have no excuses: just it has not been easy for me to foresee
all the consequences of the rules I was designing). More:
1. If the game is playable now, it's because you all have proposed
substantial fix.
2. My last proposal have many debts to ideas by you all. It has been
inspired particularly by your (= Benny's) idea of a seasonal ranking
without averages.
> There wouldn't be a
> need for reform if the system was fair which it clearly isn't.
As I've already said, I don't share your feeling of unfairness of the
current system, but I would support a switch to a different system by
you or anyone else. The only requirement is that what has happened so
far should not change: i.e. Alessandro should be ahead after the
reform (because he is ahead now).
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
As I've written, I respect your opinion and decision. So I don't want
to persuade you.
But I want to add one more reason that explains why I designed the
proposed rule "pick 12 players, then select one of them". Here it is.
There are, IMHO, two contrasting forces in Fantasy Scout:
a. On the one hand, the game is about picking players, and (inside
reasonable limits) picking more players = more game, more fun.
b. On the other hand, more picked players means a less clear
situation. E.g. it's easy to track all your players if you have picked
10 players, but not if you have picked 100 players.
My proposal was a (admittedly naive) way to satisfy both these
conditions: each year you pick 12 players (condition a satisfied) but
you carry on just 1 of them (condition b satisfied).
---
Now that it seems impossible to find an agreement about the "key
player" rule (i.e. condition b), we could try to discuss about point
a: is "no less than two players a year" OK for you all? would you like
to raise this limit? Let's remember that basically the best strategy
(if you have clear ideas about who is good!) is to pick the minimum
number of players (because any player that you add lower your
average).
I know that last year it was Alberto that wanted a low limit. I'll ask
him to check if he has changed his mind, but in the mean time I'd like
to know your opinion.
--
Cheers
milivella
Enzo
>
> - Show quoted text -
I dont think there should be any limit changes. In fact,
I would even support the right to pick no players in a given
year.
Lets understand that a scout makes money off his players.
For each player he picks, he may or may not make money
but each player adds to his cost. The total amount of
money he makes is the sum of all his players points
divided by the (fixed) cost of each player. It seems
fine to me. It seems fine that if I am sitting pretty,
and want to enjoy myself at the beach without poring
thru stats and sheets, I should not be forced to pick
players. If I have picked fewer players, I should not
be put at a disadvantage to those who have an itchy
trigger finger ( maybe they dont have too much faith
in any of their players? ).
Thus, the point of the above ramble is - I think the
current system is fair and logical is this is to be
a emulation of real life. The rule changes being proposed
make it a different game ( maybe "Jackpot" or something ).
I may propose to eliminate the need to select any player
at all per year.
I do agree to the need to have some sort of yearly
ranking, but that can be simply satisfied by counting
the points scored in the year by all the players
divided by the number of players.
I am thinking of just 2 things -
1. remove all limits on players to be picked per year
2. do not allow players with international caps
3. transfer the max limit of 2 caps to 2 under-20 caps
Thanks.
Enzo
>
> - Show quoted text -
One more thought which occurs to me -
Why should there be a fixed cost per player? Make the game
simpler by allowing a scout to pick any player in the
world. But the cost of the player will be the number
of caps + goals he already has. Thus I can pick Messi
if I want.
Benny
> As I've already said, I don't share your feeling of unfairness of the
> current system, but I would support a switch to a different system by
> you or anyone else. The only requirement is that what has happened so
> far should not change: i.e. Alessandro should be ahead after the
> reform (because he is ahead now).
Sorry but that's ridiculous. Andrea should be ahead because he has the
most caps which is after all the basic premise of this game. Until the
system changes to reward the scouts with the most capped players we'll
continually see proposals for reform.
Enzo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thinking a bit further about this, and about Benny's
contention that more caps is the true measure of a scout,
I think I must revise what I have said. The fallacy
in the current system is the cost per player.
1. The cost is fixed ( clearly not true in real life )
2. The cost is permanent ( again not true ).
To fix 1, the cost should have an objective measure.
This fits in nicely with my idea that it should in some
way be proportional to the number of caps + goals
the pick has, plus some constant (1). I can make this
more complex ( bringing in caps at all levels into the
picture ) but thats just detail. A scout can pick ANY
player, and he will incur a cost based on that players
stats at the time of the pick.
To fix 2, the cost should only be incurred once. This
will help a scout who has 16 caps from 2 players perform
better than one who has 8 caps from 1 player. Of course,
it will depend on how much scout 1 splashed out for the
2 players, because that will be deducted from his balance
( just once, of course ).
What will prevent people from going berserk and picking
hundreds of players then ? By the simple rule that
a scout should be able to pay for the players from his
own pocket. Thus, if I have a total of 7 points now,
because I had paid 1 point for one player who has
earned me 8 points, I can buy players with those 7 points.
Thus i can select up to 7 players if none of them have
any caps, or 1 player if he has 7 caps+goals. I certainly
am too poor to pick Messi.
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
> Thinking a bit further about this, and about Benny's
> contention that more caps is the true measure of a scout,
> I think I must revise what I have said. The fallacy
> in the current system is the cost per player.
>
> 1. The cost is fixed ( clearly not true in real life )
> 2. The cost is permanent ( again not true ).
Why do you keep talking about cost? There is no monetary value, no
currency in this game because we are dealing with caps and goals at
INTERNATIONAL level.
milivella
> I dont think there should be any limit changes. In fact,
> I would even support the right to pick no players in a given
> year.
>
> Lets understand that a scout makes money off his players.
> For each player he picks, he may or may not make money
> but each player adds to his cost. The total amount of
> money he makes is the sum of all his players points
> divided by the (fixed) cost of each player. It seems
> fine to me. It seems fine that if I am sitting pretty,
> and want to enjoy myself at the beach without poring
> thru stats and sheets, I should not be forced to pick
> players. If I have picked fewer players, I should not
> be put at a disadvantage to those who have an itchy
> trigger finger ( maybe they dont have too much faith
> in any of their players? ).
I find your opinion very interesting, because actually the rules,
until December 2008, didn't include any duty to pick at least x
players a year. The reason why we introduced this rule (you joined the
game in the middle of the debate) was that, without any duty, if you
pick a very good player (let's say Pele) the best thing you can do
is... to not play any more! (because any more pick would mean a very
probable lowering of your score) So we agreed on a minimal duty
(picking at least 2 players each year). Do you think that it was a bad
move?
(There were other reasons behind that reform, but the one I mentioned
is IMHO enough to beat your arguments. But, really, I want to know
your opinion about it.)
> Thus, the point of the above ramble is - I think the
> current system is fair and logical is this is to be
> a emulation of real life. The rule changes being proposed
> make it a different game ( maybe "Jackpot" or something ).
My official proposal was to select 1 player per year, that is 50% less
than 2... Of course there was also the chance to pick 12 players
before selecting your "key" player, but this point can be discussed.
> I do agree to the need to have some sort of yearly
> ranking, but that can be simply satisfied by counting
> the points scored in the year by all the players
> divided by the number of players.
The yearly rankings that I've proposed were "rankings of players
picked in a given year", not "rankings of all the players you have,
based on the points they score in a given year". I.e. in my proposal
the 2010 ranking would be closed after 15 years or so, when all the
players will retire.
Anyway, I don't know whether a yearly ranking in the sense you suggest
is _needed_, because it basically could be derived comparing the
actual ranking with the one from one year ago. It could be
interesting, though. I'll compute something similar when I'll have
time.
> I am thinking of just 2 things -
>
> 1. remove all limits on players to be picked per year
I could change my mind depending on your answer to my question above
("Do you think that it was a bad move?"), but in this moment I would
vote against this proposal, because it makes not playing the best
strategy in some cases.
> 2. do not allow players with international caps
> 3. transfer the max limit of 2 caps to 2 under-20 caps
OK for me. I just suggest to check real examples before proposing the
new rule: e.g. how many U-20 caps had Del Piero? etc. Of course, I'd
like to help you in running this analysis.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> Why should there be a fixed cost per player? Make the game
> simpler by allowing a scout to pick any player in the
> world. But the cost of the player will be the number
> of caps + goals he already has. Thus I can pick Messi
> if I want.
More and more interesting, because the first version of the rules had
no cap limit: you could pick any player. The only limit was that he
should have not been capped before the beginning of the game, to avoid
the quickest scout to pick Kaka, Ronaldinho, etc.
We added the limit of 2 caps (in January 2008) because "free market"
hadn't worked, and players like Benzema had not been picked until they
had 10 or so caps and it was very easy to foresee an international
bright future for them.
I.e. if we can pick Messi:
- everyone would call him in the same minute it's possible to do it:
how do you assign him to a scout?
- would anybody call untested players anymore? OK, if I pick Messi he
must score 50 more points to be a productive pick, but I'm more sure
of him scoring 80 more points than e.g. Negredo scoring 30.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> > Subject : Fantasy Scout yearly ranking reform - Feedback
> > From : milive...@gmail.com
>
> > As I've already said, I don't share your feeling of unfairness of the
> > current system, but I would support a switch to a different system by
> > you or anyone else. The only requirement is that what has happened so
> > far should not change: i.e. Alessandro should be ahead after the
> > reform (because he is ahead now).
>
> Sorry but that's ridiculous.
No. Assuming that winning by a better average is ridiculous (and IMO
it's not!), you can propose that *after the reform* a scout playing
like Andrea (a lot of picks and points) will be ahead of a scout
playing like Alessandro (less picks, less points). But it would be
*totally unfair* that a scout that is ahead having followed the rules
instantly loses his 1st place because of a reform.
In other words: maybe we all could agree on switching to a new system,
but it's *impossible* that a reform is accepted by scouts that would
be retrospectively harmed by that reform.
> Andrea should be ahead because he has the
> most caps which is after all the basic premise of this game.
No. I don't know whether there is a "basic premise" of the game, but,
if there is one, is "you have to be the first to believe in a player,
and you have to spot good players and not bad ones." I'm quoting the
FAQs
http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/faqs.htm
that of course were written by me, but reflecting the core rules, i.e.
the ones that never changed since the beginning of the game. I.e. the
basic premise has always been: if you pick a good player, it must be a
plus for you; but if you pick a bad player, it must be a minus. Using
average satisfies these conditions, and even when switching to sum has
been proposed by Daniele, he contemplated a penalties for 0-cap
players.
But I know that what "most caps = win" is the way *you* have seen the
game since the beginning, and I think that such a game could be good.
It just isn't the game we have played so far, so the only thing that
we can do is change rules for the future, but *not for the past*.
> Until the
> system changes to reward the scouts with the most capped players we'll
> continually see proposals for reform.
Again, I don't exactly agree, but my proposal rewarded the scout with
the most capped player, so you should in theory (1) agree with my
proposal and (2) try to persuade who (MH and Enzo) have argued against
it...
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> Thinking a bit further about this, and about Benny's
> contention that more caps is the true measure of a scout,
> I think I must revise what I have said.
Your ideas are really interesting, and thinking at the game as cost-
based is an innovative way to frame things. "Innovative" but not
totally new, though, because Daniele, on similar premises, has
proposed a reform that is in some points similar to yours. Daniele's
proposal was basically:
When you pick a player, you "pay" 10 points. Score of a scout = sum of
the scores of all his players.
If you are interested in my opinion about your ideas... I need some
time to think about them. My only first impression is that the system
maybe doesn't scale well: would it work equally well if 2 or 200
scouts play?
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> To fix 1, the cost should have an objective measure.
> This fits in nicely with my idea that it should in some
> way be proportional to the number of caps + goals
> the pick has, plus some constant (1). I can make this
> more complex ( bringing in caps at all levels into the
> picture ) but thats just detail. A scout can pick ANY
> player, and he will incur a cost based on that players
> stats at the time of the pick.
>
> To fix 2, the cost should only be incurred once. This
> will help a scout who has 16 caps from 2 players perform
> better than one who has 8 caps from 1 player. Of course,
> it will depend on how much scout 1 splashed out for the
> 2 players, because that will be deducted from his balance
> ( just once, of course ).
>
> What will prevent people from going berserk and picking
> hundreds of players then ? By the simple rule that
> a scout should be able to pay for the players from his
> own pocket. Thus, if I have a total of 7 points now,
> because I had paid 1 point for one player who has
> earned me 8 points, I can buy players with those 7 points.
> Thus i can select up to 7 players if none of them have
> any caps, or 1 player if he has 7 caps+goals. I certainly
> am too poor to pick Messi.
Let me play the devil's advocate. First argument against your proposal
(that - let me repeat it - I really find interesting): picking
mediocre players could be a winning strategy. E.g. A and B both start
with 1 point. A uses that single point to pick Neymar, B uses it to
buy Pepe. Let's suppose that Neymar is a 60-pointer, while Pepe is a
20-pointer at best. But Pepe scores his first points soon after being
picked, while Neymar won't score for years. In the mean time, B uses
the first 3 points gained by Pepe to buy 3 other Pepe-like players,
and the first 3 points gained by these players to buy 9 more Pepe-like
players, and so on... Before Neymar has his first cap, B has already
enough points to buy any player in the world. Not desirable, I guess
(above all by you, who are complaining about the fact that picking the
likes of Llorente could be a winning strategy!).
To you. ;)
--
Cheers
milivella
Benny
> No. Assuming that winning by a better average is ridiculous (and IMO
> it's not!), you can propose that *after the reform* a scout playing
> like Andrea (a lot of picks and points) will be ahead of a scout
> playing like Alessandro (less picks, less points). But it would be
> *totally unfair* that a scout that is ahead having followed the rules
> instantly loses his 1st place because of a reform.
> In other words: maybe we all could agree on switching to a new system,
> but it's *impossible* that a reform is accepted by scouts that would
> be retrospectively harmed by that reform.
Everyone should be willing to compromise for the sake of fairness.
> http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/faqs.htm
> that of course were written by me, but reflecting the core rules, i.e.
> the ones that never changed since the beginning of the game. I.e. the
> basic premise has always been: if you pick a good player, it must be a
> plus for you; but if you pick a bad player, it must be a minus. Using
> average satisfies these conditions, and even when switching to sum has
> been proposed by Daniele, he contemplated a penalties for 0-cap
> players.
There is no mention of picking a 'bad' player being a minus. The scoring
system doesn�t make any distinction between good and bad players, just
caps. I could have a future Ballon D'or winner in my squad, it won't
mean a damn thing if my average score is lower than that of a scout who
has picked 10 players who have less talent.
> Again, I don't exactly agree, but my proposal rewarded the scout with
> the most capped player, so you should in theory (1) agree with my
> proposal and (2) try to persuade who (MH and Enzo) have argued against
> it...
Your reform would reward the scout with the most capped player not the
most capped PLAYERS. The example I gave illustrate the monumental flaws
in the scoring system. I'll take it further :
From a squad of 60 players, player A earns a total of 100 caps in one
year. His score is 100/60 = 1.67
From a squad of 10 players, player B earns a total of 30 caps in one
year. His score is 30/10 = 3.00
I don't see who anyone could possibly argue that is a fair system. The 2
players per year rule doesn't change that, it's a complete cop out and a
weak compromise.
Enzo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well there could be a limit on the number of players a scout can pick
irrespective of how wealthy he is. Same as exists today. I do believe
todays limit is a little high, I think it should be lower. More
quality, less quantity never hurts.
Having said that, your example does not deduct from the game.
Scouts should understand that picking a player who is not likely
to get a cap soon and then sitting on his arse wont bring
food to the table. Everyone has to work for a living, which
is a continuous process, and if you wanna wait for that single
big payday, maybe you deserve what happens to you in the meantime.
Enzo
> Enzo:
>
> > Why should there be a fixed cost per player? Make the game
> > simpler by allowing a scout to pick any player in the
> > world. But the cost of the player will be the number
> > of caps + goals he already has. Thus I can pick Messi
> > if I want.
>
> More and more interesting, because the first version of the rules had
> no cap limit: you could pick any player. The only limit was that he
> should have not been capped before the beginning of the game, to avoid
> the quickest scout to pick Kaka, Ronaldinho, etc.
>
> We added the limit of 2 caps (in January 2008) because "free market"
> hadn't worked, and players like Benzema had not been picked until they
> had 10 or so caps and it was very easy to foresee an international
> bright future for them.
>
> I.e. if we can pick Messi:
> - everyone would call him in the same minute it's possible to do it:
> how do you assign him to a scout?
The Messi example is a bit gratuitous. Maybe there can be
an upper limit on the caps. Actually, I agree on second thoughts
that the limit is possibly a good thing. This game is after
all FantasySCOUT, not FantasyAGENT.
> - would anybody call untested players anymore? OK, if I pick Messi he
> must score 50 more points to be a productive pick, but I'm more sure
> of him scoring 80 more points than e.g. Negredo scoring 30.
Are you? I am not so sure.
Enzo
Yes, I think I agree. It was a good move.
>
> > 2. do not allow players with international caps
> > 3. transfer the max limit of 2 caps to 2 under-20 caps
>
> OK for me. I just suggest to check real examples before proposing the
> new rule: e.g. how many U-20 caps had Del Piero? etc. Of course, I'd
> like to help you in running this analysis.
>
Why does that matter? Del Piero?
milivella
> > Subject : Fantasy Scout yearly ranking reform - Feedback
> > From : milive...@gmail.com
>
> > In other words: maybe we all could agree on switching to a new system,
> > but it's *impossible* that a reform is accepted by scouts that would
> > be retrospectively harmed by that reform.
>
> Everyone should be willing to compromise for the sake of fairness.
Why? Someone has played according to the rules and now he should be
harmed because he did so? No way (IMHO).
Anyway, now it's maybe the moment for me to show you that the average
scoring system *is* fair. Let me quote the example you designed to
argue against this system:
" From a squad of 30 players, player A earns a total of 40 caps in one
year. His score is 40/30 = 1.33
From a squad of 10 players, player B earns a total of 30 caps in one
year. His score is 30/10 = 3.00"
And you evidently think that A is a better scout. But, according to
the same logic, Serie A data shows that Maldini is a better *striker*
than Pato:
- In 648 matches, Maldini scored a total of 29 goals.
- In 54 matches, Pato scored a total of 24 goals.
- Maldini scored more goals, so he is a better striker.
Do you agree to the conclusion? I don't think so. But it's the same
reason why, when scouts - for any reason - have picked a different
number of players, we use average.
> There is no mention of picking a 'bad' player being a minus. The scoring
> system doesn’t make any distinction between good and bad players, just
> caps. I could have a future Ballon D'or winner in my squad, it won't
> mean a damn thing if my average score is lower than that of a scout who
> has picked 10 players who have less talent.
If the scoring system is an average, every player under the average of
your players is bad, because he lowers that average (= your score).
And conversely having a Ballon d'or *does* mean, because he increases
the average score pf your players (= your score).
Benny, I don't think that the point here is whether the current system
is flawed, because it isn't, and anyway we have used it so far and we
can't change this. But this doesn't mean that better systems don't
exist! So, basically, my suggestion to you (but to me and to anyone
interested in changing FS) is:
- Don't try to change *what has been*: it's impossible, because the
ones you harm will vote against your proposal.
- Try to change *what will be*: you have already had a lot of good
ideas that could improve the game (rankings limited in time, dropping
players, etc.).
- Focus on the problem of the switch from the old system to the new
one: how can be this transition be made without changing what has
already happened?
> Your reform would reward the scout with the most capped player not the
> most capped PLAYERS. The example I gave illustrate the monumental flaws
> in the scoring system. I'll take it further :
>
> From a squad of 60 players, player A earns a total of 100 caps in one
> year. His score is 100/60 = 1.67
> From a squad of 10 players, player B earns a total of 30 caps in one
> year. His score is 30/10 = 3.00
This is not the scoring system that I've proposed! This is what I've
proposed:
Picks:
- 1980: A picks Tigana, B picks Robson.
- 1981: A picks Gullit, B picks Rijkard.
Score:
- 1980: B/Robson (116) wins over A/Tigana (53).
- 1981: A/Gullit (83) and B/Rijkard (83) draw.
- Total: B 2 first places, A 1 first place. B wins.
There is no average. (And the points are not the ones scored in a
given year, but in the whole career!)
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> On Jul 5, 10:01 pm, milivella <milive...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Let me play the devil's advocate. First argument against your proposal
> > (that - let me repeat it - I really find interesting): picking
> > mediocre players could be a winning strategy. E.g. A and B both start
> > with 1 point. A uses that single point to pick Neymar, B uses it to
> > buy Pepe. Let's suppose that Neymar is a 60-pointer, while Pepe is a
> > 20-pointer at best. But Pepe scores his first points soon after being
> > picked, while Neymar won't score for years. In the mean time, B uses
> > the first 3 points gained by Pepe to buy 3 other Pepe-like players,
> > and the first 3 points gained by these players to buy 9 more Pepe-like
> > players, and so on... Before Neymar has his first cap, B has already
> > enough points to buy any player in the world. Not desirable, I guess
> > (above all by you, who are complaining about the fact that picking the
> > likes of Llorente could be a winning strategy!).
>
> > To you. ;)
>
> > --
> > Cheers
> > milivella
>
> Well there could be a limit on the number of players a scout can pick
> irrespective of how wealthy he is. Same as exists today. I do believe
> todays limit is a little high, I think it should be lower. More
> quality, less quantity never hurts.
OK, but this way you are just lowering the impact of a "Pepe
strategy", not avoiding it. In fact you argue that:
> Having said that, your example does not deduct from the game.
> Scouts should understand that picking a player who is not likely
> to get a cap soon and then sitting on his arse wont bring
> food to the table. Everyone has to work for a living, which
> is a continuous process, and if you wanna wait for that single
> big payday, maybe you deserve what happens to you in the meantime.
Fair. I'm just highlighting that this is a completely different game
than what Fantasy Scout has been so far (this is not a problem, of
course), and that such a game has some features that *you* have said
that you don't like:
- It's a game where it's better to pick a Llorente than to take a
risky pick.
- It's a game where tinkering rewards more than spotting real talents.
But you yesterday wrote: "It seems fine that if I am sitting pretty,
and want to enjoy myself at the beach without poring thru stats and
sheets, I should not be forced to pick players. If I have picked fewer
players, I should not be put at a disadvantage to those who have an
itchy trigger finger"!
Remember: I'm just playing the devil's advocate. So if I annoy you,
just tell me and I will shut up! :)
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> On Jul 5, 8:26 pm, milivella <milive...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I.e. if we can pick Messi:
> > - everyone would call him in the same minute it's possible to do it:
> > how do you assign him to a scout?
>
> The Messi example is a bit gratuitous. Maybe there can be
> an upper limit on the caps. Actually, I agree on second thoughts
> that the limit is possibly a good thing. This game is after
> all FantasySCOUT, not FantasyAGENT.
OK. Now we have to consider what is the right limit.
> > - would anybody call untested players anymore? OK, if I pick Messi he
> > must score 50 more points to be a productive pick, but I'm more sure
> > of him scoring 80 more points than e.g. Negredo scoring 30.
>
> Are you? I am not so sure.
It's just an example, so we can find more appropriate players.
Anyway, this could be a long-time betting: I bet on Messi reaching 130
caps+goals, you on Negredo reaching 30... Let's check in 2020 or
so. :)
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
OK, thanks for replying.
> > > 2. do not allow players with international caps
> > > 3. transfer the max limit of 2 caps to 2 under-20 caps
>
> > OK for me. I just suggest to check real examples before proposing the
> > new rule: e.g. how many U-20 caps had Del Piero? etc. Of course, I'd
> > like to help you in running this analysis.
>
> Why does that matter? Del Piero?
It does matter (IMHO) because, if we see that a lot of great players
(i.e. players that, at the end of their career, we can safely define
great) had 0 U-20 caps, maybe we should reconsider the number of U-20
caps as a criterion, and e.g. switch to another criterion, such as a
given number of professional matches. Of course this would more
meaningful if those players were recognized as future stars when they
were young.
(Del Piero was just the first name that I have in my mind...)
--
Cheers
milivella
Futbolmetrix
"milivella" <mili...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ba6ad75f-3b34-4c16...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi. I've officially proposed (in a typical milivella confusing way)
> the "yearly ranking" reform, and I've had some feedback about it (I
> thank the senders!). BTW, Michael rejected the reform (in Fantasy
> Scout one rejection is enough to trash a proposal).
Jumping into this thread in the middle...
Some remarks on the things that have been said.
1) I can see the advantages of milivella's proposal, but I don't like very
much the fact that after you've selected a key player, all the other players
become irrelevant. (This is the way I understand the rule, but milivella
says two opposite things at two points in this thread, so maybe he should
clarify)
2) I don't like Enzo's idea of allowing one to pick Messi. As he says, this
is FantasyScout, not Fantasy Agent.
3) I don't mind lowering the age or cap limit on eligible players, so that
the game really becomes about spotting *young* talents, as opposed to
spotting 23-24 year olds who are about to make a breakthrough (even though
that would hurt me).
4) Both Enzo and Benny's suggestions go in the direction of my earlier
proposal of making Score = Points minus fixed penalty/cost/fee per pick.
This system is probably the one that approximates best the rewards of a
real-life scout.
I think that the main fault of the current system is that a bad pick hurts
the score of every other pick. Doesn't make any sense. Of course, it's
difficult to change that given that some scouts have chosen their strategies
based on the old system.
D
Benny
> Why? Someone has played according to the rules and now he should be
> harmed because he did so? No way (IMHO).
If people were happy with the scoring system we wouldn't keep discussing
proposals to change it.
> Anyway, now it's maybe the moment for me to show you that the average
> scoring system *is* fair. Let me quote the example you designed to
> argue against this system:
>
> " From a squad of 30 players, player A earns a total of 40 caps in one
> year. His score is 40/30 = 1.33
> From a squad of 10 players, player B earns a total of 30 caps in one
> year. His score is 30/10 = 3.00"
>
> And you evidently think that A is a better scout. But, according to
> the same logic, Serie A data shows that Maldini is a better *striker*
> than Pato:
> - In 648 matches, Maldini scored a total of 29 goals.
> - In 54 matches, Pato scored a total of 24 goals.
> - Maldini scored more goals, so he is a better striker.
> Do you agree to the conclusion? I don't think so. But it's the same
> reason why, when scouts - for any reason - have picked a different
> number of players, we use average.
That is a terrible example and has no relevance to the scoring in
fantasy scout. They played for the same club a club who have to submit a
MAXIMUM squad of 26 players to compete in Europe, whose points are not
based on an average. Of course the lack of a minimum and maximum squad
size in fantasy scout is another of the games flaws. INTERNATIONAL caps
+ goals = points in fantasy scout thus :
Maldini - 126 caps + 7 goals = 131 points
Pato - 8 caps + 1 goals = 9 points
So obviously the player with the most caps is the one who scores most
points not the one who has the better (goalscoring) average which if
applied :
Maldini 0.06 goals per game
Pato 0.13 goals per game
> If the scoring system is an average, every player under the average of
> your players is bad, because he lowers that average (= your score).
> And conversely having a Ballon d'or *does* mean, because he increases
> the average score pf your players (= your score).
Winning caps and scoring goals impacts the score. Winning the Ballon
D'or has no impact on an average score.
> Benny, I don't think that the point here is whether the current system
> is flawed, because it isn't, and anyway we have used it so far and we
> can't change this. But this doesn't mean that better systems don't
> exist! So, basically, my suggestion to you (but to me and to anyone
> interested in changing FS) is:
> - Don't try to change *what has been*: it's impossible, because the
> ones you harm will vote against your proposal.
You invite scouts to submit ideas for reform but any proposal can be
rejected with just one vote against so the chance of meaningful reform
is slim.
> - Try to change *what will be*: you have already had a lot of good
> ideas that could improve the game (rankings limited in time, dropping
> players, etc.).
> - Focus on the problem of the switch from the old system to the new
> one: how can be this transition be made without changing what has
> already happened?
It can't and it has to change because it doesn't work. Let's take a look
at Jesus' squad. He has picked Hernanes and Taison, two of the most
highly rated young players in the Brazilian game, Hernanes is guaranteed
to be a starter for Brazil in the next few years but until he wins caps
Jesus' foresight works against him and even when Hernanes establishes
himself at international level Jesus could have 5 more future
internationals in his squad but until they too are picked he is
penalised because of the average. It's a vicious circle. Scouts are
being penalising for picking players and as far as I am concerned that
defeats the very object of the game.
> This is not the scoring system that I've proposed! This is what I've
> proposed:
> Picks:
> - 1980: A picks Tigana, B picks Robson.
> - 1981: A picks Gullit, B picks Rijkard.
> Score:
> - 1980: B/Robson (116) wins over A/Tigana (53).
> - 1981: A/Gullit (83) and B/Rijkard (83) draw.
> - Total: B 2 first places, A 1 first place. B wins.
>
> There is no average. (And the points are not the ones scored in a
> given year, but in the whole career!)
You're missing the point. The problem is penalising the non scoring
players. What I propose :
Option 1. Scoring is based on the number of points earned by CAPPED
players only
Option 2. Scoring is based on the average score earned by the 10 highest
point scorers in each squad
Option 3. There is a separate ranking based on caps and goals ONLY
Option 4. Every scout must have a minimum squad size of 11 players i.e.
the same number that have to take the field in a football match
Option 5. There is a maximum squad size of 30 players
Option 6. Every scout has the option to drop a set number of players at
the end of each calendar year in order to maintain the maximum squad
size and avoid stockpiling talent.
Option 7. PROPOSALS FOR REFORM MUST BE VOTED ON DEMOCRATICALLY!!!!!
milivella
> Jumping into this thread in the middle...
Bravo! I for one was awaiting your contribution.
I see that we are in a pretty chaotic phase, in which each of us (I
more than anyone else!) throw around a lot of ideas. It's good,
because only after such a phase we can hope to reach a consensus about
an eventual reform. We only have to listen to each other.
> 1) I can see the advantages of milivella's proposal, but I don't like very
> much the fact that after you've selected a key player, all the other players
> become irrelevant. (This is the way I understand the rule, but milivella
> says two opposite things at two points in this thread, so maybe he should
> clarify)
If you tell me which are the two points, I'll be happy to clarify. But
now I can already apologize for all my obscure wording, and state
that: yes, in my proposal, after you've definitely selected a key
player, all the other players *become irrelevant*.
I know that Michael too doesn't like this aspect. Maybe a solution
could be to drop the key player concept (to make all picked players
relevant forever), to retain the switch from average to sum (so you
can easily compare scout's performances) and to have a number of
picked players per year that is more than 1 (to avoid boredom) and
less than 12 (to avoid the proliferation of the players to track).
What could such a number be? I've already asked basically the same
question yesterday:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.soccer/msg/d89b0d6a3a05dce9
While I wait for feedback, I imagine that the actual minimum limit (2
players per year) could be OK. So my proposal could become something
like:
- Every year, you can pick 2 players.
- There are different mini-rankings for players picked in different
years (so all the players picked in 2010 run in a ranking, all the
ones picked in 2011 in another one, etc.)
- The score of a scout for a given year is given by the sum of the
final career scores of the 2 players that he picked in that year. (Add
penalties based on ages or number of caps at will.) (The average-
system will be kept for the 2007-09 ranking only.)
- The overall ranking is based on: number of 1st places in mini-
rankings; then number of 2nd places; etc.
> 3) I don't mind lowering the age or cap limit on eligible players, so that
> the game really becomes about spotting *young* talents, as opposed to
> spotting 23-24 year olds who are about to make a breakthrough (even though
> that would hurt me).
Why would it hurt you? Because you don't know young players? :/
Anyway, I too am totally OK with lowering the limit. But you can't put
players picked this way in the same ranking of players picked under
different rules, so again to have mini-rankings is a need.
> 4) Both Enzo and Benny's suggestions go in the direction of my earlier
> proposal of making Score = Points minus fixed penalty/cost/fee per pick.
> This system is probably the one that approximates best the rewards of a
> real-life scout.
See my revised proposal above. Let's switch from average to sum. Just:
this can't be retroactive (I see that we agree on this point).
> I think that the main fault of the current system is that a bad pick hurts
> the score of every other pick. Doesn't make any sense.
It amazes me how many ways to look at the game there are, considering
that it's a very simple game (basically there are just 2 simple rules:
one about picking players, one about scoring points). I don't know
whether it's possible to make all these different point of view agree,
but I think that there almost is a consensus about some of them.
> Of course, it's
> difficult to change that given that some scouts have chosen their strategies
> based on the old system.
You just can't change it in regard of players picked so far (or: I
don't know of any way to do it). But you can change for future picks.
--
Cheers
milivella
Futbolmetrix
news:H_o4m.29406$K41....@newsfe08.ams2...
>
> Option 1. Scoring is based on the number of points earned by CAPPED
> players only
> Option 2. Scoring is based on the average score earned by the 10 highest
> point scorers in each squad
> Option 3. There is a separate ranking based on caps and goals ONLY
> Option 4. Every scout must have a minimum squad size of 11 players i.e.
> the same number that have to take the field in a football match
> Option 5. There is a maximum squad size of 30 players
> Option 6. Every scout has the option to drop a set number of players at
> the end of each calendar year in order to maintain the maximum squad size
> and avoid stockpiling talent.
> Option 7. PROPOSALS FOR REFORM MUST BE VOTED ON DEMOCRATICALLY!!!!!
>
There's merit to some of these ideas. One possible reform that would take
care of many problems:
1) By the end of year X (say, 2011), every scout must have exactly Y
players (say, 11) on his roster at all times. If you already have 11 players
and you want to add a player, you must simultaneously drop someone.
2) That's it, all the other rules stay the same.
This takes care of:
a) average versus sum: if everybody has the same number of players, it
becomes irrelevant.
b) difficulty in keeping track of all the players: taken care of, because
the number of players is now limited.
c) possibility of dropping players: Check. (I can't wait to have Thiago
Neves walk the plank...)
d) retroactive strategy problem: By choosing X appropriately, we can ensure
that every scout, even those who initially went for a strategy of "few but
good" can update their roster accordingly.
e) Incentives to keep on playing: it's unlikely that somebody by the end of
2011 will have spotted all the best 11 players available, so even if you've
spotted Pele, that's not enough to guarantee first place.
f) Incentives to pick 100-pointers rather than 30-pointers. In the long run,
the Dani Guizas of the world won't do you much good.
The main problem I see with this proposal is that in the very long run the
difference between the scouts will be determined by who picked Del Piero as
opposed to Inzaghi, rather than who picked Del Piero as opposed to Morfeo.
D
milivella
> > Subject : Fantasy Scout yearly ranking reform - Feedback
> > From : milive...@gmail.com
>
> > Why? Someone has played according to the rules and now he should be
> > harmed because he did so? No way (IMHO).
>
> If people were happy with the scoring system we wouldn't keep discussing
> proposals to change it.
It's possible that someone isn't happy of the current scoring system
but at the same time doesn't want to be harmed by the reform (e.g.
this was Alberto's position last year).
> > Anyway, now it's maybe the moment for me to show you that the average
> > scoring system *is* fair. Let me quote the example you designed to
> > argue against this system:
> >
> > " From a squad of 30 players, player A earns a total of 40 caps in one
> > year. His score is 40/30 = 1.33
> > From a squad of 10 players, player B earns a total of 30 caps in one
> > year. His score is 30/10 = 3.00"
> >
> > And you evidently think that A is a better scout. But, according to
> > the same logic, Serie A data shows that Maldini is a better *striker*
> > than Pato:
> > - In 648 matches, Maldini scored a total of 29 goals.
> > - In 54 matches, Pato scored a total of 24 goals.
> > - Maldini scored more goals, so he is a better striker.
> > Do you agree to the conclusion? I don't think so. But it's the same
> > reason why, when scouts - for any reason - have picked a different
> > number of players, we use average.
>
> That is a terrible example and has no relevance to the scoring in
> fantasy scout.
I'm sorry for not being clear. Let me try again: your argument is
"If A scores more _points_ by the means of more _picked players_, he's
a better _scout_."
Now, change:
points -> goals
picked players -> matches
scout -> striker
and the result is:
"If A scores more _goals_ by the means of more _matches_, he's a
better _striker_."
> > If the scoring system is an average, every player under the average of
> > your players is bad, because he lowers that average (= your score).
> > And conversely having a Ballon d'or *does* mean, because he increases
> > the average score pf your players (= your score).
>
> Winning caps and scoring goals impacts the score. Winning the Ballon
> D'or has no impact on an average score.
Of course. I just assume that a Ballon d'or winner wins some
caps... :)
> You invite scouts to submit ideas for reform but any proposal can be
> rejected with just one vote against so the chance of meaningful reform
> is slim.
You are touching an important point. Of course "one vote against means
rejection" has its downsides. And if you or anyone else will propose a
switch to a different system, I won't vote against. But I see some
problems in a majority system:
- Who doesn't agree with majority could exit the game. And less scouts
is less fun.
- I'm not sure that it's easier to find e.g. 9 votes for (i.e. more
than 50% of the scouts) than it is to find no vote against, because
the most part of the scouts probably doesn't bother to vote. So
switching to majority doesn't automatically mean easier reforms.
> > - Focus on the problem of the switch from the old system to the new
> > one: how can be this transition be made without changing what has
> > already happened?
>
> It can't
I disagree: it can. Consider what has been done so far in a ranking,
and open one or more new rankings under new rules (i.e. what I've
proposed).
> Let's take a look
> at Jesus' squad. He has picked Hernanes and Taison, two of the most
> highly rated young players in the Brazilian game, Hernanes is guaranteed
> to be a starter for Brazil in the next few years but until he wins caps
> Jesus' foresight works against him and even when Hernanes establishes
> himself at international level Jesus could have 5 more future
> internationals in his squad but until they too are picked he is
> penalised because of the average.
No, he isn't, because sooner or later those players will score points.
Of course he's penalized in the *current* ranking, but you can just
weight in players' age. I've done it in the past: see
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.soccer/msg/0a0fadf13c699875
and replies.
This said, I too would prefer - as I've often repeated lately - a
system where it's easier to see who has picked good players.
> > This is not the scoring system that I've proposed! This is what I've
> > proposed:
> > Picks:
> > - 1980: A picks Tigana, B picks Robson.
> > - 1981: A picks Gullit, B picks Rijkard.
> > Score:
> > - 1980: B/Robson (116) wins over A/Tigana (53).
> > - 1981: A/Gullit (83) and B/Rijkard (83) draw.
> > - Total: B 2 first places, A 1 first place. B wins.
> >
> > There is no average. (And the points are not the ones scored in a
> > given year, but in the whole career!)
>
> You're missing the point. The problem is penalising the non scoring
> players.
My reform doesn't penalize the non scoring players!
> What I propose :
Can some options be chosen without the others, or is it an organic
set?
> Option 1. Scoring is based on the number of points earned by CAPPED
> players only
> Option 2. Scoring is based on the average score earned by the 10 highest
> point scorers in each squad
I.e. the sum (it's obviously the same).
> Option 3. There is a separate ranking based on caps and goals ONLY
Sorry, I don't understand this point.
> Option 5. There is a maximum squad size of 30 players
> Option 6. Every scout has the option to drop a set number of players at
> the end of each calendar year in order to maintain the maximum squad
> size and avoid stockpiling talent.
I don't like #5 and #6, because in 20 years our squads will be full of
great players (60 points or more), so:
- There will be no point in picking new players.
- Nobody will desire to join the game, because starting from scratch
they will never reach us.
Other than that, you aren't considering that some scouts will be
harmed for the choices so far, so they will vote against your
proposal. Find a way to avoid them this disadvantage, and this reform
could be accepted.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> One possible reform that would take
> care of many problems:
I'm very interested in this reform so please:
1. reply to my questions about clarifications of the rule
2. reply to my criticisms
3. be patient and let me think about it, and eventually add some more
questions/criticisms
> 1) By the end of year X (say, 2011), every scout must have exactly Y
> players (say, 11) on his roster at all times. If you already have 11 players
> and you want to add a player, you must simultaneously drop someone.
I don't understand some details, so let me ask some questions. First
of all, anout what happens until 2011:
- Sid has picked 2 players so far. So he has to pick 9 more players,
hasn't he?
- I have picked 25 players so far. So I have to drop 14 players,
haven't I?
- Can I instead drop 15 players and pick 1 player?
- Can Sid drop the 2 players that he has picked and pick 11 new
players?
Then, what happens after 2011:
- A scout can pick any player as long as he drops one of the players
in his team, can't he?
> a) average versus sum: if everybody has the same number of players, it
> becomes irrelevant.
Right. (True of my proposal as well, be it 1 or 2 players per year.)
> b) difficulty in keeping track of all the players: taken care of, because
> the number of players is now limited.
Right. (True of my original proposal as well, because you have no more
than 15 or so active players in any given moment.)
> c) possibility of dropping players: Check. (I can't wait to have Thiago
> Neves walk the plank...)
Right. (True of my original proposal as well, because you select just
1 key player.)
> d) retroactive strategy problem: By choosing X appropriately, we can ensure
> that every scout, even those who initially went for a strategy of "few but
> good" can update their roster accordingly.
I don't know... wouldn't e.g. Jesus, Alessandro and Alberto feel
penalized? After all they played for an entire year (2007) in a low-
competition situation (no more than 5 scouts playing), so then they
could have picked a lot of better players than the ones they could
pick now. Of course, we should ask them to know whether they are OK
with such a reform.
(My proposal solves this problem starting new rankings, and leaving
the old one untouched.)
> e) Incentives to keep on playing: it's unlikely that somebody by the end of
> 2011 will have spotted all the best 11 players available, so even if you've
> spotted Pele, that's not enough to guarantee first place.
But the incentive will be less and less, because your 11 players will
be better and better...
(In my proposal you have the incentive to pick every year the best
player available, to top that year's ranking.)
> f) Incentives to pick 100-pointers rather than 30-pointers. In the long run,
> the Dani Guizas of the world won't do you much good.
Right. (True of my proposal as well.)
> The main problem I see with this proposal is that in the very long run the
> difference between the scouts will be determined by who picked Del Piero as
> opposed to Inzaghi, rather than who picked Del Piero as opposed to Morfeo.
Not a problem for me, given that Del Piero will enter football history
more than Inzaghi (I'm not saying that this is fair!).
--
Cheers
milivella
Benny
> You are touching an important point. Of course "one vote against means
> rejection" has its downsides. And if you or anyone else will propose a
> switch to a different system, I won't vote against. But I see some
> problems in a majority system:
> - Who doesn't agree with majority could exit the game. And less scouts
> is less fun.
> - I'm not sure that it's easier to find e.g. 9 votes for (i.e. more
> than 50% of the scouts) than it is to find no vote against, because
> the most part of the scouts probably doesn't bother to vote. So
> switching to majority doesn't automatically mean easier reforms.
I actually think if you change the scoring system, set a logical squad
limit of 11 players thus forcing scouts to drop players which in turn
can be picked up by other scouts rather than seeing people exit the game
you will see more people joining. There is very little incentive for any
new scout to join because there isn't a great deal of talent left to pick.
> No, he isn't, because sooner or later those players will score points.
> Of course he's penalized in the *current* ranking, but you can just
> weight in players' age. I've done it in the past: see
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.soccer/msg/0a0fadf13c699875
> and replies.
Those players will score points but what about the other players that
have yet to win caps? Against foresight, taking risks is punished.
A scout could have the top 3 players in the Ballon D'or rankings in any
given year but with 6-7 non capped players his scored base on the
average gets hammered.
> Can some options be chosen without the others, or is it an organic
> set?
Make a counter proposal.
>> Option 3. There is a separate ranking based on caps and goals ONLY
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this point.
>
>> Option 5. There is a maximum squad size of 30 players
>> Option 6. Every scout has the option to drop a set number of players at
>> the end of each calendar year in order to maintain the maximum squad
>> size and avoid stockpiling talent.
>
> I don't like #5 and #6, because in 20 years our squads will be full of
> great players (60 points or more), so:
> - There will be no point in picking new players.
> - Nobody will desire to join the game, because starting from scratch
> they will never reach us.
>
> Other than that, you aren't considering that some scouts will be
> harmed for the choices so far, so they will vote against your
> proposal. Find a way to avoid them this disadvantage, and this reform
> could be accepted.
This :
Option 4. Every scout must have a minimum squad size of 11 players i.e.
the same number that have to take the field in a football match.
Daniele is already in favour. If a scout has 11 players and spots a
talent he drops one player from his squad, puts in the new player, the
dropped player becomes available and we may see a domino effect i.e.
other scouts looking to drop one of their players to pick up the player
that has been released. It stimulates movement, encourages discussion
which can only be good for the game and for this newsgroup in general
and beyond.
milivella
> I actually think if you change the scoring system, set a logical squad
> limit of 11 players thus forcing scouts to drop players which in turn
> can be picked up by other scouts rather than seeing people exit the game
> you will see more people joining.
See below for my questions about "dropping players which in turn can
be picked by other scouts".
> There is very little incentive for any
> new scout to join because there isn't a great deal of talent left to pick.
This is not an issue at all, because (under the current rules!)
everybody has to pick at least two players each year, so even if the
two best free players are mediocre (at international level) who picks
them scores anyway more points than the other scouts. The game (what
it has been so far, at least) is relative: you don't have to pick
"talents" of a given level (absolute), but the best available players,
whichever is the level of available players (relative).
> Those players will score points but what about the other players that
> have yet to win caps? Against foresight, taking risks is punished.
> A scout could have the top 3 players in the Ballon D'or rankings in any
> given year but with 6-7 non capped players his scored base on the
> average gets hammered.
But under your rules a scout who has picked only Ronaldo, Messi and
Kaka would have the same score of a scout who has picked Ronaldo,
Messi, Kaka and 997 crappy players. In my eyes, the former is *way* a
better scout than the second (hence Daniele always proposing sum *with
penalties*).
Anyway, yours is *not* an argument about my proposal, where only one
player (two after Daniele's suggestions) counts in each ranking: if
your players is Ballon d'or-like you top the ranking, if he's not
capped you're dead last. It's what you want!
> > Can some options be chosen without the others, or is it an organic
> > set?
>
> Make a counter proposal.
I'm just asking: are these "options" in the sense that you can choose
either option 1 or option 2? Or are they rules to be applied all
together?
> > Other than that, you aren't considering that some scouts will be
> > harmed for the choices so far, so they will vote against your
> > proposal. Find a way to avoid them this disadvantage, and this reform
> > could be accepted.
>
> This :
>
> Option 4. Every scout must have a minimum squad size of 11 players i.e.
> the same number that have to take the field in a football match.
I've already replied to Daniele that I'm not sure whether such a rule
will be felt as non-penalizing by everyone. But, again: let's ask the
low pickers.
> Daniele is already in favour. If a scout has 11 players and spots a
> talent he drops one player from his squad, puts in the new player, the
> dropped player becomes available
I.e. if I drop Gago someone can pick him, even he has already 25 caps?
And if in 20 years I'll have a good enough team and I'll drop a
retired player who has scored 70 points, will everybody be able to
pick him? His score will already be 100% sure! (in fact his career has
ended) And you could have ten pick-mails in few minutes after I drop
him: how could you decide who has been the first scout to send his
mail? :/
> It stimulates movement, encourages discussion
> which can only be good for the game and for this newsgroup in general
> and beyond.
I totally agree, and this is the reason why I proposed yearly
rankings, so that each year we would be able to discuss and change the
rules.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
phase. Sooner or later we'll have to put things together, see which
proposals could be accepted, etc. but - even if I know that every new
post makes the ordering phase more difficult - I think that it's still
early to do it.
After all, we aren't in a hurry, and the game - despite all its
shortcomings - seems to be good enough for scouts not leaving it (as
opposed to the last year situation, when _I_ was about to leave the
game!).
My own plan (not that I assume that you are interested in it!) in this
(creative) phase is:
a. to check whether my proposal can be changed in a way that suits
everyone (Benny seems the main critic in this moment)
b. to give feedback to all the ideas launched by my fellow scouts
c. to honestly check if some proposal is IMO better than mine (in that
case, I would change point a accordingly, actively supporting the new
proposal instead of mine)
--
Cheers
milivella
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
> But under your rules a scout who has picked only Ronaldo, Messi and
> Kaka would have the same score of a scout who has picked Ronaldo,
> Messi, Kaka and 997 crappy players. In my eyes, the former is *way* a
> better scout than the second (hence Daniele always proposing sum *with
> penalties*).
Under my proposal the scout with the most caps wins, as they would with
any scoring system based on sum and not average.
> I'm just asking: are these "options" in the sense that you can choose
> either option 1 or option 2? Or are they rules to be applied all
> together?
The former, these are individual options.
> I've already replied to Daniele that I'm not sure whether such a rule
> will be felt as non-penalizing by everyone. But, again: let's ask the
> low pickers.
None of the scouts have 11 points scoring players so no one is
negatively effected in that respect.
> I.e. if I drop Gago someone can pick him, even he has already 25 caps?
Sure. They get his points as well. If you're prepared to take that risk
for the next big thing in football that's the price you pay.
> And if in 20 years I'll have a good enough team and I'll drop a
> retired player who has scored 70 points, will everybody be able to
> pick him? His score will already be 100% sure! (in fact his career has
> ended) And you could have ten pick-mails in few minutes after I drop
> him: how could you decide who has been the first scout to send his
> mail? :/
If the player is retired he is no longer valid for the game. Players
that are dropped could go into a pool then there is a draft system
whereby the scout with the lowest score has the first pick, the scout
with the highest the last pick.
Futbolmetrix
>
> I don't understand some details, so let me ask some questions. First
> of all, anout what happens until 2011:
> - Sid has picked 2 players so far. So he has to pick 9 more players,
> hasn't he?
> - I have picked 25 players so far. So I have to drop 14 players,
> haven't I?
> - Can I instead drop 15 players and pick 1 player?
> - Can Sid drop the 2 players that he has picked and pick 11 new
> players?
> Then, what happens after 2011:
> - A scout can pick any player as long as he drops one of the players
> in his team, can't he?
Yes to all.
> > b) difficulty in keeping track of all the players: taken care of, because
> > the number of players is now limited.
>
> Right. (True of my original proposal as well, because you have no more
> than 15 or so active players in any given moment.)
For one scout.
>
> > d) retroactive strategy problem: By choosing X appropriately, we can ensure
> > that every scout, even those who initially went for a strategy of "few but
> > good" can update their roster accordingly.
>
> I don't know... wouldn't e.g. Jesus, Alessandro and Alberto feel
> penalized?
They probably would. By the way, your proposal also damages scouts who
went for the safe and sure path of the Dani Guizas (i.e., me).
On the other hand, both proposals have the advantage that in the long
run those initial strategies will carry little weight.
>
> > e) Incentives to keep on playing: it's unlikely that somebody by the end of
> > 2011 will have spotted all the best 11 players available, so even if you've
> > spotted Pele, that's not enough to guarantee first place.
>
> But the incentive will be less and less, because your 11 players will
> be better and better...
>
> (In my proposal you have the incentive to pick every year the best
> player available, to top that year's ranking.)
True.
>
> > The main problem I see with this proposal is that in the very long run the
> > difference between the scouts will be determined by who picked Del Piero as
> > opposed to Inzaghi, rather than who picked Del Piero as opposed to Morfeo.
>
> Not a problem for me, given that Del Piero will enter football history
> more than Inzaghi (I'm not saying that this is fair!).
Inzaghi will enter football history as well.
As you point out, there are a number of similarities between our
proposals. I don't like in your proposal the fact that all the players
who are not "key players" are dropped. That can be easily fixed by
expanding the number of key players, to 5 or 6 per year. (This implies
that some of your key players are quite likely to be zero-pointers).
A possible fix to your proposal:
a) Players select each year 5 key players
b) Points = sum of scores of 5 players
c) winner of yearly ranking = scout with the most points
d) Meta-ranking 1 = Condorcet method
e) Meta ranking 2 = sum of all points over all year.
milivella
I don't want to repeat myself, so I'm skipping those part of your post
to which I would reply re-stating what I've already written.
> > I'm just asking: are these "options" in the sense that you can choose
> > either option 1 or option 2? Or are they rules to be applied all
> > together?
>
> The former, these are individual options.
OK, thanks.
> > I've already replied to Daniele that I'm not sure whether such a rule
> > will be felt as non-penalizing by everyone. But, again: let's ask the
> > low pickers.
>
> None of the scouts have 11 points scoring players so no one is
> negatively effected in that respect.
I don't understand:
- If a scout has not 11 players who have scored points *until now*,
this doesn't mean that he has not 11 players that will score players
*in the future*. So I bet that there are scouts who have more than 11
point-scoring players.
- If a scout had 11 point-scoring players, he would *not* be
negatively affected by the reform that you and Daniele are proposing.
E.g. let's assume that a scout has picked Messi, Torres, Casillas,
Xavi, Villa, Kaka, Gerrard, Senna, Rooney, Aguero, Lampard (hence 11
great players) and a lot of Brighis (4 points so far). Under the
current system (average), the Brighis keeps that scout's score down.
With your reform, the scout can drop all the Brighis, so he remains
with 11 great players and a better situation.
- Who is negatively affected by your reform are scouts that have *few*
players (and so few point-scoring players). In fact, they can have a
good average now, and find themselves with a low sum after the reform.
> > I.e. if I drop Gago someone can pick him, even he has already 25 caps?
>
> Sure. They get his points as well. If you're prepared to take that risk
> for the next big thing in football that's the price you pay.
So why can't anybody pick another player (that nobody has picked so
far) with 25 caps?
> > And if in 20 years I'll have a good enough team and I'll drop a
> > retired player who has scored 70 points, will everybody be able to
> > pick him? His score will already be 100% sure! (in fact his career has
> > ended) And you could have ten pick-mails in few minutes after I drop
> > him: how could you decide who has been the first scout to send his
> > mail? :/
>
> If the player is retired he is no longer valid for the game.
Why? You've said that option #4 (like any other option) can be taken
independently by any other option, so we have a game where the career
score of a player count (so it's now, and option #4 doesn't change
it). You've also said that, if someone picks a player that I've
dropped, that scouts gains the player's points as well. So if I drop a
retired player someone can pick and gain his points, i.e. all the caps
and goals that he has won/scored in his career.
More: how do you decide whether someone is a retired player? Some
player don't play at international level anymore, but they aren't
retired. So if I dropped Maldini the day before his final Serie A
match and you pick him, you gain 133 points; if the same things
happens two days later, you gain no points?
> Players
> that are dropped could go into a pool then there is a draft system
> whereby the scout with the lowest score has the first pick, the scout
> with the highest the last pick.
Good system.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> On Jul 6, 6:57 pm, milivella <milive...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't understand some details, so let me ask some questions. First
> > of all, anout what happens until 2011:
> > - Sid has picked 2 players so far. So he has to pick 9 more players,
> > hasn't he?
> > - I have picked 25 players so far. So I have to drop 14 players,
> > haven't I?
> > - Can I instead drop 15 players and pick 1 player?
> > - Can Sid drop the 2 players that he has picked and pick 11 new
> > players?
> > Then, what happens after 2011:
> > - A scout can pick any player as long as he drops one of the players
> > in his team, can't he?
>
> Yes to all.
OK, thanks. I really don't know if scouts who have picked few players
so far would be penalized in the long run, because the players picked
so far would be replaced sooner or later by better players. In the
short term such scouts would of course be penalized, but this should
not be an issue, because Fantasy Scout never ends!
> > > b) difficulty in keeping track of all the players: taken care of, because
> > > the number of players is now limited.
>
> > Right. (True of my original proposal as well, because you have no more
> > than 15 or so active players in any given moment.)
>
> For one scout.
Yes. 15 or so per scout in my original proposal vs. 11 per scout in
your proposal: same order of magnitude.
> > > d) retroactive strategy problem: By choosing X appropriately, we can ensure
> > > that every scout, even those who initially went for a strategy of "few but
> > > good" can update their roster accordingly.
>
> > I don't know... wouldn't e.g. Jesus, Alessandro and Alberto feel
> > penalized?
>
> They probably would.
You should ask them, and explain them why they (hopefully) won't be
penalized in the long run.
> By the way, your proposal also damages scouts who
> went for the safe and sure path of the Dani Guizas (i.e., me).
This is a very important point! Can you please explain why my proposal
in your opinion damages such scouts?
This is how I see things. Let's assume that nobody will pick any
player anymore. Do you think that in 20 years (i.e. after all the
picked players will be retired) you will be in a good position?
- If your answer is "yes": with my reform, you will have a 1st or 2nd
place in a mini-ranking (that will have a double value, because the
2007-09 is a special ranking), and then you'll start on par with
anyone else in the next mini-rankings. So you aren't penalized.
- If "no": with my reform, you can start from scratch since 2010 and
gain some top places in the next mini-rankings (2010, 2011, etc.). So
you aren't penalized.
> On the other hand, both proposals have the advantage that in the long
> run those initial strategies will carry little weight.
As I stated above, I agree.
> > > The main problem I see with this proposal is that in the very long run the
> > > difference between the scouts will be determined by who picked Del Piero as
> > > opposed to Inzaghi, rather than who picked Del Piero as opposed to Morfeo.
>
> > Not a problem for me, given that Del Piero will enter football history
> > more than Inzaghi (I'm not saying that this is fair!).
>
> Inzaghi will enter football history as well.
Of course. But I bet that Inzaghi just will be remembered a little
less than Del Piero. Anyway, what you say is an argument against your
proposal, so... ;)
> As you point out, there are a number of similarities between our
> proposals. I don't like in your proposal the fact that all the players
> who are not "key players" are dropped.
I understand. But why, then, do you support a reform in which you drop
a lot of players, your score being based on the performance of 11
players alone?!
> That can be easily fixed by
> expanding the number of key players, to 5 or 6 per year. (This implies
> that some of your key players are quite likely to be zero-pointers).
Yes, I too suggested to expand the number of picked players (dropping
the idea of dropped players ;) ). Too many players per year, though,
would mean that the "Pepe strategy" could be winning again (assuming
that it's winning now...). Maybe 2 or 3 per year?
> A possible fix to your proposal:
>
> a) Players select each year 5 key players
> b) Points = sum of scores of 5 players
> c) winner of yearly ranking = scout with the most points
OK.
> d) Meta-ranking 1 = Condorcet method
I.e. something like Copeland's method?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copeland%27s_method
(Note to everybody, me before any other: let's keep things as simple
as possible so that the game can be easily understood by the math-
haters as well.)
> e) Meta ranking 2 = sum of all points over all year.
I don't like it, because someone joining the game late won't have any
chance to fill the gap. As a second (i.e. less important) ranking,
however, it's OK for me.
--
Cheers
milivella
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
>> None of the scouts have 11 points scoring players so no one is
>> negatively effected in that respect.
>
> I don't understand:
> - If a scout has not 11 players who have scored points *until now*,
> this doesn't mean that he has not 11 players that will score players
> *in the future*. So I bet that there are scouts who have more than 11
> point-scoring players.
> - If a scout had 11 point-scoring players, he would *not* be
> negatively affected by the reform that you and Daniele are proposing.
> E.g. let's assume that a scout has picked Messi, Torres, Casillas,
> Xavi, Villa, Kaka, Gerrard, Senna, Rooney, Aguero, Lampard (hence 11
> great players) and a lot of Brighis (4 points so far). Under the
> current system (average), the Brighis keeps that scout's score down.
> With your reform, the scout can drop all the Brighis, so he remains
> with 11 great players and a better situation.
> - Who is negatively affected by your reform are scouts that have *few*
> players (and so few point-scoring players). In fact, they can have a
> good average now, and find themselves with a low sum after the reform.
And that's exactly the point behind my proposal. The way the game works
now a scout is punished for taking risks because the non capped players
work against the average and they shouldn't because the whole point of
the game is to pick future internationals.
> So why can't anybody pick another player (that nobody has picked so
> far) with 25 caps?
Because that defeats the core objective of the game i.e. to pick future
internationals. This isn't fantasy football, it's fantasy scout. A scout
is only going to drop a points scoring player if he feels a future
international could potentially earn him more points.
> Why? You've said that option #4 (like any other option) can be taken
> independently by any other option, so we have a game where the career
> score of a player count (so it's now, and option #4 doesn't change
> it). You've also said that, if someone picks a player that I've
> dropped, that scouts gains the player's points as well. So if I drop a
> retired player someone can pick and gain his points, i.e. all the caps
> and goals that he has won/scored in his career.
If a player retires he cannot earn points anymore just as in real life -
an international team cannot select a player who has retired.
> More: how do you decide whether someone is a retired player? Some
> player don't play at international level anymore, but they aren't
> retired. So if I dropped Maldini the day before his final Serie A
> match and you pick him, you gain 133 points; if the same things
> happens two days later, you gain no points?
This is a highly unlikely scenario however players don't suddenly
retire, they retire at the end of a season. Even IF a player suddenly
changes his mind then the scout who had that player has first option to
re-sign him. Problem solved.
milivella
> > Subject : Fantasy Scout yearly ranking reform - Feedback
> > From : milive...@gmail.com
>
> > - Who is negatively affected by your reform are scouts that have *few*
> > players (and so few point-scoring players). In fact, they can have a
> > good average now, and find themselves with a low sum after the reform.
>
> And that's exactly the point behind my proposal. The way the game works
> now a scout is punished for taking risks because the non capped players
> work against the average and they shouldn't because the whole point of
> the game is to pick future internationals.
I swear that I'll re-state it for the last time, so I'll try to be
very clear, and please listen to me.
*I am OK with sum*. I've actually proposed a sum!
The problem is not sum, but switching from average to sum. I'll say it
from two different points of view, but it's the same:
Objective point of view: it's unfair to change what has happened so
far. We have played under a system (average) so far; we can switch to
a new system (sum) since now, but *you can't change the rules for the
past*!
Subjective point of view: if you penalize somebody, he'll vote against
your proposal. (Even if we switch to a majority voting system, who is
penalized will leave the game, and there is no point in it.) I would
add that we who picked a lot of players (Andrea, Benny, Daniele)
should show good will dropping some good players before proposing a
switch to a sum-system, but you're clearly stating that you want to
penalize somebody, so I haven't anything to add.
OK, done. I won't annoy you with this leitmotiv anymore. :)
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> That can be easily fixed by
> expanding the number of key players, to 5 or 6 per year.
What about 1 player every 3 months?
I.e. there would be the following mini-rankings:
Jan-Mar 2010
Apr-Jun 2010
Jul-Sep 2010
Oct-Dec 2010
Jan-Mar 2011
etc.
(or call them "Winter 2010", "Spring 2010", etc.)
You can pick 1 player (no more) per ranking.
Please tell me if you like it.
Notes:
- Benefit over a rule like "you can pick 4 players per year": 1 player
per mini-ranking means that to win you have to go for risky picks (a
Pepe will never win such a mini-ranking, a Neymar can).
- You HAVE NOT to pick one player every three months. If you don't
remind it or you don't find any good player or you have better things
to do, you skip one trimester and play the next one (you can of course
skip more than one ranking in a row).
- The 2007-09 ranking (all the players picked until the end of this
year) will have a weight of 6, i.e. who tops that ranking has 6 first
places counted in the meta-ranking, the second has 6 second places,
etc. Why 6? Because topping the three-year ranking of course means
more than topping 1 trimestral ranking, but it's not the same as
winning all the 12 trimestral rankings that there are in three years.
--
Cheers
milivella
Futbolmetrix
> Futbolmetrix:
>
> > That can be easily fixed by
> > expanding the number of key players, to 5 or 6 per year.
>
> What about 1 player every 3 months?
Don't like it. Too many mini-tournaments (for the same reason I don't
like very much the Apertura/Clausura structure of many South American
leagues).
If we want to incentivize picking young players who will become
superstars (as opposed to the Guizas and Llorentes), it's better to
play with the age limit or the U-20 caps limit (as suggested by Enzo).
D
milivella
> On Jul 8, 9:00 am, milivella <milive...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Futbolmetrix:
>
> > > That can be easily fixed by
> > > expanding the number of key players, to 5 or 6 per year.
>
> > What about 1 player every 3 months?
>
> Don't like it. Too many mini-tournaments (for the same reason I don't
> like very much the Apertura/Clausura structure of many South American
> leagues).
OK, so I won't change my proposal in this way. Thanks a lot for the
immediate feedback! :)
> If we want to incentivize picking young players who will become
> superstars (as opposed to the Guizas and Llorentes), it's better to
> play with the age limit or the U-20 caps limit (as suggested by Enzo).
I'm not _so_ sure about it. I think that an incentive is in general
preferable to a prohibition or a obligation.
See, last year we (as a community, I am not speaking about you or me
in particular) chose not to incentive picking players, but instead to
force players to pick at least 2 players per year. This had as a side
effect that someone can now think (maybe he's wrong, but it's not a
crazy opinion) that picking sure 20-pointers is the way to win the
game. I think that, with an incentive to pick players instead of a
obligation to do it, we would have avoided such a side effect.
So, in the present context, I would prefer a rule that rewards picking
young players to a limit. This said, if we'll accept to switch to
yearly rankings, I would be totally OK with an age limit or (after
studying the data about U-20 to senior NT) an U-20 caps limit.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
it could be the right time to officially propose our ideas. I think
that it's basic fairness to let you all propose your own reform before
me re-proposing my reform (of course in a modified version, improved
by your feedback; so it's "my" proposal only in the sense that I've
written an e-mail to call for votes).
So: I'll wait ONE WEEK before proposing anything. If in one week no
reform will have been proposed (and, of course, if the debate won't be
alive again), I'll go with mine.
---
Just a suggestion. if I'm not wrong, the most spoken about idea is
Benny's #4, that in Daniele's wording is:
1) By the end of year X (say, 2011), every scout must have exactly Y
players (say, 11) on his roster at all times. If you already have 11
players and you want to add a player, you must simultaneously drop
someone.
2) That's it, all the other rules stay the same.
Daniele defended such a reform writing that "in the long run [...]
initial strategies will carry little weight." I just suggest that, to
show good faith and to persuade the other scouts most easily, you
should implement a form of forced dropping of players. Otherwise, some
scouts will probably see the proposal as scouts that have picked a lot
of players [I, Benny and Daniele: we are the scouts with most picks]
trying to getting advantage.
By "forced pick" I mean that, if I've picked 20 players and I've to
reduce my squad to say 2 players, I decide 9 of the players to drop,
but a poll among the other scouts decide who will be the other 9
dropped players. So I'll remain with my two "median" players (the most
similar thing to "mean" players that can be reached, IMHO).
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> Let's take a look
> at Jesus' squad. He has picked Hernanes and Taison, two of the most
> highly rated young players in the Brazilian game, Hernanes is guaranteed
> to be a starter for Brazil in the next few years but until he wins caps
> Jesus' foresight works against him and even when Hernanes establishes
> himself at international level Jesus could have 5 more future
> internationals in his squad but until they too are picked he is
> penalised because of the average. It's a vicious circle. Scouts are
> being penalising for picking players and as far as I am concerned that
> defeats the very object of the game.
Your words have made me think again about the weighted-considering-
player's-age ranking that I've already proposed in the past. So I've
published again as the last tab ("Scouts - Weighted ranking") of the
Data page:
http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/data.htm
The math behind this ranking is very simple, and it's explained in one
of the FAQs: "What is the "weighted" score in the Data page?"
http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/faqs.htm
However, if you don't want to enter into details, the basic idea is
just: in this *unofficial* ranking, picking a 16 year old player
doesn't lower your score, picking a 27 year old player does it.
I find the weighted ranking very interesting:
Position. (Compared_with_the_official_ranking) Scout Weighted_score
1. (+3) Enzo 27.78
2. (-1) Alessandro 20.59
3. (==) Andrea 16.51
4. (+2) Alberto 14.58
5. (-3) Daniele 12.31
6. (+6) Generoso 10.34
7. (+1) William 10.00
8. (+1) Michael H. 9.57
9. (-4) Sid 7.81
10. (-3) Benny 7.14
11. (-1) Jesus 5.45
12. (-1) Abubakr 1.82
13. (==) Tom 0.99
Best movers:
+6 Generoso: already 3 points from players all born in 1987 or after
+3 Enzo: apart from Llorente, he has 3 players born in 1988 or after,
one of which (Busquets) has already 5 caps. Compare him with Sid,
another scout who quickly gained points, but by the means of the 26
year old Andre Santos.
+2 Alberto: he too has a young squad
The scout that you cited, Jesus, doesn't have an higher position
indeed, because, out of 9 players, he has three 24 year old and a 29
year old.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
Two notes.
> Your words have made me think again about the weighted-considering-
> player's-age ranking that I've already proposed in the past. So I've
> published again as the last tab ("Scouts - Weighted ranking") of the
> Data page:http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/data.htm
I'll use the age-weights for all the Fantasy Scouts side-stats as
well. I.e. if until now I've written that William has two players
called up (or three NT-level players) "out of 3 players in the 23-31
year old range", now I'll write "out of 2.54 players" (fictional
example).
> The scout that you cited, Jesus, doesn't have an higher position
> indeed, because, out of 9 players, he has three 24 year old and a 29
> year old.
Let me state something banal:
- If the actual rules were "scout's score = sum of his players'
score" (as Benny would somehow like), Jesus would have a low score as
well (of course it's just a matter of time, Jesus!).
- If Jesus had not picked Hernanes and Taison, he would be in the same
position in the weighted ranking (6.62 points instead of 5.45), so
those picks practically don't harm his score.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> 4) Both Enzo and Benny's suggestions go in the direction of my earlier
> proposal of making Score = Points minus fixed penalty/cost/fee per pick.
> This system is probably the one that approximates best the rewards of a
> real-life scout.
> I think that the main fault of the current system is that a bad pick hurts
> the score of every other pick. Doesn't make any sense. Of course, it's
> difficult to change that given that some scouts have chosen their strategies
> based on the old system.
Pseudo-oddity. If you retrospectively apply a penalty of -3 to the
score of players picked so far, and then you compute the sum of all
the players, the result is a ranking not so dissimilar from the actual
one (based on average):
1. Alessandro +13
2. Daniele + 7
3. Enzo - 2
4. Andrea - 3
5. Sid - 4
6. Abubakr - 5
7. Michael M. - 6
8. Alberto - 8
9. Daniel -18
Generoso -18
Jesus -18
William -18
13. Mark -24
14. Tom -34
Michael H. -34
16. Benny -42
Of course things would change a lot in some time (i.e. the penalty
should be increased to have the same degree of agreement).
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
[I'm re-reading the thread to take note of ideas, and I've found out
that I've not replied to a quite important point.]
> From a squad of 30 players, player A earns a total of 40 caps in one
> year. His score is 40/30 = 1.33
> From a squad of 10 players, player B earns a total of 30 caps in one
> year. His score is 30/10 = 3.00
>
> The way the scoring works the players with LESS caps but a higher
> average wins and that's because that scout has picked less players, took
> less risks.
No. First of all, maybe a scout has picked less players just because
he joined the game later.
But, in any case, picking less players means taking *more* risks (of
course if the score is given by the average):
- If you pick one player only, he can become a star, but ha can also
fail or have an injury. It's all or nothing: a lot of risk.
- If you pick a lot of players, you're pretty certain that some will
fail (or have injuries) but some will go through. It's 100 points if
all goes well, 75 if someone fails, 50 in most cases, 25 if you're
unlucky, but you're pretty sure that you will score more than 0: there
is less risk.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> Lets understand that a scout makes money off his players.
> For each player he picks, he may or may not make money
> but each player adds to his cost. The total amount of
> money he makes is the sum of all his players points
> divided by the (fixed) cost of each player.
I'd like to further comments your arguments based on the concept of
_cost_, but I don't understand: what do you exactly mean by "cost" in
this context?
I don't think that it's possible to frame the actual system (scout of
a score = _average_ score of his players) in terms of virtual money. I
can see costs in the system that Daniele likes (scout of a score =
_sum_ of the score of his players - _prices_ of the players), but not
in the actual one.
But probably I'm just too slow to understand your point, so please
explain it with more explicitly. And, just to be clear: even
abstracting from the concept of cost that brought you to some
proposals, I find those proposal interesting.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> If a player retires he cannot earn points anymore just as in real life -
> an international team cannot select a player who has retired.
Sorry, only now I understand: if I've picked Maldini and I drop him
now, who eventually picks him, picks just the player, not the points
that he has scored so far. So nobody would pick a retired player.
This said, I still don't like that I can pick a player with more than
2 caps if someone else has picked and then dropped him, but not if
nobody has picked him.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> So: I'll wait ONE WEEK before proposing anything.
Still four days (and I'm not even sure whether I'll propose a reform,
but surely I'll write something).
In the meantime, I've updated:
1. the site
2. the list of the issues
1. The site
The major changes have been:
- better FAQs: http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/faqs.htm
- updated lists of conceived reforms: http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/ideas.htm
- weighted rankings for the past: http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/previous.htm
- more intra-links.
2. The list of the issues
Here it is. If I've forgotten something, please tell me.
WORLD: You can pick only players from 8 nations.
EASY: It's too easy to spot players who will have some caps. And
betting on younger players is not rewarded per se.
SIMPLE MODEL: Winning matches or playing important matches (e.g. the
WC final) are not rewarded.
CONTINUUM: The score of a player is a continuum, i.e. each cap or goal
is 1 more point, there are not moments that are more important than
others (and anyone who prefer our low-scoring sport over high-scoring
ones like basketball knows that having few scoring moments is more
fun).
SUM: The scout with most points in total could not top the ranking
(because he has a lower average score than someone else).
DEPENDENCE 1: The contribution of each player depends on the
contributions of all the other players picked by the same scout.
DEPENDENCE 2: Your strategy is based on your opponents, because if you
think that they are good enough you should pick a player that is not
among the best two of the years (because your opponents could grab him
and all the players that are better than him, and you would end up
picking a worse player).
TIME: There's a lot of time between your action (you picking a player)
and the effect (he scoring points).
POSITIONS: There is no difference in the scoring system for the
different positions: GKs and FWs are given points by the same rule.
CLUBS: Only the NT career of a player counts in Fantasy Scout, but in
reality his club career is important as well.
NO INTERMEDIATE GOALS: There aren't intermediate goals, because there
is just one eternal ranking.
NOT INTUITIVE: Comparing the performance of different scouts is not
something intuitive, because it involves averages.
FUN: The game is about picking players, and (inside reasonable limits)
picking more players = more game, more fun. But, on the other hand,
more picked players means a less clear situation: e.g. it's easy to
track all your players if you have picked 10 players, but not if you
have picked 100 players.
DROPS: You can't drop the players that you’ve picked.
CHANGES: It's difficult to change the rules, because there is a past
situation to be kept intact for fairness (and because harmed scouts
would not accept the changes!). This is in my opinion the most
important thing to fix, because, if you fix it, then you’ll be always
able to change things later.
--
Cheers
milivella
Abubakr
I'm beginning to like your proposal. The yearly ranking idea is quite
elegant.
milivella
> I'm beginning to like your proposal. The yearly ranking idea is quite
> elegant.
Thanks. For fairness, I won't discuss it again until Friday (I've
promised to wait a week, letting the other scouts proposing different
reforms).
--
Cheers
milivella
Futbolmetrix
"milivella" <mili...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a873c393-af06-4f80...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
milivella:
> 2. The list of the issues
Nice summary of the issues. If you make a proposal, you should describe how
it addresses each one of them. I don't have time this week to formulate a
proper alternative proposal.
D
milivella
> "milivella" <milive...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a873c393-af06-4f80...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> milivella:
>
> > 2. The list of the issues
>
> Nice summary of the issues. If you make a proposal, you should describe how
> it addresses each one of them.
I agree. Of course it takes some time, even if you skip the most of
them telling that your proposal doesn't address them (or that some of
them aren't issue at all in your eyes); but it's dued, if you want the
other scouts to agree with you.
And even after describing how you propose to fix things, a fundamental
point remains: does your proposal produce any new issue that is not
present in the current form of the game? But this is probably a duty
for the other scouts, not for the one that proposes a change...
> I don't have time this week to formulate a
> proper alternative proposal.
No problem, because I won't propose any reform. I'll try to explain
why things are OK as they are, though. But I still have to wait,
because the week has not ended.
I hope great things from a proposal by you!
--
Cheers
milivella
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
Every scout must have a minimum squad size of 11 players i.e. the same
number that have to take the field in a football match. The sum of the
points earned by these 11 players is the score. Scouts can replace
players in their squads with new players (though obviously lose the
points earned by any player they drop)
provided they fit the criteria for selection (i.e. less than 2 official
caps). Any player dropped by a scout goes into a draft and the scout
with the lowest score has first pick. The points earned by the dropped
player carry over to the scout who acquires him.
The current system is monumentally flawed because scoring based on an
average punishes scouts for taking risks, future internationals count
against a scouts' score, they should not have any detrimental effect
because that defeats the very objective of the game itself.
Benny
That should read :
Every scout must have a squad of 11 players.
Abubakr
Andrea, your own reform idea is looking better and better by the
minute. One concern I do have with it though is that I foresee quite a
number or ...er, boring 'nil-all draws', or '1-0' wins for first place
for some years, which might distort the overall picture. I could be
wrong though as I haven't really gone through your criteria and
description in detail.
milivella
> Every scout must have a minimum squad size of 11 players
Is this an official proposal? If so, you have to send it by e-mail to
the other scouts (I can do it for you, just ask me).
Thanks for the effort. I'll later write down my opinion.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
We're just discussing it without any concern about actually proposing
it, aren't we? (At least I won't) OK, so let's start with a little
example to be sure that we all have the same images of the
hypothetical reform...
I'm here assuming that, in a given year, a scout can pick 1 player
only. Adjust things at will (pick 10 then select 1 scoring player;
pick 3 players, all of them scoring; etc.).
Let's assume that just two scouts play, A and B. Here are their picks:
- 1980: A picks Tigana, B picks Robson.
- 1981: A picks Gullit, B picks Rijkard.
Now, the scores grows and grows as long as the players don't retire.
So the ranking of players picked in 1980 is definitive only in 1992,
and it's:
- 1980: B/Robson (116) wins over A/Tigana (53).
In the same way, the ranking of players picked in 1981 will change
every year until 1994, and it will finally be:
- 1981: A/Gullit (83) and B/Rijkard (83) draw.
Now, you only have to compute the meta-ranking, that is:
- Total: B 2 first places, A 1 first place. B wins.
Now that everything is hopefully clear, to your point: of course
players could score few points in the first years after being picked
(maybe not in the example above, but if e.g. you pick Robson and
Tigana in 1977). I don't think that this is an issue though, or at
least it's shared by the actual rules as well: in fact, in the first
year as a scout it's normal to find yourself at an average of 0 points
or so. But the players develop anyway, and even if no player had his
international debut it's not the same to have picked Pennant or
Pato! ;)
So, briefly: you have to wait to see your players scoring points (and
this is probably true even if you weight in club football, it's
inevitable). But if you want to play a game where what is rewarded is
to spot future stars... you have to wait the future! ;)
---
The revised version of my idea (that - let me repeat it - I'm *not*
going to officially propose), though, is a bit different from the one
that I've depicted above. While the overall mechanics is the same,
I've thought that inside a given ranking, to have a real race, the
players should all have the same age. So, my idea is now something
like:
- For each year of birth (1990, 1991, etc.) you can pick up to 10
players. You can do it in any moment, as long as the player that you
are picking is under-20 (i.e. in 2010 you can pick players born in
1990, 1991, 1992...; in 2011 you can pick player born in 1991 or
after; etc.)
- Then, for the players of each year: before the players that you've
picked become over-20 (i.e. before January 2011 for players born in
1990), you have to select one of them. Only he will score points for
you.
- Obviously, there is one ranking for each year of birth (so one for
players born in 1990, another one for players born in 1991, etc.) and
a meta-ranking out of them.
Is this brief description clear? Here too, of course, you can change
the details (e.g. under-17 instead of 20).
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> Abubakr:
>
> > Andrea, your own reform idea is looking better and better by the
> > minute. One concern I do have with it though is that I foresee quite a
> > number or ...er, boring 'nil-all draws', or '1-0' wins for first place
> > for some years, which might distort the overall picture.
> Now that everything is hopefully clear, to your point: of course
> players could score few points in the first years after being picked
> (maybe not in the example above, but if e.g. you pick Robson and
> Tigana in 1977). I don't think that this is an issue though, or at
> least it's shared by the actual rules as well: in fact, in the first
> year as a scout it's normal to find yourself at an average of 0 points
> or so. But the players develop anyway, and even if no player had his
> international debut it's not the same to have picked Pennant or
> Pato! ;)
>
> So, briefly: you have to wait to see your players scoring points (and
> this is probably true even if you weight in club football, it's
> inevitable). But if you want to play a game where what is rewarded is
> to spot future stars... you have to wait the future! ;)
BTW, this is one of the reasons why I proposed the rule "pick 10
players, even if only 1 of them will score points for you": in this
way, in the first year of the game, even if players are too young to
score points, there is the "thrill" to pick good players before the
others (of course Fantasy Scout is a cold game, so it's not so much a
thrill!).
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
Here is my reply, in 3 points:
1. Why I would vote against such a proposal, and how it could be
easily fixed
2. Other remarks about the proposal
3. Your words against the actual rules
Here I go.
---
1. Why I would vote against such a proposal, and how it could be
easily fixed
As I've already stated, I won't vote against any reform, *as long as
it's fair toward present and future scouts*. I.e. a reform should IMHO
neither penalize some of the scouts who are already playing, nor who
joins the game later. To be more clear, here I state two criteria a
reform has to respect to be OK for me:
a. Fairness toward present scouts (you've already read it in the
past.)
A and B are any two scouts.
They are in such a situation that, if nobody will pick players
anymore, A will be ahead of B at the end of the game.
Criterion: after the reform, the situation has to be such that, if
nobody will pick players anymore, A will be ahead of B at the end of
the game.
b. Fairness toward future scouts
A is a scout that has joined the game before B.
If A and B show the same ability in picking players: it's OK if A is
ahead of B at the end of the game (i.e. it's OK if longevity is
rewarded). But...
...Criterion: if B shows to be better than A in picking players: B has
to be ahead of A at the end of the game.
I know that "ability in picking players" is rather vague, but the
exact definition depends on the rules: so far, "being better in
picking players" means "picking players that in average score more
points".
Now, I'm in reality a bit more flexible than these criteria could
show. More: I am ready to change my mind, so you can try to persuade
me. But in this moment the aforementioned criteria are my guidelines.
This said, your proposal violates the first criterion:
a. Fairness toward present scouts
Let's take two scouts: Abukar and Andrea.
Let's assume that Abubakr has picked better players than Andrea (I
actually think so!). This means that, if nobody will pick players
anymore, Abubakr will be ahead of Andrea at the end of the game.
But, after the reform, the situation is such that, if nobody will pick
players anymore, Andrea (having picked 25 players, from which he has
to select his 11) could be ahead of Abubakr (who has picked only 2
players) at the end of the game. So *the reform is unfair*.
Of course you could reply "but they can't avoid picking new players,
even under the old rules". True, but my point stands. If the values of
their initial squads are:
Andrea: 11 players * 20 points each = 220 points
Abubakr: 2 players * 100 points each = 200 points
and then they are able to spot (and so to pick or to avoid) only 1-
pointers, Andrea will at the end have 220 points vs. Abubakr's 209.
Nothing is lost, though. There is at least a very simple fix that
would make the reform fair: cut all the squads to the minimum number,
i.e. 2. And cut them with the following method: if a scout has to cut
x players, he will chose x/2 (the worst ones), and the other scouts
(through a poll) will choose the other x/2 (the best ones). In this
way, each scout will remain with his average 2-men squad. Example:
- I have picked 25 players so far.
- So we have to cut 23 of my players.
- I'll choose 12 players to cut: Pennant and the likes.
- You all will choose the other 11 players to cut: Gago and the likes.
- After this, I'll remain with two players, e.g. Denilson and Fazio.
Add this fix to your proposal, or find another one that makes it fair,
and I won't vote against it.
---
2. Other remarks about the proposal
> Every scout must have a
> squad
> of 11 players i.e. the same
> number that have to take the field in a football match.
This could actually be a bit misleading. I.e. I imagine newbies asking
"Why hasn't Jesus any goalkeeper in his team? Aren't we supposed to
form teams of 11 players?" Changing the number to e.g. 10 could avoid
such problems. Nothing to particularly worry about, though, just a
suggestion.
> Any player dropped by a scout goes into a draft and the scout
> with the lowest score has first pick.
I don't find it neither elegant (this way some players with more than
2 caps would be pickable) nor in the right spirit (you can't force
scouts to reply in a reasonable time when asked if they want to pick a
player, because FS is a game that you play when you want), but I can
live with it.
Also, when I read your reasons to propose a reform I see that this
rule goes in the opposite direction: you want to reward risky picks,
but in this way not only a risky pick means an immediate loss of
points (more on this later), it actually means that you're giving
points away to your opponents! Even without the "points earned are
carried over" rule (see below), the better thing if you've picked a
good-but-not-great player is to take him in your squad until he's old
enough, and only then to eventually take a risky pick. I suggest to re-
think about this rule: dropped players are like non-picked players
(i.e. they can be picked by anyone if they have less than 2 caps) is
IMHO a far better rule.
> The points earned by the dropped
> player carry over to the scout who acquires him.
No. I've already explained it: if I drop Maldini, someone would gain
133 points just for being last in the ranking. I would surely make it
"the points earned *don't* carry over".
I've already expressed another concern: under the rules that you're
proposing, after a while a scout would no more pick any new players,
because his roster would be full of very good players. This too can be
easily fixed: e.g. force scouts to pick at least 1 player each year.
---
So far I've showed (I hope) that your proposal sounds interesting to
me, even if it need some fixes IMHO. But when it comes to the reasons
why the current system is in your opinion wrong, I strongly disagree.
In fact what you say is either *not true*, or even *applies to your
proposal*! Let me show what I mean:
> The current system is monumentally flawed because scoring based on an
> average punishes scouts for taking risks
No it doesn't: I've already told you that the riskier choice is to
pick just 2 players in a year (because they could a dip or an injury),
and of course such an approach is not punished, because eventually
what is "penalized" is picking more players (because more players mean
in general a lower average).
Indeed *your* proposal "punishes scouts for taking risks". If I
already have 11 _good_ players, I have little incentive to drop one of
them to pick an eventual _great_ player, because I know what I'm
losing but not what I'm gaining.
> future internationals count
> against a scouts' score
No they don't, if you consider the weighted score:
http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/data.htm
http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/faqs.htm#weighted
Picking a young player doesn't lower your weighted average.
Indeed in *your* proposal "future internationals count against a
scout's score". If I've a 36 year old player who has scored 80 points
and I drop him to pick a 18 year old player who is even better, I lose
80 points, that I won't regain until 10 or so years.
--
Cheers
milivella
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
> a. Fairness toward present scouts
The system isn't fair to present scouts.
> Let's take two scouts: Abukar and Andrea.
> Let's assume that Abubakr has picked better players than Andrea (I
> actually think so!). This means that, if nobody will pick players
> anymore, Abubakr will be ahead of Andrea at the end of the game.
> But, after the reform, the situation is such that, if nobody will pick
> players anymore, Andrea (having picked 25 players, from which he has
> to select his 11) could be ahead of Abubakr (who has picked only 2
> players) at the end of the game. So *the reform is unfair*.
> Of course you could reply "but they can't avoid picking new players,
> even under the old rules". True, but my point stands. If the values of
> their initial squads are:
> Andrea: 11 players * 20 points each = 220 points
> Abubakr: 2 players * 100 points each = 200 points
> and then they are able to spot (and so to pick or to avoid) only 1-
> pointers, Andrea will at the end have 220 points vs. Abubakr's 209.
Let's deal with facts and not unrealistic, hypothetical examples. The
reality is Andrea has the most points therefore he should be in the lead
as he isn't, despite having the most caps, the system is flawed and
while the scoring is based on the average it will continue to remain
flawed. Which scoring system in any sport is based on an average?
Rankings in real sports don't, that's not how it works in Tennis or F1
or in soccer so why would you think it's a good idea? It's not. It's a
stupid idea and it doesn't work otherwise we would NOT be having ANOTHER
discussion on reform!
> No. I've already explained it: if I drop Maldini, someone would gain
> 133 points just for being last in the ranking. I would surely make it
> "the points earned *don't* carry over".
Who the hell is going to drop a high points scoring player for a risk?
No one.
> Indeed in *your* proposal "future internationals count against a
> scout's score". If I've a 36 year old player who has scored 80 points
> and I drop him to pick a 18 year old player who is even better, I lose
> 80 points, that I won't regain until 10 or so years.
Simple. Don't drop him.
milivella
> ---
>
> So far I've showed (I hope) that your proposal sounds interesting to
> me, even if it need some fixes IMHO. But when it comes to the reasons
> why the current system is in your opinion wrong, I strongly disagree.
> In fact what you say is either *not true*, or even *applies to your
> proposal*!
[This was of course point #3 of my reply]
More: your analysis is pretty incomplete. Even if you don't want to
follow Daniele's good suggestion ("if you make a proposal, you should
describe how it addresses each one of [the issues]"), you should
explain what would change under the new rules you're proposing.
--
Cheers
milivella
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
> More: your analysis is pretty incomplete. Even if you don't want to
> follow Daniele's good suggestion ("if you make a proposal, you should
> describe how it addresses each one of [the issues]"), you should
> explain what would change under the new rules you're proposing.
This has already been discussed and I'm not one for long winded
analysis. In summary under my proposal the scout with the most caps is
the highest ranking scout, as he should, as is common in most rankings
and real sports. Limiting the squad size to 11 players eliminates the
need for scoring based on the average, prevents the stockpiling of
talent and means everyone is competing on level terms i.e. everyone has
the same number of players.
milivella
I don't want to annoy neither you nor anyone else, so, even if I'm
repeating some things that I've already written, I won't repeat them
anymore: this is the last time. Another little note: even if we're
being pretty immediate in this discussion, I know that there is no
personal problem between us.
> > a. Fairness toward present scouts
>
> The system isn't fair to present scouts.
Under my criterion, it is. They all have played under rules that each
of them have agreed and knew from the beginning, so it's fair.
If you've a different criterion, you've (like me and anyone else) the
right to disagree with the proposals that you find unfair. BTW, I
don't share your criterion (that is something like, if I'm not wrong,
"who has most points should win, even if he picked a lot of rubbish
players").
> > Let's take two scouts: Abukar and Andrea.
> > Let's assume that Abubakr has picked better players than Andrea (I
> > actually think so!). This means that, if nobody will pick players
> > anymore, Abubakr will be ahead of Andrea at the end of the game.
> > But, after the reform, the situation is such that, if nobody will pick
> > players anymore, Andrea (having picked 25 players, from which he has
> > to select his 11) could be ahead of Abubakr (who has picked only 2
> > players) at the end of the game. So *the reform is unfair*.
> > Of course you could reply "but they can't avoid picking new players,
> > even under the old rules". True, but my point stands. If the values of
> > their initial squads are:
> > Andrea: 11 players * 20 points each = 220 points
> > Abubakr: 2 players * 100 points each = 200 points
> > and then they are able to spot (and so to pick or to avoid) only 1-
> > pointers, Andrea will at the end have 220 points vs. Abubakr's 209.
>
> Let's deal with facts and not unrealistic, hypothetical examples.
It was an unrealistic example, of course. But it was so to better show
my point. I can provide a "more realistic" example if you want, but
for my criterion a hypothetical case is enough to tell that something
is unfair. Of course I wouldn't be so drastic if it was impossible to
find a fix, but, this not being the case, I don't understand why you
don't want to fix the unfairness of your proposal.
> The
> reality is Andrea has the most points therefore he should be in the lead
> as he isn't, despite having the most caps, the system is flawed and
> while the scoring is based on the average it will continue to remain
> flawed.
See above.
> Which scoring system in any sport is based on an average?
> Rankings in real sports don't, that's not how it works in Tennis or F1
> or in soccer
This is not a sport, and anyway who said that something is bad only
because new?!
> so why would you think it's a good idea?
Because it let us compare scouts who join the game in different
moments: even if A has played since 4 years ago and B has joined the
game just 1 year ago, the average will reward the one of them who has
picked the best players. (I'm not saying that average is the *only*
way to do it, but I'll explain Friday why I think that is the *best*
way.)
> It's not. It's a
> stupid idea and it doesn't work
So why do you host on your site a ranking of striker based not on the
*sum* of the goals that they scored but on the *average*?
http://soccer-europe.com/Statistics/Rankings/TopStrikers.html
(ratio = average = sum divided by chances)
> otherwise we would NOT be having ANOTHER
> discussion on reform!
Sorry, but *I* have started this discussion, and I know that I haven't
done it because I find the current system not working!
More: the fact that something is discussed means that it's not
evidently perfect, but it doesn't necessarily mean that there are
better alternatives (or that it doesn't work!).
> > No. I've already explained it: if I drop Maldini, someone would gain
> > 133 points just for being last in the ranking. I would surely make it
> > "the points earned *don't* carry over".
>
> Who the hell is going to drop a high points scoring player for a risk?
> No one.
So can I use your words? Your "system is monumentally flawed because
[...] punishes scouts for taking risks".
> > Indeed in *your* proposal "future internationals count against a
> > scout's score". If I've a 36 year old player who has scored 80 points
> > and I drop him to pick a 18 year old player who is even better, I lose
> > 80 points, that I won't regain until 10 or so years.
>
> Simple. Don't drop him.
See your words that I've just quoted.
--
Cheers
milivella
Abubakr
evident. It forces scouts to think about their protegees more
carefully and stop any indiscriminate hording of players.
We are 'scouts', we work for a 'club'. If you keep turning up with a
lot of mediocre players, you are wasting the club's resources. Soon or
later they are going to try to look for a more efficient operator.
That being said, a scout should not be overly penalised by his bad
picks if he does manage to find a real gem.
This yearly ranking system with an upper limit, no lower limit, is a
good compromise. I don't know if the 'nominate one player' part is
satisfactory. Plus, there might be dudd years where the whole cohort
is low scoring, but the next years is booming, yet the ranking will
give equal weight to both.
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
> It was an unrealistic example, of course. But it was so to better show
> my point. I can provide a "more realistic" example if you want, but
> for my criterion a hypothetical case is enough to tell that something
> is unfair. Of course I wouldn't be so drastic if it was impossible to
> find a fix, but, this not being the case, I don't understand why you
> don't want to fix the unfairness of your proposal.
There is no unfairness in my proposal. The scout whose players earn the
most caps is the highest ranking scout.
> Because it let us compare scouts who join the game in different
> moments: even if A has played since 4 years ago and B has joined the
> game just 1 year ago, the average will reward the one of them who has
> picked the best players. (I'm not saying that average is the *only*
> way to do it, but I'll explain Friday why I think that is the *best*
> way.)
'Best' players doesn't come into it, scoring is based on caps and goals,
not any technical qualities. By insisting on scores based on an average
you are rendering the accumulation of caps almost worthless. Under the
current system a scout who has a combined total of 28 caps is ranked
higher than a scout who has a combined total of 72 caps, the scout who
has 257% more caps is ranked LOWER. If a competitor joins a game late he
should expect to play catch-up after all that's how it works in real
sports - Nadal didn't become the best ranked Tennis player overnight, it
took him years to accumulate the points.
> So why do you host on your site a ranking of striker based not on the
> *sum* of the goals that they scored but on the *average*?
> http://soccer-europe.com/Statistics/Rankings/TopStrikers.html
> (ratio = average = sum divided by chances)
Because of the differences between the number of games played by each
player. The baseline starts at 100 games to prevent a one season wonder
from achieving a high ranking.
> So can I use your words? Your "system is monumentally flawed because
> [...] punishes scouts for taking risks".
It doesn't because non scoring players don't have a detrimental effect
on a scouts rankings, they don't work against the average as they do
now. This is precisely why the scout with the most caps is not ranked
#1, his non scoring players, his risks, work against his average.
milivella
> I thought the point of the average score system is pretty self-
> evident. It forces scouts to think about their protegees more
> carefully and stop any indiscriminate hording of players.
>
> We are 'scouts', we work for a 'club'. If you keep turning up with a
> lot of mediocre players, you are wasting the club's resources. Soon or
> later they are going to try to look for a more efficient operator.
You've explained it better than I've ever done. Thanks. :)
> That being said, a scout should not be overly penalised by his bad
> picks if he does manage to find a real gem.
Daniele too thinks so. This could be a reason to switch from average
to a different system that, while still rewarding who picks 2 100-
pointer over who picks 2 100-pointers and 8 0-pointers, doesn't
penalize the latter too much.
Out of the reforms proposed so far
http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/ideas.htm
the following ones seem to be in line with your request:
- Each year, a scout can pick up to 12 players, but he has to select 1
of them to permanently represent him. + Separate rankings, each one
for the players picked in a given year. The overall ranking is based
on the number of 1st places in those rankings.
- Every scout must have exactly 11 players on his roster at all times.
If he already has 11 players, to add a player he must simultaneously
drop someone.
- Scoring is based on the number of points earned by capped players
only.
- Scoring is based on the average score earned by the 10 highest point
scorers in each squad.
- When you pick a player, you "pay" 10 points. Score of a scout = sum
of the scores of all his players.
- Score of a scout = H-index divided by number of years as scout. (A
scout has index h if h of his players have at least h points each, and
the other players have at most h points each.)
- Seasonal score of a scout = sum of the seasonal scores of his top 10
players.
- Season-wise competitions, with players picked at the beginning on
the season.
- Chance to drop players.
Of course some or all of them could produce more issues than they
solve. I'm just saying that they penalize bad picks less than the
actual system (something that at least you and Daniele seem to
desire).
> This yearly ranking system with an upper limit, no lower limit, is a
> good compromise. I don't know if the 'nominate one player' part is
> satisfactory.
At least Daniele and Michael don't like it, so it's not
satisfactory. :) I thought of it to make computations straighter: in
each ranking, it's one player of yours vs. one player for each scout.
In fact, with more than one player representing you, there a some
effects that I don't like:
- You have more players to track.
- The "Pepe strategy" (to pick worse-but-less-risky players) could win
over the "Neymar strategy" (to pick potentially-better-but-riskier
players).
- Your strategy would depend on your opponents: in fact, with just one
player representing you, the strategy is simply "pick the best
eligible player"; with e.g. two players per scout, the strategy can be
"pick the two best eligible players" if your opponents are few and
weak, but "pick any player that is good enough" if you have a lot of
skilled opponents.
- When you check who is the better scout, you are back to something
similar to an average (of course a sum is different from an average
from other points of view, e.g. because everyone is forced to pick the
same number of players).
> Plus, there might be dudd years where the whole cohort
> is low scoring, but the next years is booming, yet the ranking will
> give equal weight to both.
I don't find the fact (that a 1st place always has the same weight)
annoying, but, if each scout is represented (in each yearly ranking)
by one player only, you can fix it. E.g. you can do something like
this: the 1st placed scout carry the points scored by his player in
the overall ranking. So if you win the 1980 ranking thanks to
Matthaeus, you carry 173 points to the overall ranking; but if another
scout wins the 1981 ranking thanks to Littbarski, he carries just 91
points to the overall ranking, so you are rewarded for having spot a
better player. Of course with this rule you have to hope that
international football keeps its current number of matches played in a
year intact, because, if the matches will be in the future a lot more
or a lot less, everything will be skewed (the same applies to the
actual rules and to many proposals as well). It's maybe possible to
reward also 2nd, 3rd, etc. places: if you are 2nd in a yearly ranking,
you carry actual_points/2 points to the overall ranking.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
Here is my reply, even if I'm not replying where I would just repeat
myself. But the most important thing is that *you just have to find a
way to make all scouts start with the score that they have now*. Do
it, and I won't vote against your reform (all the issues that I can
find notwithstanding). If you don't do it (or you don't persuade me
that you aren't violating my criterion of fairness, or that such a
criterion is wrong), I'll vote against it. Fix that little thing, and
you have my agreement on the reform.
> > Because it let us compare scouts who join the game in different
> > moments: even if A has played since 4 years ago and B has joined the
> > game just 1 year ago, the average will reward the one of them who has
> > picked the best players. (I'm not saying that average is the *only*
> > way to do it, but I'll explain Friday why I think that is the *best*
> > way.)
>
> 'Best' players doesn't come into it, scoring is based on caps and goals,
> not any technical qualities.
OK, I meant "best" according to the rules. Let's say "that will have
most caps at the end of their career".
> If a competitor joins a game late he
> should expect to play catch-up after all that's how it works in real
> sports
And so it is under the current rules: Enzo did maybe the "best" picks
in average, but he has to wait some time before topping the ranking.
But he knows that, if he has picked the "best" players, he will sooner
or later top the ranking. If the score of a scout was a plain sum,
this could not be true: it could be that the "best" scout, if he
joined the game later, will never top the ranking. This is the reason
I went for average in the beginning. (Let me repeat it: I'm not saying
that average is the only way to have such an effect!)
> > So why do you host on your site a ranking of striker based not on the
> > *sum* of the goals that they scored but on the *average*?
> >http://soccer-europe.com/Statistics/Rankings/TopStrikers.html
> > (ratio = average = sum divided by chances)
>
> Because of the differences between the number of games played by each
> player. The baseline starts at 100 games to prevent a one season wonder
> from achieving a high ranking.
And in FS you have to pick at least 2 players each year, to prevent a
one player wonder from achieving a high ranking.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> Andrea has the most points therefore he should be in the lead
> as he isn't, despite having the most caps, the system is flawed and
> while the scoring is based on the average it will continue to remain
> flawed.
We all know what you think about this point, and I respect your
opinion. It's evident that you joined the game thinking that it was
something (most caps wins) different from what it actually is (best
average wins). So I ask you: do you find the following statements,
extracted from the FAQs as they are now( http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/faqs.htm
), not clear? If so, I'll try to find a better wording, because I'd
like to avoid that new scouts misunderstand the goal of the game like
you did.
"[Fantasy Scout is] just the formalization of disputes like "I'm more
a football expert than you, because I foresaw a great future for
Matthaus before you!", "Yes, but you also thought that Lienen was
good!". I.e. you have to be the first to believe in a player, and you
have to spot good players (i.e. players that will play and score for
their national teams) and not bad ones (otherwise your score
decreases). "
"Your goal is, every year, to pick the two best players among the ones
that are still eligible."
"It's better to have 1 player with 11 points than 10 players with 100
points in total (average 10 points). But remember: you have to pick at
least two player each year."
Thanks.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> And so it is under the current rules: Enzo did maybe the "best" picks
> in average, but he has to wait some time before topping the ranking.
>
> But he knows that, if he has picked the "best" players, he will sooner
> or later top the ranking. If the score of a scout was a plain sum,
> this could not be true: it could be that the "best" scout, if he
> joined the game later, will never top the ranking.
On a second thought, this is not true in this form (if you assume that
we live eternally...) [1]. But what is true is that under a "plain
sum" system scouts who joined the game later have an handicap, while
this is not true under an "average" system.
[1] This means that even a "plain sum" system would pass my criterion
about fairness regard future players.
--
Cheers
milivella
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
> Benny:
>
> Here is my reply, even if I'm not replying where I would just repeat
> myself. But the most important thing is that *you just have to find a
> way to make all scouts start with the score that they have now*. Do
> it, and I won't vote against your reform (all the issues that I can
> find notwithstanding). If you don't do it (or you don't persuade me
> that you aren't violating my criterion of fairness, or that such a
> criterion is wrong), I'll vote against it. Fix that little thing, and
> you have my agreement on the reform.
Why should the scouts start with the same score they have now if the
scoring system is flawed? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever,
Alessandro is top because the nonsensical scoring system. He should not
be top, the scout with the most caps should be top. As far as I am
concerned there is nothing to fix in my proposal. You can vote against
it if you like but in six months time I guarantee there's be more
threads calling for reform.
> But he knows that, if he has picked the "best" players, he will sooner
> or later top the ranking. If the score of a scout was a plain sum,
> this could not be true:
Yes it will because the scout with the most capped players will always
lead the rankings.
> And in FS you have to pick at least 2 players each year, to prevent a
> one player wonder from achieving a high ranking.
That doesn't address the core problem of the game, the scoring.
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
>> And so it is under the current rules: Enzo did maybe the "best" picks
>> in average, but he has to wait some time before topping the ranking.
>>
>> But he knows that, if he has picked the "best" players, he will sooner
>> or later top the ranking. If the score of a scout was a plain sum,
>> this could not be true: it could be that the "best" scout, if he
>> joined the game later, will never top the ranking.
>
> On a second thought, this is not true in this form (if you assume that
> we live eternally...) [1]. But what is true is that under a "plain
> sum" system scouts who joined the game later have an handicap, while
> this is not true under an "average" system.
Again look at real sport. A team who gains promotion are not going to
win the Championship in their first year, they have to BUILD and that's
exactly the case with new comers to Fantasy Scout. Your system renders
caps almost useless and punishes scouts for taking risks because non
capped players work against a scouts average.
milivella
> Why should the scouts start with the same score they have now if the
> scoring system is flawed? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever,
> Alessandro is top because the nonsensical scoring system. He should not
> be top, the scout with the most caps should be top.
Even if I agreed with you about the actual system being flawed (and I
don't), you can't say that, if the rules were different from the
beginning, Alessandro would have picked the same players that he has
picked. In fact, you can be pretty sure that every scout bar you would
have changed their strategy, picking 16 players each year (as you've
done). So you're penalizing who followed the rules: this is unfair to
me (not just me, you can bet about it).
> As far as I am
> concerned there is nothing to fix in my proposal.
But you have to find the agreement of all the scouts, so if you want
your proposal to be accepted you have to change something.
> You can vote against
> it if you like but in six months time I guarantee there's be more
> threads calling for reform.
Maybe. Then two things could happen:
- We'll find agreement about a reform, and I'll be happy of it.
- We won't find any agreement, and this means that the current system
(that all the scouts have accepted joining the game) is the only one
that we all accept.
> > And in FS you have to pick at least 2 players each year, to prevent a
> > one player wonder from achieving a high ranking.
>
> That doesn't address the core problem of the game, the scoring.
So the ranking of strikers that you host doesn't address the core
problem, the scoring.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> Again look at real sport. A team who gains promotion are not going to
> win the Championship in their first year, they have to BUILD and that's
> exactly the case with new comers to Fantasy Scout. Your system renders
> caps almost useless and punishes scouts for taking risks because non
> capped players work against a scouts average.
Once and for ever: I won't repeat what I've already written, because
it's pretty useless for the debate.
---
I think that I've taken a pretty tolerant position: I'm saying that,
even if I prefer the actual system to any reform proposed so far, I
won't vote against *any* reform proposed by you or anyone else, as
long as what has been done so far is kept intact. I've also suggested
a couple of ways for you to do it (cut squads fairly; have two
different rankings, 2007-09 and 2010-apocalypse).
BTW, I could also tell "everything is OK for me", and nothing would
change. In fact, you can't expect penalized scouts to accept your
proposal. So a proposal that changes the past will be rejected anyway,
if not by me by someone else.
--
Cheers
milivella
Futbolmetrix
>
> - For each year of birth (1990, 1991, etc.) you can pick up to 10
> players. You can do it in any moment, as long as the player that you
> are picking is under-20 (i.e. in 2010 you can pick players born in
> 1990, 1991, 1992...; in 2011 you can pick player born in 1991 or
> after; etc.)
Even though going under-20 probably matches best the spirit of Fantasy
"Scout", I would probably vote against such a proposal (or not vote against,
but eventually stop playing). The truth is that I am nowhere near to being a
real "scout" with a true knowledge of youth football. With the amount of
scouts we have it's already hard enough to pick two players a year without
age limitations. If we go under-20 it would become just a huge shot in the
dark.
D
milivella
> Even though going under-20 probably matches best the spirit of Fantasy
> "Scout", I would probably vote against such a proposal (or not vote against,
> but eventually stop playing). The truth is that I am nowhere near to being a
> real "scout" with a true knowledge of youth football. With the amount of
> scouts we have it's already hard enough to pick two players a year without
> age limitations. If we go under-20 it would become just a huge shot in the
> dark.
OK. Even if I'm not going to propose the mentioned reform, what you
write is very important for whoever thinks about shaping the game, so
thanks for the feedback.
Of course the hypothetical reform could be changed: e.g. no more
under-20, but under-23 (after all, the point is not making the game
more difficult, but to have players of the same age running one
against the others). But you have to find a way to avoid sure-shot
picks (Messi is still 22...), because competition doesn't always work
(too many good players have been overlooked by a dozen or more of
scouts...). The simplest solution would be to keep the actual limit of
2 senior caps (or make it "you can't pick a capped player").
--
Cheers
milivella
Abubakr
Yes, I don't see any need to specify an age limit so long as we keep
to the current eligibility rules of caps, in this system.
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
> Even if I agreed with you about the actual system being flawed (and I
> don't), you can't say that, if the rules were different from the
> beginning, Alessandro would have picked the same players that he has
> picked. In fact, you can be pretty sure that every scout bar you would
> have changed their strategy, picking 16 players each year (as you've
> done). So you're penalizing who followed the rules: this is unfair to
> me (not just me, you can bet about it).
Scouts are already penalised by the rules themselves.
> But you have to find the agreement of all the scouts, so if you want
> your proposal to be accepted you have to change something.
I don't see the need to change anything. If people accept it great, if
not it's no skin off my nose.
> So the ranking of strikers that you host doesn't address the core
> problem, the scoring.
Yes it does. That is a ranking, it's not a game. It's fair to every
single player because it based on their career average, over the course
of a players career their stats bottom out.
milivella
> > But you have to find the agreement of all the scouts, so if you want
> > your proposal to be accepted you have to change something.
>
> I don't see the need to change anything. If people accept it great, if
> not it's no skin off my nose.
This means that in your opinion the ranking is:
1. Your proposal in that exact form
2. Actual rules
3. All the other possible options (eventually tied with actual rules,
but not above them)
...so it seems that the present system doesn't suck that much! ;)
> > So the ranking of strikers that you host doesn't address the core
> > problem, the scoring.
>
> Yes it does. That is a ranking, it's not a game.
Fantasy Scout is a ranking of people picking players. Tim's ranking is
a ranking of people scoring goals.
> It's fair to every
> single player because it based on their career average, over the course
> of a players career their stats bottom out.
So Fantasy Scout is fair to every single scout because it's based on
their career average, over the course of scouts' career their stats
bottom out.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> I don't see the need to change anything. If people accept it great, if
> not it's no skin off my nose.
So officially propose it: write an e-mail, and let's see whether
people accept it. I don't think so, but you should try.
--
Cheers
milivella
Futbolmetrix
>
> Of course the hypothetical reform could be changed: e.g. no more
> under-20, but under-23 (after all, the point is not making the game
> more difficult, but to have players of the same age running one
> against the others). But you have to find a way to avoid sure-shot
> picks (Messi is still 22...), because competition doesn't always work
> (too many good players have been overlooked by a dozen or more of
> scouts...). The simplest solution would be to keep the actual limit of
> 2 senior caps (or make it "you can't pick a capped player").
Of course. I'm not against an age limit in absolute terms, but I think that
U-20 is too extreme. U23 + no more than 2 caps would probably be OK, but
even the current system is fine. Why should one not have the right to pick
Guiza or Amauri or Felipe Melo if he so wishes?
D
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
> So Fantasy Scout is fair to every single scout because it's based on
> their career average, over the course of scouts' career their stats
> bottom out.
Nonsense. A player who scores lots of goals will have a high goalscoring
average. In this game a scout who has the most caps doesn't have the
highest average.
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
> So officially propose it: write an e-mail, and let's see whether
> people accept it. I don't think so, but you should try.
I have officially proposed it. What's the point in creating this thread
if you want scouts to propose reforms via e-mail?
milivella
> > So Fantasy Scout is fair to every single scout because it's based on
> > their career average, over the course of scouts' career their stats
> > bottom out.
>
> Nonsense. A player who scores lots of goals will have a high goalscoring
> average.
A scout who has lots of caps will have a high average.
> In this game a scout who has the most caps doesn't have the
> highest average.
A player who scores most goals doesn't have the highest average.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> > So officially propose it: write an e-mail, and let's see whether
> > people accept it. I don't think so, but you should try.
>
> I have officially proposed it. What's the point in creating this thread
> if you want scouts to propose reforms via e-mail?
Last year I proposed a reform and was asked to discuss it before
officially proposing. So I've developed the habit to open a thread
before proposing a reform; after all, I think it's better, to optimize
the reform before officially proposing it.
More: you can't discuss things via e-mail because there would be too
mails around, so discussions must be held elsewhere. On the other
hand, the only medium that every scout checks (and that must check) is
e-mail, so official proposals (the same is true for picks) must be
done via e-mail.
--
Cheers
milivella
Benny
> From : mili...@gmail.com
> A scout who has lots of caps will have a high average.
The scout with the most caps doesn't have the highest average.
> A player who scores most goals doesn't have the highest average.
The only reason an average was used to determine a ranking for strikers
is obviously because strikers play in different leagues and will change
clubs several times during their careers yet in any given year the top
ranked striker in any league or tournament is the one who scores the
MOST GOALS, his average is completely and utterly irrelevant.
milivella
> > Subject : Fantasy Scout reform - time to officially propose YOUR reform
> > From : milive...@gmail.com
>
> > A scout who has lots of caps will have a high average.
>
> The scout with the most caps doesn't have the highest average.
The player with the most goals doesn't have the highest average.
> > A player who scores most goals doesn't have the highest average.
>
> The only reason an average was used to determine a ranking for strikers
> is obviously because strikers play in different leagues
The only reason an average was used to determine a ranking of scouts
is obviously because scouts enter the game in different times.
> yet in any given year the top
> ranked striker in any league or tournament is the one who scores the
> MOST GOALS, his average is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Don't tell me: *you* are keeping such a ranking in your site. Why, if
it's "completely and utterly irrelevant"?
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> I have officially proposed it.
I'd like to submit my vote, but I can't, because I don't understand
some points. It seems to me that the proposal lacks a lot of necessary
details, but maybe it's just me being too stupid to see them. Can you
please help me? Thanks.
Here are my doubts:
a. I have picked 25 players, but "every scout must have a squad size
of 11 players". Am I out of the game because I have picked too many
players?
b. I'm assuming (even if I don't find it in your proposal) that I have
to cut 14 players. How much time can I wait before cutting them? Can I
wait until their career is over, so I'm sure that I'll cut the one
with less points?
c. I read that "any player dropped by a scout goes into a draft and
the scout with the lowest score has first pick". What happens if two
scouts have the same lowest score (e.g. 0)? Do they have a fight to
decide who goes first?
d. Is the draft held every time someone drops a player? Or is it held
every x months? If so, how much is x?
e. How much time has a scout to pick a player (or pass - I assume it's
possible, isn't it?) in a draft? Can he wait for years?
f. If there are drafts, we need someone to manage drafts. But Fantasy
Scout has not a gamemaster (BTW, it's difficult to find someone who
can swear to manage a game that could in theory grow up to hundreds of
contestants and last for decades). So who manages the draft? You? Or
have you find a volunteer?
g. (I've already asked this one, but you haven't replied. I hope that
I'll be lucky this time.) I read that "the points earned by the
dropped player carry over to the scout who acquires him". Does this
apply to retired players as well? If not, how can you decide whether a
player is retired or not?
Maybe there is something else: if this is the case, I'll ask you
later. Thanks again.
--
Cheers
milivella
Futbolmetrix
news:YQm7m.13809$OA1....@newsfe29.ams2...
>
> Every scout must have a minimum squad size of 11 players i.e. the same
> number that have to take the field in a football match. The sum of the
> points earned by these 11 players is the score. Scouts can replace players
> in their squads with new players (though obviously lose the points earned
> by any player they drop)
> provided they fit the criteria for selection (i.e. less than 2 official
> caps). Any player dropped by a scout goes into a draft and the scout with
> the lowest score has first pick. The points earned by the dropped player
>
> average punishes scouts for taking risks, future internationals count
> against a scouts' score, they should not have any detrimental effect
> because that defeats the very objective of the game itself.
I voted against the proposal. I don't like the draft system, and prefer MH's
suggestion that a dropped player can only be picked by someone else if he's
still eligible to be picked. First come, first served.
In any case, this is not the core of Benny's proposal, so I'm sure that
he'll have no problem with presenting an amended proposal.
Problem is, I suspect that some of the other scouts will vote down an
amended proposal, because it does not address satisfactorily the fact that
they had chosen a particular strategy under the old set of rules, which is
no longer optimal under the current rules.
D
milivella
> I don't like the draft system, and prefer MH's
> suggestion that a dropped player can only be picked by someone else if he's
> still eligible to be picked. First come, first served.
>
> In any case, this is not the core of Benny's proposal, so I'm sure that
> he'll have no problem with presenting an amended proposal.
Not so easy. I've already suggested such a change
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.soccer/msg/dc0bbfada25eebac
and Benny has snubbed it. Now, either he has something against me (but
I don't think so) or he isn't willing to accept such a suggestion.
> Problem is, I suspect that some of the other scouts will vote down an
> amended proposal, because it does not address satisfactorily the fact that
> they had chosen a particular strategy under the old set of rules, which is
> no longer optimal under the current rules.
Saying that he wants to penalize other contestants and not showing any
good faith/will (i.e. not accepting to cut present squads or similar
fixes) doesn't help...
But we have to wait: if Benny will propose another reform, we'll see
what each of us will vote.
--
Cheers
milivella
Benny
> The player with the most goals doesn't have the highest average.
And?
> The only reason an average was used to determine a ranking of scouts
> is obviously because scouts enter the game in different times.
That's a very poor reason because you are negating the value of caps.
>> yet in any given year the top
>> ranked striker in any league or tournament is the one who scores the
>> MOST GOALS, his average is completely and utterly irrelevant.
>
> Don't tell me: *you* are keeping such a ranking in your site. Why, if
> it's "completely and utterly irrelevant"?
I repeat in ANY GIVEN YEAR the top ranked striker in any league or
tournament is the one who scores the
MOST GOALS, his average is completely and utterly irrelevant to that.
The top striker ranking is a career ranking based on goals per game, it
is not a ranking to determine the best striker in England, Spain, Italy,
France, the World Cup etc, etc that goes to the player who scores the
most goals.