I understand the concept, what's got me baffled is HOW these points are allocated, and furthermore how this system is supposed to achieve what they claim.
FYI has already covered this. There's a baseline statistical interpretation that suggests a value and then it's refined from there. Players can appeal their rating and I think teams can appeal one rating per off-season?
I get that 10 is the maximum, so great imports like Beal and Ennis are 10 points. But how then are players like Martin and Redhage also 10 points?
Marin is an outstanding player. If I could build a team around a Wildcat, I'd start with Martin over any of the others (including Ennis) and many sane people would also. You're looking at him in the context of missing threes recently. Every coach would remember the steals, the rebounding, the hounding of guards like Perry from the Kings and the Hawks guards too. Players like that will win you games. Ennis has disappeared after one season, Martin is there year after year and that's how you build a contending team.
Redhage is very efficient and remember his rating would come mostly from last season or the one before also. On one of the strongest teams, and where he can be nursed through minutes rather than driven into the ground. Remember that the first goal of the points system is parity across the league and the strongest teams are meant to feel pressure when it comes to recruiting. Perth should be full of cases where admin felt challenged to keep their locals and still add a new import (or two).
And HOW does somebody like Jervis go from 1 to 7 in one year?
He had a default rating to start with, then had an excellent rookie year (you know, winning Rookie of the Year...). Because the Cats hadn't signed him beyond the first year, he was rerated. Here are some other players with similar ratings: Garlepp, Ballinger, Tomlinson, Corletto, Holmes, etc.
They did a similar thing to Nevill, resulting in his being cut.
They supposedly want teams to develop local talent, but when they do the teams are penalised.
If the Cats were desperately keen on local talent, they could keep Nevill and not got a new import, right? Hawks might be happy to give him back too. You will have noticed that they still have Jervis on top of a centre some pitch as All-Star calibre, two imports, the defensive player of the year, and so on.
Ignoring the salary cap, and all the other considerations, a team would be better off chasing the six best players in the league, and filling the remaining spots with low values. Look at it this way, if we were playing Fantasy NBL, you've got 70 points to spend on your team, NOBODY would have players like Martin, Wagstaff, Hire, or Jervis in their team.
But you're not playing Fantasy NBL, you're playing real NBL. And the Cats retain those guys because they make for a successful team
that just won a championship. Is this because you lost a game in Sydney?!
People may think that the Cats pulled a swifty getting Ross for 3 points, or having U'U's appealed down to 2, but without those they would have been forced to cut somebody like Hire or Jervis.
Seriously? "Forced"!? You know what you could do instead of getting Ross? Promote a one point development player... Instead, the Cats have virtual imports U'u and Ross as college graduates as their 9th and 10th scorers in the team. Adelaide have local kid Daly, Wollongong have local kid Cooks, Sydney have Joyce. I'd argue that the Cats would be doing just as well with a rookie kid in there in place of Ross.
The loyalty discount is supposed to reward loyalty, but in reality it is the only thing keeping some of these guys playing. Redhage is in his 10th season, which means he'll be down to 6 points next season.
Doesn't this basically say "The loyalty discount is supposed to reward loyalty and is rewarding loyalty." ? Perth would've kept Redhage regardless, and other teams would've grabbed him as a 10 if he were available.
The ratings themselves aren't bad, but the system does disadvantage players in the 5-7 point bracket more often than not. People have suggested extending the scale to compensate for that.
Also, the loyalty discount can be problematic because it actively works against the weak teams who are more likely to be chopping and changing their roster to find a good combination or shifting on dodgy players.
Main thing limiting weaker teams is budget. I think a soft points cap where points could be purchased (on an increasingly expensive scale), proceeds going to teams not using their full cap, might help get the overall talent level up. Worth the league officially considering, at least.