Dazz
Years ago

Can somebody Please explain the Points system?

Sorry, I appreciate that this subject has probably been done to death in previous years. But I have never really understood it, and so have tended to ignore it.

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.

I'll use Perth Wildcats examples, simply because I'm familiar with the team, not because I think we're more hard done by than other teams. I'm sure every team has similar examples. (and yes, I know that some feel Perth has actually benefited from loopholes.)

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?
(Or to look at it another way, if Martin is worth 10, then imports should be 12~15.)

And HOW does somebody like Jervis go from 1 to 7 in one year? 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.

This system is supposed to promote a better spread of talent, but I think it does exactly the opposite.
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.

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.

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.

Topic #36122 | Report this topic


Wilson Sting  
Years ago

The other thing you need to note is that a players points rating (relative to how much it counts towards the team) remains as is for the length of their contract. So if an ordinary player is signed on for say 1 point for a 3 year contract, they will only count as 1 point for each of those 3 years. If they have a breakout year and become a superstar worth 10 points, if their original contract is in place they'll only count as one. Makes it interesting when contract renewal time comes up, but it does reward the club for having some faith in the player.

The loyalty system is a bit farcical as it was brought in and applied straight away. If teams had known it was coming a few years ago they may have changed the way they handled players. This is one part that the Wildcats have benefited from.

The points system is not bad but I think it still needs a bit of tweaking to help spread out the talent as it is designed to do.

Reply #507316 | Report this post


Bol Bol  
Years ago

The points system has always been a gripe of mine. I cant see how it promotes parity when as Dazz mentioned an ennis or childress type is valued the same as a damian martin. Or star players like abercrombie or pledger were valued 1 point players for their multi year contract duration. The loyalty discount is a good idea but again its not equal across the board each season. This year perth and wollongong have benifited most from it but where does that leave new franchises?

Reply #507319 | Report this post


Dazz  
Years ago

My biggest question is about how the points are determined? Is is based on some statistical formula?

Reply #507321 | Report this post


FYI  
Years ago

Statistical formula and then a panel refinement of the value.

People claim that Damien Martin is the best defensive player in NBL history so his 10 point rating is fair.

Jervis goes from 1 to a 7 because that is his value amongst his contemporaries. If Perth had signed him to a 2 year deal he wouldn't be a 7 this season.

"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."

Redhage would have plenty of offers coming his way regardless of points value if Perth dont want him. It has been argued that a player like Teys has found himself an NBL career because of the points system.

Reply #507326 | Report this post


Isaac  
Years ago

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.

Reply #507329 | Report this post


paul  
Years ago

Interesting 'discussion'. I guess it's good to know there's still some non-basketball purists following the NBL.

Reply #507330 | Report this post


Dazz  
Years ago

As I said, this wasn't about whinging that the Cats were hard done by, I only use those players as examples because they're the ones I'm most familiar with. I imagine a fan of any team might have similar questions.

I'm just asking how the points are allocated?
Is it based on stats, such as points, rebounds, steals, etc?
One possible explanation I was given was that it was based on "contribution to wins" ie how many minutes a player plays, relative to their teams performance. Supposedly the rationale behind such a system would be that it rates a player based on how his own team rates him.

In regards to individual players, I just think that some of the relative values are off. I think this comes from capping the points at 10.
In regards to Martin, I'm just curious has to how the points are calculated. If you look at him subjectively, nobody could question his value to the team, but if the formulae were based purely on stats then I'm surprised.
As mentioned elsewhere, Redhage is my favourite player of the last decade, and next year he'll be a "bargain" at 6 points. And yes, he'll be there for as long as he can play, regardless of any points system. My point was just that IF such a player (not necessarily Reghage) had to move, might not the 10 points be a barrier to his joining some clubs?

I suppose that in some ways it doesn't really matter with imports. Teams can only have two, so making them worth a flat ten points, probably doesn't matter. I guess it encourages teams to seek quality imports for the betterment of the game.

I appreciate that in reality the points are only a minor consideration when it comes to building and maintaining a team. Eg if they had scrapped the points for this season, I don't imagine we'd have a significantly different team.

As for Jervis, again not whinging, just curious as to how he becomes a 7 pointer after a good rookie year. My gripe with Nevill was that I thought it was unfair on HIM, not that I felt it significantly disadvantaged The Wildcats.

At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I was mostly just curious about how the points were allocated. Looking at the points holistically, as the reigning champions, I'd expect The Wildcats squad to be worth the maximum and struggling to add anybody. I still rate the current squad as potentially the best team in the league. (When Hire is back, and Daniels still improving.)
I suppose, if allocating points was up to me, I'd have imports and high scorers worth more, and bench/ role players worth less...

Reply #507370 | Report this post


FYI  
Years ago

More of a barrier to a player switching clubs is their reputation. If a club has Wortho they wouldn't sign Redhage. Ervin wouldn't play in Perth.

Your last sentence highlights your confusion. If a player averages 15 rebounds a game they would be the best in the league. Just because someone isn't a scorer doesn't mean they aren't good at basketball.

Bench players almost across the board are lower rated unless they are an import coming off the bench ala Craig for Cairns.

Reply #507372 | Report this post


Dazz  
Years ago

"Your last sentence highlights your confusion. If a player averages 15 rebounds a game they would be the best in the league. Just because someone isn't a scorer doesn't mean they aren't good at basketball."
Nah, not what I meant, maybe I should have said "high stats getters"

Reply #507373 | Report this post


Isaac  
Years ago

Dazz, a long time ago I heard that it was, at some time, based off the Tendex calculations (http://www.iscoutsports.com/tendex/). I imagine it penalises turnovers, missed field goals, etc. So someone like Martin (doesn't take unnecessary shots, minimises turnovers) might compare favourably with a volume shooter who doesn't add boards, steals, etc (Harvey, Rillie, guys like that).

You can see something similar at work with Dream Team rankings where high percentage shooters will do well. Or in NBA analysis where chuckers might not rank well in similar systems despite scoring well (JR Smith, Jamal Crawford, etc).

Reply #507382 | Report this post


Dazz  
Years ago

On of the problems with this system is that the maximum of 10 is far too low if you consider the difference in quality across the league.
The Cats won the 'ship last year, so you'd expect them to have a big points total, but the issue is how it is allocated.

With players like Ennis and Beal, the whole team looked good, they only take 10 points each, so Redhage, Martin, and Knight also take 10 points, Wagstaff 8 and even Hire 7.
Redhage is my favourite Cat of the past decade, but loyalty discount aside, does anyone series believe he's still a 10 point player?

The problem again is that Ennis and Beal made that starting five look worth 50 points, and on paper they seemed to have three very good players on the bench.

Not sure what the Cats could have done beyond that. Most teams would be happy with a solid 8 man rota, and a couple of young guys. Unfortunately injuries have left them really exposed this season. U'U has a lot to learn, but he's ok value for a 2 point player. Problem is he's had to fill a bigger role.

It will be interesting to see if the points change this year (although they wouldn't take effect till after the current contracts run out.)

Reply #518898 | Report this post


Dazz  
Years ago

Something else I would like to see, is a 2nd (3rd?) tier, between the "regular" players and the DP's.
To firstly encourage retention of promising players from the DP category, and also to lessen the impact of massive jump in points from ex-DP.

Reply #518904 | Report this post


koberulz  
Years ago

DPs are worth one point. That's not a "massive jump in points".

Reply #518912 | Report this post




You need to be a registered user to post from this location. Register here.



Close ads
Serio: Tourism photography and videography
Little Streaks - The fun and interactive good-habits app designed especially for kids.

Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.

Recent Posts



.


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 8:38 pm, Fri 29 Mar 2024 | Posts: 968,026 | Last 7 days: 754