The points values have not been released to the public, just players, agents and clubs at this stage.
This time around, clubs cannot appeal ratings, just the players. And a number of players will have to do that or they will simply not be able to get a gig with their current ratings.
There are a lot of really bizarre ones and my argument to the NBL has been that they could offset some of this incredulous reaction by just tweaking the numbers before they're released. Even if it's just those that are 2-4 points off!
I'd guess that the numbers will be released once the appeals have been processed. Even then, I think there could be a few silly ones left in by players not interested in appealing (a bit like how Chappell was a 10 for 08/09 because he wasn't around to appeal - doesn't mean much but I did see a few fans around the traps taking that to mean that the NBL were clueless and that would've been trivial to avoid).
FWIW, the system is based on statistical analysis (Tendex method) which, seems to me, inflates the value of players with a high FG% or low TOs or who were efficient in minimal minutes but would not excel at the same rate were they to play more. e.g., there is one 11 MPG centre who is rated about 4 points too high.
One issue that will stand past the re-ratings is that of players that are probably rated too low and obviously wouldn't appeal. Hinder stands out as the most obvious candidate (two points below where he should be IMO) and Bruce is another (also about 1-2 below where I'd rank him).
One thing many might agree with is that Daniel Joyce is rated in one of the bottom non-rookie brackets. The peers had voted (nominations but no votes in NBL awards) and now the stats have voted.
Peer review or stats with peer review tweaks should be the solution. One individual screwing with the system should not deter the league from trying it.
