Discussion BBL|10 SC: Team & In-Game Discussion - Home of #1 and #2 Leagues
- Thread starter Goodie's Guns
- Start date
My gut feel is they were trying to reduce the effectiveness of all rounders a little bit.. by changing the ER bonus to 3 overs and SR bonus to minimum 20 runs, theoretically very few players should qualify for both. Not sure it worked out as they intended as it's mostly punished batsman only (or batting all rounders who only get max 2 overs most games), but if I had to guess I'd say that was what drove the change.
Haha. No chance of remembering that far back unfortunately. I only remember the year (same as the shield one) as I was in last year uni and just discovered AFL DT. Loved it so much I dived into the cricket ones as well (and the F1 and Supercars games too).
I seem to recall the allrounders scored way too many points (nothing's changed!)
I seem to recall the allrounders scored way too many points (nothing's changed!)
Personally don't believe batsmen are rewarded enough at the moment.
If we look at the Thunder game where Hales hit 100, he scored between 40-50% of the runs for the thunder, so gets 20 point bonus, 10 point bonus for the hundred, 54 for the runs to balls ratio and 25 points for the boundary bonuses. Add this to the 110 runs he scored and he gets 219 points total. In my opinion, if you score a ton in a T/20 game at the rate Hales did, you deserve every single point you gain.
Compare this to Alex Carey's hundred and he gets 25 points for over 50% of team runs, +39 for runs to balls ratio, +20 for the ton and 16 for boundaries hit. 201 total for his score. He faced an 8 extra balls.
Even comparing Wade vs Short vs Silk from yesterday:
Wade: 86 runs + 16 in boundaries + 42 in balls + 20 (40-50% of team score) + 10 for half century = 176 points
Short: 72 runs + 13 in boundaries + 20 in balls + 15 (30-40% of team score) + 10 for half century = 110 points
Silk: 78 runs + 12 in boundaries + 29 in balls + 20 (40-50% of team score) + 10 for half century = 149 points
I think considering the impact of each batsmen in the game, it is a pretty good way of discerning each player's impact on the game. Sure Silk's team lost, but it was through no fault of his own.
If we look at the Thunder game where Hales hit 100, he scored between 40-50% of the runs for the thunder, so gets 20 point bonus, 10 point bonus for the hundred, 54 for the runs to balls ratio and 25 points for the boundary bonuses. Add this to the 110 runs he scored and he gets 219 points total. In my opinion, if you score a ton in a T/20 game at the rate Hales did, you deserve every single point you gain.
Compare this to Alex Carey's hundred and he gets 25 points for over 50% of team runs, +39 for runs to balls ratio, +20 for the ton and 16 for boundaries hit. 201 total for his score. He faced an 8 extra balls.
Even comparing Wade vs Short vs Silk from yesterday:
Wade: 86 runs + 16 in boundaries + 42 in balls + 20 (40-50% of team score) + 10 for half century = 176 points
Short: 72 runs + 13 in boundaries + 20 in balls + 15 (30-40% of team score) + 10 for half century = 110 points
Silk: 78 runs + 12 in boundaries + 29 in balls + 20 (40-50% of team score) + 10 for half century = 149 points
I think considering the impact of each batsmen in the game, it is a pretty good way of discerning each player's impact on the game. Sure Silk's team lost, but it was through no fault of his own.
I'm pretty sure this is actually on record somewhere, but it's months ago I would have seen it. It's definitely something to do with preventing all rounders from dominating teams, because that obviously severely limits the amount of relevant players.
I'm not sure that's a problem that's getting solved no matter what the system is, though. 8 teams and 19 man squads = 152 players to pick from (plus local replacements), only 88 of them are going to play, and there's probably about 3-4 players in any given team that have very little effect on the game. Plus DGRs are constantly forcing the field in one direction or another as well!
I'm not sure that's a problem that's getting solved no matter what the system is, though. 8 teams and 19 man squads = 152 players to pick from (plus local replacements), only 88 of them are going to play, and there's probably about 3-4 players in any given team that have very little effect on the game. Plus DGRs are constantly forcing the field in one direction or another as well!
Updated Melbourne forecast for tomorrow:
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/australia/melbourne/hourly
Suggests we should be more worried about tonight
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/australia/melbourne/hourly
Suggests we should be more worried about tonight
They also did a test one in 2009-2010 when the West Indies and Pakistan was here. That was the summer Watto dominated and he was a must have in the allrounder spot...which I hated because I wanted him out of the team.
Worse than that actually...Bravo was the other allrounder. I rated Bravo so much more highly but eventually had to bit the bullet and switch to watto
Worse than that actually...Bravo was the other allrounder. I rated Bravo so much more highly but eventually had to bit the bullet and switch to watto
I completely agree batsman are undervalued! My worry was this might swing the pendulum a little too far the other way, but looking at those numbers it's not too bad. Could open some interesting strategies in selection, as batsman would likely have a significantly higher ceiling but also a higher chance of a scoring next to nothing.. high risk/high reward when they pay off.. but how many could you carry.. would make for an interesting season and probably much more variance in VC/C choices..
Great conversation.
To expand on Darkie's point, and without trying to sound mean: You have to try and keep some relative simplicity to the rules. You have to assume that at least 10-15% of people won't understand it, no matter how simple you make it. The more complicated, the higher that % goes. Currently, I would guess around 30% don't have a complete grasp of the rules.
You really don't want that number going higher.
My own 2 cents.
I hate the "golden ball", and "golden run" concept. That is currently the 18th ball, and 20th run, and those particular milestones can add 30+ odd points to a players score.
That's too much.
I also hate the "golden ball" on an over.
Bowl 5 dot balls, and you are bowling the last ball for 16 points.
Solution, though probably too complicated, given my opening comment.
Remove the 15 points for a Maiden over. A Maiden currently scores the bowler 21 points.
Make it 1st dot ball 1 point, 2nd dot ball in an over 2 points, etc.
A Maiden is still worth 21 points, but you are getting your reward if you bowl 5 dot balls. No "golden ball"!
As counter to this, tighten ER bonus points in 1 run per bracket, as the bowler is getting bigger rewards for dot balls.
To expand on Darkie's point, and without trying to sound mean: You have to try and keep some relative simplicity to the rules. You have to assume that at least 10-15% of people won't understand it, no matter how simple you make it. The more complicated, the higher that % goes. Currently, I would guess around 30% don't have a complete grasp of the rules.
You really don't want that number going higher.
My own 2 cents.
I hate the "golden ball", and "golden run" concept. That is currently the 18th ball, and 20th run, and those particular milestones can add 30+ odd points to a players score.
That's too much.
I also hate the "golden ball" on an over.
Bowl 5 dot balls, and you are bowling the last ball for 16 points.
Solution, though probably too complicated, given my opening comment.
Remove the 15 points for a Maiden over. A Maiden currently scores the bowler 21 points.
Make it 1st dot ball 1 point, 2nd dot ball in an over 2 points, etc.
A Maiden is still worth 21 points, but you are getting your reward if you bowl 5 dot balls. No "golden ball"!
As counter to this, tighten ER bonus points in 1 run per bracket, as the bowler is getting bigger rewards for dot balls.
I didn't play this comp so I'm not actually sure, but does that mean you have one player benched on each line?
If so, that would make looping very difficult to execute, at least with a schedule like this year's with almost no byes. That's not necessarily a positive or negative thing, but a point of interest. Now, if you could bench any four of those 15...
If so, that would make looping very difficult to execute, at least with a schedule like this year's with almost no byes. That's not necessarily a positive or negative thing, but a point of interest. Now, if you could bench any four of those 15...