Discussion BBL|10 SC: Team & In-Game Discussion - Home of #1 and #2 Leagues

[jel]

Last round, seems longer ago than last night with all the posts since, 591 with Philippe C.

Thinking with me leaving for work just after 3 that I trade out Hales (again) with the doubts on the weather and leave my other two trades until tomorrow.

Hales R1 starter, traded out R3, in R6, out R9, in R12 and as stated above probably out R13.

This is a totally different mindset to AFL SC for me as I am most reluctant to trade back in a player I have traded out unless it was injury related and even then I will think more than twice.

DC has a similar history in my team this year

It's taken a while for me to get my head arround that as well.
Have to un-learn it for the AFL season

 

[Professor]

Great that they are taking on feedback. Its a tough one because of how many games there are and how quickly they happen, but three items that have crossed my mind are:
1. SR and ER bonus to be dependent on how the rest of the innings has gone. As I've said before, conceding 7 an over on a night where the opposition has scored 200 has had far more impact on the match than if they are bowled out for 120. This should obtain extra points for players we feel had more 'impact' on the game than their score at the moment suggests.
2. This one may be a lot of work but separate scoring systems for SR and ER depending on status. For example, if a player is bowler only and only bowls 1 over, I think they should still get their ER bonus. Similarly, if they are BAT only, they can get a strike rate bonus regardless of whether they get to 20 or not. This adds value to BAT and BWL only players, otherwise we still go after BAT/BWL or WK/BAT players as they provide more flexibility in our teams.
3. Difference in points for wickets based on time in the innings. Maybe 25 points a wicket in the power play/surge, 15 points a wicket in the final 4 overs and 20 points a wicket outside of these times. A good example is Dorf. Should be in more teams but isn't because "he doesn't bowl the death overs". A change in the above would hopefully see us with more different players in our teams.

Those are just my thoughts on trying to get the scoring system to be a bit more supercoachy.

Thanks for the feedback, I've posted for you.

 

[Professor]

I don't have Twitter, but one suggestion:

Split the league rankings up between 6 and 14 team leagues so they are not ranked together. Maybe copy Brice in too, I'm sure he'll be wanting that too after getting so close to top spot this year after he (hopefully) misses out.

Others such as giving all involved in a run out points and going back to the much better old scoring system for batting scoring etc are not likely to happen, but I'm sure you have seen them mentioned.

I've already posted about separating the leagues, although I think I said 6 and 12 team leagues, haven't paid attention lol. I'll post the runouts that's a good one.

 

[Professor]

Great that they are taking on feedback. Its a tough one because of how many games there are and how quickly they happen, but three items that have crossed my mind are:
1. SR and ER bonus to be dependent on how the rest of the innings has gone. As I've said before, conceding 7 an over on a night where the opposition has scored 200 has had far more impact on the match than if they are bowled out for 120. This should obtain extra points for players we feel had more 'impact' on the game than their score at the moment suggests.
2. This one may be a lot of work but separate scoring systems for SR and ER depending on status. For example, if a player is bowler only and only bowls 1 over, I think they should still get their ER bonus. Similarly, if they are BAT only, they can get a strike rate bonus regardless of whether they get to 20 or not. This adds value to BAT and BWL only players, otherwise we still go after BAT/BWL or WK/BAT players as they provide more flexibility in our teams.
3. Difference in points for wickets based on time in the innings. Maybe 25 points a wicket in the power play/surge, 15 points a wicket in the final 4 overs and 20 points a wicket outside of these times. A good example is Dorf. Should be in more teams but isn't because "he doesn't bowl the death overs". A change in the above would hopefully see us with more different players in our teams.

Those are just my thoughts on trying to get the scoring system to be a bit more supercoachy.

On a winner possibly.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1353554238639542278

 

[Shaunpro1]

Old SR system worked better, feels way too lop sided to bowlers now.

 

[Shaunpro1]

From a person who normally pays less attention to the weather than the general consensus on here I have now no players playing tonight.

There was only one to start with and my only active donut on the bat/wkp line being Gilkes of thunder so basically useless this round.

Hales to Labuschange

With all the talk on here of trading out Zampa he is currently trying the C armband on for size in my team

I really dont understand trading Zampa, plays one bad game and people jump off one of the best short form bowlers in the world.

 

[Professor]

This suggestion has legs.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1353547215650779136

 

[Professor]

Old SR system worked better, feels way too lop sided to bowlers now.

Yes, definitely being reviewed by them.

 

[jaca]

"We" hand out plenty of complaints to these guys, nice to see them actively listening. Very cool.

 

[Professor]

I really dont understand trading Zampa, plays one bad game and people jump off one of the best short form bowlers in the world.

I think it's preserving cash, breakeven of 138 would likely drop at least $20k, then unlimited trades for finals, so you can bring him in, but looks unlikely the stars will be playing finals.

 

[Shaunpro1]

"We" hand out plenty of complaints to these guys, nice to see them actively listening. Very cool.

They got feedback last year and still did whatever the hell they wanted, wouldn't be holding my breath.

 

[Shaunpro1]

I think it's preserving cash, breakeven of 138 would likely drop at least $20k, then unlimited trades for finals, so you can bring him in, but looks unlikely the stars will be playing finals.

Why do people care about 20K? You'll never have any trouble fielding a team in finals, too many people obsessed with BE's and piss away points.

 

[Wolffy84]

On a winner possibly.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1353554238639542278

Thank you for posting the info to Tim. Would love to see that wicket points change. Force us to consider more bowlers.

 

[Professor]

There's some great discussion now.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1353558142878011392

 

[Herbie66]

Thank you for posting the info to Tim. Would love to see that wicket points change. Force us to consider more bowlers.

So shouldn't then batsman be rewarded more for scoring runs in the Power Play and surge ?

If you are placing more importance in when a wicket is taken , it should be equal as to when runs are scored.

I do like your points based on "impact" though , not sure how they easily award that though.

 

[Herbie66]

@Professor

How about Rashid getting extra points for dismissing a left hander

 

[7/11]

So shouldn't then batsman be rewarded more for scoring runs in the Power Play and surge ?

If you are placing more importance in when a wicket is taken , it should be equal as to when runs are scored.

I do like your points based on "impact" though , not sure how they easily award that though.

Percentage of runs points?

Over 10% of team score = 5 points
Over 20% of team score = 10 points
Over 30% of team score = 15 points
Over 40% of team score = 20 points
Over 50% of team score = 25 points

Have this in addition to the runs to balls ratio and then you give batsmen a chance of being on the same level as bowlers in this game.

Means a lone hand in a hefty loss can still be given plenty of points.

 

[Wolffy84]

So shouldn't then batsman be rewarded more for scoring runs in the Power Play and surge ?

If you are placing more importance in when a wicket is taken , it should be equal as to when runs are scored.

I do like your points based on "impact" though , not sure how they easily award that though.

The issue with the batsmen is they are in a set order. The openers together usually score 40% of the runs. Giving them a bonus on top of that will make it almost impossible to pick middle order batsmen (not that it's great now). Bowlers are a bit different as there is no order and they can bowl whatever overs are appropriate to the game.

 

[Wolffy84]

Percentage of runs points?

Over 10% of team score = 5 points
Over 20% of team score = 10 points
Over 30% of team score = 15 points
Over 40% of team score = 20 points
Over 50% of team score = 25 points

Have this in addition to the runs to balls ratio and then you give batsmen a chance of being on the same level as bowlers in this game.

Means a lone hand in a hefty loss can still be given plenty of points.

If I was making my own game this would be in. Same with bowlers. Taking 2 wickets out of 10 is not the same as taking 2 wickets out of 3

 

[Herbie66]

@Professor

In all seriousness.

If they are adjusting the points awarded for wickets depending on overs they should also be doing the same for runs , PP & PS should be awarded differently.

Points should be different if a team is batting first or chasing.

But now you will end up with a point system that could change game to game and start being too complicated.

I would like to see the old SR points reintroduced for batsmen.