Dazz
Years ago
Player Points System - 16/17
I'm not sure when these are actually published. Supposed to be within 2 weeks of the end of the season, but who knows.
I can already predict some problems.
I just recently read an old article on this, it made some very good points regarding restraint of trade.
As far as I know, the NBL has never officially detailed the system used to derive the player points. Allegedly it is based on a combination of a statistical formula similar to Tendex, and ratings from all the senior coaches.
The problem with Tendex, and anything similar, is that it works on a "per minute" basis. That has the potential to really screw up the results.
Lets say you have two players with a similar Tendex rating. One averages 30 minutes a game over 28 games, the other averaged 5 minutes and only played a couple of games. If you rely solely on the statistical formula, then both get the same rating.
Not only does this have the tendency to overate bench players, but it's also unfair to injured players and their replacements. Nobody doubts that a fit Childress is one of the best players in the league, yet many think he should not be re-signed because of his injury record. Should a guy who managed only 18 games last season and only 13 this season, be rated a 10?
It's particularly bad for local players, because then the replacement mostly comes from the bench. So a guy who played only half the season gets rated a 10 because he was good when he played, and yet the bench players who stepped up to replace him also get over-rated.
When you look at some of the points allocated last year, they just make no sense.
At the top of the scale, it is ridiculous that there are local players who can't get a game elsewhere rated at 10, whilst players coming back from Europe are only 9. Ogilvy was rated a 9, and Luke Nevill an 8.
I appreciate that to some extent the points are a prediction. For example, Jervis receiving 8 points (even though averaging only 15 minutes) is saying that he's good enough for a starting spot. But, is that really fair? Judging a player on what he MIGHT achieve?
On of the issues the article highlighted was just how this was negatively impacting player's careers.
Is used the example of Teys who apparently (according to the article) had a player option. After a breakout rookie year, he could have negotiated a better deal (either with Adelaide or elsewhere) but was compelled to exercise his option because his existing 1 point rating made him more valuable. Somebody like Nevill is another example. Teams looking for a backup centre for their bench, especially those lacking a genuine 7-footer might have been interested, but not at 8 points. Even Jervis. Most of us would agree that he's PROBABLY good enough to get a starting gig elsewhere, but at 8 points will teams take the risk?
The article postulates that this is in fact restraint of trade, which is in fact illegal in Australia.
