Draft idea - may need work...

[AndrewB]

This is a bit more complicated than the usual draft...

The basic idea here is that you'd be picking players at their (statistical) peak, so rather than just picking (say) "Ian Botham", you'd pick maybe "Ian Botham: 1978-1982".

For the peaks, I thought maybe we could have one player for each of a 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, ..., 60-Test peak.

Then as an extra twist, rather than voting on the teams, they'd be matched up by picking a random innings for each player to give a "scorecard" - so if you'd picked "Botham 1978-1982", on a lucky day you'd get the 1980 Mumbai Test where he scored 114 and took 13-106; on an unlucky day you'd get the 1980 Centenary Test where he scored 0 and took 1-132.

Anyone think this sounds - interesting? fatally flawed? Suggestions of how you think it could be improved are also welcome.

 

[trundler]

Sounds fun, I'm in

 

[Pothas]

Yep

 

[Teuton]

I'm interested.
I think the adjudication is the best part of it but (may or may not be a flaw) have you considered how much manual calculations will be required for the adjudication process?
ie try it out once then times it by 88 or 110...
or you may have already worked out a method and its not a problem

 

[Line and Length]

Also interested

 

[Michaelf7777777]

I like the peak idea (a football forum I'm on generally judges players in drafts by 3 year peaks) but I do not like the random match idea as it makes the draft to luck based in my opinion

 

[Fuller Pilch]

In

 

[kingkallis]

In

 

[JOJOXI]

I'll give it a go please - can a player be picked more then once if each pick doesn't overlap in terms of time period - e.g. if someone said Botham (First 65 Tests)) and someone else Botham (final 20 Tests) as a random example?

 

[Himannv]

I didn't read the idea, but I'm in.

 

[Himannv]

Ok, after reading it, I think just skip the random innings part. Picking based on a peak is interesting and complicated enough (voters would find it complicated as well).

 

[AndrewB]

To clarify, the random innings part was to be *instead* of voting, not as part of it, my thoughts being:
(a) matching the teams up in that way would be entertaining
(b) rating teams made up of, say, "Botham (1978-1982)" (to repeat my favourite example) would be quite tricky.

Point (a) has the obvious risk that Michaelf7777777 points out (you could pick a great team and be frustrated by bad luck), and I guess we could get around point (b) to some extent by giving the stats for each player/peak pair.

Happy to go ahead with the idea and have voting as normal, if that's what people prefer.
(I may afterwards try out the "random pairings" idea anyway ).

 

[AndrewB]

I'll give it a go please - can a player be picked more then once if each pick doesn't overlap in terms of time period - e.g. if someone said Botham (First 65 Tests)) and someone else Botham (final 20 Tests) as a random example?

I'm inclined to say yes, as long as (as you say) they don't overlap.

 

[Teuton]

I think it would be too hard to separate peak player x vs full career player x in our heads if voting as normal (ie i agree with your point b) above)

 

[JOJOXI]

I guess point (a) also adds the aspect of whether you pick players with more consistent peaks - i.e. closer to a player who got 70 every innings or higher peaks but less consistent, I.e. 140 one innings, 0 the next. Although guess like Michaelf7777777 said that leaves a big element of luck.

A question - if you were to go down that road would uncompleted innings count and if so how would they be judged - i.e. 4* is very different to 4 and then getting out.

 

[AndrewB]

I think the easiest answer is for "small" uncompleted innings not to count.

 

[ataraxia]

In

 

[AndrewB]

OK, so the rules are:
1) As well as picking a player in each round, specify a consecutive run of Tests in which they played.
2) The eleven picks should have runs of 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 and 60 Tests (in any order).
3) You can pick a previously picked player as long as your run of Tests doesn't overlap with any previous runs chosen for that player.
4) No Bradman
5) For odd rounds, I'll give a random order; for even rounds, the order is the reverse of the previous round as usual.

I'm assuming everyone who's expressed an interest will take part. We'll have the usual vote at the end, after which I'll pit the teams against each other.

Round 1 order:
Line and Length
ataraxia
Himannv
Michaelf7777777
Fuller Pilch
JOJOXI
AndrewB
kingkallis
trundler
Pothas
Teuton

 

[ataraxia]

@AndrewB: any timeout rules?

@Line and Length

 

[AndrewB]

Knew I'd forgotten something....
12 hours for Round 1, 8 hours for later rounds is pretty standard I think, so let's go for that.