Scoring Systems

[James]

We're considering changing the Fantasy Cricket scoring systems around where SHOCK HORROR you'll lose points!

If one of your players makes a golden duck, you would lose 15 points. Duck loses 10 points. Bowler concedes more than 60 runs, loses 5 points.

What do people think about this?

 

[andyc]

I like it, but I think it's way too many points to lose. Should be at least half that, for batsmen at least. Also, if a bowler takes four wickets and concedes over 60 runs, what will happen? Will the 5 points just be deducted from the points he earns from the wickets?

 

[Rich2001]

I like it, but I think it's way too many points to lose. Should be at least half that, for batsmen at least. Also, if a bowler takes four wickets and concedes over 60 runs, what will happen? Will the 5 points just be deducted from the points he earns from the wickets?

Yep the bowler would earn 20 points for the wickets, but would lose say 5 for the poor econ. So overall would take 15 points from the game.

The points aren't set, was just an example but it would be good to know what you feel are good value should we use it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The duck loss seems a bit stiff to me! Maybe -2 points for a duck (what we get now for a Not-Out, IIRC) & -5 for a first-baller? I'd also suggest the penalties should only apply to players selected as batsman, all-rounders & wickies.

Perhaps the bowler penalty could be done on a sliding scale too? Say any bowler who bowls more than three overs & goes for 6+ runs per over gets -2, 7+ gets -4, 8+ gets -6 & so on. I guess in fairness the penalty should only apply to bowlers & all-rounders too.

Another change I'd like to see would be more frequent transfers! It's well infuriating picking a player, them getting injured & being stuck with then for 7 days! If it's feasible maybe one change per match played?

 

[James]

That sounds alright but I'll leave that decision up to Rich Twyman (Rich2001) as he's the one who considers all the scoring systems, etc I'm just the guy who does all the programming around it

Transfers, a definite possibility, even reducing it to say 3 days would work wouldn't it?

 

[James]

If you've got any other suggestions, now is a good time to throw them at us

 

[Jamee999]

Give me lots of bonus points

 

[James]

and why should we do that

 

[andyc]

If you've got any other suggestions, now is a good time to throw them at us

I know I suggested it before, but points for MOTM and MOTS?

 

[Scaly piscine]

My suggestion would be to not categorise players into bowlers, batsmen or all-rounders when you're making them available for us all to include. Retain the usual 5 batsmen, 1 w/k, 1 all-rounder and 4 bowlers composition in each fantasy side but instead have the batsmen (and wicket-keeper) get full value for any runs scored but only half points for any bowling they do, vice versa for bowlers who get full points for bowling but half for batting. The all-rounder would get full value for bowling and batting they do.

So next competition if you wanted all of Hall, Flintoff, Pathan, Afridi and Razzaq in your team you could, but only one could take the all-rounder slot and you'd have to put the rest into bowler or batsmen slots in your team. Obviously you'd have to adjust the A, B, C prices accordingly (I would consider just using numbers in place of A, B, C etc. so you can price Flintoff that bit higher than everyone else to make it a difficult choice).

 

[andyc]

I don't agree with that Scaly, because it makes you have to make different decisions that I like. For example, I always pick Dan Vettori cause I know he'll score me some batting points even if he may not get heaps of points in bowling.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I don't agree with that Scaly, because it makes you have to make different decisions that I like. For example, I always pick Dan Vettori cause I know he'll score me some batting points even if he may not get heaps of points in bowling.

And I nearly always pick 3-4 batsmen that bowl, which in reality would be mostly wasted. Vettori would still get points for his batting, just not as many, unless you pick him as an all-rounder.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I've thought of another one: losing the opener/batsman distinction. Of late a lot of teams are experimenting with opening their innings with players who aren't considered "openers" as such (like Prior for us & Akmal for Pakistan yesterday), so I think the distinction is becoming pretty arbitrary.

Possibly we could have a second all-rounder instead (as they're key players in ODIs), so the team make up would be:

4 batsman
2 all-rounders
1 wicket-keeper
4 bowlers.

Ok, I'm done!

 

[Jamee999]

And a Super-Sub category.

That could only count performances at SuperSub for that person.

 

[Rich2001]

I know I suggested it before, but points for MOTM and MOTS?

I think I remember when you suggested this last time, I think the only problem that we could see happening with this is.

MOTM awards are a personal choice and therfore you could see a number of different winners from a number of different media's - The obvious choice would be to use whatever the CW reporter uses but then if they are late in putting up a report for example then it would back up to you guys with points being updated and we wouldn't want to hold your charge to number 1 being hammpered now

 

[Rich2001]

The duck loss seems a bit stiff to me! Maybe -2 points for a duck (what we get now for a Not-Out, IIRC) & -5 for a first-baller? I'd also suggest the penalties should only apply to players selected as batsman, all-rounders & wickies.

Perhaps the bowler penalty could be done on a sliding scale too? Say any bowler who bowls more than three overs & goes for 6+ runs per over gets -2, 7+ gets -4, 8+ gets -6 & so on. I guess in fairness the penalty should only apply to bowlers & all-rounders too.

Another change I'd like to see would be more frequent transfers! It's well infuriating picking a player, them getting injured & being stuck with then for 7 days! If it's feasible maybe one change per match played?

I like that.

I would personally say though that anyone that bowls should be effected by the econ. - Because at the end of the day only players that have some skill will be bowling regularly - You generally never see a out and out batsman (as in a Hayden/Strauss/Lara etc) bowling unless the match is completly dead.

Otherwise if you did it as purely bowlers only then the likes of Shewag, Gayle, Kallis, Stryis, Collingwood etc would either have to be made into full all-rounders which they aren't but can regularly reel off a handfull of overs. Therefore they could bowl 10 overs for 90 and get away with it everytime.

But iam open if the marjority would rather see an exculsion area then iam willing to do that... afterall it's your game and we just want to make it the best it can be for your enjoyment

I've thought of another one: losing the opener/batsman distinction. Of late a lot of teams are experimenting with opening their innings with players who aren't considered "openers" as such (like Prior for us & Akmal for Pakistan yesterday), so I think the distinction is becoming pretty arbitrary.

Possibly we could have a second all-rounder instead (as they're key players in ODIs), so the team make up would be:

4 batsman
2 all-rounders
1 wicket-keeper
4 bowlers.

Ok, I'm done!

I would agree with you there again, myself and James have been saying the excat same thing over the last couple of weeks, we just need to get to a stage where there is enough of a gap between comps to be able to change it and all the openers status.

 

[GDR]

I Like it.
Although it should be maybe 10 for Golden
5 for a Duck. Imo.

Makes things that more Fun and challenging.

 

[James]

As Rich said, thanks for your thoughts everyone