How effective is each draft pick from (2000-2009)

[Davo-27]

I went over the drafts and picked out players who were good enough to play about 100 games or more of AFL from each draft, I broke it down to top 5 picks then 6-10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, here are the % of players from each grouping of draft picks from 2000-2009 drafts(10 yr period, I picked these years to get a more accurate picture of who made it or could make it)

picks 1-5 (43/50 or 86%)
picks 6-10 (35/50 or 70%)
picks 11-20 (64/100 or 64%)
picks 21-30 (47/100 or 47%)
picks 31-40 (44/100 or 44%)
picks 41-50 (48/100 or 48%)
picks 51-60 (33/100 or 33%)
picks 61-70 (21/82 or 25%)
picks 71+ (10/38 or 26%)

as you can see top 5 picks are very valuable, after pick 20 the randomness of drafts takes over.....

 

[machina]

Let's say a team finishes last. Ignoring priority and compensation picks they get picks 1, 19, 37, 55 and 73. Using the probabilities, and assuming they pick up a fairly standard five players, above they will pick up 2.49 players who'll play 100 games (0.86+0.64+0.44+0.33+0.26). The team finishing first gets 18, 36, 54, 72 and 90. They'll pick up 1.93 players who will play 100 games (0.64+0.44+0.33+0.26+0.26). So finishing last gives you about a 50% chance of picking an additional good player than finishing first. It's not hard to see why some teams struggle to rebuild using draft picks.​

 

[Deefolt]

71+ is skewed because rookies are genuinely upgraded there

 

[Jonts]

Start doing it from 05 where drafting was a lot more accurate and a better process rather than the pot luck it was early 00's

+ this

71+ is skewed because rookies are genuinely upgraded there

then your results would be a lot different

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

71+ is skewed because rookies are genuinely upgraded there

This research was for 2000 - 2009 drafts. Rookie elevations were only given a draft spot in 2009 when the rules about minimum of 3 draftees having to be added to the list, also could include rookie elevations.

So I don't think there is any great skewing. Or did Davo-27 ignore the 2009 rookies elevated in his 38 draftees 71+?

 

[Davo-27]

This research was for 2000 - 2009 drafts. Rookie elevations were only given a draft spot in 2009 when the rules about minimum of 3 draftees having to be added to the list, also could include rookie elevations.

So I don't think there is any great skewing. Or did Davo-27 ignore the 2009 rookies elevated in his 38 draftees 71+?

the rookie listings in 2009 did skew the 71+ a little, prior to 2009 it was 4/20, the rookies in 2009 were 6/18 so a bit higher

as for the accuracy of the drafts, they have been accurate since the late 90's prior to that it was very random..

2000 draft = 39 players out of 74
2001 draft = 37 players out of 72
2002 draft = 29 players out of 67
2003 draft = 30 players out of 66
2004 draft = 29 players out of 67
2005 draft = 28 players out of 66
2006 draft = 37 players out of 79
2007 draft = 35 players out of 66
2008 draft = 41 players out of 75
2009 draft = 40 players out of 88 (6 rookies upgrades)

 

[The Blue Baggers]

what about early draft picks being gifted games ?

example; Richard Tambling played over 100 games yet if he was taken 40 instead of 4 the Tigers would have been more likely to give up on him earlier

we are seeing now with Jack Watts.

 

[Davo-27]

what about early draft picks being gifted games ?

example; Richard Tambling played over 100 games yet if he was taken 40 instead of 4 the Tigers would have been more likely to give up on him earlier

we are seeing now with Jack Watts.

I actually didn't count Richard Tambling in his year lol

 

[Davo-27]

after pick 50 is about where the picks become very unlikely to get anyone of value

but I found it interesting that pick 21 is = to pick 50 in value, seems like all the upgrading of picks within this grouping is pointless

 

[thejester]

It'd be interesting to then compare individual club records to that as a way of getting some idea of the balance between drafting and development.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

For some reason pick 6 seems to result in very average player compared to pick 5, 7, 8 and 9. Before the 2008 draft Burgatron on the AFL website gave his best pick of every position. Freo's James Walker was the best number 6 - hardly a household name.

I am hoping Chad Wingard has broken the curse, he was taken in the 20111 draft.

 

[Davo-27]

For some reason pick 6 seems to result in very average player compared to pick 5, 7, 8 and 9. Before the 2008 draft Burgatron on the AFL website gave his best pick of every position. Freo's James Walker was the best number 6 - hardly a household name.

I am hoping Chad Wingard has broken the curse, he was taken in the 20111 draft.

well since 2008 pick 6 has seen

Chris Yarran, Gary Rohan, Reece Conca, Chad Wingard, Jackson MacRae

all decent players, I think the #6 pick curse might have broken...

 

[Davo-27]

just compiling a list of Champions from each year

2000 - #1 N.Riewoldt, #2 Koschitzke, #3 Didak, #8 Motlop, #12 S.Burgoyne, #18 Kerr, #20 K.Cornes, #23 Petrie, #27 T.Richards, #29 Charman, #39 McPhee, #55 Newman, #56 Cross, #67 Johncock (4 in top 10, 3 from 11-20, 4 from 21-50, 3 from 50+)

2001 - #1 Hodge, #2 Ball, #3 Judd, #7 Hale, #8 Bartel, #12 Reilly, #13 Dal Santo, #17 Kelly, #19 Gram, #21 Maguire, #24 S.Johnson, #29 LRT, #33 Rodan, #36 Mitchell, #37 Montagna, #40 G.Ablett(f/s), #46 Waite(f/s), #47 Welsh, #58 Swan, #60 Schneider (5 x T10, 4 x 11-20, 9 x 21-50, 2 x 50+)

2002 - #1 Goddard, #2 Wells, #5 J.McVeigh, #7 Mackie, #20 Minson, #23 Lonergan, #26 Rivers, #30 Merrett, #40 J.Watson(f/s), #42 Ebert(f/s), #45 Simpson, #55 Crowley, #64 Malceski (4 x T10, 0 x 11-20, 7 x 21-50, 2 x 50+)

2003 - #1 Cooney,#2 Walker, #3 Sylvia, #13 Stanton, #19 Mundy, #33 Adcock, #41 Dawson, #48 H.Shaw(f/s), #53 Jackson, #55 S.Fisher, #58 B.Hudson, #61 Rischitelli, #73 S.Tuck (3 x T10, 2 11-20, 3 x 21-50, 5 x 50+)

2004 - #1 Deledio, #2 Roughead, #3 Griffen, #5 Franklin, #7 Lewis, #14 Monfries, #24 Van Berlo, #40 Maric, #56 Knights (5 x T10, 1 x 11-20, 2 x 21-50, 1 x 50+)

2005 - #1 Murphy, #2 Thomas, #4 J.Kennedy, #5 Pendlebury, #9 Clark, #12 N.Jones, #13 Hurn, #14 Birchall, #15 Varcoe, #16 Douglas, #26 Ibbotson, #32 Vince, #43 Swallow, #61 Stokes (5 X T10, 5 x 11-20, 3 x 21-50, 1 x 50+)

2006 - #1 Gibbs, #3 Hansen, #4 Leuenberger, #5 Boak, #7 J.Selwood, #8 Reid, #9 Armitage, #10 N,Brown, #12 Frawley, #13 J.Riewoldt, #18 Jetta, #26 Edwards, #32 Tippett, #37 Goldstein, #40 J.Kennedy(f/s), #42 Houli, #46 Garland, #55 Gray, #63 Goldsack, J.Westhoff (8 x T10, 3 x 11-20, 6 x 21-50, 3 x 50+)

2007 - #1 Kreuzer, #2 Cotchin, #9 McEvoy, #10 Dangerfield, #12 Rioli, #14 Grimes, #17 H.Taylor, #18 Rance, #19 Ward, #23 Pears, #42 Steven, #75 T.Walker(nsw) (4 x T10, 5 x 11-20, 2 x 21-50, 1 x 50+)

2008 - #2 Naitanui, #3 S.Hill, #5 Hurley, #7 Rich, #9 Ziebell, #11 Sidebottom, #18 Shuey, #21 Ballantyne, #23 Zaharakis, #24 Suban,#25 Redden, #29 Beams, #30 Hannebery, #34 Shiels, #40 Robinson, #44 Sloane, #49 T.Hunt, #75 Savage (5 x T10, 2 x 11-20, 8 x 21-50, 3 x 50+)

2009 - #1 Scully, #2 Trengove, #3 Martin, #5 Cunnington, #10 Melksham, #13 Talia, #14 L.Jetta, #20 Fyfe, #21 Bastinac, #24 Carlisle, #28 Duncan, #29 Gunston, #38 S.Reid, #40 Christiansen, #46 Stratton, #69 Duryea ( 3 x T10, 3 x 11-20, 4 x 21-50, 2 x 50+)

 

[TGFC]

i have to think that the last grouping of 71+ is not going to be accurate as one of the other post's mentioned. T. Walker is in at no. 75 or something but this was due to some NSW scholarship thingy i think from memory

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

From a Port POV Westhoff in 2006 at pick #71 is as much a champion as Gray is at #55. Also I think Hartlett at #4 in 2008 is, but with a lot of injuries prior to 2013, I understand why others don't.

 

[Hollow Knight]

just compiling a list of Champions from each year

Not sure how Mitch Robinson gets a guernsey but Jack Redden doesn't?

 

[CaneGarner]

I made a scoring system to represent the value of all draft picks from those years (2000-2009). It is based on games played (5.0 points) AFLCA votes over a period of time (2.5 points) and All Australian selection (2.5 points) for a maximum score of 10. The results show what I think we all know - that draft picks are very much a lottery. There is a big spread of value at each draft position, and a low correlation between draft position and player value. The R squared value is 0.25, which means 25% of a player's value is explained by his draft position, and 75% is not.

If you take the line of best fit, the following table shows how much a draft pick is "worth". Obviously there is a very large variation, but this would be the value of a player you would expect to get at that draft position. I have included some examples as to which players have that score. Only the first round is shown (after that is very flat). For a given pick, this table shows the level of quality you can expect. I think this table shows that while early picks are worth significantly more than later picks, many people overestimate the value of draft picks. For example, West Coast has pick 11 in the upcoming draft, and I intuitively expect that we are almost certain to get a better player than Tom Logan, however according to the analysis, that is all I should expect. Anything more would be a bonus.

Pick 1 is worth 8 eg. Andrew Mackie
Pick 2 is worth 6.9 eg. David Mundy
Pick 3 is worth 6.3 eg. Jordan Lewis
Pick 4 is worth 5.9 eg. Ben Hudson
Pick 5 is worth 5.5 eg. Angus Monfries
Pick 6 is worth 5.2 eg. Brett Ebert
Pick 7 is worth 5 eg. Richard Tambling
Pick 8 is worth 4.8 eg. Kepler Bradley
Pick 9 is worth 4.6 eg. Zac Dawson
Pick 10 is worth 4.5 eg. Luke McGuane
Pick 11 is worth 4.3 eg. Tom Logan
Pick 12 is worth 4.2 eg. Chris Knights
Pick 13 is worth 4.1 eg. Henry Slattery
Pick 14 is worth 3.9 eg. Andrew McQualter
Pick 15 is worth 3.8 eg. Michael Pettigrew
Pick 16 is worth 3.7 eg. Graham Polak
Pick 17 is worth 3.6 eg. Xavier Clarke
Pick 18 is worth 3.6 eg. Mitch Morton

 

[CaneGarner]

Of course, because of the large spread, there are a great many players who are “worth” more than a number one pick – 48 in all drafted between 2000 and 2009. Here are all 48 players who rate higher than Andrew Mackie (and therefore are worth more than a number on pick) in my scoring system.


10 - Chris Judd, taken at pick 3
10 - Dane Swan, pick 58
10 - Dayne Beams, pick 29
10 - Gary Ablett, pick 40
10 - Jobe Watson, pick 40
10 - Joel Selwood, pick 7
10 - Josh P. Kennedy, pick 40
10 - Luke Hodge, pick 1
10 - Marc Murphy, pick 1
10 - Patrick Dangerfield, pick 10
10 - Ryan Griffen, pick 3
10 - Sam Mitchell, pick 36
10 - Scott Pendlebury, pick 5
10 - Scott Thompson, pick 16
10 - Trent Cotchin, pick 2
9.8 - Brett Deledio, pick 1
9.7 - Daniel Hannebery, pick 30
9.7 - Lance Franklin, pick 5
9.7 - Leigh Montagna, pick 37
9.6 - Jarrad McVeigh, pick 5
9.6 - Jarryd Roughead, pick 2
9.6 - Tom Hawkins, pick 41
9.5 - Brendon Goddard, pick 1
9.5 - Grant Birchall, pick 14
9.5 - Nick Dal Santo, pick 13
9.5 - Travis Boak, pick 5
9.4 - Nick Riewoldt, pick 1
9.3 - Alan Didak, pick 3
9.3 - Dale Thomas, pick 2
9.3 - Jack Riewoldt, pick 13
9.3 - Nic Naitanui, pick 2
9.2 - Adam Cooney, pick 1
9.2 - Cyril Rioli, pick 12
9.2 - James Kelly, pick 17
9.2 - Steve Johnson, pick 24
9.1 - Travis Cloke, pick 39
9 - Daniel Kerr, pick 18
9 - Drew Petrie, pick 23
8.9 - Harry Taylor, pick 17
8.9 - Jimmy Bartel, pick 8
8.8 - Luke Ball, pick 30
8.7 - James Frawley, pick 12
8.6 - Kane Cornes, pick 20
8.6 - Shaun Burgoyne, pick 12
8.5 - Ted Richards, pick 27
8.4 - Ben Reid, pick 8
8.4 - Mark LeCras, pick 37
8.1 - Will Minson, pick 20

 

[Thurlow2Mackie]

as you can see top 5 picks are very valuable, after pick 20 the randomness of drafts takes over.....

Which is about what you would expect, despite people claiming that this draft is weird because the depth is low after 20. I'd say that is pretty normal. Just from a probability point of view, it is unlikely that any one draft is going to be substantially more shallow than another.

 

[shotgun_blues]

Went through the top 100 Official Player Rankings and it threw up some interesting statistics.

Here are the chances (would be fairly accurate at any point in time I'd assume) of your draft selection becoming a top 100 player or a real quality player at any 1 point in time.

Picks 1-10 = 35%
Picks 11-20 = 20%
Father-son & zone sels = 13%
Picks 21-50 = 7%
Picks 51+ (&PSD/Rook) = 1.5%
Mature recruits = 3%

The likelihood of selecting a top 50 player with pick 51 onwards is virtually non existent. You can see why more teams are opting out of drafting young kids with late picks and drafting mature age recruits. Something you'll see become a bigger trend over the next few years I'm sure.

 

[Thurlow2Mackie]

Went through the top 100 Official Player Rankings and it threw up some interesting statistics.

Here are the chances (would be fairly accurate at any point in time I'd assume) of your draft selection becoming a top 100 player or a real quality player at any 1 point in time.

Picks 1-10 = 35%
Picks 11-20 = 20%
Father-son & zone sels = 13%
Picks 21-50 = 7%
Picks 51+ (&PSD/Rook) = 1.5%
Mature recruits = 3%

The likelihood of selecting a top 50 player with pick 51 onwards is virtually non existent. You can see why more teams are opting out of drafting young kids with late picks and drafting mature age recruits. Something you'll see become a bigger trend over the next few years I'm sure.

If you want to get technical, you should sort it by position instead. So take the top 40 midfielders, top 25 defenders, top 25 forwards, and top 10 rucks according to the PRs. Would be interesting to see what difference there are and it would be less midfield bias in your data.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

shotgun_blues your list adds up to 79.5%. It looks like you have covered all options. Where is the other 20.5%? Or have i got it wrong?

 

[shotgun_blues]

shotgun_blues your list adds up to 79.5%. It looks like you have covered all options. Where is the other 20.5%? Or have i got it wrong?

It is the % of each pick range over roughly the last 10 years. Not an exact science with only a few hours to kill though.

To be more thorough as to positions would require far many more hours but the general gist of pick success does shine through. Would be very interesting and a few decent patterns would emerge with time to kill in regards to each position on the field. I'm sure clubs have all this kind of data to analyse for themselves though.

Obviously off the top of my head you are much more likely to succeed selecting a role player for a targeted position with a late pick from 50 onwards. Eg, small forward, tagger, back pocket, squad depth players. You won't be getting any gun midfielders and key forwards with one. But it does happen occasionally... Geelong are the best at it looking through the data. So much so in fact I am beginning to wonder if they have found a way to hide talent, wonder who these kids barracked for growing up and who was in their ears (does this actually happen).... Nah, kudos to them their player development is outstanding. They also hit the jackpot with their father-son selections at the time. Rules have changed now in regard to that.

Also much more than half of the late picks from about 35 onwards in the top 100 were drafted before 2003 too. Harvey, Goodes, O'Keefe, Mitchell, Simpson, Petrie, Swan, Malceski, Chapman, M.Johnson etc. So it is becoming much harder to find any sort of high quality after the second round than it used to be.

Two things from these observations that require mentioning...

1. High picks are worthless without elite player development programs. See Melbourne over the last 10 years for proof. Apart from Nathan Jones at about 90 none of their multitude of high picks are in the top 100, and maybe 3-4 in the top 200 at a guess. Disgusting!

2. If Gold Coast and GWS can foster the talent at their disposal to their maximum potential, then god help us all for the better part of the next 10 years. We'll all be on the slopes parking next to Range Rovers in September until 2022.

 

[Tragic sainter]

after pick 50 is about where the picks become very unlikely to get anyone of value

but I found it interesting that pick 21 is = to pick 50 in value, seems like all the upgrading of picks within this grouping is pointless

It is equal in value if the goal is 100 games only. That doesn't factor in the quality of games played though.

 

[Old Spice]

The other thing to add into the numbers is 3rd round father/sons before the bidding system arrived.

But I think as some have mentioned that development is probably key here. Collingwood got a fair slice of rookies who played more than 100 in Maxwell, Wellingham, O'Brien and Toovey while some clubs can't get much value from mid first rounders and beyond.