List Mgmt. Taylor Hunt delisted

[SJ]

Wrong thread, I know, but Walker really did put in a credible performance in those games marking the ball, kicking goals and scrapping hard in the ruck.
I really hope he is not now buried under several hundred kilos of Clark, Vardy and Stanley. Kid deserves a go.

Yes and considering he's come off the rookie list we've paid unders (talking recruitment method, not salary) to get someone at his age and potential where he's at right now. Paying unders for most players via the draft is on the whole what won us three flags, not the other way around.

 

[Strangled Cat]

Agree Vdubs and this management style of making players into all positions experts is madness. Most of us are very good at one ort two things ok at a few more and not much good at many. So we, and good workplaces, work to our strengths. Reading about one of the great Dutch Soccer Coaches , he listened to players when they said that they couldn't do what he initially wanted, then refined their role and play within that and got the very best from them.
Perhaps we could do with some of that as advice to our Coaches.

The bolded reminded me of a quote from one of the great minds of the 20th century.

 

[SleazySimon]

Wrong thread, I know, but Walker really did put in a credible performance in those games marking the ball, kicking goals and scrapping hard in the ruck.
I really hope he is not now buried under several hundred kilos of Clark, Vardy and Stanley. Kid deserves a go.

Never wanted Clark or Stanley myself as I think they will get a game at Walkers expense.
Clubs will make an offer when he comes out of contract and cant get a game.

 

[catempire]

Between 2000 and 2009 a player taken between picks 51 and 60 had a 33% chance of playing 100 games:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/how-effective-is-each-draft-pick-from-2000-2009.1038144/

Interesting. There's a bit to unpick there, but at best I probably need to revise my estimate!

 

[Lana]

Between 2000 and 2009 a player taken between picks 51 and 60 had a 33% chance of playing 100 games:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/how-effective-is-each-draft-pick-from-2000-2009.1038144/

 

[Footy Smarts]

I agree with the probabilities approach you use but, equally, I completely disagree with the values you assign.

I'd say:

- Hunt is perhaps a 20% chance of playing another 50 games
- Pick 55 would be in the order of 5% chance of playing 50 AFL games.

These are the picks we've had outside the top 55 including rookies and pre-seaason drafts from 2001 till 2012 and the games they played since being drafted:

David Johnson - 79 games
Andrew Carrazzo - 178
Will Slade - 17
Aaron Lord - 25
Adam Chatfield - 1
Brent Moloney - 166
Jeffrey Smith - 0
Travis Jorgensen - 0
Shannon Byrnes - 131
Paul Koulouriotis - 18
James Allan - 0
Luke Buckland - 0
Matthew Egan - 59
Jarrad Garth - 0
Nick Batchelor - 0
Tim Sheringham - 0
Matthew Stokes - 175
Todd Grima - 0
Sam Hunt - 0
Simon Hogan - 22
Jason Davenport - 28
Liam Bedford - 0
Joel Reynolds - 0
Adam Donohue - 0
Brodie Moles - 17
Chris Kangars - 0
Jeremy Laidler - 45
Shane Mumford - 117
Adam Varcoe - 0
Bryn Weadon - 0
Tom Allwright - 0
Ranga Ediriwickrama - 0
Josh Cowan - 3
Jack Weston - 0
Ben Johnson - 0
James Podsiadly - 83
Jesse Stringer - 19
Josh Walker - 17
George Burbury - 7
Jonathan Simpkin - 36
Ryan Bathie - 0
Lincoln McCarthy - 5
Orren Stephenson - 8
Jed Bews - 7
Cam Eardley - 0
Jackson Sheringham - 12
Mark Blicavs - 45
Brad Hartman - 5

That's 48 players. By my count that's 8 players (~17%) with 50+ games. That's not counting Blicavs who's basically certain to get there or Laidler and Simpkin who are very good chances. Then there are a bunch of other guys (McCarthy, Hartman, Walker, Bews, Cowan) who are still on our list and might get there. If 4 of those 8 guys get there that makes it 25% getting to 50 games.

Removing the 6 youngsters still on our list and the 2 old guys we just got as stop-gaps (Lord and Stephenson) from the calculations we're about 15% chance of getting a very good AFL player (Carrazzo, Mumford, Egan, Moloney, Podsiadly and Stokes) and another 17.5% chance of getting a player of similar caliber to Hunt (Johnson, Byrnes, Hogan, Davenport, Laidler, Stringer and Simpkin).

Remember that includes all our rookies too so pick 55 should be at the top end of that range. So I don't think saying there's a 20% chance of getting a very good AFL player is wrong. Unless we think Hunt can improve significantly, I'd be perfectly happy to give him up for a ~20% chance of landing a Carrazzo, Mumford, Egan, Moloney, Podsiadly or Stokes.

 

[catempire]

These are the picks we've had outside the top 55 including rookies and pre-seaason drafts from 2001 till 2012 and the games they played since being drafted:

David Johnson - 79 games
Andrew Carrazzo - 178
Will Slade - 17
Aaron Lord - 25
Adam Chatfield - 1
Brent Moloney - 166
Jeffrey Smith - 0
Travis Jorgensen - 0
Shannon Byrnes - 131
Paul Koulouriotis - 18
James Allan - 0
Luke Buckland - 0
Matthew Egan - 59
Jarrad Garth - 0
Nick Batchelor - 0
Tim Sheringham - 0
Matthew Stokes - 175
Todd Grima - 0
Sam Hunt - 0
Simon Hogan - 22
Jason Davenport - 28
Liam Bedford - 0
Joel Reynolds - 0
Adam Donohue - 0
Brodie Moles - 17
Chris Kangars - 0
Jeremy Laidler - 45
Shane Mumford - 117
Adam Varcoe - 0
Bryn Weadon - 0
Tom Allwright - 0
Ranga Ediriwickrama - 0
Josh Cowan - 3
Jack Weston - 0
Ben Johnson - 0
James Podsiadly - 83
Jesse Stringer - 19
Josh Walker - 17
George Burbury - 7
Jonathan Simpkin - 36
Ryan Bathie - 0
Lincoln McCarthy - 5
Orren Stephenson - 8
Jed Bews - 7
Cam Eardley - 0
Jackson Sheringham - 12
Mark Blicavs - 45
Brad Hartman - 5

That's 48 players. By my count that's 8 players (~17%) with 50+ games. That's not counting Blicavs who's basically certain to get there or Laidler and Simpkin who are very good chances. Then there are a bunch of other guys (McCarthy, Hartman, Walker, Bews, Cowan) who are still on our list and might get there. If 4 of those 8 guys get there that makes it 25% getting to 50 games.

Removing the 6 youngsters still on our list and the 2 old guys we just got as stop-gaps (Lord and Stephenson) from the calculations we're about 15% chance of getting a very good AFL player (Carrazzo, Mumford, Egan, Moloney, Podsiadly and Stokes) and another 17.5% chance of getting a player of similar caliber to Hunt (Johnson, Byrnes, Hogan, Davenport, Laidler, Stringer and Simpkin).

Remember that includes all our rookies too so pick 55 should be at the top end of that range. So I don't think saying there's a 20% chance of getting a very good AFL player is wrong. Unless we think Hunt can improve significantly, I'd be perfectly happy to give him up for a ~20% chance of landing a Carrazzo, Mumford, Egan, Moloney, Podsiadly or Stokes.

Nice work. Although that probably reinforces my opinion that the odds of getting a player better than Hunt are stacked against us.

 

[cynical]

still think hunt could have at least played forward pocket and performed a role similar to puopolo

dumping him is fine as long as we are playing more kids but if we keep playing the same oldies it doesn't make much sense

pick 50's can turn into guns but much more likely they are 3-4 year list cloggers, when we get all the retirements next year we will have a whole bunch of them

 

[iameviljez]

Nice work. Although that probably reinforces my opinion that the odds of getting a player better than Hunt are stacked against us.

What is the value of a player who isn't good enough to crack our first 22 and doesn't have a lot of potential upside (IMO)?

 

[catempire]

What is the value of a player who isn't good enough to crack our first 22 and doesn't have a lot of potential upside (IMO)?

Bugger all.

 

[Lana]

Well I am late to this...


Only one player in this interval has who has played less than 50 games might break the barrier. To determine performance of players drafted in this range after 50 games we have to change the sample as the data would be heavily against large career totals. The players drafted before 2002 draft to quite stable in the categories.


historically there are plenty of good players drafted in this interval, one in six played more than 200 games. A quarter played a more than 150.

Note that this draft interval contains above average drafts, as seen by the large difference in players who played at east 50 games and are probably not indicative of future years drafts, in a few years the 2003-2005 draft should be usable for the above purposes and they will balance out this issue.

Fun with misusing statistics

A way to measure the probability of a player drafted in this range playing more games than Taylor hunt is arranging the playing data into a bell curve. This makes a ridiculous number of assumptions, poor biased sampling as such the results gained are completely wrong but I'll calculate it anyway.

using the 1997-2002 draft data.
average= 76.37 standard deviation = 81.3
pr(1 player drafted in the interval players more games than Hunt(63) ) = 56.5%

But we have two draft picks in this range.

pr( at least one play drafted in this range plays more than hunt(63))= 1 - pr(neither player plays more games then hunt)= 1 - 0.434^2 = 81%

Note: again the above probability calculations can not be used as proof anything,

 

[Teriyakicat]

Well I am late to this...

View attachment 87915
Only one player in this interval has who has played less than 50 games might break the barrier. To determine performance of players drafted in this range after 50 games we have to change the sample as the data would be heavily against large career totals. The players drafted before 2002 draft to quite stable in the categories.

View attachment 87914
historically there are plenty of good players drafted in this interval, one in six played more than 200 games. A quarter played a more than 150.

Note that this draft interval contains above average drafts, as seen by the large difference in players who played at east 50 games and are probably not indicative of future years drafts, in a few years the 2003-2005 draft should be usable for the above purposes and they will balance out this issue.

Fun with misusing statistics

A way to measure the probability of a player drafted in this range playing more games than Taylor hunt is arranging the playing data into a bell curve. This makes a ridiculous number of assumptions, poor biased sampling as such the results gained are completely wrong but I'll calculate it anyway.

using the 1997-2002 draft data.
average= 76.37 standard deviation = 81.3
pr(1 player drafted in the interval players more games than Hunt(63) ) = 56.5%

But we have two draft picks in this range.

pr( at least one play drafted in this range plays more than hunt(63))= 1 - pr(neither player plays more games then hunt)= 1 - 0.434^2 = 81%

Note: again the above probability calculations can not be used as proof anything,

I'll take those stats!! The bottom line sounds very sweet. Well done with the number crunching, 10lana!!

 

[Seeds]

ho

Nice work. Although that probably reinforces my opinion that the odds of getting a player better than Hunt are stacked against us.

why? most of those players were taken after pick 60 with many from the rookie list. they are not comparable to the pick we would be replacing Hunt with.

 

[Seeds]

Bugger all.

but is "bugger all" worth more or less then a pick in the mid fifties?

 

[catempire]

ho why? most of those players were taken after pick 60 with many from the rookie list. they are not comparable to the pick we would be replacing Hunt with.

I've explained above.

 

[catempire]

but is "bugger all" worth more or less then a pick in the mid fifties?

Bugger all > two fifths of bugger all.

 

[iameviljez]

but is "bugger all" worth more or less then a pick in the mid fifties?

For the purposes of a club where Hunt is not getting a game anyway, no it's not. If it were a 28-players-per-game sport, we'd retain Hunt - but the chance of drafting a better player is worth it IF Hunt is not going to play any significant role for the club again anyway.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Thanks for your service to the Hoops Poodle.
Hope another team gives him a chance

According to Wells, Taylor Hunt has also been informed to find a new club and Mitch Brown’s future still remains uncertain.
“We’ve had the conversation with Taylor and he will be delisted, and that will then provide him other options with other clubs,” Wells confirmed.
“We’ll make an announcement with any other list changes that we need to make as we make them.”

http://www.geelongcats.com.au/news/2014-10-17/wells-pleased-with-trades-and-top-10-pick

 

[Partridge]

Thanks for your service to the Hoops Poodle.
Hope another team gives him a chance

http://www.geelongcats.com.au/news/2014-10-17/wells-pleased-with-trades-and-top-10-pick

Yep. Good servant for us. Tried hard and no off field issues.

Can we predict when Brown gets told? I'll go for 4:59pm on the final day.

 

[iameviljez]

Yep. Good servant for us. Tried hard and no off field issues.

Can we predict when Brown gets told? I'll go for 4:59pm on the final day.

Surely around about now? Depends on how many picks we want to carry to the draft, surely.

 

[Partridge]

Surely around about now? Depends on how many picks we want to carry to the draft, surely.

Agreed. I'd rather they just cut whoever they want to get rid of and be done with it. To be honest I'm surprised they waited this long with Hunt; surely they knew they weren't going to be keeping him as soon as the season was over.

 

[cats_09]

Maybe they waited until now with Hunt in case they were able to secure a trade for him last week - and not necessarily a case of the club getting a 2nd or 3rd round pick we would use for Hunt, but similar situation to last year with J. Hunt, Pods & Chappy where we traded them to the club of their choice so they didn't have to go through the whole delisting, waiting for the delisted free agency period to open (this year is Sat Nov 1) and could move on to their new club with an easier transition.

As for Brown - maybe they are weighing up their options - seeing who other clubs delist and working out if they want to target any delisted free agents, an additional draft pick or keep Brown for another 12 months.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Surely around about now? Depends on how many picks we want to carry to the draft, surely.

The first list lodgement date is 31st October

Friday October 31, by 2pm - List lodgement (1); Rookie promotion to primary list; Retained second and third-year rookies; Scholarship players; Alternate talent player nominations, Total player payment (TPP) estimates.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-09-26/key-trade-draft-and-free-agency-dates

 

[Turbocat]

Between 2000 and 2009 a player taken between picks 51 and 60 had a 33% chance of playing 100 games:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/how-effective-is-each-draft-pick-from-2000-2009.1038144/

Have not studied the figures but how many of them would be Father Sons? I also suspect it would be different for different teams depending on success and stability. i.e. how many players in that period picked 51-60 at Geelong have played 100 games . Lets go further , 51+

Stokes? anyone else . I have no idea , asking without checking which is dangerous.

I guess it has luck in it anyway. Injuries and such. It gets down to the reason they will get rid of him and whether a fresh kid appeals more. 100 games or not

 

[Turbocat]

These are the picks we've had outside the top 55 including rookies and pre-seaason drafts from 2001 till 2012 and the games they played since being drafted:

David Johnson - 79 games
Andrew Carrazzo - 178
Will Slade - 17
Aaron Lord - 25
Adam Chatfield - 1
Brent Moloney - 166
Jeffrey Smith - 0
Travis Jorgensen - 0
Shannon Byrnes - 131
Paul Koulouriotis - 18
James Allan - 0
Luke Buckland - 0
Matthew Egan - 59
Jarrad Garth - 0
Nick Batchelor - 0
Tim Sheringham - 0
Matthew Stokes - 175
Todd Grima - 0
Sam Hunt - 0
Simon Hogan - 22
Jason Davenport - 28
Liam Bedford - 0
Joel Reynolds - 0
Adam Donohue - 0
Brodie Moles - 17
Chris Kangars - 0
Jeremy Laidler - 45
Shane Mumford - 117
Adam Varcoe - 0
Bryn Weadon - 0
Tom Allwright - 0
Ranga Ediriwickrama - 0
Josh Cowan - 3
Jack Weston - 0
Ben Johnson - 0
James Podsiadly - 83
Jesse Stringer - 19
Josh Walker - 17
George Burbury - 7
Jonathan Simpkin - 36
Ryan Bathie - 0
Lincoln McCarthy - 5
Orren Stephenson - 8
Jed Bews - 7
Cam Eardley - 0
Jackson Sheringham - 12
Mark Blicavs - 45
Brad Hartman - 5

That's 48 players. By my count that's 8 players (~17%) with 50+ games. That's not counting Blicavs who's basically certain to get there or Laidler and Simpkin who are very good chances. Then there are a bunch of other guys (McCarthy, Hartman, Walker, Bews, Cowan) who are still on our list and might get there. If 4 of those 8 guys get there that makes it 25% getting to 50 games.

Removing the 6 youngsters still on our list and the 2 old guys we just got as stop-gaps (Lord and Stephenson) from the calculations we're about 15% chance of getting a very good AFL player (Carrazzo, Mumford, Egan, Moloney, Podsiadly and Stokes) and another 17.5% chance of getting a player of similar caliber to Hunt (Johnson, Byrnes, Hogan, Davenport, Laidler, Stringer and Simpkin).

Remember that includes all our rookies too so pick 55 should be at the top end of that range. So I don't think saying there's a 20% chance of getting a very good AFL player is wrong. Unless we think Hunt can improve significantly, I'd be perfectly happy to give him up for a ~20% chance of landing a Carrazzo, Mumford, Egan, Moloney, Podsiadly or Stokes.

Nice job