The history of pickflation

[Gunnar Longshanks]

To put it exactly- my impression is, a typical player in the 23-24 age bracket who has strung together 60-70 games, is just as likely to produce as much quality football over what's left of his career as a typical pick 20 is likely to produce over his entire career.

What teams will pay for them may not reflect their objective value, that was rather the point of my post.

Carlton just delisted Adam Bentick, who is 24, and has played 68 games.

What was his "objective value" during trade week?

What would you have said if West Coast had given up pick 22 in a trade for him?

 

[Happy Daze]

Interesting thread - in the American NFL the real value of the draft is actually in the middle rounds. This being due mainly to the fact the top players picked are payed an obscene amount of money - and the fact over there there is a much bigger talent pool to choose from, therefore the drafts are much deeper in terms of talent. The NFL draft has around 200 players selected.

The other difference there is that players are older - having been to university before they are picked - however that doesn't mean that their talent spotting is better, as you would assume (as in the players being more 'tested'). There are large differences in the College football game and the NFL - therefore talent spotting is more about how talent 'transfers' to the next level. This is the reason why the workouts they have over there are very important for prospective NFL players, especially measureables. This is actually a trend we are finding increasingly in the AFL - where, for example, Stephen Hill had a stratospheric rise in the draft because of his outstanding draft camp results.

 

[Consumed]

Interesting thread - in the American NFL the real value of the draft is actually in the middle rounds. This being due mainly to the fact the top players picked are payed an obscene amount of money - and the fact over there there is a much bigger talent pool to choose from, therefore the drafts are much deeper in terms of talent. The NFL draft has around 200 players selected.

The other difference there is that players are older - having been to university before they are picked - however that doesn't mean that their talent spotting is better, as you would assume (as in the players being more 'tested'). There are large differences in the College football game and the NFL - therefore talent spotting is more about how talent 'transfers' to the next level. This is the reason why the workouts they have over there are very important for prospective NFL players, especially measureables. This is actually a trend we are finding increasingly in the AFL - where, for example, Stephen Hill had a stratospheric rise in the draft because of his outstanding draft camp results.

Not in the SEC there's not

Maybe in one of the pussy conferences like the ACC, PAC-10 or Big 12 there's a massive difference. BUt there's fast, and then there's SEC fast.
Biggest, baddest, fastest defenders - all-SEC.


But seriously, College allows players between 2 - 4 years to develop physically and in a more selective environment. BY the age of 22 most players are better equipped to make an impact at a professional level. But the style of game and what is required to play is dramatically different to Aussie Rules.

 

[Happy Daze]

Not in the SEC there's not

Maybe in one of the pussy conferences like the ACC, PAC-10 or Big 12 there's a massive difference. BUt there's fast, and then there's SEC fast.
Biggest, baddest, fastest defenders - all-SEC.


But seriously, College allows players between 2 - 4 years to develop physically and in a more selective environment. BY the age of 22 most players are better equipped to make an impact at a professional level. But the style of game and what is required to play is dramatically different to Aussie Rules.

You are right but I meant in terms of a good player at college will mean a good player in the NFL - which just isn't the case. Tim Tebow, for example, the outstanding college player of the last few years will struggle to be picked in the first two rounds. Reggie Bush is another example - some pundits have him as the greatest college player ever, but he just doesn't cut it in the NFL. He actually got picked up no. 2 overall in an outstanding draft class - the player who went no. 1 in that draft, Mario Williams, had a so-so college career, but had some of the best measureables ever recorded in the draft camp - he has had a far better NFL career than Reggie Bush so far.

The trend to pick players on measureables is one that seems to be picking up pace in the AFL as well.

 

[Membling]

About the time of year this discussion got bumped. Bump.

 

[bumsonseats]

Obviously a massive factor as well.

Would you rather (and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it's the best example) say, a pick 5 with Richmond's previous coaching and development staff, or pick 10 and the Crows coaching and development staff?

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but do I have to chose one

 

[100action]

About the time of year this discussion got bumped. Bump.

With 5 additional drafts since the op and the obvious art of drafting becoming more refined and astute, OPs post is obsolete.

Further more many people in this thread do not understand the concept of risk profiles. I'd much rather a small chance of landing a once in a generation player like fyfe, Carlisle etc with a late first then settle for an ordinary 100 gamer. The cost of 'opportunity' is something many don't factor into the price of a draft pick

 

[Northworth]

how many players from yesterday's game were rookie listed - seemed to be a lot

 

[Membling]

With 5 additional drafts since the op and the obvious art of drafting becoming more refined and astute, OPs post is obsolete.

Further more many people in this thread do not understand the concept of risk profiles. I'd much rather a small chance of landing a once in a generation player like fyfe, Carlisle etc with a late first then settle for an ordinary 100 gamer. The cost of 'opportunity' is something many don't factor into the price of a draft pick

Is it really obsolete?

Looking at the grand final there was 6 top ten pick between both teams. There was 11 players who were picked from the rookie list. A further 11 players were selected with pick 40 or above. This account for approximately half of the teams being picked from the 40- rookie selections, 15 from the 40-10 picks and 6 from top 10. Pretty sure the OP is still good.

 

[ferrisb]

Is it really obsolete?

Looking at the grand final there was 6 top ten pick between both teams. There was 11 players who were picked from the rookie list. A further 11 players were selected with pick 40 or above. This account for approximately half of the teams being picked from the 40- rookie selections, 15 from the 40-10 picks and 6 from top 10. Pretty sure the OP is still good.

OP was fantastic and is still good and relevant 5 years on.

FA does change the landscape somewhat. Clubs are unlikely to trade picks for older players when they can chase FA and it only costs them cap space.

 

[Ruse]

OP was fantastic and is still good and relevant 5 years on.

FA does change the landscape somewhat. Clubs are unlikely to trade picks for older players when they can chase FA and it only costs them cap space.

Gunnar's posts were like draft picks, you find a gem every hundred times and the rest get delisted midway through the 1st year.

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

Gunnar's posts were like draft picks, you find a gem every hundred times and the rest get delisted midway through the 1st year.

<--- not Gunnar. Really really not Gunnar.

 

[JP2]

If anything I think the introduction of FA has only served to make draft picks even less valuable. Previously, if you were lucky enough to draft a gun player then you could be reasonably confident of keeping him for his entire career. Now, there's a danger that you can put 8 years into a player and then have them leave at the age of 25 - just as they're reaching their peak. It also means that a team isn't restricted to choose either the drafting or trading path to make a good team (both of which requires access to good draft picks) they can also attract good players for nothing through the FA.

Draft picks will still be important to get the "once in a generation" type players mentioned above, but I think Geelong and Sydney have proven in recent years that you don't need regular access to top 10 draft picks to end up with a team of champions.

EDIT: And I also want to say something about this belief that drafted players are like cars - that they decrease in value as soon as you take them off the lot. If anything, I think it should be the opposite. The first 3 years will always be the least productive of that player's career, and a club is usually making short-term sacrifices by playing him on the pitch (i.e. a mediocre, futureless 29 year old would probably deliver better stats week-in week-out). If the player was drafted at pick 20, say, he should be worth more than that after 3 years in the system, not less, because the team recruiting him doesn't have to waste three years on his formative development. This may be different if the player is demonstrably an absolute spud, but I don't think it would be possible to determine that after a mere 3 or 4 years. A 21 year old with 3-4 years in the system should always be worth than a 17 year old of comparable potential.

 

[HawkintheTuarts]

1997 (Port + Fitzbane merger) is the cutoff, number of games per ND pick:

There's other stuff can post, but don't have the time, but draw whatever conclusion you want from it.

 

[Hva sher a]

1997 (Port + Fitzbane merger) is the cutoff, number of games per ND pick:

There's other stuff can post, but don't have the time, but draw whatever conclusion you want from it.

The trend is hardly surprising but can be also be attributable to clubs being more "patient" with their higher picks. Clubs are reluctant to let go players picked early because its an enormous loss of face for the whole club if the high draftee doesn't work out. Therefore these players are given more games in the hope that they'll turn the corner and live up to their promise. Tambling was a good example of this.

On the flip side its easier to let lower drafted players go if they aren't starring straight away.

 

[Falchoon]

1997 (Port + Fitzbane merger) is the cutoff, number of games per ND pick:

There's other stuff can post, but don't have the time, but draw whatever conclusion you want from it.

14-45 is interesting

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

14-45 is interesting

Really interesting graph, and I reckon you've nailed the key points above.
- top 5 picks have a reasonable chance of finding you a long term quality player, although it does make sense that teams will persevere a bit with a high draft pick when similar performances from a rookie or a lower ranked player would get them delisted.
-not much difference in prospects from about 5-12
-no difference from 15-40 (which is extraordinary when you think about it how much value a late 1st round pick has on the trade table, compared to say pick 40)
- never ever draft someone with pick 35, it is cursed.

Would be interesting to see if the above still holds true for drafting since about 2001 (which is the point where I reckon recruiters did much better due diligence on draft prospects.

 

[HawkintheTuarts]

Oh s**t, should have said, it is to only 2010 too, you always need time for these things so liked the three year draft cut-off. All sourced from the wonderful https://www.draftguru.com.au/ Great site for all the draft picks and up to date games.

- never ever draft someone with pick 35, it is cursed.

It is!

The best player ever there was Chris Bond (Carlton/Richmond/Fremantle), next best is Mark Chaffey for Richmond, both playing over 150+ games.

Next best is West Coast's (formerly Melbourne) Jamie Bennell.

Astbury, Newton, Markworth, Temay, Nankervis don't inspire confidence of a curse broken either.

Would be interesting to see if the above still holds true for drafting since about 2001 (which is the point where I reckon recruiters did much better due diligence on draft prospects.

Hard to tell because any draft after about 2004 you're affected by players not having played enough. Agree drafting has improved over modern years, which was why I didn't particularly want to go too far back. The early years the drafting was very hodgepodge.

 

[Bender571]

Is it really obsolete?

Looking at the grand final there was 6 top ten pick between both teams. There was 11 players who were picked from the rookie list. A further 11 players were selected with pick 40 or above. This account for approximately half of the teams being picked from the 40- rookie selections, 15 from the 40-10 picks and 6 from top 10. Pretty sure the OP is still good.

2 of those top 10 were 1st and 2nd in the norm smith another 2 were the leading goal kickers.

Also think mcevoy, hale, mcveigh and rohan were top 10 picks making 8 total.

 

[Cringle]

Pick 6 or 7 looks to be pretty cursed too.

 

[HawkintheTuarts]

I think the other graph that needs to compliment the first one is how many players make it per position. 41.37% of AFL players from the National Draft play 50+ games. That drops to just 24.76% to play 100+ games.

Oh and forgot:

Would be interesting to see if the above still holds true for drafting since about 2001 (which is the point where I reckon recruiters did much better due diligence on draft prospects.

Hmm, looking further, perhaps median average of games per year would show that things have improved better.

Truth be told not sure if that does show it, except after 2003 - although you'd think the bellcurve of later drafts to improve('06 onwards), but it shows that the 1999 and 2000 drafts had more depth than the "super-draft" of 2001.

 

[Falchoon]

Really interesting graph, and I reckon you've nailed the key points above.
- top 5 picks have a reasonable chance of finding you a long term quality player, although it does make sense that teams will persevere a bit with a high draft pick when similar performances from a rookie or a lower ranked player would get them delisted.
-not much difference in prospects from about 5-12
-no difference from 15-40 (which is extraordinary when you think about it how much value a late 1st round pick has on the trade table, compared to say pick 40)
- never ever draft someone with pick 35, it is cursed.

I was watching an old NBA draft last night, (the Anfernee Hardaway one where Orlando received no.1 pick on a 1 ball in the tattslotto drum (behind David Stern's closed door)) and it got me thinking, in the land of sabermetrics the 7'+ men are incredibly over rated at draft day, if the analytics were done, you would essentially avoid them. Which is essentially the conclusion the AFL has come to on ruckmen, slowly.

The stats here would suggest if you have a mid teen pick you're better to try to convert it into two mid twenties to thirties picks.

There was a poster on the Saints board 2 or 3 years back who did some great work on points values of picks, it would be interesting to see his model in this light.

 

[Membling]

2 of those top 10 were 1st and 2nd in the norm smith another 2 were the leading goal kickers.

Also think mcevoy, hale, mcveigh and rohan were top 10 picks making 8 total.

My bad on the count of top 10 picks, missed hale and mcevoy. Means that there were 13 in the 10-40 range.

In the past 5 years, 4 out of 6 of the winners have been top 10 picks. From 2004, half of the norm smith medalists have been from the picks 20+

Either way, half of the teams in the grand final were from pick 40 and above.

14 players in the AA side were from picks outside the top 10. 24 of the AA 40 squad were from picks outside the top 10. Half of the brownlow top ten were picks 10 and above (excluding Fyfe). 3 of the top 5 in the AFLPA MVP were outside the top 10.

Etc, etc.

To be honest, it is just an illustration that while the basis of getting exception talent certainly helps a club, talent development is far more important to a player success.

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

I think the other graph that needs to compliment the first one is how many players make it per position. 41.37% of AFL players from the National Draft play 50+ games. That drops to just 24.76% to play 100+ games.

Again, cool graph. In the OP, one of the sweeping statements I made was that a player who is under 25 and who has played 70 games or more was of way more value than pick 20, and this graph really does seem to bear that out- that kind of player is on track to play 100+ games, which less than half of people in the 15-25 draft bracket can expect to achieve.

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

I was watching an old NBA draft last night, (the Anfernee Hardaway one where Orlando received no.1 pick on a 1 ball in the tattslotto drum (behind David Stern's closed door)) and it got me thinking, in the land of sabermetrics the 7'+ men are incredibly over rated at draft day, if the analytics were done, you would essentially avoid them. Which is essentially the conclusion the AFL has come to on ruckmen, slowly.

The stats here would suggest if you have a mid teen pick you're better to try to convert it into two mid twenties to thirties picks.

There was a poster on the Saints board 2 or 3 years back who did some great work on points values of picks, it would be interesting to see his model in this light.

I reckon the bolded part is a very good, practical suggestion- the stats say it should work.

One approach to development which hasn't been tried, which might be surprisingly effective based on the stats about draft success, is to spit in the eye of the conventional 'give people time to develop' approach, be completely ruthless with draftees who don't immediately show something, and churn over your list trying to find and develop those rare, instantly impressive Sam Mitchell, Nat Fyfe, Mark Lecras type mid-draft bargains, even at the cost of probably trading or delisting a fair few youngsters who might come good given time. Basically, try and get as many tickets in the draft raffle as possible, and the moment you realise the kid you drafted is probably just alright rather than brilliant, move him on.

If a team operated under these rules-

1. Only keep every draftee, regardless of draft pedigree, for the minimum 2 year contract, with a policy that anyone who doesn't look a certain first 18, top 10 in the B&F type player by the end of that time is traded or delisted. Essentially, if at the end of year 2 they are still getting dropped for form, struggling with ongoing chronic injuries, or struggling to break into the side, ship them out for whatever you can get.

2. Delist/trade the maximum number of players each year, draft and rookie the maximum number each year, and outside of top 5 picks trade for volume of picks rather than rank.

3. Run a selection policy which privileges new draftees playing as many games as possible in the first 2 years, to maximise the chance of finding out about them. Ignore on field results for the team, just focus on trying to find as many stars as possible.

4. Once you've drafted a core of 4-5 star calibre players through the above method, completely shift your approach, stop drafting, and and fill the rest of your list with low value 'good ordinary' established players from free agency, rookie list, and trades in the space of a year or two. Basically assemble the supporting caste in one hit after you've found your stars.

-it would pose some chemistry challenges, and they'd probably throw out a fair number of players who would have come good in time but it would be interesting to see if they would be better off than teams which take a conservative approach in the long run- I think possibly they would be, because often having 3 or 4 of those genuine stars rather than 1 or 2 which distinguishes a top 4 team from a bottom 8 team.