Strategy List Management 101

[Lakeside Swan]

This thread needs a bump up, read it and absorb. It explains our recent recruiting which to be fair has been cruelled by effing Fitzpatrick and his Hawthorn cronies on the VFL Commission.

It think it's fair to say that we have also been hindered by consistently finishing at the top of the ladder. Getting those elite draft picks really helps a teams a teams development. Where would Hawthorn be if they didn't get their priority and high draft picks in the 2000's? Admittedly, they drafted and traded very well, unlike St.Kilda, but they've been given a huge leg up by the system.

 

[garyrohan8]

It think it's fair to say that we have also been hindered by consistently finishing at the top of the ladder. Getting those elite draft picks really helps a teams a teams development. Where would Hawthorn be if they didn't get their priority and high draft picks in the 2000's? Admittedly, they drafted and traded very well, unlike St.Kilda, but they've been given a huge leg up by the system.

are heeney and mills not high draft picks?

i agree the draft penalties were unjust and have disadvantaged us in that we couldn't replace players like malceski.

also, trade bans aside, the recruitment of franklin could very well turn out to be a big mistake if we don't win a flag in the next few years.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

So swansfan51, now you're a mod does that mean all analysis will cease? Any more material lined up or in the works? Perhaps before the seasons hits you could use your list management reasoning to predict the outcome of this years finals series??

 

[GotTheGoodes]

are heeney and mills not high draft picks?

i agree the draft penalties were unjust and have disadvantaged us in that we couldn't replace players like malceski.

also, trade bans aside, the recruitment of franklin could very well turn out to be a big mistake if we don't win a flag in the next few years.

Have you contemplated that the club may not have recruited him solely to win a premiership? There's ticket sales, bums on seats and memberships to worry about too. He has certainly already begun to deliver on his worth in the exposure he's provided us in the NSW market/media but most importantly in memberships alone, his "value" has been commensurate in my opinion.

 

[garyrohan8]

Have you contemplated that the club may not have recruited him solely to win a premiership? There's ticket sales, bums on seats and memberships to worry about too. He has certainly already begun to deliver on his worth in the exposure he's provided us in the NSW market/media but most importantly in memberships alone, his "value" has been commensurate in my opinion.

i was calculating on what i value which is winning premierships.

i agree with you in he has added plenty of value in marketing terms.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

also, trade bans aside, the recruitment of franklin could very well turn out to be a big mistake if we don't win a flag in the next few years.

Why only Franklin? The players we've lost because of that trade wouldn't have won us the flag last year or the year before, and they wouldn't have raised our profile.

If we don't win a flag over the next 2-3 years it means there's a lot more mistakes with our list than just Buddy. Just because he's on the biggest contract it doesn't mean he should be the scapegoat.

If I recall correctly he was one of only a few players who could hold their head high after the 2014 grand final.

 

[garyrohan8]

Why only Franklin? The players we've lost because of that trade wouldn't have won us the flag last year or the year before, and they wouldn't have raised our profile.

If we don't win a flag over the next 2-3 years it means there's a lot more mistakes with our list than just Buddy. Just because he's on the biggest contract it doesn't mean he should be the scapegoat.

If I recall correctly he was one of only a few players who could hold their head high after the 2014 grand final.

i'm not criticising franklin. i think he has played well for us. i just don't think bringing in superstar players translates to premierships very often.

i will criticise the people who made the decision to bring him in on a ridiculously long and large salary if it doesn't translate into premierships.

personally, i would rather have kept mumford and maybe even everitt and bought a free agent on a reasonable wage.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

No telling if that would've brought us a flag over the same time period.

 

[Millky95]

A reality check in the prelim would have been nice.

Or not to suffer the North prelim curse

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

We would of not made top 4 in 2014 without Franklin

 

[SilentHunter_]

We would of not made top 4 in 2014 without Franklin

Sorry mate but I gotta disagree with you there, our team in 2014 was pretty darn good. I know it is sort of redundant, but let's say the 2014 GF didn't happen or even let's have our perspective right before the Grand Final. I am pretty sure everyone would've been feeling pretty happy and satisfied with our team.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Sorry mate but I gotta disagree with you there, our team in 2014 was pretty darn good. I know it is sort of redundant, but let's say the 2014 GF didn't happen or even let's have our perspective right before the Grand Final. I am pretty sure everyone would've been feeling pretty happy and satisfied with our team.

Not sure i remember just the top off my head he won 4 games directly off his boot.

 

[The King!]

Sorry mate but I gotta disagree with you there, our team in 2014 was pretty darn good. I know it is sort of redundant, but let's say the 2014 GF didn't happen or even let's have our perspective right before the Grand Final. I am pretty sure everyone would've been feeling pretty happy and satisfied with our team.

We would of lost 5 more games at least

The port game for starters at the scg

 

[RW]

Sorry mate but I gotta disagree with you there, our team in 2014 was pretty darn good. I know it is sort of redundant, but let's say the 2014 GF didn't happen or even let's have our perspective right before the Grand Final. I am pretty sure everyone would've been feeling pretty happy and satisfied with our team.

The 2012 side had superior depth, the 2014 side had better top-end talent (obviously).

 

[The King!]

The 2012 side had superior depth, the 2014 side had better top-end talent (obviously).

Maybe maybe

2012, had more guts

Had a better gameplan, it had been changed, lack of tweak since

 

[SilentHunter_]

Not understating Buddy's importance that year, but putting that entire season solely down to his heroics is a bit far fetched.

 

[RW]

Not understating Buddy's importance that year, but putting that entire season solely down to his heroics is a bit far fetched.

Oh I wouldn't put the year solely down to him, but realistically we had already lost the likes of O'Keefe, Bolton, Mumford, AJ from the side and the older guys like Richards, Shaw, Goodes, Pyke were arguably not as good as they were in 2012. Buddy's arrival temporarily reversed the downward trend that started in the second half of 2013. Remember some of the 2012 team were not young to start with. In my mind it was always going to be touch and go whether we won another flag. We looked the goods at stages during both 2013 and 2014 but in the end couldn't sustain it.

 

[SilentHunter_]

Oh I wouldn't put the year solely down to him, but realistically we had already lost the likes of O'Keefe, Bolton, Mumford, AJ from the side and the older guys like Richards, Shaw, Goodes, Pyke were arguably not as good as they were in 2012. Buddy's arrival temporarily reversed the downward trend that started in the second half of 2013. Remember some of the 2012 team were not young to start with. In my mind it was always going to be touch and go whether we won another flag. We looked the goods at stages during both 2013 and 2014 but in the end couldn't sustain it.

Yeah at the end of 2013 I certainly didn't think we'd be up fighting for a flag so soon. Buddy's arrival definitely gave that sense of contending again and to be fair 2014 was our best chance. Right now we're 20-30% chance of winning a flag imo.

 

[swansfan51]

So swansfan51, now you're a mod does that mean all analysis will cease? Any more material lined up or in the works? Perhaps before the seasons hits you could use your list management reasoning to predict the outcome of this years finals series??

I'm happy to write part 4, but it won't be able to predict the outcome of the finals series! The best it could do is compare current squads to history and tell you who can and cannot win based on some broad metrics. I'll see what ideas I can come up with, and happy to take suggestions

 

[Lakeside Swan]

are heeney and mills not high draft picks?

And before them? ZIP!

We've have fewer top ten draft picks than any other team. Rohan and Macca are the only ones.

The AFL draft system is designed to act as a handicapper and even out the competition. Teams like us who don't tank (there are a handful of other teams in that category too) get penalized. Look at the teams who deliberately bottom out and the rewards they receive. A blind man could foresee the issues with the system especially with the priority picks. Dimitriou was warned and ignored it.

 

[garyrohan8]

And before them? ZIP!

We've have fewer top ten draft picks than any other team. Rohan and Macca are the only ones.

The AFL draft system is designed to act as a handicapper and even out the competition. Teams like us who don't tank (there are a handful of other teams in that category too) get penalized. Look at the teams who deliberately bottom out and the rewards they receive. A blind man could foresee the issues with the system especially with the priority picks. Dimitriou was warned and ignored it.

like melbourne and carlton? they don't seem to have done too well out of so-called tanking.

i think the important thing is that when you do get those high draft picks you make the most of it. geelong drafted really well when they were down (with assistance from the father son rule). hawthorn drafted really well for a few years when they were down (though they had a priority pick as well). we drafted really well when we picked up jetta, parker and reid. i think the western bulldogs have made the most of their time at the bottom and look really good now.

 

[swansfan51]

Episode 4 - Who can win the premiership?

This was somewhat requested by GotTheGoodes and I thought it would be a very interesting bit of research. The first stage is purely objective and reviews the lists of the 18 clubs relative to history, and assesses who is a chance to contend. This does not include any consideration of ladder positions, recent form etc - IE Brisbane and Carlton could top the list, despite being on the bottom of the table, if their lists looked right.

Historical point 1: if you aren't in the top 4, you're nothing

The current finals system sees the top 4 play each other in round 1. This was introduced in 2000. Since then, no team has played in the Grand Final after finishing outside the top 4. Therefore, fairly obviously, no team has won the Premiership after finishing outside the top 4.

Only 5 teams have finished outside the top 4 and even reached as far as the Preliminary Final. So in 16 years, with 64 top 4 finishers, 59 of them have been the Preliminary Final combatants.

What it takes to make the top 4

2000 top 4: * (4th in average age, 5th in average games), Carlton (3rd, 2nd), Melbourne (8th, 13th), Norf (1st, 1st)

This is the first year of my analysis. 3 of the teams were very high for both average age, and average games played. A few more years of the analysis will show if Melbourne was an outlier, or if this is consistently possible.

2001 top 4: * (7th, 8th), Brisbane (14th, 7th), Port (9th, 14th), Richmond (11th, 5th)
2002 top 4: Port (4th, 10th), Brisbane (6th, 1st), Adelaide (8th, 12th), Collingwood (16th, 15th)
2003 top 4: Port (1st, 2nd), Collingwood (15th, 13th), Brisbane (3rd, 1st), Sydney (9th, 8th)
2004 top 4: Port (3rd, 5th), Brisbane (2nd, 1st), St Kilda (8th, 7th), Geelong (15th, 15th)

After 5 years it has become clear that there is a strong, though definitely not absolute, correlation between age/games and the ability to finish top 4. However I am a bit skeptical of these results as a good indicator. My previous analysis has proven that it is the top 28 of a club's list that is relevant - if a team had a lot of teenagers at the bottom of its list, that would lead to lower stats but not necessarily weaken the club's chances.

To investigate that theory and see if it had any merit, I took the lowest ranked side from each of the 5 years and dug a little deeper.

Melbourne 2000 started the year with only 15 players with >50 games experience. Certainly an inexperienced squad, though their average age was dragged down by 13 players aged <20.
Port 2001 started with 19 players with >50 games experience, plus another 6 with >25 games. 13 players with <10 games dragged this average down.
Collingwood 2002 were the most deceptive of these squads. 19 players >50 games, 6 players >25 games. The presence of 13 youngsters on the list who hadn't played a single game dragged down their averages. This was not a baby squad with no experience, it was an excellent young group that would go on to challenge strongly for several seasons.
Collingwood 2003 as above.
Geelong 2004 were indeed a relatively inexperienced squad, that went on to be one of the greatest teams in history. 16 players >50 games, and the vast majority were aged under 25. The players with 20-50 games experience were names like Ablett, Bartel, Johnson and Kelly.

In any event, what do all of these teams had in common? They didn't win. But it was a strong indicator of future success. Collingwood had several extremely strong years as that squad developed, Port went on to win a premiership soon after, and Geelong became one of the best sides ever. Finishing top 4 with a young and inexperienced squad does not mean you are a legitimate contender, but is unsurprisingly a good sign for the future.

I hope to come back later and edit this for 2005-2015, for example:

2005 Adelaide (2nd, 6th), West Coast (14th, 13th), Sydney (4th, 5th), St Kilda (5th, 4th)

OK fine that's about the top 4, but we all know if you don't win you're nothing. What does it take to actually win?

2000 - 20 players > 50 games, 3>25
2001 - 17 players > 50 games, 5>25
2002 - 20 players > 50 games, 2>25
2003 - 22 players > 50 games, 2>25
2004 - 20 players > 50 games, 5>25
2005 - 20 players > 50 games, 5>25
2006 - 20 players > 50 games, 10>25
2007 - 19 players > 50 games, 6>25
2008 - 18 players > 50 games, 6>25
2009 - 23 players > 50 games, 2>25
2010 - 19 players > 50 games, 6>25
2011 - 22 players > 50 games, 0>25
2012 - 21 players > 50 games, 4>25
2013 - 20 players > 50 games, 6>25
2014 - 21 players > 50 games, 3>25
2015 - 23 players > 50 games, 2>25

These numbers really speak for themselves.

The teams in 2016
(To save time, I used the stats provided here by Champion Data: http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne...-each-clubs-list-based-on-age-and-experience/ )

I've taken the top 4 from both 'Age' and 'Experience' as a should-be contenders bracket. This is Fremantle, Norf, Hawthorn, Geelong, West Coast. Fremantle, Norf and Hawthorn are top 4 in both rankings.

I've then prioritised experience over age, and looked at all the other clubs to find some with a strong top 28 core. My previous analyses have found that experience is a better indicator, with >50 games being a handy and fairly simple one to track. I've ranked them in order of experienced players:

Richmond 21>50 and 4>25
Collingwood 20>50 and 8>25
Port Adelaide 20>50 and 7>25 (excluding Ryder and Monfries)
Adelaide 20>50 and 7>25
GWS 18>50 and 9>25
Gold Coast 18>50 and 7>25
Brisbane 18>50 and 6>25
Bulldogs 17>50 and 6>25
Carlton 17>50 and 4>25
Sydney 16>50 and 6>25
Melbourne 16>50 and 6>25 (excluding Melksham)
St Kilda 13>50 and 7>25 (excluding Carlisle)
* excluded from consideration for being a pathetic hive of pond scum

Summary

If Carlton, Sydney, Melbourne or St Kilda win the Premiership in 2016 it will be an achievement without precedent in the 16 year history of the current finals system.

If the Bulldogs win the Premiership in 2016 it will match the great Brisbane side of 2001 and they are set for a dynasty. More likely is that they finish top 4 and are set for a strong near future, as per Port (2001), Collingwood (2002, 2003) and Geelong (2004).

I was going to go further but this already went much longer than I expected. In Episode 4B I may do a more qualitative digging into the 2016 lists for more of an opinion-based analysis.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

This is freakin awesome swansfan51 ... I'll need a few days to process it but it looks like another cracker mate.

 

[Tuco]

Great stuff.

I wonder if the rule changes designed to open up the game will result in young players being less bullied by the experienced ones as they are given space more akin to what they enjoyed at state level, meaning that more and more 'youthful' teams will make it into the top 4 bracket?

Watching the Saints vs the Hawks in round 4, it just seemed the brilliant defensive structures of the Hawks struggled to contain the run and enthusiasm of the younger players.

The fact that inexperienced players are more likely to go missing at the pointy end of the system is a metric that will never change.

But I wonder if we'll see team lists going forward having far more youth on the field during the Home and Away because that will be the pathway to win more footy games. Will list mangers therefore use kids like cannon fodder to build a top four tilt over the grind of the year where limited interchanges and rules are designed to keep the ball in perpetual motion and away from congestion that demands bigger, more mature bodies to dominate.

Then as finals loom, these teams will shift back to their core players for the finals.

 

[Cadsky]

list management 101 - Ted deserves the same treatement ROK got....