List Mgmt. Carlton's 2019 Draft Thread

[ctwenty1]

Dustin Martin thread....

or cam raynor

 

[ferrisb]

It's all in the judgement Ferris. Either a recruiter has good judgement or he doesn't. What goes into that judgement is a million pieces of data, but what the computer(brain) spits out after the data is Judgement.

There are good judges and bad judges.

SOS is a good judge in 2 areas of life.

Conversely, Shane Rogers and Geoff Edelsten respectively are poor judges in those two areas.

Yeah, fair enough.

I analyse companies for a living. It kind of feels the same kind of process.

It's lots of data, ending in a valuation. It's equal parts art and science. Well, it's starts off mostly science (data, formulas). But at some stage you have to make judgements. And this is based mostly on experience, but partly gut feel. The really good analysts are right more than wrong; it might appear they are plucking a number out of thin air, but a reliable gut is a real thing and an invaluable skill. And not just something you get from drinking lots of kombucha....*shudders, ugh, kombucha*

It's the same with talent spotting. Two people can watch the same player and come to difference conclusions/estimates of how they end up. Hopefully your club staff have the better talent-spotting talent.

After analysing stocks for 15 years I use a lot of formulas, but also a lot of intuition. I can see things that many others can't. Of course I also miss some things that some others don't. But I teach people 'Here are some basic rules to follow. And here are some warnings signs to avoid'. It doesn't work every time, but it's a good basis. I guess I was hoping for some similar rules/guidelines for underage footballers. I don't have the eye for talent that other people do, but was interested in some pearls of wisdom from those that do....

 

[Blue__Balls]

OK, I have a HUGE q for the draft watchers.

What are the key differences between what a kid does at u18 level vs what you think they will do at AFL level? How do you project talent?

I tend to be an output-focused guy. If a player's main job is to get the ball, then I look for the guys that can get the ball. I don't care if a guy can run like the wind and do the extra-ordinary. Coz unless he's actually doing it on a regular basis, then who cares? Someone like Gary Rohan looks amazing on paper, but (injuries aside) has not been very effective at AFL level in my eyes. Because of my biases, I tend to overvalue guys that end up vanilla (not Sam Walsh style) at AFL level.

Deven Robertson is a great example. Ok, his kicking is a bit messy and he lacks x-factor. But if it was that bad, how was he voted the best kid at the champs? Sam Philp is the opposite, he didn't even make the champs, but he's blistering quick. And he got picked earlier. This is not about drafting Philp vs Robertson, but these two are almost the perfect example of differing output vs characteristics prospects. I am only using these guys for illustrative purposes.

I get a few things like

• A ball butcher will probably always be a ball butcher
• Sometimes a short guy is good at underage level, but just won't make it against taller, stronger opposition
• Lack of fitness/endurance can be fixed - but having said that the junior elite runners end up as the AFL's elite runners
• A skinny guy can get stronger
• Some kids are still growing
• A late convert to footy will likely have more development
• You may draft a kid to play a different position (therefore you look at attributes more than output)
• Leadership, off-field and interviews also impact on where a kid gets drafted and how he fares at AFL level

I guess some kids get the ball 20 times a match at u18 but end up getting 30 at AFL level. Or vice versa. I mean Pat Kerr was u18 AA FF, was drafted late and is now delisted. Harry kicked a couple of goals here and there at junior level but was tall, athletic and could mark. He was drafted early and is looking like a serious AFL player in the making.

I mostly look at stats and highlights, so I can't really get a true feel for a what a player will/can become. Please tell me, how do you assess draft prospects and work out which ones will make it at AFL level and which ones won't?

Looking forward to some fascinating responses to this post.

Someone who watches every game (or close to it) over a period of time would likely be judging within an entire cohort and comparing players directly to others (that's going to provide different learnings than someone who just looks at a player in isolation) and based on development over time (where improvement potentially means more than raw output). I think that's always going to provide better insight into a player than someone who only has limited viewing to go off and has to make a "gut" judgement based on a game or two.

For me, I'll always give more credence to someone who can say "I've watched this group for the last 24 months and here are my overall impressions of these players" than I will to someone who can only say "I watched this game on the weekend and Player X is going to be a jet".

Form and development over time wins out.

 

[ferrisb]

Zac Williams is no chance. A local player from NSW and absolutely loves the club.

GWS sound very confident on Whitfield too. Don't think his contract is going to drag out like Coniglio's.

It's a good thing we've drafted our stars Exciting times ahead

Looking forward to the day when GWS is trying to poach talent from us.

Well, sort of. You know what I mean.






NB: Dylan Buckley and Setanta O hAilpin don't count...

 

[TerryWallet]

Yeah, fair enough.

I analyse companies for a living. It kind of feels the same kind of process.

It's lots of data, ending in a valuation. It's equal parts art and science. Well, it's starts off mostly science (data, formulas). But at some stage you have to make judgements. And this is based mostly on experience, but partly gut feel. The really good analysts are right more than wrong; it might appear they are plucking a number out of thin air, but a reliable gut is a real thing and an invaluable skill. And not just something you get from drinking lots of kombucha....*shudders, ugh, kombucha*

It's the same with talent spotting. Two people can watch the same player and come to difference conclusions/estimates of how they end up. Hopefully your club staff have the better talent-spotting talent.

After analysing stocks for 15 years I use a lot of formulas, but also a lot of intuition. I can see things that many others can't. Of course I also miss some things that some others don't. But I teach people 'Here are some basic rules to follow. And here are some warnings signs to avoid'. It doesn't work every time, but it's a good basis. I guess I was hoping for some similar rules/guidelines for underage footballers. I don't have the eye for talent that other people do, but was interested in some pearls of wisdom from those that do....

I would think the one pearl of wisdom any longtime recruiter would pass on to others is "look for competitiveness".

Beyond that, i reckon we're back to the "lots of viewing, million pieces of data, and then just judgement" stuff.

 

[TerryWallet]

Looking forward to some fascinating responses to this post.

Someone who watches every game (or close to it) over a period of time would likely be judging within an entire cohort and comparing players directly to others (that's going to provide different learnings than someone who just looks at a player in isolation) and based on development over time (where improvement potentially means more than raw output). I think that's always going to provide better insight into a player than someone who only has limited viewing to go off and has to make a "gut" judgement based on a game or two.

For me, I'll always give more credence to someone who can say "I've watched this group for the last 24 months and here are my overall impressions of these players" than I will to someone who can only say "I watched this game on the weekend and Player X is going to be a jet".

Form and development over time wins out.

Yeah, but if the bloke watching 20 games is a poor judge, and the bloke who watches 4 games is a good judge....then i'm going with the 4 game guy.

At the end of the day, in speculative industries, the good judges survive and prosper and the poor judges wither and drop off like flies no matter how hard they work.

Whether it be stocks or young horses or young footballers, you have to be able to read the qualities of living breeathing and changing beings. There are some you can bank on the already established bedrock of their staff or breeding or early perfomance, but there are some where you use your judgement to sense something.

In the football instance just look at Hawthorn, the bedrock of performance of James Worpel or the "sense" of a Will Day.

The bedrock of a Dev Robertson or a Sam Flanders....or a "sense" of a Luke Jackson or a Miles Bergman.

Good judges will get 60% of calls right. Poor judges will get 60% of calls wrong.

 

[HARKER]

Someone who watches every game (or close to it) over a period of time would likely be judging within an entire cohort and comparing players directly to others (that's going to provide different learnings than someone who just looks at a player in isolation) and based on development over time (where improvement potentially means more than raw output). I think that's always going to provide better insight into a player than someone who only has limited viewing to go off and has to make a "gut" judgement based on a game or two.
For me, I'll always give more credence to someone who can say "I've watched this group for the last 24 months and here are my overall impressions of these players" than I will to someone who can only say "I watched this game on the weekend and Player X is going to be a jet".

Form and development over time wins out.

By far and large this is thew case and should be the case, but it's not always the case.

Recruiters fall in love with individuals......they fall in love with types.......they like this more than they like that.......they attribute more credit to this quality over that one etc. Sometimes recruiters (people) also see what they want to see.

Know an individual who gets so much right without ever getting to a game. Just has a feel for it well beyond any phantom drafter I've come across, although Bishop was good. Actually it's uncanny how he can pick apart aspects of an individuals' game that I never see discussed on Big Footy.

 

[HaydossJ]

Zac Williams is no chance. A local player from NSW and absolutely loves the club.

GWS sound very confident on Whitfield too. Don't think his contract is going to drag out like Coniglio's.

It's a good thing we've drafted our stars Exciting times ahead

Agree - both ZWilliams and Whitfield are no chance. I’m confident we already have the talent at our club. Go hard again on Papley and continue to add value role players (e.g., Newnes).

 

[Team DJ]

Do we really need another one paced inside mid with ok at best foot skills?

It’s been interesting to read people’s thoughts on our recruitment of Philp over Robertson. I back the recruiters in, although I was big on team Robertson.

What I think people are missing is. We traded pick 22 and pick 55 for Philp, so when assessing Philp vs Robertson or whoever was still available, you need to factor in, it’s Philp vs Robertson and 55 or who we could have got, if we packaged 55 with the pick we used in the 40s.

 

[TerryWallet]

Do we really need another one paced inside mid with ok at best foot skills?

It's done and dusted now, but just for the record, Robertson is not one paced.

He has elite speed and agility. He tested(2.92) just behind Philp(2.86) and quicker than Dylan Stephens(2.97). He is quick around the ball, quick out of congestion, and gets from contest to contest beautifully.

 

[BlueTang]

Looking forward to some fascinating responses to this post.

Someone who watches every game (or close to it) over a period of time would likely be judging within an entire cohort and comparing players directly to others (that's going to provide different learnings than someone who just looks at a player in isolation) and based on development over time (where improvement potentially means more than raw output). I think that's always going to provide better insight into a player than someone who only has limited viewing to go off and has to make a "gut" judgement based on a game or two.

For me, I'll always give more credence to someone who can say "I've watched this group for the last 24 months and here are my overall impressions of these players" than I will to someone who can only say "I watched this game on the weekend and Player X is going to be a jet".

Form and development over time wins out.

Bennelong, Perpetual, Hyperion,,, keen to know who for ?

 

[footyfan1978]

Think you're missing the point, FF.

Nope. The point is about Ken Wood.
If you do not get that, you are missing the point.
The trade of picks does not pass the sniff test.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Nope. The point is about Ken Wood.
If you do not get that, you are missing the point.
The trade of picks does not pass the sniff test.

The point of having someone assessing trades is exactly for this reason. Both clubs valued certain commodities differently, both clubs would feel they got a good return, the assessor accepted their submissions.

Otherwise, no point in having an assessor, just say points have to be within a 10% or whatever margin.

 

[DangerousD]

Not really, cause then it would be Philp and Ramsay vs. Robertson and whoever we got at a slightly upgraded pick instead of Ramsay.

Exceedingly hard to judge, given we have no idea who might have accepted 47 and 56 and what we would have got back. Best case scenario might be a 10-spot upgrade, but I think that's extremely optimistic.

Still:

View attachment 787869

Maybe Bryan (though we didn't look at a ruckman at all this year), potentially Rantall or Bianco?

Or maybe we'd still have taken Ramsay.

Philp + Ramsay
vs.
Robertson + Ramsay/Bianco/Rantall

Unless i have misunderstood, the pick we used on Ramsay was always ours, im not sure why you are using this pick when discussing Philp, they aren't tied together.
We traded pick 22 and 55 for Philp.

 

[DangerousD]

We weren't taking a selection at #55, and if we packaged it with #47 to move up the draft, we would have still selected Ramsey.

Im not sure that you know this, its purely a guess. Unless you know how far we could have moved up and what number we had Ramsay, we may have wanted the player picked 1-5 spots before him.

Its just an observation anyway, that i think is being missed, 22 and 55 for Philp.

 

[DangerousD]

Zac Williams is no chance. A local player from NSW and absolutely loves the club.

GWS sound very confident on Whitfield too. Don't think his contract is going to drag out like Coniglio's.

It's a good thing we've drafted our stars Exciting times ahead

Ive heard this regarding Williams but i still think $$$$ talks. I look at the Giants and i see a lot of top end talent getting paid a lot of cash, Cameron, Whitfield, Williams all free agents next season.
Have a look at those 3 and who do you think are the main priorities? I think Williams is number 3 and his contract offer will reflect that. The other two will get a Mill, what will be left for Zac?

 

[DangerousD]

Yeah, fair enough.

I analyse companies for a living. It kind of feels the same kind of process.

It's lots of data, ending in a valuation. It's equal parts art and science. Well, it's starts off mostly science (data, formulas). But at some stage you have to make judgements. And this is based mostly on experience, but partly gut feel. The really good analysts are right more than wrong; it might appear they are plucking a number out of thin air, but a reliable gut is a real thing and an invaluable skill. And not just something you get from drinking lots of kombucha....*shudders, ugh, kombucha*

It's the same with talent spotting. Two people can watch the same player and come to difference conclusions/estimates of how they end up. Hopefully your club staff have the better talent-spotting talent.

After analysing stocks for 15 years I use a lot of formulas, but also a lot of intuition. I can see things that many others can't. Of course I also miss some things that some others don't. But I teach people 'Here are some basic rules to follow. And here are some warnings signs to avoid'. It doesn't work every time, but it's a good basis. I guess I was hoping for some similar rules/guidelines for underage footballers. I don't have the eye for talent that other people do, but was interested in some pearls of wisdom from those that do....

It would be interesting to see the data from human recruiters vs champion data rankings and to see how they compare. I remember some lines from moneyball regarding your bias and how it influences decisions or how you miss what's in front of you.

How would a computer generated drafter go against an AFL real life, person one?

 

[DangerousD]

Do we really need another one paced inside mid with ok at best foot skills?

I think you have missed the point of the post.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Unless i have misunderstood, the pick we used on Ramsay was always ours, im not sure why you are using this pick when discussing Philp, they aren't tied together.
We traded pick 22 and 55 for Philp.

Because the suggestion was that we should compare Philp to Robertson and whoever we could have taken at 55, or who we could have taken if we packaged 47 and 55. Given we only drafted 3 players, it's either nobody at 55 anyway, or someone instead of Ramsay if we'd used 55 to upgrade 47.

 

[footyfan1978]

The point of having someone assessing trades is

To make sure trades are reasonable. If clearly in favour of one team on picks you got to wonder what would ever get knocked back. Either he was not doing his job or lopsided trades on draft picks alone are likely to never get knocked back.

 

[myblueroan]

It's all in the judgement Ferris. Either a recruiter has good judgement or he doesn't. What goes into that judgement is a million pieces of data, but what the computer(brain) spits out after the data is Judgement.

There are good judges and bad judges.

SOS is a good judge in 2 areas of life.

Conversely, Shane Rogers and Geoff Edelsten respectively are poor judges in those two areas.

Thi is interesting and also why I am cautious wanting Agresta in the big chair.
I read that he is very interested in 'stats.'
That is only one element in the big picture.
Hopefully SOS taught him about the myriad of factors involved.
The biggest being as you and Ferris have said an informed instinct.
Let's hope we track down a 'Ferris' type for our next list manager.

 

[Blue__Balls]

To make sure trades are reasonable. If clearly in favour of one team on picks you got to wonder what would ever get knocked back. Either he was not doing his job or lopsided trades on draft picks alone are likely to never get knocked back.

But as you've ignored a dozen times, the pick that GC got in return was secured in the knowledge a specific player was available.

So when the two clubs make their submission to Ken Wood, GC tack on a note saying "We understand the points are nowhere near matching up, but we rate Jeremy Sharp inside the top 20 this year, and we believe our future first will end up being closer to Pick 15. We're also happy to pay a premium to secure a player 12 months sooner, to assist with integration at our rebuilding club. On this basis, we request that the trade be approved."

To me, and evidently to the assessor, this makes enough sense to tick off the trade.

Trades are always lop-sided, there's rarely a "perfect equivalence". And in this case, you've got two clubs with very different priorities. GC need to improve soon, and need to find ways to keep talented players at their club. Bringing in a group of players together to have them form a close bond is smart, we did the same. Bringing in players sooner is smart, as it speeds up the development of the list as a collective. And maybe Sharp was someone who, in interviews, gave the distinct impression he'd be happy to move interstate for an extended period of time.

So maybe dial back the aggressive questioning of other posters' intelligence or sobriety, yeah?

 

[Funk]

Thi is interesting and also why I am cautious wanting Agresta in the big chair.
I read that he is very interested in 'stats.'
That is only one element in the big picture.
Hopefully SOS taught him about the myriad of factors involved.
The biggest being as you and Ferris have said an informed instinct.
Let's hope we track down a 'Ferris' type for our next list manager.

ferrisb type?

Pffftt.

Will never get any work done - too busy cracking gags all day......

 

[ferrisb]

ferrisb type?

Pffftt.

Will never get any work done - too busy cracking gags all day......

Can confirm...

 

[myblueroan]

ferrisb type?

Pffftt.

Will never get any work done - too busy cracking gags all day......

Indeed...was thinking more along the lines of his work analysis post.