Are draft picks over rated?

[Gunnar Longshanks]

What do you think Gonnar?? You seem to have a knack for asking people their thoughts without giving your own.

Yeah – I never offer an opinion, do I?

Of course Richmond made a mistake.

That said, it's a mistake quite a few clubs would have also made in the same poisition.

I thought that Scotland was saying that 2005 was a great draft and kudos to those teams that took advantage of that.

Yeah, well - read between the lines.

He gave kudos for the selections made with picks 1, 2, 3 and 5. Guess who went at 4. If you've being paying attention, you'll know that Richmond are oft-mocked for picking Tambling ahead of Franklin.

 

[Scotland]

Yeah, well - read between the lines.

He gave kudos for the selections made with picks 1, 2, 3 and 5. Guess who went at 4. If you've being paying attention, you'll know that Richmond are oft-mocked for picking Tambling ahead of Franklin.

Actually, he was more referring to the quality of the top few juniors on offer that year.

As everybody already knows, in hindsight Richmond got it wrong taking Tambling over Franklin, as Franklin is a far better player. Franklin is better than everyone in his draft, so to be fair the first 4 picks could in hindsight also be viewed as mistakes. Tamlbing was a highly rated junior that the Hawks & Dogs were also very keen on, so it's not as though Richmond pulled a bizarre selection from left field.

Masten, Rich, Palmer, Naitanui and Cale Morton were all ver highly rated WA U/18 players. We opted for Masten at #3 and Naitanui at #2, ahead of the other 3 in the respective drafts. Masterstroke or ****-up, the success of our recent use of early picks will be judged on the relative success of those players' careers (ie with the beauty of hindsight). If 16 clubs wanted Watts at #1 and he turns out to be a dud, Melbourne will be shit-canned for making the wrong call. That's just how it works.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Actually, he was more referring to the quality of the top few juniors on offer that year.

As everybody already knows, in hindsight Richmond got it wrong taking Tambling over Franklin, as Franklin is a far better player. Franklin is better than everyone in his draft, so to be fair the first 4 picks could in hindsight also be viewed as mistakes. Tamlbing was a highly rated junior that the Hawks & Dogs were also very keen on, so it's not as though Richmond pulled a bizarre selection from left field.

Masten, Rich, Palmer, Naitanui and Cale Morton were all ver highly rated WA U/18 players. We opted for Masten at #3 and Naitanui at #2, ahead of the other 3 in the respective drafts. Masterstroke or ****-up, the success of our recent use of early picks will be judged on the relative success of those players' careers (ie with the beauty of hindsight). If 16 clubs wanted Watts at #1 and he turns out to be a dud, Melbourne will be shit-canned for making the wrong call. That's just how it works.

I don't disagree with this at all, but I don't really see how it plugs into the post of mine that you quoted.

 

[Scotland]

So far we've looked at top 10 picks, and how well the players selected have turned out. Here's the reverse view, the top players, and where they were drafted. Ie instead of 'what % of early picks end up guns', what % of guns were early picks...

As I'm lazy and can't be bothered thinking of my own top player list for Longshanks to critique, I've used 1-20 from Mike Sheahan's most recent top 50.

20 Chad Cornes (#9, 1997)
19 Daniel Kerr (#18, 2000)
18 Shaun Burgoyne (#12, 2000)
17 Adam Goodes (#43, 1997)
16 Brent Harvey (#47, 1995)
15 Matthew Richardson (F/S)
14 Joel Corey (#8, 1999)
13 Adam Cooney (#1, 2003)
12 Simon Black (#31, 1997)
11 Jimmy Bartel (#8, 2001)
10 Matthew Scarlett (F/S)
9 Matthew Pavlich (#4, 1999)
8 Nick Riewoldt (#1, 2000)
7 Jonathan Brown (F/S)
6 Brendan Fevola (#38, 1998)
5 Luke Hodge (#1, 2001)
4 Dean Cox (Rookie)
3 Lance Franklin (#5, 2004)
2 Chris Judd (#3, 2001)
1 Garry Ablett (F/S)

9 top 10 draft picks (1997 x 1, 1999 x 2, 2000 x 1, 2001 x 3, 2003 x 1, 2004 x1)
4 Father/son selections
4 players drafted after pick 30 (1995 x 1, 1997 x 2, 1998 x 1)
2 players drafted between pick 10 and pick 30 (2000 x 2)
1 rookie list selection

The percentages are looking good for the success rate of early draft picks. They're only going to increase with the chances to the F/S rule. The 'next Ablett' won't be taken with a 3rd round pick.

Interestingly there are players picked in the top 10 from 6 drafts (1997-2004), but players picked post pick 30 from are 1998 and earlier only, before the importance of the draft really kicked in.

Dean Cox is well and truly the exception to the rule. The sole rookie listed player and the sole ruckman.

 

[bodazoka]

I understand why you did it, because allot of people need to be shown, shown again, told by there mums, spend a year being taught ect...

low draft picks = better chance at quality.... duh

 

[bunsen burner]

I understand why you did it, because allot of people need to be shown, shown again, told by there mums, spend a year being taught ect...

low draft picks = better chance at quality.... duh

Why the contradiction?

 

[Eagle87]

I understand why you did it, because allot of people need to be shown, shown again, told by there mums, spend a year being taught ect...

low draft picks = better chance at quality.... duh

So repetition is ok when you agree with the poster?

 

[bodazoka]

Why the contradiction?

I meant I understand why you had to do reasearch to prove the point. Its something that I think we both agree on, and it seems common knowledge that low draft picks would equal great players its just sometimes others who dont agree with our point here need proof.

I didnt mean I dont agree with you.

 

[bunsen burner]

I meant I understand why you had to do reasearch to prove the point. Its something that I think we both agree on, and it seems common knowledge that low draft picks would equal great players its just sometimes others who dont agree with our point here need proof.

I didnt mean I dont agree with you.

Fair enough, was a bit ambiguous is all.

Value of draft picks is crucial to so many discussions and often I see someone trying to back up their point with "but Josh Fraser is a dud". This thread just puts the stats right out in the open so people can see statistically the performance of draft picks.

 

[bodazoka]

Fair enough, was a bit ambiguous is all.

Value of draft picks is crucial to so many discussions and often I see someone trying to back up their point with "but Josh Fraser is a dud". This thread just puts the stats right out in the open so people can see statistically the performance of draft picks.

You could probably add a few percentage to that because of the success rate of our recruiters. Allthough I am unsure as to how they have gone previously with top 10 picks (Sampi comes to mind), they have picked up allot of decent players with second/third+ rounders and rookie selections.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

As I'm lazy and can't be bothered thinking of my own top player list for Longshanks to critique...

I resent the implication.

I've used 1-20 from Mike Sheahan's most recent top 50.

20 Chad Cornes (#9, 1997)
19 Daniel Kerr (#18, 2000)
18 Shaun Burgoyne (#12, 2000)
17 Adam Goodes (#43, 1997)
16 Brent Harvey (#47, 1995)
15 Matthew Richardson (F/S)
14 Joel Corey (#8, 1999)
13 Adam Cooney (#1, 2003)
12 Simon Black (#31, 1997)
11 Jimmy Bartel (#8, 2001)
10 Matthew Scarlett (F/S)
9 Matthew Pavlich (#4, 1999)
8 Nick Riewoldt (#1, 2000)
7 Jonathan Brown (F/S)
6 Brendan Fevola (#38, 1998)
5 Luke Hodge (#1, 2001)
4 Dean Cox (Rookie)
3 Lance Franklin (#5, 2004)
2 Chris Judd (#3, 2001)
1 Garry Ablett (F/S)

9 top 10 draft picks (1997 x 1, 1999 x 2, 2000 x 1, 2001 x 3, 2003 x 1, 2004 x1)
4 Father/son selections
4 players drafted after pick 30 (1995 x 1, 1997 x 2, 1998 x 1)
2 players drafted between pick 10 and pick 30 (2000 x 2)
1 rookie list selection

If you prune it back to the top 15, the contrast is even more starkly drawn.

Take out father-son picks - they're basically irrelevant, because clubs have no control over whether former players have kids who turn out to be good players.

You then have Cox and Black as the only players left who weren't top 10 picks.

The upshot is pretty clear. Sure, you might find a gem outside the top bracket once every 10 years, and father-sons picks are a massive bonus when they work out. But after that, if you want to draft a future superstar, you need top 10 picks.

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

I would just like to point out that it was only until the 2005/2006 drafts that every club had fulltime recruiters.

The drafting in the last three years has become alot more professional.

The top ten generally picks itself these days, they have alot more exposure than ever before.

And the changes in the under 18 carnival mean we get to now see everyone play against each other.

Meaning we wont get to see someone like a Tambling dominating against crap Queensland sides, and wondering how they would go against a Vic Metro or a WA side.

 

[The Passenger]

why are people leaving their criteria for high picks as a top 10 picks??

usually two teams that play finals will have a top 10 pick. their hardly early picks.

even picks 1 to 7 is fairly broad. pick 7 will often go to a team only a win out of finals.

an early pick for mine is really only the first 4 teams that enter the draft. they get the opportunity to pick up guys before three quarters of the comeptition do.

 

[bunsen burner]

why are people leaving their criteria for high picks as a top 10 picks??

usually two teams that play finals will have a top 10 pick. their hardly early picks.

even picks 1 to 7 is fairly broad. pick 7 will often go to a team only a win out of finals.

an early pick for mine is really only the first 4 teams that enter the draft. they get the opportunity to pick up guys before three quarters of the comeptition do.

Go have a look at the stats on the OP. There's a gap between pick 7 and 8 due to guns like Joel Selwood going at 7.

The top 7 is really the cream of the crop.

 

[The Passenger]

yeah but i'm saying pick 7 is hardly an early pick when (barring priorities) nearly half the competition has entered the draft.

 

[bunsen burner]

yeah but i'm saying pick 7 is hardly an early pick when (barring priorities) nearly half the competition has entered the draft.

Doesn't matter if it's perceived early or not. History says that the cut off mark for premo picks is at 7. Over time that may change, but at the moment the top 7 are the good ones.