Are draft picks over rated?

[bunsen burner]

This has nothing to do with the other thread and whether or not we should be going for wins or draft picks. Over time it has come to my attention that a lot of people on BF (not just this board) claim that top draft picks are over rated. There are claims that they are a "lottery", "no guarantee", and if you can't get a "guarantee" why would you trade a gun (ie Cox or Rocca in his prime) for a top draft pick?

I thought it was pretty obvious without checking the stats, but some numpties keep on coming up with "but Andrew Walker is a dud so that proves top draft picks are over rated". Let's cheack some stats:

I've rated the players. Please don't bother coming back and saying player X should be higher or lower. What you would change probably evens out. By all means if you think the stats are misleading, state your case. I do agree that recent years like 2006 are harder to rank players and may prevent a skew - but not even close enough to alter the interpretation of the stats.

I have purposely left out the last 2 drafts as many of those players haven't debuted yet.

2006
Gibbs 9
Gumbleton 5
Hansen 8
Leuenburger 5
Boak 7
Thorp 2
Selwood 10

Average 6.6
chance > 7 57%
chance of dud 14%
___________________________
2005
Murphy 8
Thomas 7
Ellis 6
Kennedy 6
Pendlebury 8
Dowler 6
Ryder 8

Average 7
Chance of > 7 57%
Chance of dud 0
_____________________

2004
Deledio 7
Roughead 9
Griffin 8
Tambling 6
Franklin 10
Williams 4
Lewis 6

Average 7.14
Chance > 7 57%
Chance of dud 14%
____________________

2003
Cooney 8
Walker 6
Sylvia 6
Ray 6
Mclean 6
Bradley 1
Tenace 2

Average 5
Chance of > 7 14%
chance of dud 28%
_________________________
2002
Goddard 8
Wells 7
Brennan 6
Walsh 0
McVeigh 7
Salopek 7
Mackie 6

Average 6
Chance of > 7 57%
Chance of dud 14%
_______________________


draft picks 8-21

2006
Reid 2
Armitage 6
N.Brown 6
Everitt 5
Frawley 5
Reiwoldt 5
Sellar 2
O'Keefe 1
M.Brown 5
Hampson 4
Jetta 6
Grigg 6
Hislop 2
Urquhart 5

Average 4.3
_______________________
2005

Oakley-Nicholls 5
Clarke 4
Drum 4
Higgins 8
Jones 7
Hurn 7
Birchall 7
Varcoe 6
Dougles 6
Pfeifer 1
Bailey 1
Dempsey 6
Bower 6
Stanley 2

Average 5
_____________________
2004

Meeson 5
Russell 5
Egan 0
Thompson 1
Myer 4
Bate 5
Monfries 6
Dunn 6
Pattison 6
McQualter 5
Wood 4
Willits 0
Polo 6
Murphy 3

Average 4
____________________
2003

Clarke 3
Trotter 0
Dunn 0
Waters 6
Murphy 4
Stanton 7
Watts 0
Chaplin 7
Willoughbt 0
Morrison 0
Spaanderman 0
Mundy 7
Butler 5
Gilmore 0

Average 2.8
________________________
2002

Brennan 6
McIntosh 7
Laycock 5
Winderlich 6
Schulz 5
Schammer 7
Bell 3
Smith 0
Gilham 5
Faulkner 4
Shore 0
T.Selwood 5
Minson 6
Nixon 0

Average 4.2
________________________

Summary of top 7 draft picks 02-06

amount of players 35
total guns 11 32%
guns 6 17%
good players 11 32%
disapointments 3 8%
total duds 4 11%

Top 7 top 10
Selwood
Franklin
Gibbs
Roughead
Cooney
Goddard
Pendlebury
Murphy
Griffin
Hansen


__________________________

Summary of 8-21 draft picks 02-06

amount of players 70
total guns 1 2%
guns 8 12%
good players 15 21%
can play 15 21%
total duds 31 44%

8-21 top 10
Higgins
Jones
Hurn
Birchall
Monfries
Stanton
Chaplin
Mundy
McIntosh
Schammer

___________________________

 

[bunsen burner]

With a top 7 pick, the chances of getting an elite player are 1 in 3 whilst the chance of getting a dud are 1 in 10

with a pick inbetween 8-21, the chances of getting an elite player are LESS THAN 2% whilst the chance of getting a dud is almost a 50/50 proposition.

 

[CursoryMercenary]

Yes they are, only once in a blue moon will you draft a 'ready made superstar' eg Judd, Matera etc. Clubs who tank are playing with fire, I can understand though if you need to rebuild your list eg Fremantle last year.

 

[Mattman93]

Nice research. I agree in the sense that with a top 7 (i think this usually applies to top 10), you are usually guaranteed a good player if not a gun, whereas 10-20 becomes a lottery.

 

[Keys]

Thanks for putting that analysis up BB - don't agree with all your ratings necessarily but as you say it's unlikely to make a lot of difference to the point you are making.

What it does highlight IMO is how rare true superstars really are.

 

[Quinz]

Don't want pick 6.

 

[bunsen burner]

Yes they are, only once in a blue moon will you draft a 'ready made superstar' eg Judd, Matera etc. Clubs who tank are playing with fire, I can understand though if you need to rebuild your list eg Fremantle last year.

Okay. If you get a top 7 pick you are a 1 in 3 chance to nab a superstar. After pick 7 it is reduced down to 1 in 70.

Are you on crack?

 

[bunsen burner]

Don't want pick 6.

2003 was a standout shocker of a draft as well.

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

You've messed it up a bit by including 2006-2005.

I did something similar earlier this year, but just with 2000-2004, because I don't think it is worth assessing players until they have had 4-5 years in the system- if you are a high draft pick player you tend to get given a better trot on the selection table for a few years, and it takes a while for other deficiencies to start to outweigh natural talent, which basically every high draft pick has in spades. There are plenty of guys (Seaby and Sampi spring to mind) who you would have assessed as worthwhile players 3 years out- not so now- if you look at your figures, that's why even in what you've done, there is a more regular set of duds in the earlier years, but not in 2005 2006.

FWIW, where A Grade equals genuine guns who will have some AA calibre seasons, B Grade equals solid, quality players, and C Grade equals fringe and potential delistee, I reckon it works out to -

top 10 draftee = 15% chance of A grade, 40% chance of B grade, 35% chance of C grade
11-20 draftee = 10% A Grade, 30% B Grade, 60% C grade
21-30 draftee = ~0% A Grade, 35% B Grade, 65% C grade

Based on that, my view is that high draft picks are somewhat overrated when you consider the expectations fans attach to them- more likely than not, the top 10 draftee who fans fap themselves over will just end up a handy player rather than an outright star. The only thing which makes them worthwhile is that A grade players are ridiculously hard to obtain by any means, and in AFL context, one genuine gun is a better get than basically 4 or 5 good ordinary players on your list- so because of that, even a relatively small chance of a gun is A Very Good Thing.

That said, I would take 2-3 11-20 picks > pick 1 in terms of your chances of netting quality.

 

[bunsen burner]

That said, I would take 2-3 11-20 picks > pick 1 in terms of your chances of netting quality.

I'd take pick 1. As you said, a genuine superstar is better than 4-5 good solid players. Pick 11-20, the best people would have got in 02-06 is Higgins. Get that pick 1 right and you get a superstar. Worst case scenario these days is Deledio. I do rate Higgins about the same but I'd take the risk. There are plenty of players in 11-20 that are no longer on lists.

 

[bunsen burner]

You've messed it up a bit by including 2006-2005.

I did something similar earlier this year, but just with 2000-2004,

I considered this, but didn't want to go earlier than 02 because you can still see the trend of drafting improving. We will unlikely let players slip through the net as much as we did back then. I also felt whilst 05/06 a bit premature, it wouldn't skew the results.

if you look at your figures, that's why even in what you've done, there is a more regular set of duds in the earlier years, but not in 2005 2006.

But it's all relative. Of course from 2002 there will be more duds than 06 as more time has passed for people to be found out. But if you compare 2002 0-7 to 2002 14-21, and 2006 1-7 and 2006 14-21 the pattern is still there.

 

[paran]

While I like the idea, your ratings are far too subjective. If you look at it simply, the teams that were at the bottom of the ladder consistently 4-5 years ago (St Kilda, Hawthorn, Bulldogs) are now at the top, with the Saints and Hawks receiving priority picks. Carlton, who have been the recipients of priority picks, are on the way up. It's fair to say that only Freo with their policy of trading away high picks have not much to show for their poor seasons.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

While I like the idea, your ratings are far too subjective.

What do you want him to do?

Check their official awesomeness score?

How would the ratings be anything but subjective?

For what it's worth, I think they're fairly accurate.

If you look at it simply, the teams that were at the bottom of the ladder consistently 4-5 years ago (St Kilda, Hawthorn, Bulldogs) are now at the top, with the Saints and Hawks receiving priority picks. Carlton, who have been the recipients of priority picks, are on the way up. It's fair to say that only Freo with their policy of trading away high picks have not much to show for their poor seasons.

That doesn't prove anything about the increased value of high draft picks, which is his whole point.

 

[bunsen burner]

While I like the idea, your ratings are far too subjective.

But if 100 people put their own subjective ratings in they will come out with the same end result which is:

If you look at it simply, the teams that were at the bottom of the ladder consistently 4-5 years ago (St Kilda, Hawthorn, Bulldogs) are now at the top, with the Saints and Hawks receiving priority picks. Carlton, who have been the recipients of priority picks, are on the way up. It's fair to say that only Freo with their policy of trading away high picks have not much to show for their poor seasons.

Unfortunately some people don't have the ability to look at it simply so I thought I do it stat wise. Either way the results are compelling.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

If you say "Your coming" then yes. Gibbs could be 26 by the time Carlton threaten for a flag.

 

[Scotland]

In isolation, yes they are.

People will say 'Carlton will never trade pick 6 for Daniel Kerr, pick 6 could be a gun who'll play for 10 years'. Pick 6 could well be Kepler Bradley. Daniel Kerr is going be Daniel Kerr, you know what you're going to get. Would the Dogs trade a top 10 pick for a 27 year old Pavlich? Of course they would. Would Melbourne do the same? You would think not.

The value of draft picks is also closely dependent on the talent available in a given year. In 2003 we took Waters at 11, and of the top 10 only Cooney can lay real claims to being a gun. Mclean has shown signs, but he'd struggle for a guernsey in the AFL's top 20 midfielders. In 2005 Deledio, Roughead, Griffen & Franklin went 1,2,3,5. Jackpot for a side with 2 early picks and the knowhow to use them.

The more early picks you have, the greater your opporunity to pick up the most highly rated juniors. There is a higher percentage of highly rated juniors going on to become guns at AFL level than kids who are left until the later rounds in the draft, so your chances of drafting real quality is going to much higher. Successful recruitment extends well beyond having a couple of early picks though. If you keep picking duds with your later picks and can't build a strong list of good average players, you won't win flags. You build sides around the likes of Judd & Franklin, however that building doesn't just happen.

West Coast are in a relatively strong position young talent-wise as we picked up some very good young players over 2004-2006 while we were at the top, and as things came tumbling down in 2007 and we lost our captain (and competition's best player), we had access to a strong draft with 4 picks in the the top 22, and picked up Kennedy, a top 4 pick from 2 years earlier. The planning for improving from how shit we are now began before we got the this point, which hasn't happened at a few clubs over the past few years.

2004: LeCras
2005: Hurn, McKinley
2006: Brown, MacKenzie
2007: Masten, Ebert, Selwood, Kennedy

Obviously we drafted others who have been useful and are in fact playing tonight, but the guys above are the ones we have the highest hopes for, plus the 2008 kids of course.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

In 2005 Deledio, Roughead, Griffen & Franklin went 1,2,3,5. Jackpot for a side with 2 early picks and the knowhow to use them.

Are you saying Richmond made a mistake by picking Tambling?

 

[tesseract]

Richmonds mistake was picking Tambling in the 1st round. Hindsight shows that.
At the time though Richmond weren't wrong in selecting Tambling where he was selected.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Tambling was the best player in the Richmond v Bulldogs game from the 2004 draft on friday night. Has taken longer but is a useful player.

 

[triplegee]

Are you saying Richmond made a mistake by picking Tambling?

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

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

 

[bunsen burner]

The Tambling decision wasn't as bad as everyone made out. At the time he was highly rated, but he just didn't perform up to the expectation of a #3 pick. If you have a look at the names below, only Buddy is the standout better player. Whoever had picks 1 and 3 made mistakes as well. Tambling is starting to come good.

hawthorn had a great draft that year. Went a long long way towards winning a flag.

 

[Marlin01]

Top be fair, Tambling absolutely dominated the u/18's. He did everything from the ruck, to kicking the goals and just seemed to follow the ball everywhere. At the time, I was thinking he was going to a star.

 

[TheBigUnit]

I think the significant issue for Tambling was the lack of development resources (amongst other problems at Richmond) at Richmond when he arrived - particularly as a young indigenous kid fresh out of NT. There wasn't anyone employed in a youth development role at Richmond prior to 2007, so in his first 2 years at the club he would've missed out on much of the individual coaching and development that most draftees at other clubs would be receiving.

 

[Hap Hapablap]

If you say "Your coming" then yes. Gibbs could be 26 by the time Carlton threaten for a flag.

not after last night. with judas taking care of them dont be surprised if they get there quicker. ****en shits me to tears seeing him at his best. annihilated brisbane with 22 effective disposals wtf!

 

[tesseract]

not after last night. with judas taking care of them dont be surprised if they get there quicker. ****en shits me to tears seeing him at his best. annihilated brisbane with 22 effective disposals wtf!

Carlton won't quite make it even with Judd there to help them out. By the time they're ready to pounce Fev will be past his best.
They have too many deficiencies in their back half. No team will win a flag with a poor defensive unit, especially the one that Carlton has.
Carlton need to trade well now for ready established players like the Eagles did with Stenglein and Chick because the draft is offering nothing after this year and new draftees won't be playing to their potential in their premiership window IMO.