Can Hawthorn succeed while ignoring the elite end of the draft? - Part 2

[Ron The Bear]

Have you got a table or chart of games played by under 22's and compared it to future performance

22 is a little bit of an arbitrary cut-off, but you can see the genesis of most of the GF teams since 2000 in these figures. Eagles 2018 is the freaky outlier. Not many saw them as a flag threat at the start of 2018, but their numbers had been distorted by the brief acquisitions of Mitchell and Petrie. They are really the only older team that drifted along and stepped up to pinch a flag. It's not how things normally work.

Port 2007 - over the hill in 2005, a brief refurb in 2006 and back to the GF the following year. But it cost them in the long run and they went to a dark place.

St.Kilda slow to realise the dream was over. I don't think they've invested heavily enough to push for a flag soon. North similar for me.

Melbourne loading up on high picks, a classic example of a textbook rebuild that proves it doesn't always work. Gold Coast and GWS starting from zero, albeit with a strong hand, but still searching for success.

Malthouse's incredible job to quickly lift Collingwood to successive GF's, which really began with Shaw.

Harvey's rapid rebuild on the run at Freo, only to be booted for Lyon. Knights/Hird similar at Essendon.

Carlton struggling to make it work in the modern era, except for Ratten who had the Blues ahead of the clock before the players self-destructed.

Year	Ad	Br	Ca	Co	Es	Fr	Ge	GC	GWS	Ha	Me	NM	PA	Ri	St	Sy	WC	WB
1995	149	176	71	147	146	123	85			118	66	79		106	162	136	71	144
1996	98	143	76	103	111	183	81			116	97	96		150	161	194	95	138
1997	131	175	121	128	111	176	134			170	100	89	187	155	128	197	117	86
1998	95	160	135	165	119	143	150			151	175	105	172	141	109	126	124	69
1999	92	71	110	202	142	119	107			119	135	129	144	139	104	129	178	31
2000	102	150	85	214	99	175	163			78	139	111	133	136	124	113	184	59
2001	90	129	88	171	133	167	144			140	136	89	129	98	160	112	182	83
2002	82	88	124	171	141	200	194			155	118	93	68	153	142	97	148	156
2003	45	74	157	164	132	159	221			177	102	114	78	133	160	80	140	190
2004	129	87	147	176	127	97	138			156	94	100	108	128	161	99	190	127
2005	48	143	118	133	104	91	131			171	131	91	65	89	136	91	141	105
2006	50	182	118	98	172	97	69			136	123	80	153	177	62	62	72	94
2007	86	169	172	168	129	37	96			146	133	92	136	206	73	32	97	126
2008	96	119	196	204	153	81	78			143	190	104	132	170	56	63	139	93
2009	104	137	173	150	167	129	90			170	196	148	88	132	38	87	180	107
2010	152	166	156	96	171	167	52			89	181	172	102	227	52	86	190	90
2011	181	163	112	97	138	132	86	261		104	198	117	139	167	60	89	153	141
2012	83	155	60	119	82	86	141	284	335	101	130	153	145	131	62	84	89	152
2013	123	144	45	117	96	81	97	265	340	54	116	125	108	89	100	69	84	172
2014	94	207	63	123	82	59	95	217	342	60	114	65	127	76	155	81	71	157
2015	94	195	102	159	102	69	97	170	193	43	131	47	88	87	138	84	78	160
2016	99	186	95	109	132	85	50	166	87	64	161	37	109	91	117	119	39	147
2017	39	198	160	104	112	135	81	154	58	76	139	110	98	121	111	130	63	140
2018	86	164	198	107	86	137	114	150	78	92	68	71	76	91	106	111	86	186
2019	71	138	189	48	122	107	107	181	102	104	61	101	126	112	96	120	80	126
2020	10	10	4	5	4	12	8	14	10	6	5	8	9	5	7	12	5	8

Geelong is what the Hawks are aiming to emulate. They've been able to prolong their stay near the top longer than anyone else. They're the benchmark, but still have no flag since 2011.

 

[WWSD]

The hubris. The hubris.

Worry about your own club.

LOL

 

[Beerfish]

Worry about your own club.

LOL

Rent free.

 

[WWSD]

Rent free.

I hate Essendon more than anything.

 

[doppleganger]

That’s why RTB’s data is helpful though, to flesh out Bunk’s initial question. Data nerds are always welcome with me.

Oh absolutely, I am a data nerd myself and love all of Ron’s stats.

My take is that Hawthorn have always managed to be ahead of the curve, because they actually employed some of the best data blokes going.

What they are doing now, IMO, is again going against the grain...but I think method in their madness.

Makes much more sense to bring in 23-26 yr olds who you already know are quality AFL players, instead of going all in on 18 yr old kids who you hope to be good one day.

Hawthorn are effectively going, let’s not bother being a feeder development club, we want to have a group of 30 blokes who are actually hardened senior footballers.

 

[hk89]

The AFL isn’t a game where every team wins a prize. Some teams will succeed relative to their stage of development and some will fail. In Hawthorn’s position, the pass mark must be set high.

I have serious trouble following the thread of logic in your last few posts. Hawthorn are done, and on the way down according to you, but despite that, their passmark must be set high, and anything less than top 4 according to you is a fail. Am I the only one that sees your position as completely inconsistent?

Personally I think it is too early to get excited as a Hawks fan, despite having beaten two of the 2019 H&A top 4 after the first 3 rounds. We were solidly pantsed by Geelong, and lets face it, Richmond were always going to fall back to the pack once their game plan was worked out, given their mediocre talent and over reliance on their top 4. With cracks in the game plan, Jack clearly well over the hill, Rance gone, and Martin out on Thursday night, a trouncing was fairly predictable, and not a decent yardstick of how we are travelling. A lot of talk about Thursday being "unrichmond like". To me it looked completely Richmondlike if your cast your mind back to 2016 and before, and as such we shouldn't be using the game as any kind of barometer. If we can win the next two , I'll start to get a little more excited.

 

[hk89]

Geelong is what the Hawks are aiming to emulate. They've been able to prolong their stay near the top longer than anyone else. They're the benchmark, but still have no flag since 2011.

Geelong would likely have 2 3-peats if Clarko was coaching them for the period he's been coaching us. Their failure to win another flag after 2011 is not necessarily a condemnation of their list management strategy.

 

[Pessimistic]

Sam Mitchell hodge and Lewis retiring together. Would have been madness to try to get by with some kids. Also 40% of kids becoming best 22 regulars at best, that risky too.. hawks have actually been converting 40% of their draftees, just not so many early picks.

Other than that, the mature recruits wouldn’t have been much different to other teams

 

[hk89]

I like to trot out a table whenever this claim is made. Performance of older teams since 1897:

Bracket (difference in avg age to opponent)	Played​	Won​	Lost​	Drawn​	Win %​
< +0.5y	4902​	2491​	2366​	45​	51.27​
+0.5 to +1y	4187​	2317​	1826​	44​	55.86​
+1 to +1.5y	2906​	1703​	1171​	32​	59.15​
+1.5 to +2y	1832​	1162​	651​	19​	63.95​
+2 to +2.5y	1002​	667​	323​	12​	67.17​
+2.5 to +3y	485​	338​	143​	4​	70.10​
> +3y	318​	251​	64​	3​	79.40​

If you're not performing to at least those win percentages, you're failing by definition.

Thanks, those are interesting figures.

Those higher win percentages are fairly uncommon in practice though, because of the rarity of age gaps of that magnitude. Also, those numbers are just as much about how shit young teams are as it is about how good older teams are. GC have gone at a 90%+ loss rate the last couple of seasons, so everyone is going well against them, not just the teams that are 3+ years old. The vast majority of games between sides are in the 0-1 year difference bracket. Even Hawthorn plays a fairly small percentage of their games against teams that are more than 3 years younger than them.

So far this year if you used only that table's data as a predictor, we are slightly ahead of schedule with 2 wins instead of the predicted 1.94 wins (by my calculations - correct me if I'm wrong). That's despite having a relatively rare > +3y game against Brisbane. I'd imagine if you use your table alone, the tendency for teams to cluster relatively closely in age means we'd probably need around a 63-66% win rate across the season to hit those predicted percentages. Which in a 22 round season usually gets you into the bottom half of the 8. If that's the case you might need to reassess your "top 4 or a failed season" assumptions. I imagine with your available data it would be easy for you to calculate our average age gap to opposition last season (which I do think was a failure). I'd be interested to know what it was. Also if we keep the same average age we did for the game against Richmond for the rest of the season, and all the other teams use the same team they did last weekend, what would our average win % expectation for the year be?

 

[WWSD]

Not sure exclusions are valid on that basis. You'd also have to exclude the following recent wins by the Bulldogs.

2019 R23 d. Ad 23.85 diff -3.29
2019 R21 d. Es 24.76 diff -1.35
2019 R16 d. Ge 24.55 diff -1.95
2019 R2 d. Ha 24.27 diff -2.50
2019 R1 d. Sy 24.30 diff -1.06
2018 R21 d. NM 23.85 diff -2.20
2018 R15 d. Ge 23.33 diff -2.26
2018 R8 d. Br 22.57 diff -1.84
2018 R6 d. Ca 22.97 diff -1.57
2018 R3 d. Es 23.56 diff -1.85

Which is a side above the line in development...

But for the record, here are the figures to the end of 2010:

Bracket (difference in avg age to opponent)	Played​	Won​	Lost​	Drawn​	Win %​
< +0.5y	4359​	2212​	2109​	38​	51.18​
+0.5 to +1y	3742​	2039​	1660​	43​	55.06​
+1 to +1.5y	2568​	1479​	1059​	30​	58.18​
+1.5 to +2y	1594​	981​	595​	18​	62.11​
+2 to +2.5y	860​	564​	285​	11​	66.22​
+2.5 to +3y	402​	275​	123​	4​	68.91​
> +3y	237​	179​	56​	2​	75.95​

I'm yet to come across a Hawthorn supporter in recent times who likes the numbers, and Gralin may yet be along to delete these tables. They are what they are.

Ron The Bear I’m just curious on something, what is Geelong’s win/loss record since 2009 the following game when they beat Hawthorn the week before?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Thanks, those are interesting figures.

Those higher win percentages are fairly uncommon in practice though, because of the rarity of age gaps of that magnitude. Also, those numbers are just as much about how sh*t young teams are as it is about how good older teams are. GC have gone at a 90%+ loss rate the last couple of seasons, so everyone is going well against them, not just the teams that are 3+ years old. The vast majority of games between sides are in the 0-1 year difference bracket. Even Hawthorn plays a fairly small percentage of their games against teams that are more than 3 years younger than them.

So far this year if you used only that table's data as a predictor, we are slightly ahead of schedule with 2 wins instead of the predicted 1.94 wins (by my calculations - correct me if I'm wrong). That's despite having a relatively rare > +3y game against Brisbane. I'd imagine if you use your table alone, the tendency for teams to cluster relatively closely in age means we'd probably need around a 63-66% win rate across the season to hit those predicted percentages. Which in a 22 round season usually gets you into the bottom half of the 8. If that's the case you might need to reassess your "top 4 or a failed season" assumptions. I imagine with your available data it would be easy for you to calculate our average age gap to opposition last season (which I do think was a failure). I'd be interested to know what it was. Also if we keep the same average age we did for the game against Richmond for the rest of the season, and all the other teams use the same team they did last weekend, what would our average win % expectation for the year be?

Certainly an age difference of, say, half a year could be considered insignificant. But the table clearly demonstrates a near-linear relationship between age advantage and likelihood of winning.

Too early to assess how Hawthorn is tracking this year. But since the team has followed a natural ageing progression, it is reasonable to expect a continuation of the trend of the past 2-3 years.

Funny season, though. Results are erratic. Some teams were always going to handle the unusual conditions better than others.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Ron The Bear I’m just curious on something, what is Geelong’s win/loss record since 2009 the following game when they beat Hawthorn the week before?

all Ge wins v Ha 57-32-1 (64%)
starting in 2009 8-8-0 (50%)

 

[Ron The Bear]

Geelong would likely have 2 3-peats if Clarko was coaching them for the period he's been coaching us.

Maybe!

Their failure to win another flag after 2011 is not necessarily a condemnation of their list management strategy.

Definitely wasn't meant to be a condemnation.

 

[tige19]

No Hawk supporter would deny we need to playing more youth, the thing is we genuinely have some exciting and capable talent who can handle themselves.

CJ
Jones
Lewis
Finn

Those 4 are 19-21yr olds who we know will be good to excellent senior players, I’d like to see them developed a bit more rapidly. Also Impey coming back in 3-5 weeks is a 24 year old walk up start, our whole list dynamics start to change pretty quickly when you micro analyse things.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

No Hawk supporter would deny we need to playing more youth, the thing is we genuinely have some exciting and capable talent who can handle themselves.

CJ
Jones
Lewis
Finn

Those 4 are 19-21yr olds who we know will be good to excellent senior players, I’d like to see them developed a bit more rapidly. Also Impey coming back in 3-5 weeks is a 24 year old walk up start, our whole list dynamics start to change pretty quickly when you micro analyse things.

Every club has four or five kids who've shown potential in VFL, excel on the training track or were high draft picks. Of those, Lewis is the only one you can say WILL be good to excellent (as he showed in AFL last year).

The others are still in the "could....maybe should" continuum.

What's the difference between Jones and Morrison other than one has had a season of AFL exposure and the other is ranked on potential? Morrison excels and often looks a class above when he plays VFL.

Morrison is an AFL whipping boy, rated on what he can't (doesn't) do. Jones is a VFL/training star, rated on what he can (might) do.

 

[tige19]

Every club has four or five kids who've shown potential in VFL, excel on the training track or were high draft picks. Of those, Lewis is the only one you can say WILL be good to excellent (as he showed in AFL last year).

The others are still in the "could....maybe should" continuum.

What's the difference between Jones and Morrison other than one has had a season of AFL exposure and the other is ranked on potential? Morrison excels and often looks a class above when he plays VFL.

Morrison is an AFL whipping boy, rated on what he can't (doesn't) do. Jones is a VFL/training star, rated on what he can (might) do.

Morrison has exposed to AFL footy and failed to develop as expected

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Morrison has exposed to AFL footy and failed to develop as expected

Ah...exactly my point.

What's to say the same won't happen for any of the others you noted (or other clubs young players)?

 

[tige19]

Ah...exactly my point.

What's to say the same won't happen for any of the others you noted (or other clubs young players)?

Well Finn was rated highly and looks the part for mine.. Mitch has already shown a high ceiling, Jones is a personal opinion who I’m really bullish about and CJ has shown enough at the senior level and has the athleticism to be a good footballer. All an opinion but generally I’m pretty reserved on players but I’m keen on those 4.

 

[WWSD]

Hawthorn will field the oldest team in AFL/VFL history!

Jack Scrimshaw: Hold my beer

 

[matey]

So the mighty Tigers, current premiers go down in history as the team that was beaten by the oldest ever ..... add that to your stats!

 

[juss]

Richmond were always going to fall back to the pack once their game plan was worked out, given their mediocre talent and over reliance on their top 4. With cracks in the game plan, Jack clearly well over the hill, Rance gone, and Martin out on Thursday night, a trouncing was fairly predictable, and not a decent yardstick of how we are travelling.

Don't want to hijack this into a Richmond thread, but really?
Is losing one match from your last 14 or so now considered being "worked out" or "back to the pack"?

Hasn't every other side been "worked out" this year then? And fallen back to said pack?

It was a terrific win by the Hawks, but I think you've gone early writing off the Tiges....

 

[Pessimistic]

Don't want to hijack this into a Richmond thread, but really?
Is losing one match from your last 14 or so now considered being "worked out" or "back to the pack"?

Hasn't every other side been "worked out" this year then? And fallen back to said pack?

It was a terrific win by the Hawks, but I think you've gone early writing off the Tiges....

Dusty wasn't 100% in 2018? Surely you'd not be looking forward to a long stretch without him?

 

[juss]

Dusty wasn't 100% in 2018? Surely you'd not be looking forward to a long stretch without him?

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post? I'm not aware of any long stretch without him either?

 

[juss]

So the mighty Tigers, current premiers go down in history as the team that was beaten by the oldest ever ..... add that to your stats!

You know it's been a good run when people are making a big deal that you lost a game.

 

[juss]

So why is old and bad worse than young and bad and why is young and good better than old and good ?

Probably the simplest, shortest answer is scope for further development/improvement. But it can be delved into a lot deeper if needed.