Does the Draft Value Index need a refresh?

[doggiesin08]

Apologies in advance for anything which requires a fact-check.

Background:

In 2015 the AFL introduced the Draft Value Index ("DVI") for the purposes of "bid matching" on father-son and academy eligible players. The system designed at that time was informed by historical player salary data between 2000 and 2014 and a document released by the AFL presented how the points index compared to a small number of draft pick only trades in 2013 and 2014. For the mathematically inclined, I understand the formula to be Points = 3,000 - (697*LN(Pick#)).

I think that was as sensible a starting point as any, however the system needs to acknowledge that the professionalism of the drafting caper between 2000-2014 is no longer representative of the current environment. Some teams literally didn't even have a single full time recruiter on staff for much of this period. I feel the improvement in drafting across the board can be observed in fewer first-round "misses" versus years gone by, and a smaller number of absolute gems that emerge from the rookie draft. Some exceptions obviously still exist but at a lower frequency.

Accordingly, the slope of the DVI curve based on old data under-values earlier picks and over-values later picks. We can see this clearly play out with the points "premium" that teams are able to extract when trading down their early picks for multiple later picks. Brisbane were huge beneficiaries of the system this year and the Bulldogs huge beneficiaries in 2020 and 2021. When combined with getting a 20% discount when matching (which is an even bigger nonsense but a separate matter) it's hard to see how the current points index ensures integrity in the system.

Looking at the 2020 to 2022 trade periods I was able to see 7 trades comprising in-year draft picks only. The simple-average "premium" extracted in those 7 trades was 231 points and (for the statistically inclined) the sum of the squares of the "premiums" was around 462,000. If the formula above was updated to Points = 3,000 - (750*LN(Pick#)) then the simple-average "premium" drops to only 54 points and the squares of the "premiums" to only around 29,5000. The analysis is lacking due to the small sample size and noting pick #23 is the earliest traded selection, however it could presumably be meaningfully expanded by including trades with future picks as well (but still excluding any player-involved trades) and making some simplifying assumptions (e.g. ladder repeats the following year).

Question:

Soooooo ... after all that context, my question is whether it is time to move on from draft points being informed by player salary data from 2000-2014 and to instead be informed by the "market price" observable in actual trades. The points value could then be periodically updated and refreshed for trades in the each of the prior [3] trade periods. You would still get some distortion driven by strong/weak and deep/shallow drafts but I think that washes out if using multiple years in the assessment. I'm keen to keep the father-son sentimentality in the game but the current system leads to unfair outcomes and feels like it can so easily be fixed.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

First round bids you shouldn't receive a discount, think I've been consistent with that. This is despite my side benefiting.

The points value is ridiculous too. You shouldn't be able to match with junk picks. You should have to match with AT LEAST one selection in that round. So for instance Ashcroft would have to be matched with their first rounder.

 

[Suma Magic]

I posted a thread with an updated curve, it should be on page 2 or 3.

I’m updating my curve to account for 2022 trades, I’ll post it soon hopefully.

 

[Ash1337]

Remove the discount and make changes to the NGA. Up the game limit for father/sons again.

The NGA was a rushed when implemented which is why players like Jamarra & Quaynor became such high picks. NGA's only need 1 parent from overseas to qualify. Then they went too far in the other direction by making NGA prospects only allowed to be matched after pick 40 fixing nothing with the NGA in the first place. Now clubs will either not put the money into the NGA or hide their prospects. Fixing the NGA and making it like pick 20 instead will fix things there.

For father/sons just make it 150 games from 100. It'll piss some clubs off but really if they're that good they should be forced to trade up.

 

[Lore]

Remove the discount and make changes to the NGA. Up the game limit for father/sons again.

The NGA was a rushed when implemented which is why players like Jamarra & Quaynor became such high picks. NGA's only need 1 parent from overseas to qualify. Then they went too far in the other direction by making NGA prospects only allowed to be matched after pick 40 fixing nothing with the NGA in the first place. Now clubs will either not put the money into the NGA or hide their prospects. Fixing the NGA and making it like pick 20 instead will fix things there.

For father/sons just make it 150 games from 100. It'll piss some clubs off but really if they're that good they should be forced to trade up.

Having a dad who played 150 games instead of 100 games doesn't make you a better player, though I suppose there might be fewer eligible sons in the first place. As far as having actual impact it seems like a solution in search of a problem, and in fact would be downright cruel for the WA and SA clubs that have only finally got to the point now where they have players who have played for their AFL clubs who have kids old enough to be drafted.

Last I checked there aren't a whole lot of father/son players in the system that turn out to be stars, and if you have to pay full price for them then you should theoretically not be getting any advantage by having one rather than using your actual pick in the draft on a kid that suits your list, instead of having a particular surname regardless of whether they suit your list. If anything it's probably an impediment, especially if your list manager is a hopeless romantic, though it's useful in terms of fan engagement and broader fabric of the club type stuff if one of them eventually plays more than 6 games before being delisted.

Agree with the other parts of your post. I'd do something like the following:

For father/sons, get rid of the discount but still let them match. If you can only use as many picks as you have available list spots it would be next to impossible to match a really highly rated player at full price without starting off with a pick that is already of similar value, which given father/sons tend to go into the normal pathways and clubs aren't really investing resources in developing them, I can't see a reason to justify a discount.

For Academies and NGAs, have two sections:

1. If they've been in the academy for at least 5 years and hadn't played in an Aussie rules competition before that, then they can match at any point in the draft with a discount. Maybe can make the time requirement shorter if they've been in Australia for less than 5 years.
2. If the academy picked them up later or if the kid was already playing footy before that, then the club can't match until after pick 40, but they'll still have a discount. This is based on the idea that having local kids (up north) and multicultural kids (in heartland states) seeing AFL role models that come from similar background or place is a good thing for the grassroots. If they go top 40 they would've been drafted anyway so it's moot, but the incentive is there with later picks.