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.
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.