Draft Fallacies

[Partridge]

Matthew Boyd was drafted as a rookie from Frankston seconds, and there's no way we're handing back Luke Dahlhaus or Dale Morris (both rookies) or Daniel Cross (pick 56)

Daniel Cross at pick 56? You'd take that every day of the week. Incredible in hindsight.

 

[saintgary]

The players I follow closely tend to be StKilda players, and so far the signs are pretty good for rookies Fergason (NSW scholarship ) , Dunnel, and Curran as well as late draftee Arryn Sippos.

Can't be that closely seeing as you misspelt all four of their names.

 

[Footy Smarts]

I definitely think the top talent are going earlier than every before, and a top ten draft pick is worth more than ever before. But I also think a rookie pick is worth more than ever before. Why? Because I think kids and their coaches are better trained for the rigours of modern footy, there's better structures for football development meaning that not only will there be better players as sporting development becomes more scientific and professional, but the volume will be greater, meaning there will be some gems that fall to the psd and rookie draft. I just think overall each pick or either of the three drafts becomes more valuable each year.

I completely disagree with this. Clubs are more professional so the chances of getting a complete dud have dropped but there's still a heap of talent outside the top 10. Often the top picks are the obvious ones rather than those with the most upside.

Look at the 2009 draft with Scully and Trengove taken 1 and 2. Pretty much everybody had them as 1 and 2 as well. Yet Fyfe is far more likely to have a better career and wasn't taken until pick 20. Looking at my own team I would take Christensen and Vardy ahead of Scully and Trengove comfortably right now and they were picks 40 and 42.

Ditto 2012 with Darling at 26 or 2008 with Beams and Sloane well down the list.

Clearly a top 10 draft pick isn't worth that much seeing as Sydney and Geelong have won 4 of the last 6 premierships with very few top 10 draft picks. There's heaps of talent outside the top 10 and the successful clubs are very good at finding it and developing it.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I completely disagree with this. Clubs are more professional so the chances of getting a complete dud have dropped but there's still a heap of talent outside the top 10. Often the top picks are the obvious ones rather than those with the most upside.

Look at the 2009 draft with Scully and Trengove taken 1 and 2. Pretty much everybody had them as 1 and 2 as well. Yet Fyfe is far more likely to have a better career and wasn't taken until pick 20. Looking at my own team I would take Christensen and Vardy ahead of Scully and Trengove comfortably right now and they were picks 40 and 42.

Ditto 2012 with Darling at 26 or 2008 with Beams and Sloane well down the list.

Clearly a top 10 draft pick isn't worth that much seeing as Sydney and Geelong have won 4 of the last 6 premierships with very few top 10 draft picks. There's heaps of talent outside the top 10 and the successful clubs are very good at finding it and developing it.

I still think 2009 is too soon to tell.

 

[Hellgood]

Top 10 picks worth more than they have ever been before? Where's O'Meara then? Crouch? What pick number did Cameron, Shiel, Matera, Treloar and co. go?

 

[Richo83]

I completely disagree with this. Clubs are more professional so the chances of getting a complete dud have dropped but there's still a heap of talent outside the top 10. Often the top picks are the obvious ones rather than those with the most upside.

Look at the 2009 draft with Scully and Trengove taken 1 and 2. Pretty much everybody had them as 1 and 2 as well. Yet Fyfe is far more likely to have a better career and wasn't taken until pick 20. Looking at my own team I would take Christensen and Vardy ahead of Scully and Trengove comfortably right now and they were picks 40 and 42.

Ditto 2012 with Darling at 26 or 2008 with Beams and Sloane well down the list.

Clearly a top 10 draft pick isn't worth that much seeing as Sydney and Geelong have won 4 of the last 6 premierships with very few top 10 draft picks. There's heaps of talent outside the top 10 and the successful clubs are very good at finding it and developing it.

You clearly didn't read all of my post or understand all of my post.

 

[Footy Smarts]

You clearly didn't read all of my post or understand all of my post.

It makes no sense to claim that a top 10 draft pick is worth more than ever before while at the same time saying that gems will still appear later on. Sure top 10 picks have become a better hit rate but so has elsewhere in the draft. I think the obvious point from recent years is that development is by far the most important thing. Having the ability to identify quality talent but then get the most out of them is far more important than whether you've got a top 10 draft pick or not.

 

[Richo83]

It makes no sense to claim that a top 10 draft pick is worth more than ever before while at the same time saying that gems will still appear later on. Sure top 10 picks have become a better hit rate but so has elsewhere in the draft. I think the obvious point from recent years is that development is by far the most important thing. Having the ability to identify quality talent but then get the most out of them is far more important than whether you've got a top 10 draft pick or not.

It makes sense if you believe a) that clubs are better at spotting talent and b) if you believe that the overall draft pool is strengthening. The reason why top ten picks were weak in past drafts is because a) clubs didn't know how to prepare teenagers for afl football, b) clubs were not as professional and scientific in their drafting and c) drafts were fairly weak, meaning that there wasn't even ten players who were decent, let alone 80.

The rookie draft will improve. The top ten will improve. The two do not exist as some zero-sum game. I thought I made my point clearly in the first instance. AFL clubs are better equipped to spot talent than ever before, and feeder clubs to the afl are better equipped to prepare players for afl football. The result is clear: a higher quality and quantity of talent and talent spotting. If you honestly believe a Richard Lounder type situation will happen in the future, you're most likely very wrong.

 

[bombermick]

Clubs were poor at identifying talent, but early on the draft was running alongside the zone system. Players like Misiti and Mercuri were never available for example.

 

[Slattery_20]

18yrs 11mths = LIMITLESS potential, just needs time
19yrs 0mths = mature age plodder, no upside, role player at best, needs to show something year one.

 

[Slattery_20]

I definitely think the top talent are going earlier than every before, and a top ten draft pick is worth more than ever before. But I also think a rookie pick is worth more than ever before. Why? Because I think kids and their coaches are better trained for the rigours of modern footy, there's better structures for football development meaning that not only will there be better players as sporting development becomes more scientific and professional, but the volume will be greater, meaning there will be some gems that fall to the psd and rookie draft. I just think overall each pick or either of the three drafts becomes more valuable each year.

The extension of that, is that all talent (early pick or late) is essentially better than talent coming before it.
I disagree with this.
I certainly agree that (a lot of) junior clubs/systems are preparing their kids better.
The impact someone like Heppell had (statistically) in his first year was pretty close to unparalleled, with Gaff, Swallow & others close behind him - but does it follow he is definitely going to end up as good as the best players from the '01 or '99 draft, because he was better prepared & more ready from day 1?
Not in my book.
Being better prepared means just that, not really anything more.

Look at Scully or Palmer, a few short years down the track from being two of the most 'ready' kids ever to come through juniors. Doesn't necessarily follow that they are all time greats.

You get a much better idea once guys have been in the system 2-3 years. That is as true for pick 1 as pick 100.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The extension of that, is that all talent (early pick or late) is essentially better than talent coming before it.
I disagree with this.
I certainly agree that (a lot of) junior clubs/systems are preparing their kids better.
The impact someone like Heppell had (statistically) in his first year was pretty close to unparalleled, with Gaff, Swallow & others close behind him - but does it follow he is definitely going to end up as good as the best players from the '01 or '99 draft, because he was better prepared & more ready from day 1?
Not in my book.
Being better prepared means just that, not really anything more.

Look at Scully or Palmer, a few short years down the track from being two of the most 'ready' kids ever to come through juniors. Doesn't necessarily follow that they are all time greats.

You get a much better idea once guys have been in the system 2-3 years. That is as true for pick 1 as pick 100.

I get what you are saying.
The best pick is likely to be some kid who is totally unprepared but oozing natural talent.
He will then have a tremendous upside when he trains in a professional enviroment.

As opposed to a kid who has already been doing just about everything the AFL club will ask him to do.

 

[Slattery_20]

I get what you are saying.
The best pick is likely to be some kid who is totally unprepared but oozing natural talent.
He will then have a tremendous upside when he trains in a professional enviroment.

As opposed to a kid who has already been doing just about everything the AFL club will ask him to do.

No, not quite.

I'm saying, you just can't really know. The way most junior clubs prepare their kids gives them a headstart over the draftees of 5-10-20 years ago, but once they're all in the system they'll come back to the pack a bit.

I guess I'm saying, I think Richo83 has extrapolated 'better at 18' into 'better over career' and I think that's wrong.

 

[Richo83]

Not in my book.

I guess I'm saying, I think @Richo83 has extrapolated 'better at 18' into 'better over career' and I think that's wrong.

I wasn't saying that. I'm arguing that:

1. Clubs are more adept at spotting what types of players will succeed and what types wont, and what kind of form matters and what kind doesn't.

2. Clubs are more adept at understanding how to manage players with playing flaws, in order to improve them.

3. Clubs are more adept at preparing that talent so it becomes the player that it promised to be.

4. Clubs have more prepared players for afl football than ever before, and as such have more players to work with, which improves the success rate.

 

[Richo83]

I get what you are saying.
The best pick is likely to be some kid who is totally unprepared but oozing natural talent.
He will then have a tremendous upside when he trains in a professional enviroment.

As opposed to a kid who has already been doing just about everything the AFL club will ask him to do.

The thing is though is that the talented kids are also more prepared than ever. There's a reason why Garlett's unprofessional behaviour has been made into a big deal, because it is. Fifteen years ago, such an issue would often be swept under the carpet and ignored. Now clubs are more professional about what players need to succeed, especially given the game is becoming faster and more skilled. Stuff like smoking and drinking isn't going to cut it in modern football. Clubs are more scientific in their drafting because they have to be.

 

[Cylon7]

That drafting players from the WAFL and SANFL that are 20-21 is wasting draft picks.

Why do you say this? Does the same apply for VFL?

What about players who have seen few opportunities and little support at the magic year,18 - like those received by father-son selections?
In any case, there are so few, why begrudge someone who has probably gone through much and earned it. Good luck to them.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The thing about the state leagues is that there are players who will dominate every week but will never cut it at AFL level.
It used to frustrate me no end when a certain former StKilda coach ( who only rarely watched the VFL games ) would select players like Raphael Clarke and Andrew McQualter after a strong game in the VFL.

Then there are others who may have abilities such as elite pace, but struggle to exploit it on a small ground in the VFL.

 

[Portmanteau]

Draftee is likened to current AFL player in mock draft...

"I can immediately extrapolate that comparison such that draftee X will have the exact same career!"

 

[The Finger]

Why do you say this? Does the same apply for VFL?

What about players who have seen few opportunities and little support at the magic year,18 - like those received by father-son selections?
In any case, there are so few, why begrudge someone who has probably gone through much and earned it. Good luck to them.

No sorry any 20-21 year old even older.People develope at different stages.

 

[santa claws]

if 60% of all players drafted make it id say at least 80% of that 60% are taken in the first 3 rounds basically top 50 picks.
beyond this point you will be lucky to have a 15% 20% success rate with all kids taken 4th 5th psd and rookie draft.i think with all kids taken as rookies its as little as 1 in 6 who make it. better to take your fair share of mature players here or state leaguers.

on wellingham it all comes down to how well you rate wellingham. me i think him nothing more than a good solid player and i would definately in most circumstances want to use pick 18 in the draft. in the main im looking for some one very good with a first rnd pick.
as someone said a lot of it is about the opportunity or giving yourself the best opportunity to get something really good.
obviously wce think they are in a window to win a flag im sure if they werent in this window they would not use pick 18 on wellingham lots of things come into it that determines what clubs pay to get a player.

on time frames well theres a bloke on pre who says as a good guide certain types should click by a certain age its a guide and of course it can vary.i happen to think hes pretty spot on with this guide.
smls by 20
mediums by 22
talls by 24.
there are obvious reasons for this.
of course so many variables can come into it that affects these guides. obvious ones are injuries and body type or size or time in the game.. even a sml taken at 60kg is going to take more than two or three yrs to develop physically.
anyway just a few thoughts on it.

 

[juddy_Like]

That's right - Pick 43, but my post was replying to someone complaining that you can't get these players anymore - so I tried to choose more recent ones.

Tbh not many of those players come close to a Hird or Grant.

Half your list is from the period around 2000 which is widely considered a completely different era.
West Coast built a premiership on local talent nobody had a clue about with the likes of Cox, Fletcher, Embley, Hunter, etc.
These days drafting is so crucial that you have full-time departments. Back than, you had 1 or 2 full-timers.

Not saying you can't find late gems but its much harder today compared to 10 years ago let alone 20 when you had the Hirds, Grants, Kemps, etc.

 

[Slattery_20]

I wasn't saying that. I'm arguing that:

1. Clubs are more adept at spotting what types of players will succeed and what types wont, and what kind of form matters and what kind doesn't.

2. Clubs are more adept at understanding how to manage players with playing flaws, in order to improve them.

3. Clubs are more adept at preparing that talent so it becomes the player that it promised to be.

4. Clubs have more prepared players for afl football than ever before, and as such have more players to work with, which improves the success rate.

1) I'd argue against that. Cf Melbourne or whoever else, who's had a bucketload of early picks (Richmond 4-5 years ago), amongst a bucketload of list changes overall. If clubs were, as you say, (uniformly) good at spotting & developing players, they should be in a very very good position, but they're not.

2) Depends on the club, the player, the coach. ie there would be a number of players who the Hawks (love those outside skills) would work with, who Lyon (thrives on defensive workrate) wouldn't touch, and vice versa. Some clubs seem to have (Haw, Freo, Rich) an over-arching plan, some clubs (Syd, Ess) seem to be a bit more flexible & take it as it comes.

3 & 4) Some clubs are very good at extracting that potential, I'd be very hesitant to say all. If it were as linear as that, clubs still heavily built on the 99 & 2001 drafts wouldn't be winning so many games against clubs who had heaps more picks in the last 5 years. Again (and this touches on 4 as well) I'd argue the better U18s systems have just increased the 'baseline' for a lot of guys, and left a little bit less to chance.... it hasn't made a massive difference to the end-point.
Point 4 I agree with so far as it goes, but I'd argue the U18s being better, has possibly driven (or at least used as a justification for) this fad of chopping everyone over 28. Which is often (IMHO) detrimental to development.

 

[Portmanteau]

Another couple of fallacies.

1. Sliders. There are less sliders than people think. Sliders represent the difference in opinion between the resident BF draft experts and paid professional recruiters. (Don't get me wrong, the better draft gurus - Chris, Knightmare, Quigley, Snoop Dog give hugely valuable input and information about potential prospects). Case in point - fans of every team are now desperate for Garlett and Colquhoun, because they were high on mock drafts.

2. That teams draft for immediate needs. If your team desperately needs a CHB, they may not necessarily go for one in the national draft.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Surely development comes into it as well?
These kids arent robots taken out of the box ready to be switched on.
Are some clubs better at developing kids than others. Do some clubs "ruin" kids.
I know StKilda under the current regime are certainly putting more focus on this area.

 

[Richo83]

1) I'd argue against that. Cf Melbourne or whoever else, who's had a bucketload of early picks (Richmond 4-5 years ago), amongst a bucketload of list changes overall. If clubs were, as you say, (uniformly) good at spotting & developing players, they should be in a very very good position, but they're not.

Melbourne is the worst case scenario. Let me use a statistic to make my point clear: in the 1990 afl draft, the top ten draft picks played 188 games collectively before moving on to new clubs or simply being delisted or retiring. And while McCartney did go onto play 182 games in total, it's a pretty poor return. I don't expect the same to happen to these group of draftees, mainly because the same hasn't happened in recent times. Statistics prove the claim that the draft is improving in terms of performance, preparation and scientific accuracy. You're nitpicking by finding examples of poor recent drafting. As a general trend, clubs are improving their drafting success rate.

2) Depends on the club, the player, the coach. ie there would be a number of players who the Hawks (love those outside skills) would work with, who Lyon (thrives on defensive workrate) wouldn't touch, and vice versa. Some clubs seem to have (Haw, Freo, Rich) an over-arching plan, some clubs (Syd, Ess) seem to be a bit more flexible & take it as it comes.

This isn't a counter to my point though, that clubs are more professional in development and training than say in 2000, or 1995, or 1990, or in any time of the afl/vfl history.

3 & 4) Some clubs are very good at extracting that potential, I'd be very hesitant to say all. If it were as linear as that, clubs still heavily built on the 99 & 2001 drafts wouldn't be winning so many games against clubs who had heaps more picks in the last 5 years. Again (and this touches on 4 as well) I'd argue the better U18s systems have just increased the 'baseline' for a lot of guys, and left a little bit less to chance.... it hasn't made a massive difference to the end-point.

The fact that clubs still rely on drafts from 1999 and 2001 merely proves that draftees have to be surrounded by good staff, good coaching, a good group of players etc. all which clubs like Geelong and Sydney have. It does not disprove my claim that clubs in general are improving in their drafting.