List Mgmt. Draft Performance

[Kane McGoodwin]

If we drafted worse our retention would be better

I laughed... but actually our turnover would be higher.

 

[TexForPM]

Summary

Year Crows, Hawks, Cats, Dogs
2007 +41, +14, -19, -9
2008 +8, +54, -23, -31
2009 +24, +74, +23, +49
2010 +171, +47, -38, +41
2011 +49, +61, +84, +58
2012 +37, -34, -2, +117
2013 +112, +66, -43, -18
2014 +19, -3, +31, +59
2015 -40, -14, +43, +24

2007-2013 Average (excluding last 2 years as too early)
Crows 63.1
Hawks 40.3
Cats 9.7
Dogs 29.6

Crows have consistently recruited well above average for picks available (retention is another issue).
Hawks also recruited well during the premiership years, including bargain later picks.
Cats recruiting under Wells has been average, but has improved since 2013 (though explains why they lack depth & talent coming through)
Dogs recruiting has been great since 2009.

Imagine if this was repeated for the bottom teams & the likes of Carlton, it would be an ugly story.

Dogs got lucky with father sons

 

[ad victoriam]

Dogs got lucky with father sons

All the winners of the flag in recent times received either top level Father-sons and top draft picks

 

[DD#23]

not sure I love the rationale here, you've pointed out that tallying games without taking performance into account is flawed to begin with, I'd certainly agree.

your system massively overrates the likes of Martin, Henderson, Jaensch, Thompson and Wright for instance, but of course that's largely due to our unique position of not having any picks to draft or trade with and having to dig pretty deep in the draft just to fill a side. It skews the summary results drastically.

if you want to rate draft performance, all that really matters in my opinion is who did we pass on to pick who we did. Similarly I don't care if people think top 5 draft picks are like shooting fish in a barrel, if you look at the names taken around him The Bulldogs nailed the Bont pick and deserve more than 2 points in a performance rating.

 

[DD#23]

All the winners of the flag in recent times received either top level Father-sons and top draft picks

and without either of these advantages and at least 6 years left to run before the damage done by our draft sanctions is truly gone, people still think we can continue to punch above our weight and snatch a flag in the next couple of years.

I love an underdog story as much as the next person but I wouldn't be betting on it... would truly be the most remarkable feat in the league since the draft was introduced.

 

[ad victoriam]

and without either of these advantages and at least 6 years left to run before the damage done by our draft sanctions is truly gone, people still think we can continue to punch above our weight and snatch a flag in the next couple of years.

I love an underdog story as much as the next person but I wouldn't be betting on it... would truly be the most remarkable feat in the league since the draft was introduced.

I don't believe we are the underdog. I think were closer than some think, And I would rather a team that play for each other. than a few stars
Our recent Drafting is selecting the best players that fit our needs and club culture.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

All the winners of the flag in recent times received either top level Father-sons and top draft picks

Hawks?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

not sure I love the rationale here, you've pointed out that tallying games without taking performance into account is flawed to begin with, I'd certainly agree.

your system massively overrates the likes of Martin, Henderson, Jaensch, Thompson and Wright for instance, but of course that's largely due to our unique position of not having any picks to draft or trade with and having to dig pretty deep in the draft just to fill a side. It skews the summary results drastically.

if you want to rate draft performance, all that really matters in my opinion is who did we pass on to pick who we did. Similarly I don't care if people think top 5 draft picks are like shooting fish in a barrel, if you look at the names taken around him The Bulldogs nailed the Bont pick and deserve more than 2 points in a performance rating.

Feel free to come up with your own methodology...

It takes into account draft order. Ie. Bullies should be nailing #2 for Bont, but where they did really well is getting JJ for pick above 100.

If someone had heaps of time, you could calculate games played divided by draft pick points.

 

[Scorpus]

Hawks?

Their core players were priority picks (aka. ambiguous AFL gifts to shit teams)

 

[ad victoriam]

Hawks?

Hawks had top Picks, Hodge, Franklin, Lewis, all early picks Hodge being a free hit by the AFL.
To get those picks we need to finish in the bottom 3-4 for a few years. don't think I would like that.
Mind you they also pick some very average players as well.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Hawks had top Picks, Hodge, Franklin, Lewis, all early picks Hodge being a free hit by the AFL.
To get those picks we need to finish in the bottom 3-4 for a few years. don't think I would like that.
Mind you they also pick some very average players as well.

Apologies, I only read the father son part.

 

[DD#23]

I don't believe we are the underdog. I think were closer than some think, And I would rather a team that play for each other. than a few stars
Our recent Drafting is selecting the best players that fit our needs and club culture.

what about a team of stars that play each other, now that would be hard to beat.

Feel free to come up with your own methodology...

It takes into account draft order. Ie. Bullies should be nailing #2 for Bont, but where they did really well is getting JJ for pick above 100.

If someone had heaps of time, you could calculate games played divided by draft pick points.

I already suggested the factor that I believe is most important, but its obviously a more subjective thing to judge which rarely goes over well with the statisticians on the board.

and like I was also saying, no combination of draft position vs games played won't look upon us favourably with the holes we had no choice but to fill with late selections due to the sanctions. Undervaluing* early picks has only further helped our cause seeing as there haven't been many of them either.

*undervalued because you only need to go through the draft orders of the last 10 years to see how easy it is to miss out in the top 10.

 

[ad victoriam]

what about a team of stars that play each other, now that would be hard to beat.

I already suggested the factor that I believe is most important, but its obviously a more subjective thing to judge which rarely goes over well with the statisticians on the board.

and like I was also saying, no combination of draft position vs games played won't look upon us favourably with the holes we had no choice but to fill with late selections due to the sanctions. Undervaluing* early picks has only further helped our cause seeing as there haven't been many of them either.

*undervalued because you only need to go through the draft orders of the last 10 years to see how easy it is to miss out in the top 10.

Perfect world Think we would all love that.

 

[DD#23]

Perfect world Think we would all love that.

I think Geelong and Hawthorn fans certainly enjoyed it at various stages over the last ten years.

 

[1970crow]

Hawks had top Picks, Hodge, Franklin, Lewis, all early picks Hodge being a free hit by the AFL.
To get those picks we need to finish in the bottom 3-4 for a few years. don't think I would like that.
Mind you they also pick some very average players as well.

Plus Roughie was sub 5 from memory.

 

[dogs105]

Plus Roughie was sub 5 from memory.

2?

 

[Ozzie]

Delidio was #1, then Roughy. Another team picked @3 can't remember who they took, Richmond came in @4 with Tambling and the Hawks got Buddy @5 from memory.