Drafts n Stuff

[Crow-mo]

Seeing as there isn't a great deal left to talk about, other than who we might delist, trade, the value of a draft pick etc. Thought I'd have some fun.

as it is, we're really waiting for the finals to see what the lads come up with. So let's take another, different look at the superdraft.

or more importantly what it means to be a 'superdraft' - the correct answer is SFA, but moving past that. 2001 is the best comparison with 2006 as far as a draft goes - reputedly full of lots and lots of can't miss prospects. we all know that is not true, not now, not in the future.

if you look to more developed sports such as Basketball & the NFL in America then there is still a high risk regardless. Note the draft age is usually, much higher in these cases also. in Baseball, where the draft age is roughly similar to AFL - it's a complete crapshoot. no reliability in the selections at that age - too young to really know. Sure like us, they do their best, but you takes your lumps as part of the process.

fine, we all know this. In the past we've done come comparisons of the top 20 of 2001 as a rough guide to what me might expect in 2006 - not a perfect match, seeing as 06 is filled with higher risk KPP - but it'll do. We've all seen the back of the envelope calculations that show over 50% of the 2001 top 20 suck, but what about slicing it a different way.

I'm a bit tired of 15 yr old kids saying, the draft pick this year is worth soooo much, no one would trade the certain superstar waiting for clubs at pick 19 or whatever. So let's take the simple look, at whether the top 20 in 2001, would still command their draft spot.

as an example, pick 17 James Kelly. would a team (they buyers) swap their pick 17 in this years draft for james kelly. I say yes, and that he would get a better price than that. But lets worry about how much, just whether you would get AT LEAST that offer. The seller may not accept it, but could the player command his original draft pick price back?

it's all opinion, but thought it might fun.

1. Luke Hodge; yes, I think he's worth the no.1 pick in this years draft.
2. Luke Ball; Yes, I think he's worth the no.2
3. Chris Judd; yes I think he's worth pick 3. Don't care that he gets more, a buyer would offer their pick 3 for him. so it's a plain yes
4. Graham Polak - ha ha. NO.
5. Xavier Clarke - No. (unless it's freo, and then who knows )
6. Ashley Sampi - was that Beelzebub at the Ice Skating rink? NO.
7. David Hale - maybe. I'm leaning to No.
8. James Bartel - Yes.
9. Luke Molan - giggle. NO.
10. Sam Power????? all aboard flying pig airways. NO.
11. Richard Cole. Babe air is all out of seats. NO
12. Brent Reilly. at pick 12, I am thinking yes.
13. Nick Dal Santo. Yes. obviously
14. Ashley Watson. Who? No.
15. Barry Brooks. draft pick, you'd be lucky to get a slice of pizza. No.
16. Rick Ladson. Maybe, I'm leaning to no.
17. James Kelly. Yes. twice on tuesday.
18. Shane Harvey. I hear he is now chauffering Murray Vance. No.
19. Jason Gram. Late bloomer. I am thinking yes. just.
20. Daniel Elstone No.

I make that 8 out of 20, which depending on your view of Gram and Reilly might be 6 out of 20 guys, who justified their original draft pick. Sure, that doesn't mean the other 12/14 guys are busts, in some cases they're not - but they have not progressed to point of offering value for their pick.

Based on this, I'd trade plenty for one of the top picks, but otherwise take my chances where the chips lay in the rest of the draft.

Another way, to my mind only 6 of the top 20, are definitely worth at least their original draft pick back.

thoughts?

 

[Drummond]

1. Luke Hodge- Hasn’t had a great season, but genuine star.
2. Luke Ball- Hardest player in the competition, superstar.
3. Chris Judd- With Brown as the best player in the competition. Enough said.
4. Graham Polak- Hasn’t developed into KPP as expected, still time.
5. Xavier Clarke- Can’t get his body right, skillful player but not worth 5.
6. Ashley Sampi- Handy small forward when fit and firing, but certainly not worth 6.
7. David Hale- Kangaroos fans have very high opinions of him, still young and plenty of potential.
8. James Bartel- Brilliant midfielder, 4th best in the draft.
9. Luke Molan- Obviously didn’t ever develop.
10. Sam Power- Soft receiver with decent foot skills, nowhere near worthy of pick 10.
11. Richard Cole- Had potential as a rebounding defender, but injuries and bad decisions have taken their toll.
12. Brent Reilly- Classy player, come on well this season, but not quite a start yet.
13. Nick Dal Santo- Skillful no doubt, but goes missing when the game gets tough.
14. Ashley Watson- Next.
15. Barry Brooks- Saints rated him highly, as they took him off Port’s hands for pick 6! Injuries have ruined him, complete dud.
16. Rick Ladson- Average player, will always be a fringe player.
17. James Kelly- Geelong supporters want him delisted as he is slow and has poor skills; I wouldn’t get near him.
18. Shane Harvey- Originally showed some signs of becoming a good small forward, but never came on.
19. Jason Gram- Very effective rebounder from defence, had a great season.
20. Daniel Elstone- Pick 200? No.

 

[macca23]

That's an interesting analysis Crow-mo. I'll settle for 8 out of the 20 being worthy of their pick. Even though that is always referred to as the super draft, it clearly demonstrates the percentage risk in drafting, even at the top of the tree.

Unless you're getting a very high (low #) draft pick then if trading you stand a good chance of trading a good player for virtually fresh air.

In that super draft though, I'd be pretty sure that there were some real gems that came outside of the top 20 picks.

On that basis, you'd try and keep your good playing stock intact and take your draft risks with your own picks.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

It's a very interesting post. And an overlaying factor is that all of the comparably rated picks in that draft are midfielders.

On the Port Board I asked the question would you trade for Tarrant. I didn't really go into the detail, but my thinking was that almost all of the top rated talent in this draft are KPPs. Now they to me are the biggest crap shoot of all. How many top line forwards come out of the draft each year - real guns as 4/5 in this draft are reputed to be? There was an article in the Advertiser on the absolute physical battering that the front line key forwards take. Tredrea and his knees, Mark Stevens, Schwartz, even Jon Brown now is struggling, Reiwoldt will probably not ever be the player many thought he would be etc. Look at Bowen Lockwood, a huge talent but cruelled with injury, likewise Koschitzke. Sheer height and athleticism are a good starting point, but it's a mentally and physically demanding job.

So while everyone says the top 4-5 are an absolute certainty to be superstars, I don't know. The odds aren't good, and maybe it wouldn't be preposterous to cough up a top 5 pick for a proven KPP. Midfielders can always be found through the draft, especially in this draft when there is the range of KPPs who will be lock ins in the top half a dozen spots.

 

[The Crows Truth]

LIST]I make that 8 out of 20, which depending on your view of Gram and Reilly might be 6 out of 20 guys, who justified their original draft pick. Sure, that doesn't mean the other 12/14 guys are busts, in some cases they're not - but they have not progressed to point of offering value for their pick.

Based on this, I'd trade plenty for one of the top picks, but otherwise take my chances where the chips lay in the rest of the draft.

Another way, to my mind only 6 of the top 20, are definitely worth at least their original draft pick back.

thoughts?

some quality work here old son you make some valid points and witty remarks

i agree overall with what you are saying. but the price to trade for a top 5ish pick would be too prohibitive imo based on the perceptions of this yrs draft quality. it all comes down to what we need to give up to get a top 5 pick. crow mos - you said you would trade plenty. who would you give up for a top 5 pick?

luckily we have fantasia who is seemingly the leagues best low pick specialist - johncock, knights, hudson, mc gregor, numerous rookies etc

also recruiting depts would have become alot more sophisticated in the last 5-10 yrs. that is, more thorough draft camps, better aptitude testing, significantly more resources devoted to drafting meaning talent scouts watching these kids over longer periods. the overall effect of this is a more 'efficient market' and over time you would expect a higher rate of success for the top 20 picks. i havent run the numbers to confirm this but it is logical. see some of the names west coast pulled at 80+ in the early 90s

 

[Sanguinarius]

this should br reposted on the main footy forum or drafts board. it'd put everyone back in their places. great read. and I agree

 

[Crow-mo]

That's an interesting analysis Crow-mo. I'll settle for 8 out of the 20 being worthy of their pick. Even though that is always referred to as the super draft, it clearly demonstrates the percentage risk in drafting, even at the top of the tree.

Unless you're getting a very high (low #) draft pick then if trading you stand a good chance of trading a good player for virtually fresh air.

In that super draft though, I'd be pretty sure that there were some real gems that came outside of the top 20 picks.

On that basis, you'd try and keep your good playing stock intact and take your draft risks with your own picks.

spot on. look at 1997 for even better examples of that.

that's why I suggest you either move to the front of the queue, or you take your lumps where they lie.

Let's not forget Freo were going to take Polak at #1

 

[Crow-mo]

It's a very interesting post. And an overlaying factor is that all of the comparably rated picks in that draft are midfielders.

just trying to slice the same thing a different way. I think it is more than overlay, I think it is crucial that the best prospects were considered midfielders. Midfielders have always been a slightly more reliable bet, than KPP. which means on an odds basis, 2001 was marginally less risky.

it depends on the individual of course, but as a statistical group the analogy holds.

On the Port Board I asked the question would you trade for Tarrant. I didn't really go into the detail, but my thinking was that almost all of the top rated talent in this draft are KPPs. Now they to me are the biggest crap shoot of all. How many top line forwards come out of the draft each year - real guns as 4/5 in this draft are reputed to be? There was an article in the Advertiser on the absolute physical battering that the front line key forwards take. Tredrea and his knees, Mark Stevens, Schwartz, even Jon Brown now is struggling, Reiwoldt will probably not ever be the player many thought he would be etc. Look at Bowen Lockwood, a huge talent but cruelled with injury, likewise Koschitzke. Sheer height and athleticism are a good starting point, but it's a mentally and physically demanding job.

indeed. I'd take tarrant, because at least you know what you're getting. good and bad.

So while everyone says the top 4-5 are an absolute certainty to be superstars, I don't know. The odds aren't good, and maybe it wouldn't be preposterous to cough up a top 5 pick for a proven KPP. Midfielders can always be found through the draft, especially in this draft when there is the range of KPPs who will be lock ins in the top half a dozen spots.

for me the point is that those teams that have a top 5 picks, have a pick that high because they are, erm, well, rubbish. they are the ones least able to afford a tim walsh - and so should trade for proven prospects.

 

[Crow-mo]

this should br reposted on the main footy forum or drafts board. it'd put everyone back in their places. great read. and I agree

ah but teh draft board is full of 15 yr old kids who know all about the drafting process, and somehow think this years class is genetically and evolutionarily different

 

[Crow-mo]

some quality work here old son you make some valid points and witty remarks

i agree overall with what you are saying. but the price to trade for a top 5ish pick would be too prohibitive imo based on the perceptions of this yrs draft quality. it all comes down to what we need to give up to get a top 5 pick. crow mos - you said you would trade plenty. who would you give up for a top 5 pick?

I suspect your right. I would trade a lot for pick 1, and progressively less down to about pick 4/5. I dunno, something like Johncock/meesen+1st round pick for pick 1. switch the names around, they don't matter, just an example of value. the chance to hit upon superstar talent is worth the risk for us, because we can afford.

luckily we have fantasia who is seemingly the leagues best low pick specialist - johncock, knights, hudson, mc gregor, numerous rookies etc

also recruiting depts would have become alot more sophisticated in the last 5-10 yrs. that is, more thorough draft camps, better aptitude testing, significantly more resources devoted to drafting meaning talent scouts watching these kids over longer periods. the overall effect of this is a more 'efficient market' and over time you would expect a higher rate of success for the top 20 picks. i havent run the numbers to confirm this but it is logical. see some of the names west coast pulled at 80+ in the early 90s

The thing with more developed drafting leagues in the US, is that they never normalise. increased sophistry will only take you so far.

 

[tribey]

3. Chris Judd- With Brown as the best player in the competition. Enough said.

To be eligible to be the 'best player in the competition' you have to play at least 18-20 games a season I reckon.

Otherwise you're just phoning it in.

"I would dominate a season if I could actually get on the park, honest!"

 

[crowsarethebest]

ah but teh draft board is full of 15 yr old kids who know all about the drafting process, and somehow think this years class is genetically and evolutionarily different

They post about "Their mate" and when someone says he will probably go late or probably won't make it they go ZOMG WTF u talking about...blah blah blah and go on and say he will be a gun or top 10 pick for sure.

 

[Mego Red]

this should br reposted on the main footy forum or drafts board. it'd put everyone back in their places. great read. and I agree

The funny thing is - and I hope Crowmo won't mind me saying - this is a NEW perspective. I'm sure I've read analysis of the suoperdraft before that gave evidence of a similar point. Hell, I've read them by Crowmo. The frustrating thing is haven't to make the point anew every three months, like no-one has heard it before.

Does anyone here follow the NFL? I was really interested to read here how much the clubs agree on the value of a pick. That there is a chart that they have that's been developed over time that says (with some evidence, I presume) that a player found at pick 10 is the equivalent in value to the players at pick 16 and 39. So, if someone is trading down, there's very little b*******ting - they know what the league agrees that value is, so it is just about trying to get a couple of slots better or worse, depending on need. We're probably not quite at that point yet - it is easier in the NFL, when players have 3 or so years in college and very defined roles to know what kind of player you have - but one day there might be a similar thing in the AFL ...

 

[Drummond]

Didn't know where to put this but anyway, Cameron Wood, whom the Crows passed on in the 2004 Draft, played for the Lions today and had 10 possessions, 7 marks, and 13 hit-outs...

 

[Crow-mo]

The funny thing is - and I hope Crowmo won't mind me saying - this is a NEW perspective. I'm sure I've read analysis of the suoperdraft before that gave evidence of a similar point. Hell, I've read them by Crowmo. The frustrating thing is haven't to make the point anew every three months, like no-one has heard it before.

it might another way of slicing the same lemon, might be new, might not - the thing is, we already know the answer. Like a lot of stats, it's a situation where we know the answer beforehand. what I think is interesting is that, which ever way you look at it you get the same answer.

as they say, what does this tell you grasshopper

Does anyone here follow the NFL? I was really interested to read here how much the clubs agree on the value of a pick. That there is a chart that they have that's been developed over time that says (with some evidence, I presume) that a player found at pick 10 is the equivalent in value to the players at pick 16 and 39. So, if someone is trading down, there's very little b*******ting - they know what the league agrees that value is, so it is just about trying to get a couple of slots better or worse, depending on need. We're probably not quite at that point yet - it is easier in the NFL, when players have 3 or so years in college and very defined roles to know what kind of player you have - but one day there might be a similar thing in the AFL ...

the average age of an NFL draftee is likely to be in the 22/23 range, which if we think about it AFL terms, is 5 or 6 years after being drafted.
current QB draftees Vince Young and Matt Leinart are both the same age as Chris Judd is right now.

If we drafted our guys at a similar age, I am sure we'd be much more certain of their relative value. as long as we take 17 yr olds, it will always be a crapshoot.