Fail-safe draft strategy

[WorthTheWaite]

- Midfielders are a safer bet, but the potential return from KP players is higher? I'll go to the statistics on this one. Expanding the period to 1999-2003(mainly to increase sample size), I've rated the players who 'made it' as mids and KP players in the first round as A (star), B (good) or C (solid):
Key position: A=5 B=6 C=5. Percentage of A = 31%
Midfielders: A=7 B=13 C=7. Percentage of A = 25%
That supports your argument to some degree, that the chances of a player who makes it as a midfielder being an a-rated player are smaller. But, when you factor in the higher probability of midfielders making it:
% of KP who make it (55%) x % of those who are A-rated (31%) = 24%
% of Mid who make it (85%) x % of those who are A-rated (26%) = 22%
Going on this admittedly small sample, it appears that if you take a key-position player in the first round, there is about a 55% chance they succeed at AFL level, and a 24% chance of them being a superstar. If you take a midfielder, there is an 85% chance of them being successful, and a 22% chance they will be a superstar. I think that supports my theory, although I'm prepared to conceed the bias from 2001 (Judd, Ball, Hodge - all a-rated) as a distortion (without them, the mids would be at 85% and 14%, which I suspect might be a truer estimation in the long run).

Just thought you should note that 55% x 33% is 17%, not 24%. So by that, you're more likely to get a star midfielder.

On the theory itself, I'm not so sure. I think you should have flexible objectives going into a draft - ie; strengthen the midfield, shore up the defence, etc. Ideally, this would be evident only in 50/50 calls on players who are rated equally, but play different roles. When you start having a blueprint, irrespective of the talent on offer, that you strive to stick to, I think you begin to enter dangerous waters. The whole premise of selecting the "best genuine midfielder" also relies on your judgment as to who the best midfielder is, and if that same judgment decides that you'd rather pick up a KPP than that "best" midfielder, why should you ignore it?

I think the best policy is - get the best recruiting department you can, identify the best talent on offer, enter the draft with some goals in mind, but be open-minded and don't be afraid to go for the best available as much as possible in the early rounds.

 

[ericpascoe]

Loved your engagement with my theory - so to offer my responses (and to hopefully continue your procrastination!):

- Midfielders are a safer bet, but the potential return from KP players is higher? I'll go to the statistics on this one. Expanding the period to 1999-2003(mainly to increase sample size), I've rated the players who 'made it' as mids and KP players in the first round as A (star), B (good) or C (solid):
Key position: A=5 B=6 C=5. Percentage of A = 31%
Midfielders: A=7 B=13 C=7. Percentage of A = 25%
That supports your argument to some degree, that the chances of a player who makes it as a midfielder being an a-rated player are smaller. But, when you factor in the higher probability of midfielders making it:
% of KP who make it (55%) x % of those who are A-rated (31%) = 24%
% of Mid who make it (85%) x % of those who are A-rated (26%) = 22%
Going on this admittedly small sample, it appears that if you take a key-position player in the first round, there is about a 55% chance they succeed at AFL level, and a 24% chance of them being a superstar. If you take a midfielder, there is an 85% chance of them being successful, and a 22% chance they will be a superstar. I think that supports my theory, although I'm prepared to conceed the bias from 2001 (Judd, Ball, Hodge - all a-rated) as a distortion (without them, the mids would be at 85% and 14%, which I suspect might be a truer estimation in the long run).

- The argument about relying on opinions is true - and is itself the biggest argument in favour of my theory! My theory states that despite all the research that has been done, a signficant proportion of high draft picks who are key position players fail. This is because they often haven't fully grown or filled out, and they are prone to injury. Midfielders, on the other hand, are a safer bet - in my opinion because they tend to be closer to their playing size and weight, so its easier to judge. Because opinions are often wrong, I'm trying to remove the element of opinion from the equation as much as possible, by instituting rational rules for drafting that simplify the process. If you conceed that picking KP prospecs in the first round is too difficult (and that picking utilities tends to fail regardless of the round), then you only need to study midfielders likely to go in the first round. You can concentrate your efforts on them, but more importantly, your choices become clearer. Last year, for example, Carlton were deciding between Gibbs and Leuenberger, and it was a tough call. My theory says ignore Leuenberger - as a result, the only option we would have considered would be Gibbs; providing we are roughly in the ball-park in our player analysis, we remove a lot of the subjectivity from the equation.

- As for individuals, sure - there are some factors you can't account for. But those factors are unbiased in their distribution, so irrelevant to the actual theory. In practice, you could still use them to discriminate within the group you are picking from. If you follow the theory, you still have to pick the best midfielder available in the first round - attitude could be one factor used for that. Again, its subjective, but you'd probably only be comparing 5 players instead of 9, so I reckon the theory helps a lot.

- I touched on strength and weakness of drafts before. In a strong draft, shift everything down half a round (ie mids to halfway through the third round, specialists to half-way through the fourth etc). In a weak draft, shift everything up (take specialists earlier, start gambling on bigs earlier etc). Depending on how strong or how weak it is, would affect how far you shift. That said, my original analysis is skewed to Carlton's drafting position over the last 6 years because thats how I formulated it (by seeing how we drafted compared to teams around us) and I suspect the true cutoffs should be 1-25 mids, 25-40 specialists, 41-60 KP, 61+ utility/KP. Use 5 picks as the 'slide' factor based on the strength of the draft and thats a decent basis as to how I see it working in practice.

The reason for the 'slide' relates to the psychology of specialists as much as anything. I believe that in a weak draft, teams start to think about grabbing the one-dimensional types earlier, as there are less all-round prospects to choose from. That means that if you want a good specialist (and remember, stats show they tend to go quickly in a bunch with nothing left over), you have to take them earlier. You'd also expect the number of quality midfielders to be less too, so taking a mid at pick 25 in a weak draft might be reaching a bit. The opposite is true in a strong draft - more good mids available, and teams believe there is more all-round talent so they'll wait before taking specialists. We saw it a bit last year with guys like Alwyn Davey who dropped in a strong draft, even though we knew they would be decent at AFL level, and more importantly, knew exactly HOW they would be decent (ie as a limited but effective small forward).

- I don't know how to factor in F/S choices in the new F/S scheme. Under the old one, it made sense to use your third-round pick on a KP player rated a first-round prospect because it was a 2-pick discount; you were getting value for money, even if value in the first-round comes from mids. Now, you'll be giving up your next available pick- so that could be a first-rounder, in which case I think you defer back to the theory. I'll pay sentiment as an important factor though, and probably concede you have to go back to conventional drafting for F/S picks.

- As for the divergence of opinion - thats true, and still a factor. But I suspect my theory simplifies the process a bit. In the early rounds, you are looking for true midfielders. A recruiter only has to look at a player, and justify them as being a midfielder. If they aren't - discard them (except for the pick 1 exception). Then its a subjective call over who is better. You couldn't make the error with Keplar Bradley, cos you'd never pick him. I suspect the more rigidly you applied the theory, the better your decision-making would become. Recruiters would begin to think about exactly how a player fits into AFL football, rather than worrying so much about 'potential' and who is the 'best available'. With Keplar Bradley, you'd look at him first in the third round under my scheme - and only then as either a pure ruckman, or a pure full-forward. If he didn't fit, you wouldn't look again until round 4 - by which stage, if he was still available, you'd take him as a generic big. With the benefit of hindsight, but bearing in mind that the rules are set rigidly - doesn't that seem about right for Keplar Bradley? You'd consider him as a ruck, probably dismiss him in that role, then take him if available in round 4. Of course, the same applies to Lance Franklin - but with the odds stacked in favour of Bradley being the correct logic and Franklin the exception, not the other way around.

Finally, as for things like development and luck - you can ignore these with the draft because they are unbiased. There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that the teams who have developed players better over the period I studied picked midfielders over key position players, so it doesn't affect the final outcome, provided you have a big enough sample. The same goes for luck. You could of course debate the sample size - and you'd be 100% right. If I had a flawless sample, it call it a rule. As is, its just a theory...

Overall, calling it a 'fail-safe' draft strategy was wrong. Its not. Its just a particular strategy that I hypothesize leads to better results than trying to predict 'talent', 'potential' and all the other unpredictable factors involved in drafting.

So where would you have drafted Pavlich? or Buddy Franklin?

 

[btdg]

Just thought you should note that 55% x 33% is 17%, not 24%. So by that, you're more likely to get a star midfielder.

On the theory itself, I'm not so sure. I think you should have flexible objectives going into a draft - ie; strengthen the midfield, shore up the defence, etc. Ideally, this would be evident only in 50/50 calls on players who are rated equally, but play different roles. When you start having a blueprint, irrespective of the talent on offer, that you strive to stick to, I think you begin to enter dangerous waters. The whole premise of selecting the "best genuine midfielder" also relies on your judgment as to who the best midfielder is, and if that same judgment decides that you'd rather pick up a KPP than that "best" midfielder, why should you ignore it?

I think the best policy is - get the best recruiting department you can, identify the best talent on offer, enter the draft with some goals in mind, but be open-minded and don't be afraid to go for the best available as much as possible in the early rounds.

The problem with having specific strategies (like strengthen the midfield, shore up defence etc) is that you start searching a bit too hard and talk yourself into poor decisions. Plus, recruiting teenagers means its unlikely they'll have a short-term effect anyway. We don't have a genuine full-back (although Jamison is promising). If we go into the draft searching for a full-back, we're likely to over-reach to fit that need, in order to get a guy who won't impact for 3-4 years anyway. My strategy tries to eliminate this possibility by playing the probabilities to get the best chance that our picks succeed, and by factoring balance (as well as targeting specific position players rather than utilities). I think you should ALWAYS have 2 ruckmen on your rookie list, for example, if not more - its the hardest position to fill, it takes specialist skills, and the best ruckmen hit their peak for generally only 2-3 years, which is less than any other position. If you have 2 good ruckmen on your list, thats the time to start developing the next one. If you don't, its almost impossible to quick-fix anyway (as we have found out).

If, through my strategy, you end up with an unbalanced team, at least you've maximised your assets (by taking safe mids early on, then specialists who can be limited but at least have some value) and can make a trade. Worst case scenario - you'd end up like the Bulldogs, with a whole stack of solid midfielders and no KP players. At least the Bulldgos are competitive every year, and well-placed to make a trade to round out their roster (ie - for Fevola). And thats the worst-case scenario!

The problem with the best available strategy is that its impossible to predict. KP players are particularly difficult, as they often still a long way from competing physically. Stats show you are just as likely to succeed with a KP player in the 4th round as the 1st round. Thats a bit couter-intuitive, but thats the nature of KP players. They often dominate in juniors simply by being bigger - but the whole AFL is bigger, so they don't have that any more. They often still have to grow, or don't. When they fill out, sometimes they lose mobility, which reduces their effectiveness. Other times when they fill out, the extra bulk helps them. That's why its so risky taking KP players early on.

The whole point of my strategy is it eliminates half the battle. Sure, rank the players as you see fit - thats what recruiters do - and have the best people possible doing that ranking. I don't have any argument about that. Then, follow the simple rules to reduce risk.

 

[btdg]

So where would you have drafted Pavlich? or Buddy Franklin?

I wouldn't - thats the whole point. I also wouldn't have drafted Luke Livingstone, Tim Walsh, Graham Polak, Justin Longmuir or any other key-position player taken in the first round of the draft, unless they were a can't-miss, sure-fire prospect for the number one pick, with no evenly matched midfielder available (ie Josh Fraser was clearly #1 ahead of Hasleby, but Gibbs and about 3 others were about even, so Fraser and Gibbs are the right picks).

Had Pavlich or Franklin slipped to the third round, I would have questioned whether they could be described as 'specialists'. In their cases, I don't think either can. So they earliest I would take them would be the fourth round. I strongly doubt either would slip that far.

Of course, under my strategy Hawthorn would have taken Jordan Lewis at pick 5 in 2004 anyway (we know for certain he was the player they would have taken as the next best midfielder, because they did), taken Angus Monfries (I think) at pick 7, and had a crack at Matthew Egan or Jason Gwilt in the 4th round (plus Ryan Griffen over Roughead). Given that Hawthorn nailing the Roughead/Franklin picks is about the worst-case scenario possible for my strategy, you would think it bodes badly. But:
My theory: Griffen, Lewis, Monfries, Egan/Gwilt
Hawthorn: Roughead, Franklin, Lewis, Taylor
My theory loses out - but its still not a bad crop. And thats in about the worst-case scenario imaginable. And it doesn't take into account the potential for failure, which was far higher with Franklin/Rouhead picks. I still think my theory holds up well...

What about Freo in 1999? Bearing in mind my memory of players ain't so good going back 8 years, I think it looks something like:
My theory: Damien Cupido, Joel Corey, Chance Bateman,
Fremantly: Matthew Pavlich, Leigh Brown, Adam Butler
Again, a worst-case scenario, but my theory gives you 1 star, 1 solid player and 1 miss. Freo got 1 star, 1 solid player (who had to be traded first) and 1 miss. Thats almost a wash - and its a best case scenario for drafting a KP player! What if Pavlich missed - they'd be laughed at for that draft. Under my theory, its a stretch to call Cupido a mid (Cadyn Beetham is the alternative if you don't), but even if you do its still unlucky to miss on a midfielder that early.

 

[drusswaylander]

G'Day btdg

Just to get an insight into your methodology could you please list the players by name that you have ranked as A grade B grade etc and the players you have catergorised as utility, pure midfielder, tall KPP, specialist and in what role etc etc

Thankyou in advance

 

[btdg]

Good god. Its not particularly scientific, and I'm not entirely sure I can remember all the way through. Generally, I went to the AFL.com post-draft review, then read the player profile. If it said inside or outside midfielder, then they're a midfielder. Utilities generally said something like 'medium-sized forward/defender/midfielder'. Specialists said 'ruckman' or 'full-forward' or 'small forward'. Key position players said pretty much that. In some cases I had to use a bit of knowledge of how the club used the player since, but if I didn't know the player I either went purely from the afl.com description, or googled them for more info. As for ratings - they were done fairly hastily, and are entirely my opinion. But I see no reason to presume my opinion is systematically wrong (no doubt people will argue and I suspect I may well be wrong in numerous cases. But I don't systematically bump up midfielders, as far as I know)

as an example, here's my take on the 2002 first round (I haven't kept my original gradings, but this is how I'd do it today):
1. Brendon Goddard. Utility, B-rated
2. Daniel Wells. Midfielder, B-rated
3. Jared Brennan. Utility, C-rated
4. Tim Walsh. Key-position, failed pick
5. Jarrad McVeigh, Utility, b-rated
6. Steven Salopek, midfielder, c-rated
7. Andrew Mackie - not sure how I ranked him before. could be KP or utility, could be c-rated or failed pick depending on how I was feeling. I think I tried to give the benefit of the doubt to proving my theory wrong, so probably utility, c-rated
8. Luke Brennan, utility/midfielder (can't remember), c-rated
9. Hamish McIntosh - specialist ruck, b-rated
10. Jayson Laycock - KP, b-rated
11. Jason Winderlich. Midfielder, b-rated
12. Jay Schulz. KP, c-rated
13. Byron Schammer. Midfielder, b-rated
14. Daniel Bell. Utility, c-rated
15. Nicolas Smith. KP, failed pick

Interesting draft because it had a relatively high number of utilties who actually succeeded in the first round - Goddard, Brennan, etc.

 

[drusswaylander]

Good god. Its not particularly scientific, and I'm not entirely sure I can remember all the way through. Generally, I went to the AFL.com post-draft review, then read the player profile. If it said inside or outside midfielder, then they're a midfielder. Utilities generally said something like 'medium-sized forward/defender/midfielder'. Specialists said 'ruckman' or 'full-forward' or 'small forward'. Key position players said pretty much that. In some cases I had to use a bit of knowledge of how the club used the player since, but if I didn't know the player I either went purely from the afl.com description, or googled them for more info. As for ratings - they were done fairly hastily, and are entirely my opinion. But I see no reason to presume my opinion is systematically wrong (no doubt people will argue and I suspect I may well be wrong in numerous cases. But I don't systematically bump up midfielders, as far as I know)

as an example, here's my take on the 2002 first round (I haven't kept my original gradings, but this is how I'd do it today):
1. Brendon Goddard. Utility, B-rated
2. Daniel Wells. Midfielder, B-rated
3. Jared Brennan. Utility, C-rated
4. Tim Walsh. Key-position, failed pick
5. Jarrad McVeigh, Utility, b-rated
6. Steven Salopek, midfielder, c-rated
7. Andrew Mackie - not sure how I ranked him before. could be KP or utility, could be c-rated or failed pick depending on how I was feeling. I think I tried to give the benefit of the doubt to proving my theory wrong, so probably utility, c-rated
8. Luke Brennan, utility/midfielder (can't remember), c-rated
9. Hamish McIntosh - specialist ruck, b-rated
10. Jayson Laycock - KP, b-rated
11. Jason Winderlich. Midfielder, b-rated
12. Jay Schulz. KP, c-rated
13. Byron Schammer. Midfielder, b-rated
14. Daniel Bell. Utility, c-rated
15. Nicolas Smith. KP, failed pick

Interesting draft because it had a relatively high number of utilties who actually succeeded in the first round - Goddard, Brennan, etc.

This the problem though btdg I agree the methodology isn't very scientific at all. With the added bonus that statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want

Using a mixture of what players were expected to be and what they actually turned out to be is part of why your theory is based on flawed information and is of dubious value as a draft strategy for future drafts. As I stated before it is already known that midfielders have a higher success rate and that is what recruiters weigh up when making a choice.

I imagine that with a few players that you have rated here people will disagree with many of them and the positions that they play or were expected to play. Or in fact what the players rating or main position will be at the end of their careers

How many players were drafted to be specialist taggers for example?

I just had a minute or two the wife was out

 

[btdg]

This the problem though btdg I agree the methodology isn't very scientific at all. With the added bonus that statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want

Using a mixture of what players were expected to be and what they actually turned out to be is part of why your theory is based on flawed information and is of dubious value as a draft strategy for future drafts. As I stated before it is already known that midfielders have a higher success rate and that is what recruiters weigh up when making a choice.

I imagine that with a few players that you rated here, people will disagree with many off your them and the positions that they play or were expected to play. Or in fact what the players rating or main position will be at the end of their careers

How many players were drafted to be specialist taggers for example?

I just had a minute or two the wife was out

But really you are raising two separate issues. One is the issue of accuracy. Any statistical analysis has degrees of accuracy, but there are ways to cut back on those. The best would be to increase the sample size - which I'll do if I ever have time. Others would be to have less subjective ways of analysing player performance and succes - perhaps analytical methods like 100 games played etc. I chose not to do that, because I wanted to look at recent drafts as being more relevant that those 10 years ago, so its a trade-off. In general, though, while people might disagree on my ratings of players, I suspect they are somewhere in the ballpark.

There's no doubt that my analysis is not accurate - but that isn't the same as saying it is meaningless. I would argue that there are several important points that my analysis proves, that should be taken into account when drafting, but more importantly, that there are certain rational conclusions that follow from those points.

The other issue is that of bias. Statistics can be manipulated and presented in such a way that certain outcomes are favoured. Thats a separate issue from accuracy - you could be 100% accurate but biased, or completely inaccurate and un-biased. I would say that my analysis is both inaccurate (but not fatally), and biased. The bias is not of my doing, but primarily because KP players take longer to develop. As a result, there may be KP players who are as yet unproven, or those rated as B-graders who may yet become A-grade etc. That may be the case for midfielders, but the assumption is that it will be slightly more pronounced for KP. given the years studied though, that bias should be minimised - most KP players have announced themself at least as AFL-standard by now if they are likely to.

And, I have acknowledged the bias and tried to account for it where possible. I've also tried to ignore a few outliers (like late-round picks that fit my theory, but were so improbable that its doubtful anyone following my theory would have taken them). I've also stated the course of my study, so if others want to take the time to replicate it based on their opinions, they can - in other words, if I faked the results, its easily testable. Overall, the results aren't conclusive, but I think they lead to the following simple conclusions:

1. It is a safer bet to draft midfielders than key position players in the first round (even you concede this).
2. The odds of a key-position player becoming a successful AFL footballer aren't particularly different between the first and fourth rounds (and, I am hypothesising, the rookie draft).
Note that there are good theoretical reasons as to why 1 and 2 would be true, which adds further weight.
3. The odds of a KP player drafted in the first round becoming a superstar are roughly the same as the odds of a midfielder drafted in the first round becoming a superstar (that is, for every Pavlich there is a Judd).
This is a new finding, one that surprised me as well. Whenever kp players are drafted early, their 'upside' is often the justification. I contend that the upside is the same for midfielders!
4. Over the period of the study, there was a higher success rate drafting specialists suited to a particular position, than there was for utilties or multi-position players. Midfielders are the safest bet, followed by 'other' (which is a bit of a misnomer as it takes lumps ruckmen and small forwards together, among other things). This is another new contention; I have hypothesized this is because of the Koutoufides effect which saw utilities over-rated for a period of time, but that is a whole other isse.
5. Teams tend to draft mids, KP and utilities that they like first, then target specific position needs once their 'rated' players are gone. This leads to a 'run' on specialists at some point in the draft, after which very few are available.

I would throw in the following assumptions:
i) players tend not to have an impact for 2-3 years; therefore it makes no sense to draft based on immediate positional needs. Those needs are best filled by trading, PSD, or simply by the coach adjusting strategy.
ii) other teams continue to draft based on their opinions of the 'best available'
iii) it is possible for us to rank players according to the type of player they are, and according to predicted ability, and be roughly correct in our estimation; we don't have to be flawless, just not totally clueless.
iv) It is desirable to have a balance in recruiting between midfielders, key position players and other specialists, as well as versatile players who can plug gaps.

From those assumptions, it follows that we can logically assume:
a) it is better to draft a midfielder in the first round than a key position player, because the probability of success is higher, and the probability of stardom about the same
b) the success rate of midfielders drops as the draft goes on. The success rate of key position players does not, at least based on chance of success (no analysis done on quality of success).
c) Given i) and from a and b, it is therefore generally preferred to take midfielders in the first round and early in the second.
d) at some defined point, generally around the late second-round/early third-round, a concerted effort is needed to pick a specialist - otherwise we run the risk of missing out altogether, which, as per i and iv, is bad for team balance.
e) As per iv, if a, b, c and d are followed, then we should take a kp player at around the fourth-round mark. The success rate for KP seems to drop after this point; hence now is a good time to act
f) given the low success rate with KP players, if we want to maintain team balance, we should draft more of these but with less highly valued picks. Thus, our rookie list and late-round picks should also be heavily weighted towards KP players.
g) Utilities tend to be over-rated by the draft. Therefore, at any given point, an available utiltiy is a worse pick than an available player at any other position. To maintain balance, we should target utility players who 'slip' for various reasons only
h) under no circumstances should we draft based on 'need'. Players take 2-3 years to develop, and are unpredictable in their development. Better to focus on quality and balance in recruiting, stockpile as many assets as possible then either adjust through strategy or trade to fill any gaps that occur.

Those assumptions are logically sound (as far as I can tell, although others might disagree), and supported by the available evidence to this point. My draft theory is simply the practical extension of those assumptions.

 

[drusswaylander]

You are going to get me into trouble over this

Increasing the sample size will not tell us anything really btdg because comparing the different draft eras is about as useful as comparing different football eras I readily concede that drafting midfielders is a safer bet at any pick, but if the other clubs aren't applying your theory then I think you would be disadvantaged unless you get luck with some F/S's

At times being a high draft pick probably made you more likely to fail. Hird and Long for example were players who were picked up due to loopholes and people not realising they were available rather than talent

Players could refuse to go to the clubs who drafted them etc etc

As a predictor your theory isn't meaningless, just not ground breaking(well argued though), but as I stated recruiters already know about the success rates.

As you stated recent drafts are much better when trying to make a judgement , but considering how early many of these players are into their careers it is premature to make any sort of judgement on most.

Even the Judd's and Ball's for example have question marks at the moment due to injury. A great deal can happen over a career. How will last years draft impact on the stats, if considering how many of the early draft picks were KPP's, most succeed. It is still the what ifs

What do you classify Hunter from the West Coast as? A KPP or utility?

 

[btdg]

You are going to get me into trouble over this

Increasing the sample size will not tell us anything really btdg because comparing the different draft eras is about as useful as comparing different football eras I readily concede that drafting midfielders is a safer bet at any pick, but if the other clubs aren't applying your theory then I think you would be disadvantaged unless you get luck with some F/S's

At times being a high draft pick probably made you more likely to fail. Hird and Long for example were players who were picked up due to loopholes and people not realising they were available rather than talent

Players could refuse to go to the clubs who drafted them etc etc

As a predictor your theory isn't meaningless, just not ground breaking(well argued though), but as I stated recruiters already know about the success rates.

As you stated recent drafts are much better when trying to make a judgement , but considering how early many of these players are into their careers it is premature to make any sort of judgement on most.

Even the Judd's and Ball's for example have question marks at the moment due to injury. A great deal can happen over a career. How will last years draft impact on the stats, if considering how many of the early draft picks were KPP's, most succeed. It is still the what ifs

What do you classify Hunter from the West Coast as? A KPP or utility?

I'm sure your wife will understand if you explain to her!

I reckon you could expand stats back to about 1997 and it would still be relatively accurate - thats about when teams figured out the whole recruiting thing. If you could do that, it would give you maybe 8 years of drafts - about 125 players in each round. Thats starting to get to significant levels imo
The other thing to do would be to make generic predictions and test them in the future.

I don't think this is groudbreaking, but I think there are some new points. I don't think teams have followed their brains through to logical conclusions in the past either; everyone knows its better to draft midfielders with early picks, yet 3 of the top 4 last year were key-position players, ahead of Joel Selwood? You get sucked in by the potential of the bigs, start imagining a forward-line stacked with tall timber. Its not as sexy to imagine Geelong's midfield of solid and consistent ball-winners. Its also new to believe that mid-sized utilities are likely to fail. There's a decent theoretical argument why, but I've never, ever heard anyone challenge teams for drafting all-rounders. And I've never seen anyone come out and admit that their judgement is likely to be flawed, so they'll just play the percentages instead and limit how often they have to make those judgements...

As for Hunter? He's not the only player that is tough to judge. I'd probably say utility if pushed. The arguments are there that he is a specialist (full-forward/full-back) or a KP player, but I suspect his defining trait is versatility, which makes him mostly a utility. And you are right about players careers not being finished - I guess thats why I prefer to use success/failure instead of rating players. Its less subjective, and most players from 01-03 who failed have been delisted now, so that makes it easy to judge (the rest kind of become successes almost by default)

I'm not sure whether teams are coming round, either. I know a bloke who works for Essendon, with a minor role in their recruiting department, who constantly tells me that they 'had Gumbleton rated over Gibbs last year'. I suspect they did too, because they knew they weren't going to get Gibbs so they talked themselves into Gumbleton. Everyone knows deep down Gibbs was a safe bet, as was Selwood (and Boak, who looks like the forgotten man of that draft). Who knows with Gumbleton though...

 

[drusswaylander]

Even 1997, we for example, still weren't really into the draft mate.

Until recruiting budgets, and player development are equal then the draft never will be.

Would Selwood, as the example you used been as successful at another club such as us?

Would he have even done as well at the Cats of last season?

Considering Selwood went as late as he did due to concerns about the longevity of his knees, it will be a few years yet before a judgement can be made IMO.

Gibbs is a category of player that I think is actually as problematic as the KPP's. That of the tall midfielder. If they grow are they really midfielders anymore, such as the classification problem with Goddard. Height is a risk factor with injuries and development so where do tall mids fall into the scheme of things?

I agree that Hunter is a hard player to judge, but I threw that in to highlight that there are actually a large number of players tagged as utilities that are really mids, KPP etc. Probably helps your theory

As I mentioned earlier until a player's career is at least two thirds in, it is hard to make a definitive judgement. When Neitz was awarded the AA spot as CHB did many think he would end up as a FF. When Gehrig was playing well as a CHF at West Coast did the Saints consider him a full forward. I would think that unlikely considering they were playing him back when he first went to the club.

There is just so much water to flow under the bridge before you can make judgements on players as young as the ones you are trying to

I agree on Boak. He has the potential to be a great player and without the longevity doubts with Selwood. A number of the KPP prospects could be rippers, rather than has been the case in other drafts where clubs have gone, "We need a KPP so we better get the best available rather than the best player at that pick" If they live up to their potential many of the kids from last year will light up the competition in years to come. If the big blokes come good the statistical analysis will change

I am fine with taking the midfielder if there is little between the choices, but a rigid strategy would IMO be counter productive

 

[Go_Blues]

Whats your prediction for this years draft?

 

[btdg]

Whats your prediction for this years draft?

I am by no means an expert on potential draftees, and there is still a long way to go before the draft. Our picks could also change totally in that time. However, based on what we have now, and using the Bigfooty trial phantom draft as well as some of the other write-ups on this site from people who know more than I, a decent application of my theory would lead to this outcome:

pick 1. Matthew Kreuzer. Appears to be the stand-out of the class. IF he is tall enough to be a ruckman, then his mobility and skills seem make him a sure thing. Throw in the rep factor for membership sales etc, and that makes him the #1. If he isn't tall enough or his mobility and skills have been exagerated, then I'd go for Trent Cotchin. Cotchin, on paper, is flawless; described as a slightly taller version of Deledio with pace, great skills and good ball-winning ability. I don't see how you'd pass up Cotchin unless there was something incredible on offer. But Kreuzer is, by all accounts, incredible. Still, if the primary reason for taking Kreuzer is that we need a ruckman, then that is bollocks and we should take Cotchin. Kreuzer is the pick ONLY if he is a clear class above

pick 3. Best pure midfielder, regardless. Cotchin if he slips, otherwise its a toss-up between Ebert, Masten and Palmer, depending on who we think is best. From reports, I have absolutely no idea which way to go; all 3 seem good but limited.

pick 20. Its a reasonably deep draft, and there appear to be several mids in the mix at this point, so I'd go for the best pure midfielder here. Pat Vespremezi sounds like a player who could slip, as he's been injured, and might be an option. I loved a write-up I read of Zac Millar too (but he isn't even in the bigfooty trial draft, so I dunno). Otherwise, players in the mix appear to be Adam Maric, and Scott Selwood. Note the Bigfooty trial draft has a whole bunch of mids going just after our pick here; just as my theory states, you want to get in first.

pick 36. Best specialist. There's a couple of specialist ruckmen available in this vicinity - Tom Bellchambers and Dawson Simpson (207cm - definitely worth a look), Will Sullivan. I doubt Bellchambers will slip cos I've heard too much about him and he seems to be rated high, but the Simpson bloke; you'd have to have a good look there. By this stage your left with the dregs of the midfielders, so I'd ignore any that are left (unless a player we rated really, really slipped). Not many position players - maybe Dan McKenna as a full-back? Most likely we'll be picking up a small forward, someone like maybe Trent Lane. Probably won't be a star, but fills an immediate need and provides value for money.

pick 52. Best KP available. Interesting to note, the Bigfooty draft has 10 out of the 15 picks following our pick here as key position players. Plenty to choose from! This is where I'd be focusing my research as a recruiter; on finding a specialist at pick 36 who can impact immediately, and then on determining which of the many options available here can step up to AFL level. Don't waste any time on the top picks - if you take mids, its a can't-miss proposition. But I guarantee one of the 10 bigs taken in the fourth round will be a star in the competition - and that is worth working for! A couple of intriguing names in contention - Darcy Daniher and Westhoff - look likely. Otherwise, there's a couple of ruckmen there with plenty of size - if they've got some mobility it might be worth a crack

pick 68. By this stage, your just looking for whatever fell through the cracks. Bigfooty doesn't have many utility types left here (perhaps Koutoufides theory is still in play), and you wouldn't expect to get a midfielder. If we get a ruckman like Simpson or Bellchambers in the third round, I'd try for a small forward who slips. Those type of players often do, because they are 'too short', or 'too one-dimensional'. Well, thats a dimension we happen to be lacking in, so I'd fill up cheaply here. If nothing jumps out, just take another tall you like - still plenty of options for those around

Ideal draft (for BTDG theory):

1. Kreuzer
3. Cotchin
20. Vezpremezi (or Zac Millar - that was a really, really good write-up I read)
36. Dawson Simpson
52. Darcy Daniher
68. slider

Alternative (if we don't get lucky)
1. Kreuzer
3. Ebert*
20. Scott Selwood
36. Trent Lane
52. Matthew Westhoff
68. slider

 

[Salaryman]

And thus I think the theory has just been debunked .

 

[btdg]

And thus I think the theory has just been debunked .

Why? Bearing in mind I admit I know nothing about the players in this draft, and can only go off others reports. I meant that last post as an indication of how I'd draft in practice, not so much a set-in-concrete plan

 

[Salaryman]

Why? Bearing in mind I admit I know nothing about the players in this draft, and can only go off others reports. I meant that last post as an indication of how I'd draft in practice, not so much a set-in-concrete plan

I know, just couldn't resist having a stir. Your theory makes a good read in principle, but in practice it comes back to opinions on a best available list, character of the kid (family life, temperament, other issues such as work ethic), and if a couple are rated evenly then list balance.

 

[btdg]

1. It is a safer bet to draft midfielders than key position players in the first round (even you concede this).
2. The odds of a key-position player becoming a successful AFL footballer aren't particularly different between the first and fourth rounds (and, I am hypothesising, the rookie draft).
Note that there are good theoretical reasons as to why 1 and 2 would be true, which adds further weight.
3. The odds of a KP player drafted in the first round becoming a superstar are roughly the same as the odds of a midfielder drafted in the first round becoming a superstar (that is, for every Pavlich there is a Judd).
This is a new finding, one that surprised me as well. Whenever kp players are drafted early, their 'upside' is often the justification. I contend that the upside is the same for midfielders!
4. Over the period of the study, there was a higher success rate drafting specialists suited to a particular position, than there was for utilties or multi-position players. Midfielders are the safest bet, followed by 'other' (which is a bit of a misnomer as it takes lumps ruckmen and small forwards together, among other things). This is another new contention; I have hypothesized this is because of the Koutoufides effect which saw utilities over-rated for a period of time, but that is a whole other isse.
5. Teams tend to draft mids, KP and utilities that they like first, then target specific position needs once their 'rated' players are gone. This leads to a 'run' on specialists at some point in the draft, after which very few are available.

I would throw in the following assumptions:
i) players tend not to have an impact for 2-3 years; therefore it makes no sense to draft based on immediate positional needs. Those needs are best filled by trading, PSD, or simply by the coach adjusting strategy.
ii) other teams continue to draft based on their opinions of the 'best available'
iii) it is possible for us to rank players according to the type of player they are, and according to predicted ability, and be roughly correct in our estimation; we don't have to be flawless, just not totally clueless.
iv) It is desirable to have a balance in recruiting between midfielders, key position players and other specialists, as well as versatile players who can plug gaps.

From those assumptions, it follows that we can logically assume:
a) it is better to draft a midfielder in the first round than a key position player, because the probability of success is higher, and the probability of stardom about the same
b) the success rate of midfielders drops as the draft goes on. The success rate of key position players does not, at least based on chance of success (no analysis done on quality of success).
c) Given i) and from a and b, it is therefore generally preferred to take midfielders in the first round and early in the second.
d) at some defined point, generally around the late second-round/early third-round, a concerted effort is needed to pick a specialist - otherwise we run the risk of missing out altogether, which, as per i and iv, is bad for team balance.
e) As per iv, if a, b, c and d are followed, then we should take a kp player at around the fourth-round mark. The success rate for KP seems to drop after this point; hence now is a good time to act
f) given the low success rate with KP players, if we want to maintain team balance, we should draft more of these but with less highly valued picks. Thus, our rookie list and late-round picks should also be heavily weighted towards KP players.
g) Utilities tend to be over-rated by the draft. Therefore, at any given point, an available utiltiy is a worse pick than an available player at any other position. To maintain balance, we should target utility players who 'slip' for various reasons only
h) under no circumstances should we draft based on 'need'. Players take 2-3 years to develop, and are unpredictable in their development. Better to focus on quality and balance in recruiting, stockpile as many assets as possible then either adjust through strategy or trade to fill any gaps that occur.

Those assumptions are logically sound (as far as I can tell, although others might disagree), and supported by the available evidence to this point. My draft theory is simply the practical extension of those assumptions.

I had a lot of fun with this thread a few months ago, so I thought I'd bring it back up and lock in my wishes for the draft next week, based on my own theory of drafting.

First of all, I really, really wish we had moved to get a second top 20 pick following the Judd trade. Now, if we take Kreuzer, we quite simply won't get a quality midfielder via the draft this year - the statistics say that good midfielders just aren't around in the later rounds. Now, we already have a stack of good mids, and adding Judd obviously fills that bill, but footy is a game for midfielders and I reckon it pays to keep adding 1-2 quality smalls every year. Now, on to my selections, based on the consolidated descriptions of players provided on the draft and trading board - I've done a bit more research since my last predictions, its a bit more detailed now...

Pick 1: Matthew Kreuzer. The one exception to BTDG theory relates to a very high (top 2-3) pick where there is an absolute sure-thing big; the Hawkins/Brown/Riewoldt types rather than the Livingston/Kennedy types. I originally wasn't quite sure that Kreuzer fits this bill, but the more I hear about him the more I think he does. He seems to be a serviceable tap ruckman who has phenomenal endurance and skill around the ground. More importantly, he appears to have an incredible competitive spirit. From those descriptions, I am now convinced that Kreuzer is a unique talent who is a long way ahead of the competition and should be taken with pick 1. Players like Kreuzer who are exceptional in 2-3 areas are more likely to succeed than all-rounders as well - thats a big part of my theory - so if his endurance, ball skills and competitiveness are as advertised, he definitely fits the bill. Plus, the 'buzz' factor on Kreuzer will generate significant revenue through merchandise and general interest for the club next year. And, it appears we're set on taking him anyway, so its probably a moot point.
Others to consider: Trent Cotchin.

pick 36: Into the region of the draft where there's generally a run on specialists, and I expect it to be nearly finished at this point. I'd be rapt if we got any of: McGinnitty (tagger), Rioli (small forward who I think will slide, but not this far), Maric (small forward), Tayte Pears (defender). Surely one of those projected late first/second round picks will slide? If not, Robbie Tarrant might be an option as a full forward. I'm intrigued by Dawson Simpson, and if Clayton Collard is in the ND could be an option?
Best case scenario - Any of the sliders would be make me wet myself
Likely available pick - Tarrant

pick 46: By now, we're into the speculative bigs. If we get a slider at pick 36, then Tarrant should be taken here. Otherwise, I like the sounds of Smouha, Simpson, or perhaps James Wundke, Joseph Daye or Travis Dulic
Best case scenario: Tarrant (with a 'slider' at 36
Likely available pick: Smouha

pick 68: Either a slider, a speculative big or a tweener seems to fit here - best to go for someone who is above AFL standard in one or two things, can play to their strengths and hopefully learn the rest. I like Craig Bird, maybe Lachlan Hill, or one of the more highly rated players that slides for any reason. If a few teams pass we could get a second big at this point which would be nice.

Its hard to predict at this point because we don't know who is available when. But I'm registering my picks early, and we'll see what pans out...

 

[Beloved]

I hate reading anything with Callum Chambers in it. It just makes me want to vomit...