Analysis Father Son and Academy players bidding system

[Phhht]

The AFL's how to avoid apologizing to Matt Rendell's over his 'one white parent' fiasco.......call it under represented talented boys

 

[Phhht]

Port get the Barossa, Northern Hills, Mid North and West Coast of SA.

Crows get the Riverland, Southern Hills, South Coast and South East of SA.

Melcum....i no like u no more

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The trade for points. From the Inside Footy mock draft they have the following academy kids picked in the first round

Sydney have Callum Mills at 3
GWS Hopper at 5
GWS Kennedy at 8
Bris Hipwood at 13
Bris Keays at 19

And from the draft and trading boards you can see some trades are just for picks basically. See page 1 for all 37 trades and page 2 for all the ins and outs and final picks.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/trade-period-summary-all-confirmed-player-movements.1114121/

Brisbane
Starting picks: 2, 21, 39, 42, 60, 78
In: 38, 40, 41, Bell, Walker, Jansen, Bastinac, Collingwood 2016 2nd, North Melbourne 2016 3rd
Out: 21, 60, Leuenberger, Redden, Aish, 2016 3rd
Final picks: 2, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 78

Gold Coast
Starting picks: 3, 19, 22, 43, 61, 79
In: 6, 16, 29, 56, Currie, Rosa, Port Adelaide 2016 2nd, Richmond 2016 2nd, Melbourne 2016 1st, Fremantle 2016 2nd
Out: 3, 19, 22, 43, 61, Bennell, Smith, Dixon
Final picks: 6, 16, 29, 56, 79

GWS
Starting picks: 8, 27, 48, 66, 84
In: 10, 34, 43, 53, 55, 58, 63, 64, 65, 70, Simpson, Johnson, Adelaide 2016 2nd, Carlton 2016 1st, Collingwood 2016 1st
Out: 8, 27, 48, 66, 84, Hampton, Townsend, Plowman, Lamb, Phillips, Sumner, Treloar, Bugg, 2016 5th
Final picks: 10, 34, 43, 53, 55, 58, 63, 64, 65, 70

Sydney
Starting picks: 14, 33, 54, 72, 90
In: 36, 37, 44, 69, Sinclair, Talia
Out: 14, Jetta, Bird, 2016 4th
Final picks: 33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69, 72, 90

 

[mic59]

THE AFL will closely monitor where star academy prospects attract bids at this month's NAB AFL Draft, but the League is confident they will come at picks that reflect their talent.
Some clubs have raised concerns about the bidding process after the trade period, which saw several clubs early in the order involved in deals.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-11-...ibly-hard-on-possible-draft-bidding-collusion

The main thing here is, how can someone decide when a team has deliberately not bid or just did not want that player. Melbourne at pick 3 are expected to bid for Callum Mills and be trumped by Sydney and then take Charlie Curnow. But what if they don't consider Callum Mills as an option for them and go straight for Charlie Curnow instead? Is the AFL trying to say that as the holders of a high draft pick they have a responsibility to make sure highly-rated academy and f/s selections do not go cheaply?
And as with all drafts there will still be errors of judgement, teams that should have bid on a top 10 f/s or academy player may rate another. Even the teams taking part in the NFL and NBA drafts still get it wrong. The AFL would be treading on very thin ice if they believe they will be able to detect the difference between bidding collusion and non-interest.

 

[Forzaport]

Melbourne should bid for Hopper, Mills, Keays, Kennedy and Hipwood, then draft Curnow.

 

[Ljc_86]

Surjan has had twin boys, did he play enough? Love hearing ex players have had sons!

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Surjan has had twin boys, did he play enough? Love hearing ex players have had sons!

There is a thread specifically about Port father sons a bit further down the Port's board's main page ie this thread
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/potential-port-adelaide-father-son-players.1045427/page-22

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

SemperFudge I have transfered your post from the 2015 draft prospect thread here. Have you bought a copy of Inside Football yet?

there's a 20% discount for Academy and Father Son, so therefore, 2234 x 0.8 = 1787 points Sydney need to spend

1787 - 563 (Pick 33) = 1224 points, not enough, Pick 33 to back of the draft
1224 - 502 (Pick 36) = 722 points, not enough, Pick 36 to back of the draft
722 - 483 (Pick 37) = 239 points, not enough, Pick 37 to the back of the draft
239 - 362 (Pick 44) = -123 points, Pick 44 becomes Pick 63 on points value as it's now worth 123 points

I am interested in what happens to draft places lower down when more than 1 academy kid is picked in the first round. In the booklet and graphic released by the AFL in May and I posted in the first post of this thread it shows Sydney's later picks they have to give up for Heeny doesn't change and the points calculation is based on those original pick places. They only give individual examples as they werent sure if it was going to be live when they released the system on the footy industry and public in May.

But since then the AFL has made bidding live system and places move.

My question is does 33, 36, 37 and 44 become 34, 37, 38 and 44 as the Inside Footy writers Brett Anderson and Ben Casanella reckon. Below in the graphic is how I reckon the first round and next 3 picks move under the system. Yellow highlighting means picks exchanged in trade period.

Their calculation is

Melb at 3 bids for Mills, Sydney give up 34, 37, 38 and 45
Ess at 5 bid for Hopper GWS give up 12, 35
Melb at 9 bid for Kennedy GWS give up 41, 50, 52, 55 and 60
Adel at 12 bid for Hipwood Bris give up 37, 38, and 39
GC at 19 bid for Keays Bris give up 38, and 39

The above shows that the picks move but are the points needed calculated on the starting draft pick value or the new adjusted pick value???????????

Other guesses by Inside Football guys
WB bid 34 for Rice but STK take his as a F/S and give up 39
Port bid 37 for Himmelberg GWS give up 54 and 55
Port bid 43 for Cornell and GWS dont match
Coll bid 55 for Wilson and Bris dont match



4 Northern state teams starting picks


Current indicative draft order after trades and how picks were traded is at
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-11-...ubs-provisional-picks-as-trade-period-unfolds

 

[It Just Is]

The quality and quantity of genuine draft hopefuls from New South Wales and Queensland is certainly appearing to be on the increase each year.

Excellent for the game to have this additional influx in talent, but obviously it will lead to a flashpoint where the whole academy/zones thing becomes too much of an unfair advantage.

Taking a step back and looking at things from a neutral point of view, I can see why it is important for the QLD/NSW clubs to be strongly represented by locals and believe that this will have the subsequent effect of bringing new talent to the game that otherwise we may not have had access to. So I understand and accept what the AFL has been trying to achieve here, but it will in all likelihood get messy when the flashpoint inevitably arrives. Sydney/GWS/Bris/GC will have a fair argument that they have invested big money into systems that have actually been successful, everyone else will validly point out that it is an unfair advantage. So the AFL essentially has the option of re-introducing zones to bring it all into line (which IMO opens a huge can of worms) or abolishing the programs and running the risk of the pathways drying up. Someone much smarter than I am will hopefully find a solution that ensures the pathways become self sustaining but mitigating the advantage of the respective clubs.

I think on the whole, clubs are open to taking a collaborative approach to developing the game at the grassroots even if the benefits are eventually shared. Not wanting to get drunk off our own bathwater, but I think we do an outstanding job with the community programs we run and are genuine in our engagement. Over here in WA, both clubs through the WAFC are pretty active and whilst there are always people who say they need to do more, I think they do have an impact.

One of my major concerns with the northern academies is that it's quite possible we've already hit that flashpoint and we're just 5 years away from feeling it's full effect. Sydney added a top two pick last year and look set to receive a top 3 pick again this year. Clubs that regularly play finals simply shouldn't have access to that kind of talent.

I really can't believe the AFL would seriously consider reinstating recruiting zones. While they'd almost certainly benefit Port Adelaide they're also probably the most archaic and inequitable system imaginable.

 

[*PAF]

It could easily be fixed by allowing only one zone/Academy pick per team pee year.
Allowing teams to recruit multuple players using a quantity equals quality system just doesn't sound right.

GWS should not be able to draft 2 academy players in one year by bundling up multiple lower picks.

 

[Portia]

It could easily be fixed by allowing only one zone/Academy pick per team pee year.
Allowing teams to recruit multuple players using a quantity equals quality system just doesn't sound right.

GWS should not be able to draft 2 academy players in one year by bundling up multiple lower picks.

Problem is that the best scenario would involve GWS getting lots of Academy players, just not first rounder equivalents.

 

[*PAF]

Problem is that the best scenario would involve GWS getting lots of Academy players, just not first rounder equivalents.

Unfortunately I agree. I do mean unfortunately as the current strategy is to give GCS and GWS a solid foundation. And perhaps a good strategy that will work in the long term.

However giving established teams like Sydney and Brisbane the same sort of possible multiple first rounder leg ups just doesn't seem right. One yeah as they have a smaller pool of local talent and we've all seen what has happened in Brisbane and Sydney years back. Multiple, no.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

My question is does 33, 36, 37 and 44 become 34, 37, 38 and 44 as the Inside Footy writers Brett Anderson and Ben Casanella reckon. Below in the graphic is how I reckon the first round and next 3 picks move under the system. Yellow highlighting means picks exchanged in trade period.

Their calculation is

Melb at 3 bids for Mills, Sydney give up 34, 37, 38 and 45
Ess at 5 bid for Hopper GWS give up 12, 35
Melb at 9 bid for Kennedy GWS give up 41, 50, 52, 55 and 60
Adel at 12 bid for Hipwood Bris give up 37, 38, and 39
GC at 19 bid for Keays Bris give up 38, and 39

The above shows that the picks move but are the points needed calculated on the starting draft pick value or the new adjusted pick value???????????

I was wondering the same. I thought I read somewhere this week that the selections would be presented by the AFL as, for eg

1. Carlton
2. Brisbane
Sydney Academy matched bid
3. Melbourne

If that's right then clubs will retain the original value of their picks.

 

[Macca19]

I was wondering the same. I thought I read somewhere this week that the selections would be presented by the AFL as, for eg

1. Carlton
2. Brisbane
Sydney Academy matched bid
3. Melbourne

If that's right then clubs will retain the original value of their picks.

I believe thats incorrect. If Mills is bid on at pick 3, then he officially becomes pick 3, Melbourne then officially become pick 4 and if they were to bid on a player, then the points attributed to pick 4 is used.

So say a bid comes in for Matthew Flynn at pick 50 and he's the 8th player bid on. The pick and points used to determine whether they match the bid will be pick 57

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I believe thats incorrect. If Mills is bid on at pick 3, then he officially becomes pick 3, Melbourne then officially become pick 4 and if they were to bid on a player, then the points attributed to pick 4 is used.

So say a bid comes in for Matthew Flynn at pick 50 and he's the 8th player bid on. The pick and points used to determine whether they match the bid will be pick 57

Fair enough, good to have that cleared up. I may have been mislead by the article or imagined I read it!

So if we bid for Cornell for example with what was pick 32 we can only use the points of pick (say) 38. Don't know if that seems to sit that well with me but it appears them's the rules.

 

[*PAF]

I believe thats incorrect. If Mills is bid on at pick 3, then he officially becomes pick 3, Melbourne then officially become pick 4 and if they were to bid on a player, then the points attributed to pick 4 is used.

So say a bid comes in for Matthew Flynn at pick 50 and he's the 8th player bid on. The pick and points used to determine whether they match the bid will be pick 57

Ha. Thanks to this post I think that I have finally understood why picks get shuffled.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Fair enough, good to have that cleared up. I may have been mislead by the article or imagined I read it!

So if we bid for Cornell for example with what was pick 32 we can only use the points of pick (say) 38. Don't know if that seems to sit that well with me but it appears them's the rules.

We can bid/select Cornell but points are irrelevant for us because we dont have to match the bid with equivalent points as we dont have an academy.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

We can bid/select Cornell but points are irrelevant for us because we dont have to match the bid with equivalent points as we dont have an academy.

True but the value of points needed to match our bid is less.

 

[Portology]

I believe thats incorrect. If Mills is bid on at pick 3, then he officially becomes pick 3, Melbourne then officially become pick 4 and if they were to bid on a player, then the points attributed to pick 4 is used.

So say a bid comes in for Matthew Flynn at pick 50 and he's the 8th player bid on. The pick and points used to determine whether they match the bid will be pick 57

It's exactly that kind of explanation that initially made the system seem so baffling to me. For me, imagining the picks shuffling in real time as players are picked makes the workings of the system a little more comprehensible.

Take the simplest case as you have, where academy & FS players are bid on with single picks and all matched, ie Mills, Hopper and 5 others et al are already bid and matched by their academy clubs, and therefore already drafted by the time when a bid for Flynn comes in at the worth of and at pick 57 because Flynn is simply the 57th player picked. The pick bid on Flynn may have originally been 50 before the draft started but got shuffled down to 57 in real time as the draft rolls forward. Once the draft starts, the initial value of a pick is of minor historical interest ... compared to it's value when it is actually used.

I guess if clubs are expecting a lot of shuffling back, and therefore some "loss" of value in real time, they may be tempted to add 50 to a higher pick to make a bid earlier in the draft before "50" loses too much value.

Sure there are plenty of other cases where the shuffling becomes less predictable (unmatched bids using multiple picks to make up points) The implicit analogy to a deck of cards doesn't help much when the values are changing mid hand

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

It's exactly that kind of explanation that initially made the system seem so baffling to me. For me, imagining the picks shuffling in real time as players are picked makes the workings of the system a little more comprehensible.

Take the simplest case as you have, where academy & FS players are bid on with single picks and all matched, ie Mills, Hopper and 5 others et al are already bid and matched by their academy clubs, and therefore already drafted by the time when a bid for Flynn comes in at the worth of and at pick 57 because Flynn is simply the 57th player picked. The pick bid on Flynn may have originally been 50 before the draft started but got shuffled down to 57 in real time as the draft rolls forward. Once the draft starts, the initial value of a pick is of minor historical interest ... compared to it's value when it is actually used.

I guess if clubs are expecting a lot of shuffling back, and therefore some "loss" of value in real time, they may be tempted to add 50 to a higher pick to make a bid earlier in the draft before "50" loses too much value.

Sure there are plenty of other cases where the shuffling becomes less predictable (unmatched bids using multiple picks to make up points) The implicit analogy to a deck of cards doesn't help much when the values are changing mid hand

So I read all that and good in theory but it doesnt answer the basic question I have as per bold below.

If Brisbane start with picks 2, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 as per my post #108 above and they draft Schache but they will bid for Hipwood. Lets assume Mills is bid for by Melbourne Sydney match and so he goes at 3, Melbourne then draft a player at 4 and then Essendon bid for Hopper at now 5 but originally 4, and GWS pick up Hopper. GC have the now adjusted pick 8 and bid Hipwood and Brisbane match this is how I see it working

Sydney bids for Mills they get pick 3 to take him and I believe their picks 33, 36, 37, 44 are instantly eliminated rather than become 34, 37, 38 and 45
GWS picks 10, 34 and 43 become 11, 34 (3 added but 33 eliminated) and 41 (3 added but 33, 36 and 37 eliminated)
Brisbane picks 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42 become 36 (3 added but 33, 36 and 37 eliminated) 37, 38, 39 and 40.

** Inside Football mock draft say Sydney give up picks 34, 37, 38 and 45

So at this point are the points that GWS and Brisbane going to give up calculated on the original pick position value or the new adjust pick position value?

Below is the calculation from page 9 of the Bidding system book that the AFL released in May for Issac Heeney example and I put on page 1 of this thread. The points given up were based on Sydney's original draft pick positions. There are other examples of academy kids and father son kids but they were calculated independent of each other as the AFL didnt know if the system would be live back in May.

After Hopper is bid for I understand the situation to work as follows
GWS bids for Hopper they get pick 5 to take him and I believe their picks 11 are 34 eliminated immediately and 41 becomes 40 (5 added but 11, and 34 eliminated)
Brisbane picks 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42 which become 36 (3 added but 33, 36 and 37 eliminated) 37, 38, 39 and 40, now become 35, (5 added but 11, and 34 eliminated) 36, 37, 38 and 39

** Inside Football says GWS gives up 12 and 35 eliminated

In the second calculation above, Brisbane would benefit by a decent amount if the points calculation is based on the new positions rather than the original positions as all their picks in the have moved up by 3 positions
The value of the 5 original consecutive picks added up to 2147 pts but their adjusted position values add up to 2418 pts.

 

[Portology]

The only way I can imagine it working is based on the "real time" value of all picks at the point in time when a specific pick/bid is are made.

Potential scenarios where a club thinks it has enough points for a academy or fs kid they've made promises to but on the night they don't then have to cash in next years 2nd or 3rd rounder for the points to get the kid over the line... I doubt the AFL want such situations to "surprise" in the first round or so.

Short answer: I have no idea!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Macca19]

Take the simplest case as you have, where academy & FS players are bid on with single picks and all matched, ie Mills, Hopper and 5 others et al are already bid and matched by their academy clubs, and therefore already drafted by the time when a bid for Flynn comes in at the worth of and at pick 57 because Flynn is simply the 57th player picked. The pick bid on Flynn may have originally been 50 before the draft started but got shuffled down to 57 in real time as the draft rolls forward. Once the draft starts, the initial value of a pick is of minor historical interest ... compared to it's value when it is actually used.

Bids are done in real time, so say if Port planned pre draft to use its 2nd round pick on Matthew Flynn no matter what, then the reshuffling of picks has already happened by the time Port can bid on Matthew Flynn. All it means is that it costs the academy club less points in real time than it would have pre-draft. Its a completely fluid system, the draft order can literally change at any pick.

I guess if clubs are expecting a lot of shuffling back, and therefore some "loss" of value in real time, they may be tempted to add 50 to a higher pick to make a bid earlier in the draft before "50" loses too much value.

Sure there are plenty of other cases where the shuffling becomes less predictable (unmatched bids using multiple picks to make up points) The implicit analogy to a deck of cards doesn't help much when the values are changing mid hand

Non-academy clubs can't put picks together to make their bid higher. All they can bid is the pick number they have at that specific time of the draft.

Academy clubs will probably be hoping for as many bids to come in and be matched as possible for some of its 2nd or 3rd preference players. Eg. Ben Keays with Brisbane. They'll be hoping that Mills, Hopper, Kennedy, Hipwood are all bid on and taken before Keays is bid on as its cheaper for them and means they won't have to go in defecit for next years draft.

 

[Macca19]

The only way I can imagine it working is based on the "real time" value of all picks at the point in time when a specific pick/bid is are made.

That's right. Clubs can only bid with the specific pick they have at that point in time.

[/quote]Potential scenarios where a club thinks it has enough points for a academy or fs kid they've made promises to but on the night they don't then have to cash in next years 2nd or 3rd rounder for the points to get the kid over the line... I doubt the AFL want such situations to "surprise" in the first round or so.
[/QUOTE]

Whilst its a live fluid system and noone really knows when the bids will come in at this point, the academy clubs know the impact that going into defecit will have. The defecit limit is over 1700 points (equivalent of pick 1 in the draft minus discount) so no club will likely ever go in defecit by that much. It just means their picks next year get bumped down the order to make up the defecit.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Kenny wants us to have an academy - and all clubs to have one.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...eir-own-draftees/story-fnia6ojc-1227622854464
PORT Adelaide coach Ken Hinkley has applauded the success of the talent academies of the NSW and Queensland clubs at the AFL national draft — and wants his own version. Hinkley, who has seen first-hand the work in talent identification during his time with the Gold Coast, believes the competition is ready for academies in traditional football heartlands.
.........
The Power already has an indigenous talent academy, from which Wayne Milera was taken by the Crows, but it does not give Port first access to the their academy players. Hinkley did not feel Port had been slighted after helping to develop Milera for no return because the club knew the parameters when it created the concept. But Hinkley said academies have been proven to work and suspected all clubs would like one.
.....
“I’m sure the AFL is now in the process of looking at those opportunities for all clubs,” Hinkley said. “Not just for the northern state clubs. “I think it will be something that the AFL wants to do better. We want to develop and bring more junior talent through to the competition.“Not just for our individual sides, but for the whole competition. “You saw it last night, when players from other academies got picked up by other clubs. Last year we picked up a couple from New South Wales.

“I think it works really well and if we broaden the talent, I think it would be a really good idea, as long as we understand that there is a price to pay to have that talent in your back yard. “I’m sure every other club would (like to have one) and I think the AFL would like that too. “We’ve just got to work through it over time.”
.......
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...eir-own-draftees/story-fnia6ojc-1227622854464

 

[Forzaport]

The current academy bidding model should make it possible for all clubs to have academies - at least from a drafting POV.