Strategy List Management 101

[SB70]

I like the concept - by my reckoning it means that currently we (the club not us thankfully) need to work out -
If the following are a chance to make it;
Cameron
Maibaum
Bell
Brown
Styles
Maybe Cameron and Bell get another year to decide but if we follow the plan the others are gone

If the following are in the 28;
Towers
Robinson
Marsh
O'Riordan
Fox
May depend of it we get players or picks for the guys that are going but maybe only 1 or 2 stay - I would keep O'Riordan and maybe Robinson and/or Marsh (if we don't trade in any ready made players)

These guys should be gone;
Rose
Foote
Pink

We have a bit more time to decide on;
Ling
Stoddart
Amartey

When you add AJ and Tippett and Hanners, Rohan and Newman trades - if we follow this plan we could have 14-15 changes.
This seems really unlikely but I doubt any of them will be the difference between going deep in finals or not.
I reckon this is the time to do it - may slide in 2019 as not sure the kids are ready but if we find a couple and most of the promising young guys keep developing (and build a tank) it could be a quick rebound.

Back to back 20 and 21!

 

[swansfan51]

SF51

I really enjoyed reading these posts (went back read the lot). Great contribution regardless of any disagreement, you ought feel they are worth your considerable effort. Looking forward to your list review and comments.

You are obviously a statistics /probability man (Actuary? or Gambler? Recruiter?).

Could you comment on how you think (opinion valued) it is possible to determine in 1 or two years whether they will make it? What is your criteria
(Brett Kirk???? …. H Grundy showed lots of skills but took long time to find his place? etc)

IOW how to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

The numbers game has the extra problem of having to settle young blokes into a new city, professional environment , and teaching them. Surely all that prelim effort down the drain unless absolutely certain they are a dud? Some need time for bodies to mature etc so that slows down capacity to implement the high rotation strategy?.


Wondering if you have the details in your example list (deleted for brevity) of how many of those 10%ers regularly played seniors inside 2 yrs?

Cheers

Thank you very much Corpuscles. I do really enjoy the level of discussion in this thread, I'm trying to avoid giving opinions too much since if I stick to facts it tends to keep the fights and arguments to a minimum!

You've actually touched on a theory that I have had for a long time, I just haven't spent the time to analyse and prove it yet. But since you asked for my opinion, here goes! My theory is that there is no such thing as a star AFL player that was not playing games extremely early in their career. If they do exist, they are extremely rare.

A key point is that they don't actually have to be playing very well! We can all think of examples where players were not setting the league on fire in their early years. But they were playing. Your example Brett Kirk played 5 in his 1st year, 7 in his 2nd year, then was a permanent fixture after that. Goddard was not doing very well early on, but he played from the start. Same with McVeigh, much maligned for years but he was still playing. Yes there are some who don't play seniors for 3-5 years and they become adequate or serviceable footballers, but they don't become stars.

I've gone off on a bit of a tangent there, but the short answer is I don't have enough numbers to back up this theory yet, apologies! But I'd bet very strongly on it.

To get back on topic, how fast can you make an assessment about a player? When a player is first drafted, all you've had to make a judgment on is a year or 2 of junior football, probably a few of those games in person and a bunch on tape. Hopefully a bit of athletic testing at a draft combine. A few short interviews at the draft combine or at another time. In summary, you've had * all information to make the draft choice.

However after even only 1 season at your club you have far more information. GPS data for ground coverage and work rate, constant skinfolds, weight training data, resistance training data, time trial results. Constant skill assessment, improvement rate in key skills, how well they respond to instruction, how fast they learn, how they interact with others, whether they turn up to training on time, how they respond to setbacks. How committed they are to diet, what actions they take to improve, how they adapt to different positions, how they adapt to your gameplan. How they play in the reserves, how they cope with different levels of intensity, how they cope playing against bigger and stronger adults (if they've only played juniors before). And on, and on, and on it goes. You've had the ability to watch them every single week for a year, through multiple sets of eyes. Hear your assistant coaches' views, your fitness' staff views, your skills coaches. You've watched their attitude in winter when they turn up to training in the rain or hail, you've watched how they step up when their reserves team is down by 10 goals, you've watched them fall apart under pressure when they got a tag, you've watched them stay after hours to practice goalkicking after they missed a crucial shot on the weekend.

So I'd argue you can make an assessment pretty quickly, compared to the quality of assessment you were able to make before the draft. And you won't be right every time, but consider the percentages. I think this guy is not going to be a star, but I'm not certain about it. Is there a greater than 10% chance that I'm wrong? If not, pack his bags.

EDIT: one line I missed from your post that I want to respond to. It is not about identifying that they are a dud, its about identifying that they won't be an above average AFL player. He might well develop into a serviceable trundler after 6 years on the list. But what I'm offering you is the opportunity to get rid of him, and have more than a 10% chance that his replacement is an above average player. And if you hang onto him for 6 years, you've lost at least 2 spins of the wheel.

 

[swansfan51]

SF51,

Based on your theory would it not be a wise list management plan to only have 30 AFL ready players on your list at any one time?
That way you can try out more rookies.
On the assumption that should you need to play the 31st player on your list your season is probably shot.

Short answer is yes, that is the correct approach.

The numbers are a little bit off, we average 35 players used per season, so the season isn't shot if you use that many. But the reason for the 28 vs 35 is that the 28 players are the ones that actually make up your team, they all play 5+ games per season, and the 29th-35th guys only game in for a game or 2.

 

[Tuco]

Wonderful stuff!

On rating a player as above average I'm sure the criteria must be different for players in their first three years, 4th year, and 5th year.

Early days you'd imagine clubs give fairly limited roles to players. But as they develop they either break into the top 22, hover in the top 28, or remain useful in the top 35.

Talls traditionally get a longer time to develop as well.

But it's easy to see how a Robinson or Towers becomes a list regular simply by giving the coaches what they ask for. Sometimes a top 28 player then becomes a top 22 player (Cunningham).

 

[Number37]

SF51,

In light of the list management strategy you have outlined here and elsewhere, does Tom Mitchell's contract offer from the Swans reflect a good list management decision?

Should we have offered him as much as was required to keep him?

 

[swansfan51]

SF51,

In light of the list management strategy you have outlined here and elsewhere, does Tom Mitchell's contract offer from the Swans reflect a good list management decision?

Should we have offered him as much as was required to keep him?

I have no idea what the Swans offered him. If anyone does know, I'd be happy to answer that question, but unless I know the salary offer I'm just guessing

 

[Number37]

I have no idea what the Swans offered him. If anyone does know, I'd be happy to answer that question, but unless I know the salary offer I'm just guessing

The actual amount is kinda irrelevant, should the club have given him whatever the amount was that would have kept him a Swan, by for example, matching offers from rival clubs?

 

[swansfan51]

The actual amount is kinda irrelevant, should the club have given him whatever the amount was that would have kept him a Swan, by for example, matching offers from rival clubs?

It is completely relevant. A player can certainly be good value at a certain salary amount, and the same player can be poor value at a different salary amount. There is only a finite salary cap and it should be allocated appropriately, prioritising the highest value positions which are 1) key forwards; 2) daylight; and 3) elite midfielders.

Tom fits into 3). If he wanted 2 million a year then letting him go is good list management. If he wanted $800k then it was arguably borderline list management. If he wanted $600k it is bad list management. If he wanted $450k it is negligent list management to a level where anyone involved should be instantly fired.

Unfortunately I have no idea what he asked for and I have no idea what we offered him, I wouldn't want to pretend I do.

 

[Tuco]

It is completely relevant. A player can certainly be good value at a certain salary amount, and the same player can be poor value at a different salary amount. There is only a finite salary cap and it should be allocated appropriately, prioritising the highest value positions which are 1) key forwards; 2) daylight; and 3) elite midfielders.

Tom fits into 3). If he wanted 2 million a year then letting him go is good list management. If he wanted $800k then it was arguably borderline list management. If he wanted $600k it is bad list management. If he wanted $450k it is negligent list management to a level where anyone involved should be instantly fired.

Unfortunately I have no idea what he asked for and I have no idea what we offered him, I wouldn't want to pretend I do.

Hawks were saying they got him for not much more than 500k.

Eek.

 

[swansfan51]

Hawks were saying they got him for not much more than 500k.

Eek.

If true, that's about 4.8% of the salary cap so it would be a no-brainer

 

[The King!]

Didn’t they reckon 750k hawks, 350-400k swans

Think that was Dunstall though so..

 

[Tuco]

Didn’t they reckon 750k hawks, 350-400k swans

Think that was Dunstall though so..

I remember pundits had it in that 550k range, so 600k+ with media inflation. Could have been back ended, though. Sort of like srtating Buddy at 750k.

But very reachable if we wanted to keep him

I think he started on 400k with us and then got a raise didn't he?

 

[Number37]

It is completely relevant. A player can certainly be good value at a certain salary amount, and the same player can be poor value at a different salary amount. There is only a finite salary cap and it should be allocated appropriately, prioritising the highest value positions which are 1) key forwards; 2) daylight; and 3) elite midfielders.

Tom fits into 3). If he wanted 2 million a year then letting him go is good list management. If he wanted $800k then it was arguably borderline list management. If he wanted $600k it is bad list management. If he wanted $450k it is negligent list management to a level where anyone involved should be instantly fired.

Unfortunately I have no idea what he asked for and I have no idea what we offered him, I wouldn't want to pretend I do.

Let's pretend this is the Swans contract list for 2018.
Where would you put Mitchell?

(I can't get my table to load properly, so I have only loaded the first column. It is sorted in value order, highest to lowest - by salary cap amount)

\Lance Franklin , 1500000
\Dan Hannebery , 700000
\Josh P. Kennedy , 750000
\Kurt Tippett , 700000
\Luke Parker , 700000
\Dane Rampe , 500000
\Sam Reid , 500000
\Isaac Heeney , 475000
\Callum Mills , 475000
\Zak Jones , 475000
\Heath Grundy , 425000
\Kieren Jack , 425000
\Nick Smith , 425000
\Gary Rohan , 425000
\Callum Sinclair , 425000
\Jarrad McVeigh , 425000
\Sam Naismith , 200000
\Tom McCartin , 200000
\Jake Lloyd , 200000
\Harry Cunningham , 200000
\George Hewett , 200000
\Tom Papley , 200000
\Will Hayward , 200000
\Aliir Aliir , 200000
\Lewis Melican , 200000
\Nic Newman , 200000
\Oliver Florent , 200000
\Dean Towers , 150000
\Daniel Robinson , 150000
\Harry Marsh , 150000
\James Rose , 150000
\Jordan Foote , 150000
\Jordan Dawson , 150000
\Colin O'Riordan , 150000
\Ryley Stoddart , 105000
\Darcy Cameron , 105000
\Matthew Ling , 105000
\Jack Maibaum , 105000
\Alex Johnson , 75000
\Ben Ronke , 75000
\Robbie Fox , 75000
\James Bell , 75000
\Jake Brown , 75000
\Angus Styles , 75000
\Joel Amartey , 75000
\Toby Pink , 75000

 

[Number37]

It is completely relevant. A player can certainly be good value at a certain salary amount, and the same player can be poor value at a different salary amount. There is only a finite salary cap and it should be allocated appropriately, prioritising the highest value positions which are 1) key forwards; 2) daylight; and 3) elite midfielders.

Tom fits into 3). If he wanted 2 million a year then letting him go is good list management. If he wanted $800k then it was arguably borderline list management. If he wanted $600k it is bad list management. If he wanted $450k it is negligent list management to a level where anyone involved should be instantly fired.

Unfortunately I have no idea what he asked for and I have no idea what we offered him, I wouldn't want to pretend I do.

A follow up question aside from the the one above:

How many of the same type of player constitutes good list management?

 

[The King!]

Geez swansfan can you just tell 37 the swans did the right thing getting rid of Michell so he can move on

 

[Number37]

Geez swansfan can you just tell 37 the swans did the right thing getting rid of Michell so he can move on

Hey King, be a dear and tell King that the Swans didn't get rid of Mitchell, it was his choice to leave. Thanks dear.

 

[Jewelsbon]

Geez swansfan can you just tell 37 the swans did the right thing getting rid of Michell so he can move on

Hey King, be a dear and tell King that the Swans didn't get rid of Mitchell, it was his choice to leave. Thanks dear.

Hey King and 37 (and everyone else) can you tell each other (and everyone else) it was two years ago and it really is time to move on....

 

[Kirkswan]

Hey King and 37 (and everyone else) can you tell each other (and everyone else) it was two years ago and it really is time to move on....

No, it's interesting... you can't learn from the future, so you'd better learn from the past.

I have absolute faith that the Swans did whatever was best for the team, and if we dig enough, we might be able to narrow it down to one or two scenarios. If not then we have yacked for nothing, and it's not like we don't do that all day every day on here...

 

[Number37]

Hey King and 37 (and everyone else) can you tell each other (and everyone else) it was two years ago and it really is time to move on....

Jewelsbon,
It is easy to s**t can Mitchell for being a selfish twat & I realise it looks like a repeat episode of Days of Our Lives but the Mitchell discussion is relevant for a number of reasons.
(1) The decision to put Hannebery up for trade.
(2) The looming list squeeze. (IMO...wouldn't want to offend the experts by stating something as other than just my opinion)
(3) So that the I Tom fanboys can get some perspective.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Mr N37. Mitchell is a dominant midfielder. We have none. JPK and Nosey Parker performed no more than adequately. George is constrained as a lock down, Horse wont play Dawson in the guts. Heeney is a pinch hit mid as I expect Mills will be.

We are now desperate for one, preferably two elite mids.

 

[Number37]

Mr N37. Mitchell is a dominant midfielder. We have none. JPK and Nosey Parker performed no more than adequately. George is constrained as a lock down, Horse wont play Dawson in the guts. Heeney is a pinch hit mid as I expect Mills will be.

We are now desperate for one, preferably two elite mids.

I get all that B52. But he is gone. It is no more than a poor rewrite of history to suggest that ANY team when confronted with the choice we had, would have chosen Mitchell over any of our other mids at the time he left. It is not like we didn't make an effort to keep him. Sure, you can argue that it might have been a token effort or more should have been done. Hearing Mitchell speak this week leaves no doubt, at least in my mind, why he had a problem at the Swans.
As Julia Gillard would say...moving forward...
How do we avoid that kind of scenario in the future? Is it even possible to avoid that kind of scenario in the future?

If you look at the make up of our list, we are staring down the barrel of another Mitchell like scenario in the not too distant future. The problem, as I see it, is that we are going to have a host of players potentially heading up the pay ladder at the same time.
In many ways it is not a bad problem to have, but it also highlights, IMO, why letting Mitchell go under the circumstances we faced, was a smart decision.
If you make decisions for the right reasons, as I believe we did with Mitchell, then if s**t happens as a result, then s**t happens.

In line with that...IMO paying Lloyd 500k+ was the wrong decision, notwithstanding that he earned the right to a considerable pay rise, I totes agree with SF51, paying HBFs big money is poor list management. There is not enough money in the salary cap to pay big money to HBFs.

 

[Tuco]

I get all that B52. But he is gone. It is no more than a poor rewrite of history to suggest that ANY team when confronted with the choice we had, would have chosen Mitchell over any of our other mids at the time he left. It is not like we didn't make an effort to keep him. Sure, you can argue that it might have been a token effort or more should have been done. Hearing Mitchell speak this week leaves no doubt, at least in my mind, why he had a problem at the Swans.
As Julia Gillard would say...moving forward...
How do we avoid that kind of scenario in the future? Is it even possible to avoid that kind of scenario in the future?

If you look at the make up of our list, we are staring down the barrel of another Mitchell like scenario in the not too distant future. The problem, as I see it, is that we are going to have a host of players potentially heading up the pay ladder at the same time.
In many ways it is not a bad problem to have, but it also highlights, IMO, why letting Mitchell go under the circumstances we faced, was a smart decision.
If you make decisions for the right decisions, as I believe we did with Mitchell, then if s**t happens as a result, then s**t happens.

In line with that...IMO paying Lloyd 500k+ was the wrong decision, notwithstanding that he earned the right to a considerable pay rise, I totes agree with SF51, paying HBFs big money is poor list management. There is not enough money in the salary cap to pay big money to HBFs.

It's possible Gaz and Hanners leaving is us diffusing exactly that "Mitchell situation in the not too distant future" or in fact the date of this "Mitchell situation in the not too distant future" is actually October 2018?

 

[Number37]

It's possible Gaz and Hanners leaving is us diffusing exactly that "Mitchell situation in the not too distant future" or in fact the date of this "Mitchell situation in the not too distant future" is actually October 2018?

The contract list that I posted is a relatively conservative estimate but IMO it helps illustrates that the top 10 players take up as much as 60% of the cap.
It is unwise to have a player in that top 10 if they are under performing for sustained periods.
In that context the club might have decided that it is better to cut its losses with players like Hanners and Rohan. Hanners vacates a spot in the top 10 and Rohan vacates a spot in the middle tier. Already, Rohan's middle tier spot is taken up by Lloyd's contract.
Both players leaving doesn't free our cap as much as people may think.
The list also helps to illustrate that it is highly unlikely that we are getting more than 1 player in this trade period that would or could slot into the top 10.

 

[TheMase]

.
Both players leaving doesn't free our cap as much as people may think.
The list also helps to illustrate that it is highly unlikely that we are getting more than 1 player in this trade period that would or could slot into the top 10.

Depends how much Tippett money is left too. Though I tend to agree generally that we would ideally have one that comes into the top 10 and then a couple more than add to our depth (likes of those recently linked to us).

If there isn’t a top 10 available I suspect we would front load some contracts and work on 2019 free agents.

 

[Number37]

Depends how much Tippett money is left too. Though I tend to agree generally that we would ideally have one that comes into the top 10 and then a couple more than add to our depth (likes of those recently linked to us).

If there isn’t a top 10 available I suspect we would front load some contracts and work on 2019 free agents.

There are quite a few variables in our favour (Tippo retiring) and a few against us (contract upgrades). I would imagine list management is a constant balancing act, so when an opportunity presents, go hard or go home.