National draft history statistics

[GlaCial]

Given that the season is over (who cares who wins the GF?) we can kick back and enjoy the intrigue of Trade Week and National Draft.

I have been a little critical of AFC recruiting over recent years, so I thought I'd cast my eye over some cold, hard stats. These are the picks/still active numbers from the National Draft since 2000.

Adelaide 34/20 (59%)
Brisbane 35/28 (80%)
Carlton 42/22 (52%)
Collingwood 43/25 (58%)
Essendon 41/26 (63%)
Fremantle 29/22 (76%)
Geelong 37/30 (81%)
Hawthorn 39/29 (74%)
North Melbourne 43/26 (60%)
Melbourne 33/24 (73%)
Port Adelaide 37/28 (76%)
Richmond 44/27 (61%)
Saint Kilda 33/24 (73%)
Sydney 31/21 (68%)
West Coast Eagles 31/26 (84%)
Western Bulldogs 39/31 (79%)

Average 37/26 (69%)

So Adelaide are 3 below average with the number of picks, but 6 below average with the number of picks still active.

 

[ThePeckers]

Pretty much sums up how crap we are at recruiting.

 

[BunjiMac]

Interesting Post ... we definitely seem to have a problem but so does Carlton and Collingwood according to those stats, yet collingwood seem to have a great crop of young players at the moment

 

[GlaCial]

It's no surprise that Carlton have a low retention given the litany of troubles they have had.

Collingwood are interesting. They have spent time near the bottom of the ladder. But I think they have been quite happy to turn players over - try them, if they aren't up to it, then get ride of them, try someone else.

 

[mymansyd]

Given that the season is over (who cares who wins the GF?) we can kick back and enjoy the intrigue of Trade Week and National Draft.

I have been a little critical of AFC recruiting over recent years, so I thought I'd cast my eye over some cold, hard stats. These are the picks/still active numbers from the National Draft since 2000.

Adelaide 34/20 (59%)
Brisbane 35/28 (80%)
Carlton 42/22 (52%)
Collingwood 43/25 (58%)
Essendon 41/26 (63%)
Fremantle 29/22 (76%)
Geelong 37/30 (81%)
Hawthorn 39/29 (74%)
North Melbourne 43/26 (60%)
Melbourne 33/24 (73%)
Port Adelaide 37/28 (76%)
Richmond 44/27 (61%)
Saint Kilda 33/24 (73%)
Sydney 31/21 (68%)
West Coast Eagles 31/26 (84%)
Western Bulldogs 39/31 (79%)

Average 37/26 (69%)

So Adelaide are 3 below average with the number of picks, but 6 below average with the number of picks still active.

Mmmm... very interesting. That doesn't give me very much confidence in our National Draft picking!

Just one question. By 'still active', I assume you mean still active on any current AFL list, not just Adelaide's current list??

 

[- PC -]

Or it could mean we get rid of deadwood unlike the common belief on here

Raw figures like that dont take into account why..


Spoken by PC: club supporter/apologist

 

[jarmanagic]

Given that the season is over (who cares who wins the GF?) we can kick back and enjoy the intrigue of Trade Week and National Draft.

I have been a little critical of AFC recruiting over recent years, so I thought I'd cast my eye over some cold, hard stats. These are the picks/still active numbers from the National Draft since 2000.

Adelaide 34/20 (59%)
Brisbane 35/28 (80%)
Carlton 42/22 (52%)
Collingwood 43/25 (58%)
Essendon 41/26 (63%)
Fremantle 29/22 (76%)
Geelong 37/30 (81%)
Hawthorn 39/29 (74%)
North Melbourne 43/26 (60%)
Melbourne 33/24 (73%)
Port Adelaide 37/28 (76%)
Richmond 44/27 (61%)
Saint Kilda 33/24 (73%)
Sydney 31/21 (68%)
West Coast Eagles 31/26 (84%)
Western Bulldogs 39/31 (79%)

Average 37/26 (69%)

So Adelaide are 3 below average with the number of picks, but 6 below average with the number of picks still active.

This isnt a very scientific analysis is it? Surely the early draft picks more likely to be playing and as we all sadly know over that era we traded away top 30 picks for
Carey (4,14)
Clarke (6)
Hewitt (?22)
Schell (? 20!!!!)
Fitzy (28)
Thommo (10, good result)
Bode (12)

Thus our players not that high draft picks in this era. Also our rate outside the draft has been outstanding (Porps, Hentschel pre season and Rutten/Bock/Mattner rookies

I think given where we have drafted from the record is excellent. Stop complaining, weve made the finals 6 of 7 years, a bit of luck here and there (see this years Grand Finalists, both have 1 of their starting 22 out) and we may have won another flag

 

[macca69]

Interesting Post ... we definitely seem to have a problem but so does Carlton and Collingwood according to those stats, yet collingwood seem to have a great crop of young players at the moment

From memory Collingwood struggled big-time from about 98-02 (exact years may be a bit off), but since the appointment of Hine (around 03, again not sure which year), he has a rather impressive track record. So going on that, if you dug up these stats from say the last 4 years, Collingwood would be one of the better sides.

 

[betterthanu]

Not surprising Brisbane, West Coast and Geelong have the highest %. Lets Hope Rendell can boost that percentage over the next few years.

 

[PrideOf]

Interesting stats, but I'd like to see it broken down a bit before saying it points out anything.

As it currently stands, it values Pick 1 the same as Pick 99 and as someone else has pointed out, earlier picks would have a better chance overall of turning into a player who stays around. (For example, Carlton picks Bryce Gibbs with Pick 1 and Mick Martyn a few years back for pick 70-odd.)

So I'd like to see stats based on Rounds 1-2 and the rest before declaring this as proof we suck at drafting.

(Having said that, I look forward to the Tiser's back page article "Crows 3rd worst in draft stakes" in the lead up to the November draft).

 

[GlaCial]

This isnt a very scientific analysis is it? Surely the early draft picks more likely to be playing and as we all sadly know over that era we traded away top 30 picks for
Carey (4,14)
Clarke (6)
Hewitt (?22)
Schell (? 20!!!!)
Fitzy (28)
Thommo (10, good result)
Bode (12)

Thus our players not that high draft picks in this era. Also our rate outside the draft has been outstanding (Porps, Hentschel pre season and Rutten/Bock/Mattner rookies

I think given where we have drafted from the record is excellent. Stop complaining, weve made the finals 6 of 7 years, a bit of luck here and there (see this years Grand Finalists, both have 1 of their starting 22 out) and we may have won another flag

You make some interesting and valid points. I haven't looked at other clubs retention rates of players recruited from the rookie or pre-season draft.

From 2000 onwards, Adelaide have had the following results
Rookie 31 picks / 11 still active
Pre-season 6 picks / 2 still active

Of the 33 still active picks, 13 (39%) have come from the rookie (contributing 33% of still active players) and pre-season (6%) drafts.

If we assume that Adelaide have done better than other clubs at recruiting in from the rookie and pre-season drafts then it only supports my argument that Adelaide have not done as well as most clubs in the National Draft.

What does this all mean?
Well it could mean that Adelaide have a poor record at picking which young players will go on and develop into AFL players. Let's not confuse this with great players, I'm just talking about playing, full stop. Or it could mean that Adelaide are poor at developing young players to an extent that they can play in the AFL. Or it could mean that Adelaide have a preference to go for tried and proven players. For example rookie-listed train at the club, show something then get up-graded to the senior list, or 20+ year-olds being drafted from the SANFL.

My feeling is that it is a combination of all of these.

 

[GlaCial]

Just one question. By 'still active', I assume you mean still active on any current AFL list, not just Adelaide's current list??

No I mean still active on that clubs list.

 

[GlaCial]

Just one question. By 'still active', I assume you mean still active on any current AFL list, not just Adelaide's current list??

I should also add that only Watts is still active on any other clubs list.

You could argue that Adelaide have picked 21 still active players improving it's percentage to 62%. But I haven't looked at the other clubs in the same detail.

 

[GlaCial]

Carey (4,14)
Clarke (6)
Hewitt (?22)
Schell (? 20!!!!)
Fitzy (28)
Thommo (10, good result)
Bode (12)

I should also add that my list does not include players gained through trade week. That is if Adelaide traded a 1st round pick for Carey (as it did in 2003), then it's not included. So none of the above form part of the list.

 

[Crow-mo]

could be a very interesting piece of analysis, but because (at present) it doesn't take account of the differing values of picks it doesn't tell us a lot.

 

[conVINCEd]

Obviously its hard to read too much into that, but it does demonstrate again how well West Coast draft.

Anyone who thinks they won't be a genuine contender for the next five years has rocks in their head or is sufferering from Judditis.

 

[hugecannon]

Did we give up pick #4 & #14 (which became picks #2 & #12) for Wayne Carey alone? If we did then we got shafted even more than I thought. Wayne $^%&*ing Carey worse trade ever.

 

[- PC -]

Did we give up pick #4 & #14 (which became picks #2 & #12) for Wayne Carey alone? If we did then we got shafted even more than I thought. Wayne $^%&*ing Carey worse trade ever.

<sigh> If you dont know the trade then you dont know why the club went for it

 

[Stiffy_18]

Did we give up pick #4 & #14 (which became picks #2 & #12) for Wayne Carey alone? If we did then we got shafted even more than I thought. Wayne $^%&*ing Carey worse trade ever.

NO!

We gave up 4 and 20 which became 2 and 18 for Carey.