Pick No.10

[K9-54]

As for the draft pick, I'd score every player based on probability of being a 100 game player (however one comes up with such a measure). When evaluating a tall against a midfielder, if one is significantly better, take the better. If the difference in score is not large, take the tall regardless. To be a little more exact, maybe applying a weighting of the players height to their score would achieve what I'm suggesting.

So, rank all players by (height x probability of 100 games) and take the best then.

I don't know much about the players in the draft but based on what's been said, it would appear that the outcome would be the same regardless of whether we used my method or the Westy advocated 'always take the best' method. i.e we'd end up with a midfielder.

 

[Portia]

In respect to drafting talls early on.......

Brad Ottens and Justin Longmuir are great examples of talls that, while talented, were going to take some time to develop. And they have. Similarly, some midfielders that look like guns in an underage comp (more a Victorian player problem, as other play against men in SANFL, WAFL), are too small or light for AFL....or they just matured early, and looked good because they were ahead of the others.

Gun junior midfielders are good, but sometimes even they take time to develop. Josh Carr at pick 7 in 1998 was considered pick up too soon, but this year he's been Port's most valuable midfielder....where instant gun players like Michael Stevens, pick 5 that same year, or Travis Johnstone in 1997, have done little since leaving juniors.

I'd rather have a developing tall that looks like they'll get there in the end than an explosive midfielder that hasn't played against men....

 

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by K9-54
Doc - the Horse thread from memory.

thanks k9. Sig was on fire. Must read material!

 

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by The Doctor


thanks k9. Sig was on fire. Must read material!

My second compliment ever on a forum. CHEERS.