Analysis "Play the Kids": Ladder Position vs Debuts

[Big_Tony]

All right campaigners. There has been a lot of talk on this board all season about our lack of willingness to play the kids. I’m not here to defend the club or hang s**t on them, I was just interested to see what the numbers say about debuts across the AFL compared to a club’s ladder position. So here it is for the past two years. A two-year sample size isn’t much to get too excited over, but I am short on time and can’t be assed compiling more data at this stage.



So, here is what I see:

• There is a definite trend occurring. As you would expect, clubs with a lower ladder position tend to debut more players in an attempt to rebuild. Surprisingly though, the clubs near the middle of the table tend to debut less players before the number again increases for the top clubs.

• We sit bang at the bottom of the trend curve, so yay us, but the same lack of willingness to play the kids can also be leveled at clubs around our position to some extent.

So what is going on here? Are clubs in the middle of the table desperately trying to cling to the finals with their veterans like us? Do clubs at either end of the ladder have more ability to play the kids because of the relative strength or hopelessness of their positions respectively?


Note:

• I used average ladder position throughout the year rather than final position, as I thought this would give a more accurate read on a team’s mindset through the season when making team selections rather than where they finally end up.

• More data than 2 years is needed to really see if this is a long-term trend.

 

[WCErevival]

Be interesting to see it with out both Sydney sides in there.

 

[FKASC]

Looking forward to needing to poo next so I can read this on the toilet

 

[Here2tellyouwhy]

Looking forward to needing to poo next so I can read this on the toilet

Im not on a toilet but still enjoyed reading it.
My poo was pretty good to.

 

[Hap Hapablap]

wc enjoys playing plodders.

 

[Jiggyman]

It's an interesting curve. I figure we have 2 types of sides in the mid-tier bracket: (1) those on the way up who aren't as much about debuts as they are pumping games into existing young players, (2) those as you mentioned who cling on with aging stars, such as WCE this season (and arguably last).

Teams like Sydney and GWS who pump out young guns every year with academy picks and first-rounders do skew the data a bit.

I'd be keen to see each clubs position on the graph over the past 2 seasons, not just WCE!

 

[Big_Tony]

It's an interesting curve. I figure we have 2 types of sides in the mid-tier bracket: (1) those on the way up who aren't as much about debuts as they are pumping games into existing young players, (2) those as you mentioned who cling on with aging stars, such as WCE this season (and arguably last).

Teams like Sydney and GWS who pump out young guns every year with academy picks and first-rounders do skew the data a bit.

I'd be keen to see each clubs position on the graph over the past 2 seasons, not just WCE!

Yes, no doubt the Sydney teams will add a bit of bias, but they still only account for 4 dots in the above graph, so the trend is still there. I reckon you might be on the money with your 2 categories.

 

[wing it]

 

[Falco]

We should debut Rioli, Venables, Watson and our first two picks next year (barring injury). That's five debutants next year, and we'll likely not make finals (probably 10-12th) which would run true to the trend identified.

 

[dajesmac]

Great post. Better replies.

 

[Crimson King]

Oh people can come up with statistics to prove anything. Forty percent of all people know that.

 

[Eaglespur]

We should debut Rioli, Venables, Watson and our first two picks next year (barring injury). That's five debutants next year, and we'll likely not make finals (probably 10-12th) which would run true to the trend identified.

I'd be happy with Venables, Rioli, Partington to be seriously involved playing 15+ games atleast. Nelson, Duggan and Sheed to play every game and click into the next gear and hopefully a debut for Waterman, Watson and new recruit(s).

 

[darksquare]

Where do you get the data? I'm interested in having a look at previous years, but not if I have to scroll through a ladder one round at a time...

 

[Falco]

I'd be happy with Venables, Rioli, Partington to be seriously involved playing 15+ games atleast. Nelson, Duggan and Sheed to play every game and click into the next gear and hopefully a debut for Waterman, Watson and new recruit(s).

Agreed with that, but a tall needs to debut next year too. I look at Marshall getting games at Port this year and know that it will set him up in the long run (I wanted us to draft Bonner, Marshall and SPP). If we pick up Scott Jones or even Ben Miller I'd be happy for them to play a couple of games for exposure.

 

[Big_Tony]

Where do you get the data? I'm interested in having a look at previous years, but not if I have to scroll through a ladder one round at a time...

https://afltables.com/afl/seas/ladders/laddersyby.html

The debut data just came from Wikipedia.

 

[Eaglespur]

Agreed with that, but a tall needs to debut next year too. I look at Marshall getting games at Port this year and know that it will set him up in the long run (I wanted us to draft Bonner, Marshall and SPP). If we pick up Scott Jones or even Ben Miller I'd be happy for them to play a couple of games for exposure.

Is Waterman classified as a tall?

 

[darksquare]

https://afltables.com/afl/seas/ladders/laddersyby.html

The debut data just came from Wikipedia.

OK. I've now calculated average ladder positions going back to 1997, when the competition went to 16 teams. I also put them on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 means "dead last every round all season" and 100 means "top of the ladder every round all season". That enables like-for-like comparisons between ladder positions with different numbers of teams. Now I need to get the number of debutants from each club over the same time, but that's a job for later.

In the meantime, here's a table showing which teams have been nearest the top or bottom of the ladder, on average, since 1997. I've highlighted just a couple of features of interest...

 

[flamingEMBERS]

We were in a 16 comp when Freo entered. Port came in and Fitzroy merged with Brisbane before 1997. Keeping it level.

 

[kranky al]

Oh people can come up with statistics to prove anything. Forty percent of all people know that.

100% of people have heard this

Tired
Old
Gag
Before

 

[Godfather32]

I posted this in another thread over the weekend but this is the amount of games played by players this year who finished the season under the age of 25. Doesn't seem to be a huge difference between how many the good teams play vs how many the crap teams play but it does show how far behind the 8-ball we are.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

It's an interesting curve. I figure we have 2 types of sides in the mid-tier bracket: (1) those on the way up who aren't as much about debuts as they are pumping games into existing young players, (2) those as you mentioned who cling on with aging stars, such as WCE this season (and arguably last).

Teams like Sydney and GWS who pump out young guns every year with academy picks and first-rounders do skew the data a bit.

I'd be keen to see each clubs position on the graph over the past 2 seasons, not just WCE!

Good young players push existing good sides up the ladder further, this is improvement from within. Once the experience drops out then teams with even more young players go down the ladder. That's the difference between Sydney from round 1-6 and Sydney after round 6.

 

[Falco]

Is Waterman classified as a tall?

Perhaps - he probably plays as a medium fwd/third tall. He has said that he wants to move into the midfield; ill be interested to see how that goes.

I guess KPP/ruck is probably a better discriminator.