Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not sure I understand the 2 graphs.
It's points. Each pick has an assigned points value, pick 1 is 3000 points and then they go down in value until pick 73, which is worth 9 points. Everything after that is worth 0.Not sure I understand the 2 graphs.
I'm assuming the 2nd is the sum of the value of the pick that each player on each list was selected at and the second is that value divided by the number of players on each list but then, considering that all lists are the same size, the two graphs should be identical.
Is the second the sum of all picks received inclusive of delisted or traded players? If so over what period?
And to add to that, not all lists are the same size.Not sure I understand the 2 graphs.
I'm assuming the 2nd is the sum of the value of the pick that each player on each list was selected at and the second is that value divided by the number of players on each list but then, considering that all lists are the same size, the two graphs should be identical.
Is the second the sum of all picks received inclusive of delisted or traded players? If so over what period?
I realise Gold coast has more but everyone else is the same. It doesn't explain the difference in the 2 graphs. For instance Sydney is 2nd last in total but 5th in average so they must be comparing something different.And to add to that, not all lists are the same size.
Gold Coast has more listed players than any other team. Not sure if any team is running with a shortened list, but under current rules, teams are allowed to run with a minimum of 38 players and a maximum of 44. Gold Coast has 5 extra rookie spots.
Thanks Lore I understand all that I just don't understand the difference between the 2 graphsIt's points. Each pick has an assigned points value, pick 1 is 3000 points and then they go down in value until pick 73, which is worth 9 points. Everything after that is worth 0.
So if you have 40 players all taken with pick 1, you'd have 40*3000. If they were all pick 18, it'd be 40*985.
A lot of players at Geelong came from the rookie list, while Carlton has had lots of first round picks recently, so they are respectively first and last on this metric, as you'd expect.
Per Briztoon, clubs vary in the number of players they have. Freo and Port have 43, Gold Coast has 50. Most others have 44, 45 or 46. Makes it more comparable.Thanks Lore I understand all that I just don't understand the difference between the 2 graphs
Sydney has a lot of players either drafted high, or in the rookie draft.I realise Gold coast has more but everyone else is the same. It doesn't explain the difference in the 2 graphs. For instance Sydney is 2nd last in total but 5th in average so they must be comparing something different.
I’m assuming they include every player on a teams list, regardless if they were drafted or traded in.Those graphs just give you the access those clubs have had over a dozen or so years
It doesnt show you anything about talent ID which is at different levels at each club, basically some recruiters are better than others.
It also doesnt show development and club culture advantages or disadvantages as well as leadership qualities which helps youth intergrate into clubs quicker etc.
So from my PoV it is a small bit of information in a complex formula.
The information is generally the worst teams have access to the best talent, but do they have good talent identification? Do they develop these guys properly? Do they have a good culture? Do they surround these guys with leaders or mercenaries who only care about their paycheque and success is just a secondary priority?
He wasn't even a draft pick
Does Jeremy Cameron count as the 1st round pick he was, or the 3 x 1st round picks Geelong paid for him ?
What makes you say that?
But even trading in players you need competent player ID, there are plenty of examples of bad trades.Sydney has a lot of players either drafted high, or in the rookie draft.
I’m assuming they include every player on a teams list, regardless if they were drafted or traded in.
So it’s not just about talent i.d. from recruiters.
Like there's always been, players taken past pick 72, rookies, pre-season draftees, mini draftees, doesn't make an analysis like this mean any less
I dont really know tbh, just looked and thought "Nice"So what does the analysis say?
Geelong are the best or the worst? Did their 3 x 1st round picks for Cameron get included? Hawkins was a 3rd round pick because F/S but anyone 2 or 3 years younger than him wont be 3rd round unless that is where he was actually drafted.
I dont really know tbh, just looked and thought "Nice"