The Draft is Overrated

[RedVest4]

There is too much value put into draft picks and each year, teams get criticised for trading them away. The more I look at it though, the more I think it is a smart move to trade away draft picks for established players where you know what you’re going to get...

I’ve determined that 1 out of 2 first round picks lives up to expectations (I know this is a vague statement as expectation levels can differ depending on opinion).

I’ll show this with the first round of the 2001 “Super Draft”.

A tick will show a player who met expectations and a cross will show a player who did not meet expectations for that pick.

1 Luke Hodge
2 Luke Ball
3 Chris Judd
4 Graham Polak
5 Xavier Clarke
6 Ashley Sampi
7 David Hale
8 Jimmy Bartel
9 Luke Molan
10 Sam Power
11 Richard Cole
12 Brent Reilly
13 Nick Dal Santo
14 Ashley Watson
15 Barry Brooks
16 Rick Ladson
17 James Kelly
18 Shane Harvey
19 Jason Gram

9 out of 19 players met expectations showing it is close to 1 out of 2.

Points to note:

• Even if a player was plagued with injury, that’s still no excuse as they did not live up to expectations
• I’ve put slightly more expectation on higher first round picks (eg 1-5) as opposed to lower first round picks (eg 14-19)
• It’s easier to do this with later drafts where we already know how players careers went/are going

I’ll do this for other drafts as well.

 

[Checkered]

What about then you trade in a player who is then plagued by injury lol.

Not a fair criteria to apply to one side of the argument but not the other

 

[didaksrightfoot]

https://m.imgur.com/r/nba/oi2irGK

This is a graph i just saw on Expected Win Shares per draft position in the NBA. (From 1990-2000... now that 99% have retired).
Although there are outliers, there is a clear curve.

It would be interesting to see a similar breakdown for AFL players and I would guess that the curve would be similar.
I'm just not sure what stat you would use - ive never seen any advanced stats used in footy (Win Share, Value Over Replacement etc) because they would be very hard to apply to our game. I think someone had previously done it for Games Played. (Which is a good broad stat, but doesnt differentiate quality 200-gamers to elite 200-gamers).

 

[Sweet Jesus]

There is too much value put into draft picks and each year, teams get criticised for trading them away. The more I look at it though, the more I think it is a smart move to trade away draft picks for established players where you know what you’re going to get...

Yet if you go through the recent premiership sides, you'll see that they built their sides by nailing several picks within a relatively small space of time. They built their core through the draft and then added bits and pieces as required.

You can go through any draft and point out players picked early who didn't make it. But loading up on first-round and second-round picks and getting them right remains the most reliable way to build a successful team.

For example, how did Geelong build their premiership sides of 2007, 2009 and 2011? Sure, they traded to get someone like Brad Ottens, but the vast majority of the players in those sides arrived at Geelong via the draft. Would they have had that success had they traded away those picks?

 

[RedVest4]

Yet if you go through the recent premiership sides, you'll see that they built their sides by nailing several picks within a relatively small space of time. They built their core through the draft and then added bits and pieces as required.

You can go through any draft and point out players picked early who didn't make it. But loading up on first-round and second-round picks and getting them right remains the most reliable way to build a successful team.

For example, how did Geelong build their premiership sides of 2007, 2009 and 2011? Sure, they traded to get someone like Brad Ottens, but the vast majority of the players in those sides arrived at Geelong via the draft. Would they have had that success had they traded away those picks?

Geelong 07 - 11 proves my point really... I’m saying that the draft is basically a lottery. A lot of Geelongs good players from that era were taken with very late picks - hence the whole thing is overrated.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

There is too much value put into draft picks and each year, teams get criticised for trading them away. The more I look at it though, the more I think it is a smart move to trade away draft picks for established players where you know what you’re going to get...

I’ve determined that 1 out of 2 first round picks lives up to expectations (I know this is a vague statement as expectation levels can differ depending on opinion), 1 out of 3 second round picks lives up to expectations then 1 out of every 4 or even 5 third round picks and beyond live up to expectations.

I’ll show this with the first round of the 2001 “Super Draft”.

A tick will show a player who met expectations and a cross will show a player who did not meet expectations for that pick.

1 Luke Hodge
2 Luke Ball
3 Chris Judd
4 Graham Polak
5 Xavier Clarke
6 Ashley Sampi
7 David Hale
8 Jimmy Bartel
9 Luke Molan
10 Sam Power
11 Richard Cole
12 Brent Reilly
13 Nick Dal Santo
14 Ashley Watson
15 Barry Brooks
16 Rick Ladson
17 James Kelly
18 Shane Harvey
19 Jason Gram

9 out of 19 players met expectations showing it is close to 1 out of 2.

Points to note:

• Even if a player was plagued with injury, that’s still no excuse as they did not live up to expectations
• I’ve put slightly more expectation on higher first round picks (eg 1-5) as opposed to lower first round picks (eg 14-19)
• It’s easier to do this with later drafts where we already know how players careers went/are going

I’ll do this for other drafts as well.

But doesnt the fact that you are expecting more from high draft picks completely null your argument?

You've put 3 X's against X Clarke, Sampi and Polak (4-6). All 3 were servicable players, with the last 2's careers ending short for reasons that were out of control of the club.
After the top 8 there were only 3 guys who wouldve been clearly better picks (Reilly, Dal, Kelly) - Gram I would argue is probably on par.
You would take those 3 over any of the X's youve listed below them.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Nah but Adelaide fans insist that getting a pick in the mid teens this year for Lever is totally a win for them

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Geelong 07 - 11 proves my point really... I’m saying that the draft is basically a lottery. A lot of Geelongs good players from that era were taken with very late picks - hence the whole thing is overrated.

I'm not sure how Geelong proves your point when you've said "I think it is a smart move to trade away draft picks for established players". Those Geelong teams were built through the draft. Should they have traded away those picks for established players instead?

The draft remains the most reliable, most fundamental way to build a successful side. That doesn't mean every top 10 pick is guaranteed to become a superstar. No one has made that claim.

It's not a lottery, but there are no guarantees. But that means it makes sense to have more picks, rather than less.

 

[RedVest4]

I'm not sure how Geelong proves your point when you've said "I think it is a smart move to trade away draft picks for established players". Those Geelong teams were built through the draft. Should they have traded away those picks for established players instead?

The draft remains the most reliable way to build a successful side. That doesn't mean every top 10 pick is guaranteed to become a superstar.

It's not a lottery, but there are no guarantees. But that means it makes sense to have more picks, rather than less.

I probably should have been clearer - trading away early draft picks...

Plus the game is so different these days with free agency, that Geelong list will be the last ever successful list that had barely any recruits from other teams.

But doesnt the fact that you are expecting more from high draft picks completely null your argument?

You've put 3 X's against X Clarke, Sampi and Polak (4-6). All 3 were servicable players, with the last 2's careers ending short for reasons that were out of control of the club.
After the top 8 there were only 3 guys who wouldve been clearly better picks (Reilly, Dal, Kelly) - Gram I would argue is probably on par.
You would take those 3 over any of the X's youve listed below them.

They were serviceable, however if you look back, you would have wanted more out of them, given where they were taken in the draft.

Gram and Ladson were both very borderline, it was hard to decide on those two.

 

[db swannie]

Rookie raft is where the action is. Half of the Swan's current side are rookies.

 

[Luv_our_club]

The Hawks brains trust agree with the OP i think. Most of our team on the weekend was made up of players who started their careers elsewhere. And most of the Hawk draftees in the team were either old players or late draft picks.

We have traded most of our first round picks since 2007... our last selection was Schoenmakers or Issac Smith (we also picked Burton at 19, for a traded in pick).

I personally think Geelong excel at picks in the second round or early third (and late first round picks). I think those picks can be underrated if you get enough of them, and have an excellent recruiter.

Very interested too see what the Hawks do with their first round pick this year.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I probably should have been clearer - trading away early draft picks...

What is the distinction? Why would you be more willing to trade early picks than later picks?

Either way, the Geelong sides that won flags are not examples of that working.

You need to rethink your argument.

Plus the game is so different these days with free agency, that Geelong list will be the last ever successful list that had barely any recruits from other teams.

Look at how Richmond built their side last season.

How many of Martin, Rance, Cotchin and Riewoldt were recruited from other teams?

Should they have traded the picks they used to select those players?

The Hawks brains trust agree with the OP i think. Most of our team on the weekend was made up of players who started their careers elsewhere. And most of the Hawk draftees in the team were either old players or late draft picks.

And yet the Hawthorn sides that won flags were built through the draft with bits and pieces added where required.

 

[RedVest4]

What is the distinction? Why would you be more willing to trade early picks than later picks?

Either way, the Geelong sides that won flags are not examples of that working.

You need to rethink your argument.

I think you’re going off track

Look at how Richmond built their side last season.

How many of Martin, Rance, Cotchin and Riewoldt were recruited from other teams?

Caddy, Nank, Prestia etc.

The Richmond side is good because of their game plan and coach, not their players - they’re all role players.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I think you’re going off track

Not at all. I'm using the team you support as Exhibit A in refuting your central claims. That's very much on track.

Caddy, Nank, Prestia etc.

Yeah, handy additions, no doubt. But the core was assembled through the draft, with pretty early picks. How can you dispute that?

The Richmond side is good because of their game plan and coach, not their players - they’re all role players.

I reckon Martin, Rance, Riewoldt and Cotchin were a pretty big part of the puzzle.

Their four best players were all taken with relatively early picks within a few years of each other.

Again, you need to rethink your argument.

 

[RedVest4]

Not at all. I'm using the team you support as Exhibit A in refuting your central claims. That's very much on track.

Yeah, handy additions, no doubt. But the core was assembled through the draft, with pretty early picks. How can you dispute that?

I reckon Martin, Rance, Riewoldt and Cotchin were a pretty big part of the puzzle.

Their four best players were all taken with relatively early picks within a few years of each other.

Again, you need to rethink your argument.

And I could easily go through all of Richmond’s failed first round picks, massively outweighing the 4 players you’ve listed... Hence why the draft is overrated.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

And I could easily go through all of Richmond’s failed first round picks, massively outweighing the 4 players you’ve listed.

But that would do nothing to counter my argument that it remains the most reliable, most important part of building a successful side.

Yes, all sides have drafting misses in their history. That goes without saying. But it doesn't make a relevant point.

The fact that clubs will have these early misses means that they should use more picks, not less. You don't go the other way and say "well, we got this early pick wrong, so let's trade away all our picks from now on". That's illogical. Rather, you say "well, we might not get every pick right, so let's make sure we have more licks of the ice cream to make sure we at least get some of them right". That's how you build a successful side.

Hence why the draft is overrated.

That depends on what claim about the draft you consider to be flawed – or overrated.

If you are refuting a claim that "early picks are guaranteed to be good players", then sure, that would be an inflated claim. But no one is saying that.

Rather, the draft remains the most reliable, most important way to build a successful side. In that sense, it is not overrated at all. Citing failed first-rounders does nothing to refute that.

 

[M Malice]

Rookie raft is where the action is. Half of the Swan's current side are rookies.

It's amazing what the Swans have been able to do with their rookies, have many of their development staff been poached over the years?

 

[RedVest4]

Rookie raft is where the action is. Half of the Swan's current side are rookies.

Exactly, so you may as well trade away first rounders that I’ve proven to be a lottery and supposedly have more value, for established players.

I think clubs are starting to figure this out.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Exactly, so you may as well trade away first rounders that I’ve proven to be a lottery and supposedly have more value, for established players.

I think clubs are starting to figure this out.

Proven to be a lottery? I don't think so.

You haven't made this case convincingly at all.

If draft picks are so meh, what would you expect in return for Geelong's first-rounder this year?

Draft picks are a lottery, so you'd give it away for basically any player you thought would be best 22. Right?

So an established ruckman, for example. You'd give away your first-rounder for an established ruckman in a heartbeat.

You would happily give up Geelong's first-rounder for Scott Lycett, for example? He's an established player who would be best 22 at Geelong. And the draft is a lottery, as you've proven, so "you may as well trade away your first-rounder". Right?

 

[kaiserchief13]

The higher the pick the better odds you select a gun player though. Yes it may only be 50% odds of getting a good player, however if that player is a top 5 pick they either end up a dud or a star IMO, no real in between.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

The bottom line is you need to get elite talent from somewhere. Whether it's through the draft or trading or free agency the goal is to accumulate as much top end talent as possible and then fill in the gaps.

For what it's worth, geelong was the only team experience real success without using top end draft picks. And many would argue their success had a lot to do with scarlett, ablett and hawkins who were father son selections. They also got dangerfield for cheap because he goes out with the mayor of geelong's daughter (they paid less for him than gold coast paid for lachie weller).

Geelong certainly have done well but there is no question some things have fallen their way over the journey. If you ask me the best example of sustained success not using high end draft picks is the Adelaide Crows but for all their huffing and puffing, until last year they had a longer grand final appearance drought than carlton.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If that player is a top 5 pick they either end up a dud or a star IMO, no real in between.

Really?

Kade Kolodjashnij, Jack Billings, Lachie Plowman, Jake Stringer, Jon Patton, Dom Tyson, Will Hoskin-Elliott, Matt Buntine, David Swallow, Sam Day, Jared Polec, Ben Cunnginton, Jack Watts, Hamish Hartlett, Matthew Kreuzer, Chris Masten, Lachie Hansen, Matthew Leuenberger, Xavier Ellis, Andrew Walker, Farren Ray, Brock McLean, Jared Brennan, Luke Ball, Graham Polak.

Surely there's a fair bit of in between.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

For what it's worth, geelong was the only team experience real success without using top end draft picks.

What about Hawthorn, the Bulldogs and Richmond?

 

[Kwality]

There is too much value put into draft picks and each year, teams get criticised for trading them away. The more I look at it though, the more I think it is a smart move to trade away draft picks for established players where you know what you’re going to get...

I’ve determined that 1 out of 2 first round picks lives up to expectations (I know this is a vague statement as expectation levels can differ depending on opinion), 1 out of 3 second round picks lives up to expectations then 1 out of every 4 or even 5 third round picks and beyond live up to expectations.

I’ll show this with the first round of the 2001 “Super Draft”.

A tick will show a player who met expectations and a cross will show a player who did not meet expectations for that pick.

1 Luke Hodge
2 Luke Ball
3 Chris Judd
4 Graham Polak
5 Xavier Clarke
6 Ashley Sampi
7 David Hale
8 Jimmy Bartel
9 Luke Molan
10 Sam Power
11 Richard Cole
12 Brent Reilly
13 Nick Dal Santo
14 Ashley Watson
15 Barry Brooks
16 Rick Ladson
17 James Kelly
18 Shane Harvey
19 Jason Gram

9 out of 19 players met expectations showing it is close to 1 out of 2.

Points to note:

• Even if a player was plagued with injury, that’s still no excuse as they did not live up to expectations
• I’ve put slightly more expectation on higher first round picks (eg 1-5) as opposed to lower first round picks (eg 14-19)
• It’s easier to do this with later drafts where we already know how players careers went/are going

I’ll do this for other drafts as well.

I dont consider Ash Sampi a dud, was going well until Tadgh Kennelly put a sleeper hold on him in the 2005 Grand Final .

 

[Damon_3388]

I think the part that is overrated and overstated are the expectations for the first part of a player's career.

Footballers and athletes generally hit their prime in their mid-to-late 20s. Often though, draftees have been spat out the system long to this, for "failing to live up to their potential".

Because we're drafting blokes so young and so far away from their athletic prime, we need to look more long-term at what they could become, and be patient and allow them the necessary time to develop, and not assume the draft is a "quick fix". A player shouldn't be peaking at age 20-21. It's great that some do, but they're the exception, not the rule.

Using this year's draft as an example, we should make our assessments on these terms:

2018 (Age 18, born 2000) - Draft Year
2019-2024 (Ages 19-24) - Seasons 1-6, Developing
2025-2029 (Ages 25-29) - Seasons 7-11, Prime
2030-2033 (Ages 30-33) - Seasons 12-15, Past their prime
2034-onwards (Ages 34+) - Bonus!