The Draft is Overrated

[Sweet Jesus]

Rather than a treasure, the right to pick first appears to be a curse.

Wow, a curse! That sounds dramatic. Is Captain Jack Sparrow in there too?

 

[PhatBoy]

This bloke seems like the type to ask Penguin Publishing whether they were started by a penguin, and if not, why have they claimed that name?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This bloke seems like the type to ask Penguin Publishing whether they were started by a penguin, and if not, why have they claimed that name?

I just think it's amazing that so many people are willing to say things that don't stand up to five seconds of examination. Are you like that in real life too or is it just your accident-prone internet persona adopted for comic effect?

Tell me again how first-rounders are no more valuable than third-rounders.

That's now an argument that's been presented on BigFooty, apparently with a straight face. It is a self-evidently ridiculous thing to say.

It's like you are part of a revolt against facts and common sense, which you hope to replace with obviously erroneous bullshit.

 

[PhatBoy]

I just think it's amazing that so many people are willing to say things that don't stand up to five seconds of examination. Are you like that in real life too or is it just your accident-prone internet persona adopted for comic effect?

Tell me again how first-rounders are no more valuable than third-rounders.

That's now an argument that's been presented on BigFooty, apparently with a straight face. It is a self-evidently ridiculous thing to say.

It's like you are part of a revolt against facts and common sense, which you hope to replace with obviously erroneous bullshit.

I think that there is no automatic advantage to having high draft pick. Deal with it, and move on.

Now, I’m quite willing to accept that you disagree. I can see the logic as to why someone would. Yet you haven’t provided any evidence as to why you hold that view. You have repeated ad nauseum to the point of OCD that the view held by myself and several others is laughable, you have ridiculed it, made some frankly f***ing woeful attempts to seem funny while doing it, yet haven’t really said anything that contradicts the view you’re so disturbed by. The OP has cited repeated examples, many posters have chimed in with their own, Ive made mention of several, yet your response, through every post I’ve read at least, is at best an imitation of a child’s puerile ‘no, YOU are.’

Every draft is littered with examples of players taken high, who didn’t live up to the standards of counterparts taken low. That is a fact whether you like it or not.

Now, whether you want to take it as literal, as an exaggeration for effect, or a pisstake, that is up to you.

But my view, and that of many others, appears to be - and as a Geelong fan who’s current run of consistent success (albeit without a flag) has depended heavily on both trading and picking good players late in the draft - that the number next to the pick you get, means squat. It’s effectiveness depends entirely on the quality of its use.

If you don’t like this, that is fine. But deal with it, and spare us all another 50 posts o your contemptuous, infantile shit.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I think that there is no automatic advantage to having high draft pick. Deal with it, and move on.

Do you accept that an earlier draft pick is more valuable than a later draft pick?

Pick 1 is more valuable than pick 2, which is more valuable than pick 3 and so on.

Do you accept this?

Now, I’m quite willing to accept that you disagree.

It's not a matter of opinion.

I can see the logic as to why someone would. Yet you haven’t provided any evidence as to why you hold that view. You have repeated ad nauseum to the point of OCD that the view held by myself and several others is laughable, you have ridiculed it, made some frankly f***ing woeful attempts to seem funny while doing it, yet haven’t really said anything that contradicts the view you’re so disturbed by. The OP has cited repeated examples, many posters have chimed in with their own, Ive made mention of several, yet your response, through every post I’ve read at least, is at best an imitation of a child’s puerile ‘no, YOU are.’

You need evidence to prove something that is self-evidently true? You need evidence to prove that an earlier draft pick is by definition more valuable than a later one?

Bizarre. Truly bizarre.

Every draft is littered with examples of players taken high, who didn’t live up to the standards of counterparts taken low. That is a fact whether you like it or not.

That doesn't mean the later picks are more valuable.

But my view, and that of many others, appears to be - and as a Geelong fan who’s current run of consistent success (albeit without a flag) has depended heavily on both trading and picking good players late in the draft - that the number next to the pick you get, means squat. It’s effectiveness depends entirely on the quality of its use.

Do you accept that an earlier draft pick is more valuable than a later draft pick?

Or would you be perfectly happy to give up your first-rounder for two picks in the 50s? Because, as you say, "the number next to the pick means squat".

You are saying some patently ridiculous shit.

 

[Andre]

I just think it's amazing that so many people are willing to say things that don't stand up to five seconds of examination. Are you like that in real life too or is it just your accident-prone internet persona adopted for comic effect?

Tell me again how first-rounders are no more valuable than third-rounders.

That's now an argument that's been presented on BigFooty, apparently with a straight face. It is a self-evidently ridiculous thing to say.

It's like you are part of a revolt against facts and common sense, which you hope to replace with obviously erroneous bullshit.

First rounders are obviously more valuable then third rounders. If it's a lottery where picks 1 - 3 have a 90% of winning, other 1st rounders have a 50% chance of 'winning' and third rounders 5%, then given limited list spots and salary cap of course clubs won't trade pick 7 for picks 31 through 40. It doesn't change all picks are a lottery and are still generally overrated.

It's not just fans overrating them that's the issue. The problem is also list managers. A list manager who trades out a first round pick for a player risks fan backlash if the player isn't clearly immediately better then not only the player drafted at that pick, but the next half a dozen. Fans will go 'man, we could have had <X> drafted 3 picks later!'. Where as by the time a top draft pick is bust (they'll give them at least 4 years), they can sell the hope of the next high draft pick to fans. More some reason fans remember the traded in player busts much more harshly then draft busts.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

First rounders are obviously more valuable then third rounders.

Apparently not. Apparently "the number next to the pick means squat".

If it's a lottery where picks 1 - 3 have a 90% of winning, other 1st rounders have a 50% chance of 'winning' and third rounders 5%, then given limited list spots and salary cap of course clubs won't trade pick 7 for picks 31 through 40. It doesn't change all picks are a lottery and are still generally overrated.

It's not a lottery.

 

[PhatBoy]

Do you accept that an earlier draft pick is more valuable than a later draft pick?

Pick 1 is more valuable than pick 2, which is more valuable than pick 3 and so on.

Do you accept this?

It's not a matter of opinion.

You need evidence to prove something that is self-evidently true? You need evidence to prove that an earlier draft pick is by definition more valuable than a later one?

Bizarre. Truly bizarre.

That doesn't mean the later picks are more valuable.

Do you accept that an earlier draft pick is more valuable than a later draft pick?

Or would you be perfectly happy to give up your first-rounder for two picks in the 50s? Because, as you say, "the number next to the pick means squat".

You are saying some patently ridiculous shit.

Mathematically you have a better chance - you have a full compliment of players to pick from so yes of course scientifically speaking the value is higher. Picking later gives you a reduced field to pick from.
Why you would assume that anyone who can even count on their fingers wont understand such a notion is anyone’s guess.

Evidence says however that the teams who have had that better mathematical chance have f***ed it as often as they’ve nailed it.

It doesn’t guarantee you anything and if you are smart about who you pick you can be just as successful regardless of where your selections come from, or if you trade well for that matter.

No one has ever suggested that you can just get picks 68 and 75 and throw a couple of darts at a board and get good players. It is a human process and as such needs more input than just random chance.

 

[Leeda]

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

rookie raft.. those who are trying to swim along on a dubious water craft...
they are also dubious 'raft' themselves.. good point.. so endeth my point..

 

[Andre]

It's not a lottery.

Of course it's a lottery. Or every year the order of how good players turn out over their careers would be the same as their position drafted. And none would be a bust (outside of injuries that occurred once drafted), as there's many more potential draftees then players drafted and no one would draft a player they know is going to be a bust.

Clubs need to turn over their lists and higher picks offer more chance of doing successfully, but clubs that hope to contend (10-12 at least each year) also have immediate holes in their list to fill, which trading picks for makes sense. Port have both drafted with reasonably high picks lately (SPP, Todd Marshall, who are both doing well) and used high picks for trades (Dixon and Ryder). It's not a black and white - picks good, trades bad or vice versa, but there's also a clear trend across the AFL as a whole that picks are rated too high, given the odds of a bust / under-expectation player being drafted.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Mathematically you have a better chance - you have a full compliment of players to pick from so yes of course scientifically speaking the value is higher. Picking later gives you a reduced field to pick from.

Wait, what?

You started by saying "the number next to the pick means squat".

Now you're saying earlier picks are more valuable because you have a better chance of picking a good player.

That is an obvious contradiction.

Why you would assume that anyone who can even count on their fingers wont understand such a notion is anyone’s guess.

Because you said "the number next to the pick means squat", which is obviously ridiculous. And you've now flipped on that.

Evidence says however that the teams who have had that better mathematical chance have f***ed it as often as they’ve nailed it.

Yeah, some early picks haven't worked out. What's your point?

It doesn’t guarantee you anything and if you are smart about who you pick you can be just as successful regardless of where your selections come from, or if you trade well for that matter.

No one said there was a guarantee.

That doesn't mean "the number next to the pick means squat".

Your argument is collapsing.

No one has ever suggested that you can just get picks 68 and 75 and throw a couple of darts at a board and get good players.

Well, you said "the number next to the pick means squat". So why can't you just roll with picks 68 and 75? If the number next to the pick is meaningless, as you claimed, those picks are as good as any. Except they're not.

It is a human process and as such needs more input than just random chance.

Oh, a human process. Now I get it. That clarifies everything.

 

[PhatBoy]

Wait, what?

You started by saying "the number next to the pick means squat".

Now you're saying earlier picks are more valuable because you have a better chance of picking a good player.

That is an obvious contradiction.

Because you said "the number next to the pick means squat", which is obviously ridiculous. And you've now flipped on that.

Yeah, some early picks haven't worked out. What's your point?

No one said there was a guarantee.

That doesn't mean "the number next to the pick means squat".

Your argument is collapsing.

Well, you said "the number next to the pick means squat". So why can't you just roll with picks 68 and 75? If the number next to the pick is meaningless, as you claimed, those picks are as good as any. Except they're not.

Oh, a human process. Now I get it. That clarifies everything.

Is my argument collapsing? It isn’t a building.

But it must be a building - you said it’s collapsing.

‘Because I said’ - well no I didn’t. I typed it. I never said anything.

‘Clarifies everything.’
Well no it doesn’t, we aren’t discussing everything. We are discussing the afl draft.


Do you get this upset over ACTUAL things or just theoretical ones on the internet?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Of course it's a lottery.

In a lottery, every ticket has an equal chance of winning. That is not the case in the draft. It's not a lottery.

Or every year the order of how good players turn out over their careers would be the same as their position drafted. And none would be a bust (outside of injuries that occurred once drafted), as there's many more potential draftees then players drafted and no one would draft a player they know is going to be a bust.

That doesn't make it a lottery. That just means that the draft order is not a perfect representation of which players actually make it. That is not the same as it being a lottery.

 

[PhatBoy]

Of course it's a lottery. Or every year the order of how good players turn out over their careers would be the same as their position drafted. And none would be a bust (outside of injuries that occurred once drafted), as there's many more potential draftees then players drafted and no one would draft a player they know is going to be a bust.

Clubs need to turn over their lists and higher picks offer more chance of doing successfully, but clubs that hope to contend (10-12 at least each year) also have immediate holes in their list to fill, which trading picks for makes sense. Port have both drafted with reasonably high picks lately (SPP, Todd Marshall, who are both doing well) and used high picks for trades (Dixon and Ryder). It's not a black and white - picks good, trades bad or vice versa, but there's also a clear trend across the AFL as a whole that picks are rated too high, given the odds of a bust / under-expectation player being drafted.

Careful - he’ll bring race, chess, or photography into the discussion after you used the term ‘black and white.’

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Is my argument collapsing? It isn’t a building.

But it must be a building - you said it’s collapsing.

‘Because I said’ - well no I didn’t. I typed it. I never said anything.

‘Clarifies everything.’
Well no it doesn’t, we aren’t discussing everything. We are discussing the afl draft.


Do you get this upset over ACTUAL things or just theoretical ones on the internet?

I'm not upset. In fact, I'm quite enjoying wiping the floor with you.

You said something stupid. Now you've flipped on it.

Thanks for coming.

Careful - he’ll bring race, chess, or photography into the discussion after you used the term ‘black and white.’

That also makes no sense. You really struggle, don't you?

 

[PhatBoy]

I'm not upset. In fact, I'm quite enjoying wiping the floor with you.

You said something stupid. Now you've flipped on it.

Thanks for coming.

That also makes no sense. You really struggle, don't you?

Not as much as you do with accepting someone’s point of view.

 

[PhatBoy]

I should have known this would end up happening when you made it clear you’d actually searched someone’s post history to try and make them eat their words over something.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Not as much as you do with accepting someone’s point of view.

Which you've since reversed.

I should have known this would end up happening when you made it clear you’d actually searched someone’s post history to try and make them eat their words over something.

You mean when I pointed out another poster's jarring contradictions?

At least you're not alone, champion.

 

[PhatBoy]

Reversed what? That I think the draft means f*** all?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Reversed what? That I think the draft means f*** all?

Initially you said "the number next to the pick means squat". You said the number of the pick doesn't matter.

But you then conceded earlier picks are more valuable because you have a better chance of picking a good player. And you said you can't simply roll in with picks 68 and 75 and get good players.

In other words, the number next to the pick is a factor. You now concede this. The contradiction is obvious.

 

[Leeda]

Initially you said "the number next to the pick means squat". You said the number of the pick doesn't matter.

But you then conceded earlier picks are more valuable because you have a better chance of picking a good player. And you said you can't simply roll in with picks 68 and 75 and get good players.

In other words, the number next to the pick is a factor. You now concede this. The contradiction is obvious.

'squat' means that you agree that some will camp out and keep their positions which is often something that the club
don't like...

so equality of spots is counted as difficult for each club.. they grade them according to how they fit within their home..

 

[Sweet Jesus]

'squat' means that you agree that some will camp out and keep their positions which is often something that the club
don't like...

so equality of spots is counted as difficult for each club.. they grade them according to how they fit within their home..

Woah! Little horsey woah and calm down to a little trot amongst the daisies. Time is fleeting and grabs you by the hand and tells you where to go.

 

[jacksgh]

Wow, a curse! That sounds dramatic. Is Captain Jack Sparrow in there too?

Maybe you should read the journal article attached to the quote knobhead. Does behavioural economics give you a headache or you can’t read? We should all just subscribe to your simplistic view that high pick = better. Gold star for you, bravo.

 

[Leeda]

Woah! Little horsey woah and calm down to a little trot amongst the daisies. Time is fleeting and grabs you by the hand and tells you where to go.

how, what, where, and why, it is all duplicity to me.. don't count twice.. it only adds up to two...

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Maybe you should read the journal article attached to the quote knobhead.

Is it cursed?

We should all just subscribe to your simplistic view that high pick = better. Gold star for you, bravo.

An earlier pick is definitely more valuable than a later pick. You're right - it is simple.