Opinion "The Lottery"

[Nickwell13]

With all this tanking discussion ect I wondered what peoples thoughts on the system and how it could be changed. Obviously with free agency coming in as from other sporting codes do you think we will look into other means of draft selection. I dont fully understand the NBA protocole for how they select draft picks, but seem interesting...

"Those teams that do not make the playoffs are entered into what is known as the "Draft Lottery". This is where things start to seem a little complicated, although there is actually very little of difficulty to understand.

The order of selection of the non-playoff teams is established by means of a simple lottery, with the worst team having the highest chance of being awarded the first pick, the second-worst the second-highest chance, and so on. Below are the chances out of a thousand of each team winning the top pick in the draft.

Team with the worst record in the league: 250
Team with the second-worst record in the league: 178
Third-worst: 177
Fourth-worst: 119
Fifth-worst: 88
Sixth -worst: 63
Seventh-worst: 36
Eighth-worst: 35
Ninth-worst: 14
Tenth-worst: 14
Eleventh-worst: 8
Twelfth-worst: 7
Thirteenth-worst: 6
Fourteenth-worst: 5

Last year, Milwaukee finished the season with the sixth-worst record in the league. Thus, their odds of winning the draft lottery were 63 in 1000, meaning that they were fairly lucky to win the top spot.

Breaking The Tie

One final point to be kept in mind is that, at the end of the season, there are often two or more teams with the same win-loss record. When this is the case, a simple coin flip decides which team takes the higher pick (if the two teams made the playoffs) or is given the higher odds of winning the first pick (if they did not make the playoffs). Last year, both Miami and San Antonio had a win-loss record of 59-23. San Antonio won the coin flip, and was therefore awarded the twenty-eighth choice in the first round, while Miami made their selection one spot later.

Obviously playoffs would be grand finalists and I apologise if there is already a thread for this discussion...But what are your thoughts and could it work for AFL or does anyone know a better system to illiminate "tanking".

 

[MarkT2]

The reverse ladder draft is the real problem. Tanking may be more atttractive with a PP but a reverse ladder draft is in principle the same albeit with somewhat less incentive. Once a season is "over" the shutters still go up.

If the draft order rotated each year it would be fair for every club and all sides would have equal opportunity over time. Alternate early and late picks each year for wach side and in time every club has the same draft pick ranges on their lists. If you are a poor side and don't get an early pick then too bad. If you win the flag and it's your turn for pick 1 than good for you and well done for winning a flag without having had pick 1 for 18 years.

Clubs won't be so accpeting or failure and will try harder to stay near the top every year. A set draft order would also facilitate trading of future draft picks which would help lower down clubs lift quicker or, more particualrly, well run clubs stay succesful. There should be reward for success and penalty for failure.

 

[Pie 4 Life]

I think we should divide it into thirds.

The bottom six (13-18) are drawn out first and decide the top six picks.
The next six (7-12) are drawn out next, and decide picks seven to twelve.
The final six (1-6) are just as per normal because I believe winning a premiership means you have the last pick in the draft.

This way it reduces tanking simply because the bottom six teams usually are the bottom six teams, it just removes the priority picks and what not. The next six who are close to finals will want to play finals rather than get a slightly higher pick because it's not guaranteed. The last six have had the most success and enter the draft as per normal.

 

[mattys123]

A lottery system is for sure the way to go, it deters teams from tanking to get that guaranteed first or second draft pick, while still allowing each of the bottom six teams (who would have had a poor year, or few years) a chance to improve through a higher draft pick.

But unlike the NBA lottery system where the lowest team gets a higher percentage chance of "winning the lottery", I'd prefer a straight out 6 lottery balls in a barrel draw, and whichever team comes out first gets pick 1.

 

[handy point]

As a long time supporter of the Denver Nuggets, whose draft position has NEVER improved - and quite often gone down - as a result of the NBA lottery (and they're been in it quite a few times), I don't like this idea.

 

[handy point]

Plus I can totally see Demetriou freezing the envelopes.

 

[Nickwell13]

As a long time supporter of the Denver Nuggets, whose draft position has NEVER improved - and quite often gone down - as a result of the NBA lottery (and they're been in it quite a few times), I don't like this idea.

Any ideas?

I hate to think that we have families going to the footy paying X $ amount, memberships ect for their team to throw games...

One thing is for sure, the current system needs to change!

 

[Bonuspoints]

The problem with the draft is that its a limited and slower path to improvement. In a draft where there are no traded or compensation picks the only difference between first and last place is one player. For example the wooden spooner would have picks 1, 19, 37 & 55. The premiers would have picks 18, 36, 54 & 72. The only real difference between these sets is pick 1 vs pick 72. While pick 1 will likely be a star, potentially a superstar, and pick 72 delisted, the spooner is only gaining ground by 1 onfield position. How short would you say the Dees and Power are compared to the Hawks and Swans in terms of proven players in their respective 22's. And when you take into account that draftees come in as kids they're not going to have an immediate impact to get a club surging up the ladder. Naturally there are some uniques (eg: Heppell and Rich in their first years) that can have a significant impact on their sides, but the wooden spooner is still going to be bottom 4 for a few more years. The other problem with the draft is that it relies on clubs making the right pick. Obviously the Dees have made some mistakes and failed to maximise their good picks. All these good draft picks they've had in recent years and they're still one of the worst teams in the competition and saved from the Wooden Spoon thanks to the new clubs. So even with good draft picks its no certainty that clubs will rise up the ladder, and it takes time. By making it a lottery you're only making it harder for the bottom teams to improve their lists as they'll have years where they will get pick 9 instead of pick 1 which is a huge difference in a weak draft.

Free agency is a much better vehicle for quicker turn arounds. Clubs know what they're getting, the players are ready to go and the only cost is a list spot and money. Take a look at what Richmond have done this year. They've added players that will make an immediate improvement to the team. If they had gone for draft picks instead, the improved team performance is slower as drafted players are less likely to be capable of having as immediate an impact as experienced quality players. You could help clubs by having the AFL offering signing incentives for free agents to go to bottom clubs, but I think you're only opening yourself for misconduct with clubs throwing games or being perceived to throw games to give them the ability to sign up the big fish. I think the current FA system is fine with the only change being quicker decision on compensation picks and perhaps a harsher stand on compensation picks (i.e. no compensation for Lynch).

I don't think we need a lottery as pick 1 is not a big enough incentive to finish last. The priority pick was the problem and I suppose this year you could say the compensation picks were also a potential incentive for finishing lower on the ladder. The priority pick is dead and these long term compensation picks will be gone soon. If the AFL thinks cellar dwellars need help I'd rather they give these clubs additional rookie list spots funded by the AFL on their lists. Clubs won't tank for these and it will help improve their lists. The rookie list has unearthed stars as well as good players. Dean Cox comes to mind and Collingwood's premiership team has something like 8 players that came through the rookie list.

I do think the AFL should have a ceremony were the captain, coach and president of a club is presented with the wooden spoon and must make an apology to its supporters for such a terrible year.

 

[muzzy2]

The problem with the draft is that its a limited and slower path to improvement. In a draft where there are no traded or compensation picks the only difference between first and last place is one player. For example the wooden spooner would have picks 1, 19, 37 & 55. The premiers would have picks 18, 36, 54 & 72. The only real difference between these sets is pick 1 vs pick 72.

I get what you are trying to say...

I really like the idea where the draft goes in the following order.

1st Pick 9th Spot
2nd 10th
3rd 11th
.... ....
9th pick 17th
10th Pick Wooden spoon
11th Pick Wooden spoon
12th pick 17th
.... ....
19th pick 8th spot
20th pick 7th spot
.... .....

Then from the 2nd round go back to normal order (18th to 1st)


This rewards the team that just misses the finals with pick 1 & pick 18 which should push them into the finals.

It rewards the wooden spooners with pick 10 & 11, which should be two solid enough players to strengthen them and take them higher the following year / years, topping up as they improve.


Yes, it means the finalists don't have picks till 9 spots later that currently, but that's where trading and free agency come in.


It gets rid of the incentive to tank, and makes teams want to finish as high on the ladder as they can. (Yes the 8th place team could throw the last match theoretically, but it's a much harder decision to throw away a finals campaign, rather than a nothing game between 17th & 18th.)

 

[Pera]

Leaving the draft order to chance isn't something I like. Keep it the way it is and remove the priority pick thing in general.

I think we should divide it into thirds.

The bottom six (13-18) are drawn out first and decide the top six picks.
The next six (7-12) are drawn out next, and decide picks seven to twelve.
The final six (1-6) are just as per normal because I believe winning a premiership means you have the last pick in the draft.

This way it reduces tanking simply because the bottom six teams usually are the bottom six teams, it just removes the priority picks and what not. The next six who are close to finals will want to play finals rather than get a slightly higher pick because it's not guaranteed. The last six have had the most success and enter the draft as per normal.

That system still wouldnt stop clubs from tanking. Example, in 2011, the ladder looked like this with one round remaining:

Rd 23 Ladder
CW 21 80 181.7
GE 21 72 153.2
HW 21 68 146.3
WC 21 64 125.5
CA 21 58 133.8
SK 21 46 112.0
SY 21 46 106.6
ES 22 46 100.0
NM 21 36 100.6
FR 21 36 84.5
RI 21 34 86.3
ME 21 34 84.9
WB 21 32 93.3
AD 21 28 82.6
BL 21 16 82.4
GC 21 12 54.8
PA 21 8 62.8

Melbourne and Richmond both went on to win the final round while Fremantle lost which put them into your bottom 6 scenario. Now if your system was in place, Melbourne simply had to lose and lose well in Round 24 to stay in that bottom six block and given their history, you wouldnt put it beyond them.

Tanking will more than likely continue to exist with that system.

 

[Swooop]

Some good ideas there for sure.

One of these needs to be chosen, as the current system encourages tanking, that's pretty clear. ( Kreuzer Cup etc )

And even if tanking doesn't occur, perception is often reality, and enough people think tanking occurs, so that when low teams are playing at the end of the year, the games are tainted anyhow by the whiff of tanking.

I like Pie 4 Life's idea, ie ...

I think we should divide it into thirds.

The bottom six (13-18) are drawn out first and decide the top six picks.
The next six (7-12) are drawn out next, and decide picks seven to twelve.
The final six (1-6) are just as per normal because I believe winning a premiership means you have the last pick in the draft.

This way it reduces tanking simply because the bottom six teams usually are the bottom six teams, it just removes the priority picks and what not. The next six who are close to finals will want to play finals rather than get a slightly higher pick because it's not guaranteed. The last six have had the most success and enter the draft as per normal.

But adding to that, then also have a hybrid system to further make it fairer to the lower teams within each of those three groups, ie do the lottery system within each of those three groups of six.

ie top of the group gets one ball, second top gets two... and the bottom team gets six balls.

Surely then there's just sooo little incentive to tank, it would cease.

Lastly, mega penalties if any team is even proven to have tanked.

 

[Ketchup]

Why don't we just get rid of the draft system? Go the way of World Soccer. Create and develop your own youth. I know this may seem easier than it sounds coming from a club with the financial power that we have over other various clubs in the league. But until something like this happens there will ALWAYS be incentive to lose games. And now with the AFL creating the way they do the fixture they have created another incentive to tank. So clubs get a easier draw.

 

[Pera]

Surely then there's just sooo little incentive to tank, it would cease.

Not sure there would be. Say you finish 7th last, that still doesn't guarantee you pick 7 in that bracket. YOu could walk away with pick 12. Odds are against you, but it can still happen. Finishing in the bottom 6 though sees you with a pretty good chance of escaping with a pick in the top 3.

A team with 6 balls in the lottery, say they escape with the #1 pick. Then the odds go to a 1 in 7 chance of picking up picks 2 or 3. That will be much more appealing to clubs who are no guarantee to walk away with a good pick in the 7-12 block.

 

[Pie_fan92]

Just draw it out of a hat. If the premier gets pick 1 well so be it. Sick of Melbourne and their stupid tanking antics. Their penalties should be just as similar to what Adelaide get if both are found guilty.

 

[Son of Skeletor]

With all this tanking discussion ect I wondered what peoples thoughts on the system and how it could be changed. Obviously with free agency coming in as from other sporting codes do you think we will look into other means of draft selection. I dont fully understand the NBA protocole for how they select draft picks, but seem interesting...

Team with the worst record in the league: 250
Team with the second-worst record in the league: 178
Third-worst: 177
Fourth-worst: 119
Fifth-worst: 88
Sixth -worst: 63

Last year, Milwaukee finished the season with the sixth-worst record in the league. Thus, their odds of winning the draft lottery were 63 in 1000, meaning that they were fairly lucky to win the top spot.

Not sure which year you were looking at here, Milwaukee had the 12th worst record last season, and ended up with the 12th pick. New Orleans won the lottery after finishing with the equal-third-worst record.

As a long-time NBA fan, I've always been pro-lottery when it came to the AFL Draft, particularly during the farcical era of priority picks. Realistically, I think you'd have to give all non-finals teams (currently 10) a shot at winning the lottery, otherwise you'd just create another 'tanking' possibility (ie a team may throw a late season game in order to finish 13th, rather than 12th, in order to be eligible to enter the lottery in the event that participation was limited to teams finishing in the bottom six).

Usually one of the bottom three or four teams win the lottery, as the odds dictate, but they need not necessarily- the AFL could definitely reduce the counter-intuitive disincentive for non-finals teams to keep playing as hard as possible late in the season.

I feel bad for Melbourne fans at present- they were far from the only AFL team to tank, the misguided priority pick system encouraged the practice for years.

 

[Son of Skeletor]

Plus I can totally see Demetriou freezing the envelopes.

 

[morelli89]

I like the idea of a lottery system. It would totally get rid of tanking.
All teams draw out of a hat for picks 1-18, then do the same with picks 19-36 and so on

 

[Quicky]

I like the idea of a lottery system. It would totally get rid of tanking.
All teams draw out of a hat for picks 1-18, then do the same with picks 19-36 and so on

I agree. I think it is a really simple thing to implement to add some uncertainty to the draft. Take away the uncertainty and you take away the incentive to tank. If teams tank it undermines the integrity of the competition and that does no-one any good.

P.S. welcome to the board!

 

[bodga22]

The only reason this is such a big issue is because Carlton were tanking to rebuild their team after they were ruined by breaching the salary cap, and everyone hates Carlton and didnt want to see it.

 

[Knightmare]

I'm not so fussed by it and have no problem with the system as is.

As far as I'm concerned let clubs tank. The more I look into it the more I recognise tanking and high draft picks rarely do anything.

The AFL isn't like say the NBA where a no.1 draft selection will almost always change the fortunes of your franchise - because there are 18 guys on the field for each team at any given time, not 5. One guy helps ever so slightly, but as Gary Ablett has demonstrated in his time so far with Gold Coast you can be the greatest of all time and you still need more around you.

Look at Carlton and Melbourne in their "tanking years". They haven't been able to develop a winning list. Carlton couldn't make the top 8 until Judd (and even then haven't been a threat up to this point) and Melbourne even with two number 1s and a number 2 still couldn't do anything to rise up the ladder.
On a losing team talent doesn't develop and with that lack of development created on these losing teams you might as well not have a high draft pick at all because pick 20 for example for being on a winner be better than pick 1. Look at Dayne Beams - has being on Collingwood helped? Joel Selwood - has being on that Geelong team helped? No chance Beams would be who he is today if Melbourne selected him or if Carlton took Selwood. Players develop through the teams they land at and from this become the players they become.

The clubs who have had the greatest success have either drafted and developed their lists the best (Geelong), traded the best and have the best culture (Sydney) or some combination of these factors leading Collingwood, Hawthorn, Adelaide and West Coast to success or relative sustained success over a period. None of these teams have had those same quantity of super high draft selections as Carlton and Melbourne have and are better for not having that sustained period of losing.


GWS and Gold Coast because of the sheer quantity of high selections will likely prove to be the exception. But the reality for any other team currently operating they won't ever have access to this sheer quantity of 1st round selections for this level of difference to ever be made.
So if a Port Adelaide for example went for a 4 year tanking period and received the no.1 overall selection in all those years I'd still be betting they wouldn't be going anywhere fast because over that time through losing for such an extended period there just hasn't been that list development you need to create a winner, nor anything else working.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

The difference with the NBA, which is the only league (AFAIK) that uses the system, is that one player can be the difference between a championship and not.

The San Antonio Spurs lost their star David Robinson for the 1997 season, and lost most of their games, ended up winning the lottery and getting Tim Duncan, which led to three rings in the next 10 years. The prizes with the picks #2-#7 in 1997? Keith Van Horn, Chauncey Billups, Antonio Daniels, Tony Battie, Ron Mercer and Tim Thomas.

In the AFL draft, there's rarely that much of a difference between the #1 player and the #2-#7 players, and that one player isn't going to be able to drag his team to a premiership on his own even if he's great.

The NBA is a star-driven league, where if you get a Tim Duncan/LeBron James/Dwight Howard/Derrick Rose with a #1 pick, they are good enough to ensure that you will be a playoff team for the duration of their careers, and they are very often the only player of that calibre in their drafts.

 

[Son of Skeletor]

Look at Carlton and Melbourne in their "tanking years". They haven't been able to develop a winning list. Carlton couldn't make the top 8 until Judd (and even then haven't been a threat up to this point) and Melbourne even with two number 1s and a number 2 still couldn't do anything to rise up the ladder.

The clubs who have had the greatest success have either drafted and developed their lists the best (Geelong), traded the best and have the best culture (Sydney) or some combination of these factors leading Collingwood, Hawthorn, Adelaide and West Coast to success or relative sustained success over a period. None of these teams have had those same quantity of super high draft selections as Carlton and Melbourne have and are better for not having that sustained period of losing.

Don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but Hawthorn had a multitude of high draft picks 7-8 years ago.

FWIW, I think St Kilda were the 'trendsetters' at the start of the new millennium when they had access to many high draft picks in a short period (inc Riewoldt, Ball and Goddard) who all blossomed together. Geelong were taking a similar youth route, they just weren't bad enough to finish near the bottom of the ladder (shrewd drafting and F/S picks overcame that handicap).

The Dogs (2003-04) and Hawthorn (particularly 2004-05) followed a similar youth path- Geelong, Hawthorn, St Kilda and the Dogs were all relatively successful within a few years. We arguably did a similar thing ourselves in 2004-05. Drafting kids and playing kids was 'all the rage', while Sydney's method of recruitment was viewed as the exception to the norm.

 

[Knightmare]

Don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but Hawthorn had a multitude of high draft picks 7-8 years ago.

FWIW, I think St Kilda were the 'trendsetters' at the start of the new millennium when they had access to many high draft picks in a short period (inc Riewoldt, Ball and Goddard) who all blossomed together. Geelong were taking a similar youth route, they just weren't bad enough to finish near the bottom of the ladder (shrewd drafting and F/S picks overcame that handicap).

The Dogs (2003-04) and Hawthorn (particularly 2004-05) followed a similar youth path- Geelong, Hawthorn, St Kilda and the Dogs were all relatively successful within a few years. We arguably did a similar thing ourselves in 2004-05. Drafting kids and playing kids was 'all the rage', while Sydney's method of recruitment was viewed as the exception to the norm.

In a tanking context I'm talking about a multitude of no.1 overall selections.

Hawthorn did at times move up high in the draft but they moved into that no.1 overall draft position and Luke Hodge by trading two established key defenders in Croad and McPharlin. Nothing they got was as a result of tanking and their building process was not unlike that of Collingwood with the strong 05+06 drafts where it was more a result of generally poor years rather than the full bottom out, going for that no.1 overall draft pick in multiple years.

St Kilda were one of the better ones in their build but they still did trade in Fraser Gehrig who was a big difference maker in that initial list build.


It's a curious discussion though. That one year near (without being exactly bottom) has seemed among the more successful with West Coast (Nic Naitanui) the better example of how this can work.

But with no clear association between no.1 overall draft selections and winning I'm not buying tanking as a valid strategy when a Sydney can win two premierships (2005, 2012) without needing to bottom out and doing so with mostly very different playing groups. Or a Geelong can set up the dynasty of all dynasties all of a sudden without that access to high draft selections either.

 

[Pie_fan92]

I think the dangerous thing about tanking is that it destroys any chance of creating a successful culture, it teaches to accept failure rather than development of the players both skill and psychologically. After making the grand final in 2003, we had a bit of a slide for 2 years in which we were able to secure Pendles and Thomas (I know injuries played their part as well) but when you have a president in Eddie, Malthouse as coach and Buckley as the skip, there is no way in the world would we accept tanking. In the end tanking is a very dangerous thing to let creep in to a club, it can destroy the foundation of a club.

 

[Bonuspoints]

Vinny raises a good point. The difference between picks 1 versus picks 2-7 isn't as big in footy as it is in a sport like basketball. I'd be curious to see how the NFL stacks up under this focus as well.

Back to footy. Historically the player taken at pick 1 hasn't made as huge a difference to a team's fortunes compared to the players taken in the picks that followed. It's probably another indicator that the draft isn't the great equalizer the AFL likes to think it is. Really when we look at the winner out of the Kruezer cup, it was the Tigers who won the game and lost pick 1, but got Cotchin. Even looking at you could argue that McEvoy has been a better ruck, and there's Dangerfield, Rioli and Taylor taken later as well. Watts is far from the best player in his draft crop. Buddy is clearly the best out of his draft year and was taken at pick 5. And you could argue that the Jetta and Reid have had more of an impact on their team's fortunes than what Scully and Trengove have on theirs. I guess it highlights a bit of the gamble of trying to project what level or ability a kid is going to reach in their prime as well as just how bad some clubs have been at recruiting.

While I'm critical of the draft's immediate impact on a team's fortune I do see the point of the draft. It's a method of leveling the playing field by getting the best young talent to the least talented teams. By reversing the ladder to form the order of the draft it fulfills this function. If you make it a lottery it won't do this. Yes the worst ends up with a better draft position than the team that finishes 9th so you can argue has an incentive not to win. But the reality is that these clubs don't have the talent to compete with good teams, let alone premiership contenders. They need an injection of genuine talent to give them the ability to compete with the stronger teams.

A team finishing in the bottom 4 for three years running isn't going to be turning around their fortunes by getting their best picks between 6-10 over that period. I would expect that by denying them picks inside of the top 5 you're limiting the likelihood of them getting the top end talent they need to move up the ladder. So all that would happen would be an extended stay at the bottom unless they get lucky and catch some smokies and sliders, along with capitalising on free agency.

Realistically does anyone really think Melbourne is going to be a significantly better team in 2013 than this year? Even if they don't lose their draft picks I don't see an immediate improvement and predict they'll still be a bottom four team next year. It's because their team is thin on talent so they need the better draft picks to improve their chances of getting talent. What we don't need is for them to get bonus picks based on their ladder position, even if they need the help. Thats a significant incentive to throw games. As the difference of having your second pick inside the top 5 compared to 20-30 is very significant. With that out, we're left with Free Agency as the only way to quickly gain high end talent and you don't need to tank for that.

So yeah if you've stuck with me through all this, I'm of the view that we don't need to change how the order of the draft is decided. I don't think teams will tank to move up the draft a few places as the difference in player quality isn't significant enough. What we need is to come up with is a better method to boost this crappy teams without giving them an incentive such as priority picks. I read a poster on bigfooty suggest AFL funded additional rookie list spots and I think thats a good one.