West Coast/Hawthorn - Who will do better in 2017?

[threesixpio]

So what do you propose Hawthorn do right now? Hawks have sold there next two first round picks plus a bunch of middle picks for T Mitchell and JOM. That is good business.

To put it in perspective the Hawks traded 14 for T Mitchell. Pick 14 for the last 10 years is;

2006 Andrew McIntyre
2007 Jack Grimes
2008 Ayce Cordy
2009 Lewis Jetta
2010 Brodie Smith
2011 Devon Smith
2012 Aiden Corr
2013 Cameron McCarthy
2014 Jake Lever
2015 Eric Hipwood

Some of those players are pretty good but Tom Mitchell seems like a pretty good choice to me - not sure I would take any of them over him. If the Hawks get a similar pick next year, JOM seems like a pretty good choice to me as well. The higher round picks are purely speculative every year. Sure you might land something but more often than not you won't.

The Hawks cannot go and get the next Luke Hodge (pick 1) Rough (pick 2), Franklin (pick 5), Lewis (pick 7) unless they have those picks. And they don't. If this goes as badly as you predict (hope) then the Hawks will have those picks.

So what the Hawks are doing right now is the best they can do with a limited hand. And given the Hawks still have some pretty good pieces in that list they need senior players who can go NOW, not draft picks that might come good, but possibly won't, in 2-3 years.

Not only does T Mitchell compare well - he is the best possible young replacement we could have got for Lewis and JOM is likely the best possible replacement we could have got for Sammy.

We lost Hill but have retained all of our mid 20s players who have played in premierships - Gunston, Smith, Rioli, Stratton, Shiels, McEvoy, Bruest etc. Alternatively we would have traded some of these players for talent/picks which I can only assume Jade is suggesting we should have done

In my view, given our picks it was a master-stroke. Not sure what Jade thinks we could have done this trade period, or next for that matter, to bring in top end talent to a part of the ground where we had a bunch of old Foggies other than a wholesale trade of multiple players from parts of the ground where we are doing okay

And re playing heaps of kids under 21 in our best 22 - Clarko has NEVER done this.

That said I still have no idea how well we will do next year. Will depend on how well we gel with two new mids, how Ty fits in, if Rough comes back, how oldies in Gibbo/Burgers and Hodge will do and how our young brigade in Langford, Howe, O'Rourke, Sicily, Brand, Hartung and Lovell will do. Really want a decent running half back which I think is what we will miss when Birchall goes (who isn't getting any younger either)

I think if O'Rourke comes on our team is looking nice (adding in a FA or two).

 

[Gibbke]

Mitchell and Priddis together is going to be an awesome show.

Dont think we've seen a team with two brownlow level extractors in the same team. Eagles fans will be wetting themselves with excitement after the first month of footy.

Gerard Healy and Greg Williams...

 

[QuietB]

Gerard Healy and Greg Williams...

Bartel Ablett

 

[kirbatron]

Don't think a lot will separate either team.

Whoever gets lucky with injury will probably finish above the other.

 

[threesixpio]

Mitchell and Priddis together is going to be an awesome show.

Dont think we've seen a team with two brownlow level extractors in the same team. Eagles fans will be wetting themselves with excitement after the first month of footy.

I agree. If Hawthorn don't do as well as WC next year it might say more about how well WC do than a slide by us

 

[Milanista28]

Any team with Sammy and Lewis in the middle are a threat... Oh wait...
Oh but they should be ok if they can win it in the middle and get it forward to Vickory... Oh gawd lol.

 

[cryptor]

Amazing how much Sam Mitchell and Jordan Lewis have improved in the eyes of Big Footy since September. All without even playing a single game!

 

[QuietB]

Amazing how much Sam Mitchell and Jordan Lewis have improved in the eyes of Big Footy since September. All without even playing a single game!

Personally I think they are both sniping thugs

 

[WWSD]

Any team with Sammy and Lewis in the middle are a threat... Oh wait...
Oh but they should be ok if they can win it in the middle and get it forward to Vickory... Oh gawd lol.

Vickery is surrounded by Roughead, Gunston, Rioli, Breust, Puopolo, Burton and Sicily.

He'll be David Hale version 2.0.

 

[HairyO]

Vickery is surrounded by Roughead, Gunston, Rioli, Breust, Puopolo, Burton and Sicily.

He'll be David Hale version 2.0.

If he is half a Hale he is worth it.

 

[Suma Magic]

See the Hawks topping up with another mature-aged recruit today.

 

[Jobe Watson]

Howe has shown more than Langford than Essendon at this stage, even though Langford is talking himself up as the next Fyfe.

No. No he hasn't.

Langford has played more games in his career and, in fact, averaged more disposals in 2016... which says alot considering Howe is a midsize defender in one of the best teams whereas Langford is a midsize forward in one of the worst. Not to mention Langford is an entire year younger.

Burton has now taken the mantle as the best ever 4 game player in AFL history, surely?

 

[DemonZombie_001]

I think danger signs are there for both clubs in the 2017 season...

I believe, and only due to home ground advantage, that WCE will do better than the Hawks in 2017. Oh and that WCE will have a whole pre-season to plan around the absence of Nic Nat as well. Which will help a little.

I also believe both teams will finish around each other as well, so somewhere in the 6 to 10 range on the ladder. If any of them make the finals, I expect a straight sets exit as well.

 

[matey]

No. No he hasn't.

Burton has now taken the mantle as the best ever 4 game player in AFL history, surely?

No from memory JOM had a better start!

 

[Beutbrute]

I'm tipping the Eagles (biased I know)

I think the Eagles will do pretty well next year. In terms of their list they didn't loose anything valuable in the off-season, but managed to increase the depth in the midfield and the Ruck/FWD role, which were the two main areas of concern. I'm also expecting Eric McKenzie to come good and remind people of how good he was before his knee injury.

The draw suits the Eagles, in that their tougher games this coming season will be played at home, rather than away, whereas last season the majority of the tougher games were played away. Normally this means we will do really well or really badly, I'm thinking we will at least stay around the 16 wins that we achieved this season.

For the Hawks I think that the loss of experience will hurt, mainly due to the amount of heavy lifting done last season by the guys leaving (Mitchell and Lewis 1&2 in the B&F, players leaving played 76 games last season etc) and no Fitzpatrick to kick match winning goals .

I think Tom Mitchell will have an immediate impact for the Hawks, but it will be interesting to see how he adjusts to the Hawks gameplan and stoppage setups. I rate O'Meara as a player and think he is a good get, but I'm not expecting him to set the world on fire for the next 12 months.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So hindsight drafting, on a best case scenario....that's how you assess the value of a pick?

What's 'hindsight drafting'?

If a club chooses poorly with pick 1, it doesn't mean pick 1 is worth less that year.

Rather, you assess the value of that opportunity by also taking into account who they could have drafted. I didn't say anything about a best-case scenario.

Is that 'hindsight drafting'? That expression doesn't mean anything to me.

A 3rd Round pick is not rated on who Club X could've taken last year, it's rated on how likely it is that a club will draft a gem amongst what is available.

Not solely, but you should take it into account.

As you acknowledge here, you should consider 'what is available'.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Don't you have to assess the value of a draft pick on what actually has happened? Not what could have happened?

No. Because you're assessing the value of an opportunity.

If a club chooses poorly with pick 1, that doesn't mean pick 1 was worth less that year despite 'what actually happened'. They had the opportunity to pick any number of players - that's the value of the opportunity. The fact they chose poorly has nothing to do with the value of the pick itself.

So yes, you should also take into account who a club could have chosen.

Fact is by pick 14 you are getting into speculative territory. The stats demonstrate that.

Are there any draft picks that aren't speculative?

You could point to duds taken with even earlier selections than 14.

 

[cryptor]

No. Because you're assessing the value of an opportunity.

If a club chooses poorly with pick 1, that doesn't mean pick 1 was worth less that year despite 'what actually happened'. They had the opportunity to pick any number of players - that's the value of the opportunity. The fact they chose poorly has nothing to do with the value of the pick itself.

So yes, you should also take into account who a club could have chosen.

Are there any draft picks that aren't speculative?

You could point to duds taken with even earlier selections than 14.

You seem to be assuming that clubs - even if just the club that is best at it - can reliably predict how good any player will, not can, be. Or at the very least can know how good each player will be but then choose not to pick the best one anyway. Clubs can only know all this in hindsight.

And history shows that no club's recruiters - even the very best ones - can pick the best available talent at each of their picks with any consistency. Even when it comes to pick 1, how often does the very best player of any given draft get drafted there? Not nearly as often as you seem to be suggesting.

Yes, pick 1 is going to give you a better opportunity to get a good player than pick 14, which will give you the same advantage over pick 24, and 34, and so on.

But the fact you could have picked up so-and-so who went at some later pick in a given draft isn't as significant as the fact that over a long period of time that great players haven't been consistently picked up at that pick.

Looking at which players were taken at a given pick each year for the past X number of years will give you a far better sense of its worth relative to what/who you're trading it for than simply looking at all the good players who happened to be picked up later in the draft.

Those later picked players weren't passed up on at that pick because they were identified as the best available talent and then not picked. It was because recruiters thought they had identifed another as the best available talent and picked them instead. And that remains true to this day.

 

[Gibbke]

Neither can win the premiership, not fussed who finishes higher. I'd be more interested in who gets to contention first, and how they get there. We have a few rough patches to negotiate in the next couple of seasons, and I don't know enough about WC to comment...although NicNat is a big loss...

But in Al I trust...

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

What's 'hindsight drafting'?

If a club chooses poorly with pick 1, it doesn't mean pick 1 is worth less that year.

Rather, you assess the value of that opportunity by also taking into account who they could have drafted. I didn't say anything about a best-case scenario.

Is that 'hindsight drafting'? That expression doesn't mean anything to me.

Not solely, but you should take it into account.

As you acknowledge here, you should consider 'what is available'.

I would've thought it was pretty self explanatory. Looking back at each draft and saying Club X took player B at Pick 25, when player G was still available.

That's not how picks are rated.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You seem to be assuming that clubs - even if just the club that is best at it - can reliably predict how good any player will, not can, be. Or at the very least can know how good each player will be but then choose not to pick the best one anyway. Clubs can only know all this in hindsight.

I don't assume this.

Nowhere in my earlier post do I say anything like this.

And history shows that no club's recruiters - even the very best ones - can pick the best available talent at each of their picks with any consistency. Even when it comes to pick 1, how often does the very best player of any given draft get drafted there? Not nearly as often as you seem to be suggesting.

Again, I have made no suggestion to this effect.

Yes, pick 1 is going to give you a better opportunity to get a good player than pick 14, which will give you the same advantage over pick 24, and 34, and so on.

And that's what determines the value of those draft picks, regardless of which player is actually selected there.

But the fact you could have picked up so-and-so who went at some later pick in a given draft isn't as significant as the fact that over a long period of time that great players haven't been consistently picked up at that pick.

The point is that you have to take into account the players who were still available at a pick, not just who was taken there, because that contributes to the value of the opportunity associated with any given pick.

Looking at which players were taken at a given pick each year for the past X number of years will give you a far better sense of its worth relative to what/who you're trading it for than simply looking at all the good players who happened to be picked up later in the draft.

As long as you understand that it's flawed.

For example, if there was a series of drafts where the player taken at pick 5 turned out to be better than the player taken at pick 4, would that mean pick 5 is now worth more than pick 4?

Of course not. Because the value of the opportunity associated with pick 4 would, by definition, be greater than the value of the opportunity associated with pick 5, regardless of which players were picked there.

Those later picked players weren't passed up on at that pick because they were identified as the best available talent and then not picked. It was because recruiters thought they had identifed another as the best available talent and picked them instead. And that remains true to this day.

You make no relevant point here. Yes, those players were picked because the recruiters thought they were the best bet at that stage of the draft. But that has nothing to do with the value of the pick itself.

 

[QuietB]

No. Because you're assessing the value of an opportunity.

If a club chooses poorly with pick 1, that doesn't mean pick 1 was worth less that year despite 'what actually happened'. They had the opportunity to pick any number of players - that's the value of the opportunity. The fact they chose poorly has nothing to do with the value of the pick itself.

So yes, you should also take into account who a club could have chosen.

Are there any draft picks that aren't speculative?

You could point to duds taken with even earlier selections than 14.

So by extension, because Chris Grant was selected with pick 105 every pick up to pick 105 holds the equivalent value of Chris Grant?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I would've thought it was pretty self explanatory. Looking back at each draft and saying Club X took player B at Pick 25, when player G was still available.

That's not how picks are rated.

You just decided this is a rule even though it makes no sense?

If you understand that the value of a draft pick is about the value of the opportunity attached to it, then you should absolutely take into account which players were available and not look exclusively at which player was selected. That approach better allows us to assess the value of the opportunity attached to that pick, which is what matters.

 

[Gibbke]

Until the last few seasons, there was a 35 year stretch where only two players picked at no.1 actually won a flag with the team that drafted them (Banfield and Headland), and only a dozen in the top 6 of every draft combined ever. That's 40 drafts, and about 4000 players...

Every other flag winning draftee (and once a few of those Brisbane champs retired, that meant every player in the AFL drafted since for all time) came from below 6th, the vast majority in that 7-30 range...

Why? I assume it's because teams who score the 7th pick or worse due to finishing higher simply know how to get the best out of players to a higher degree than the Richmonds, Melbournes and Carltons of this world who squandered them through inept player recruitment and management...

There is no real value in being 1st or tenth outside what the club can then do for you. And if the acknowledged best player before the draft was a ruckman and my team had enough of those as a bottom placed rebuilding team, he wouldn't be no.1...

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So by extension, because Chris Grant was selected with pick 105 every pick up to pick 105 holds the equivalent value of Chris Grant?

No. I didn't say that.

However, when you assess the value of each of those picks, you should take into account that those clubs had the opportunity to pick Chris Grant. In mitigation, you should also take into account that he was a long shot and a one-off at 105. They're all factors when you assess the value of the opportunity attached to those picks.