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

[igon value]

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...

There have only been 30 national drafts. And many of those were subject to concessions given to new clubs.

 

[cryptor]

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.

You can't take into account the players who were still available at a pick until after the draft. And even then you'd have to wait maybe a few years before you'd be able to really know the value of a player that was available at any given pick. Which as was explained to you is drafting in hindsight.

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. You'd have to be pretty dense to think that any later pick is worth more than an early pick. In so far as that you wouldn't trade pick 4 for pick 5 or pick 64 for pick 65.

But if you could see that players taken at pick 5 have consistently (there's that word again!) been objectively better players than those taken with pick 4 then the conclusion you should be drawing isn't that pick 5 is better than pick 4, but that there isn't really much of a difference between two picks that close together.

The first half dozen or so players taken in most drafts rarely throw up a really unexpected selection. Those first handful picked tend to come from a slightly larger sample of draftees. Most clubs and draft experts are on the same page about the majority of those kids and there's really just variations in the order that clubs rate them in based on their observations and list needs. And then from there it quickly diverges and you could look at hundreds of phantom drafts and not one would be even close to getting the order right once you get past that first half dozen picks.

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.

Yep. But a club wouldn't want pick 4 over pick 5 because they would have better chances of getting a player that's going to be really good and will make it. As I said above, the chances of that happening for that first bunch of highly rated players is going to be pretty even. Maybe one or two of them will be the Richard Tambling, Jack Watts or Mitch Thorp of the highly rated players, but otherwise clubs are going to assume all the players in that top bunch will make it. So why a club really would want pick 4 over pick 5 is not because they have a better opportunity of getting a player that will make it, but because they will have a better opportunity to get the player they prefer that will (until we know better via the power of hindsight) have the same odds of making it as the kid picked at pick 5 or even pick 3.

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.

You say the value of a pick is determined by the quality of players left remaining available at that pick. We're all telling you it is based on the chances that you actually pick one of those quality players with that pick.

The odds of there being players that end up being high quality available at pick 14 = very, very high

The odds that you actually end up selecting one of those high quality players with pick 14 from a draft that features a lot more average-to-poor players = much, much lower

It's very simple.

 

[old55]

I think it depends on whether O'Meara can get back to where he was before he was injured - he was the best young player in the competition and if he has recovered from his injuries then during 2017 he will adapt to Hawthorn's plan and in 2018 should be playing great footy. As mentioned above T.Mitchell is a good replacement for Lewis and a fit O'Meara is a good replacement for S.Mitchell. Hawthorn will lose Burgoyne but if they could replace him with Fyfe they'll be right back in it. I expect them to finish 7-12 next year. In 2018 I think it depends on O'Meara and Fyfe:

• 1-6 and in flag contention: O'Meara fit and Fyfe FA
• 7-12: one of O'Meara fit and Fyfe FA
• 13-18: neither O'Meara fit or Fyfe FA

I don't see enough of West Coast to make a decent call.

 

[Gibbke]

There have only been 30 national drafts. And many of those were subject to concessions given to new clubs.

I was including preseason drafts as well, which actually pushes the figure way past 50, although they've been a much smaller deal in the last decade...

The concession point backs up my own. A fledgling organisation takes either the best players or the best of a zone it's been allocated. None of the expansion sides won a flag with the nucleus of the side that started them off. We might see an exception with GWS, although it's hard to really pinpoint all of players considered the core group in March 2012...so much development and rotation by Sheedy onwards...

 

[igon value]

I was including preseason drafts as well, which actually pushes the figure way past 50, although they've been a much smaller deal in the last decade...

Preseason drafts is a seconds draft. You're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of how the draft works

 

[demondavey]

I've got WC winning the flag next year and Hawthorn at 8 or out of the finals. Hawthorn of 2014 on GF day were one of the best sides I've ever seen, as good as Geelong in 07, Essendon of 2000, and Brisbane of 03.

 

[Gibbke]

Preseason drafts is a seconds draft. You're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of how the draft works

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I actually never made any differentiation between drafts in the first place, you did. The POINT (again) is that hardly any players from that upper echelon have figured in premierships with the team that took them in the first go, possibly due to being undermanaged when they got there. "Fundamental" comprehension, bud...and you'll find the point is accurate...

 

[igon value]

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I actually never made any differentiation between drafts in the first place, you did. The POINT (again) is that hardly any players from that upper echelon have figured in premierships with the team that took them in the first go, possibly due to being undermanaged when they got there. "Fundamental" comprehension, bud...and you'll find the point is accurate...

There have only been 30 drafts.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You can't take into account the players who were still available at a pick until after the draft.

Yeah, so that would apply to this discussion, wouldn't it? If we're using previous drafts to assess the value of a certain pick, it's now 'after those drafts'.

And even then you'd have to wait maybe a few years before you'd be able to really know the value of a player that was available at any given pick. Which as was explained to you is drafting in hindsight.

Yeah. See above.

It's got nothing to do with 'drafting in hindsight', which strikes me as a meaningless catchphrase coined here to avoid critical thinking. It is a matter of taking into account the value of the opportunity attached to a draft pick in the past, rather than simply looking at the one player taken with that selection, which is an obviously incomplete approach to assessing that value.

Of course not. You'd have to be pretty dense to think that any later pick is worth more than an early pick. In so far as that you wouldn't trade pick 4 for pick 5 or pick 64 for pick 65.

But if you believe a pick's value is determined by the players selected there and there was a track record of players taken at pick 5 being better than players taken at pick 4, then why wouldn't pick 5 be considered more valuable?

Isn't that precisely the argument, bogus as it is, being advanced here? That a draft pick's value is defined by the aggregate or average of players taken with that selection in the past? If that's the case, then why couldn't pick 5 be more valuable than pick 4, if the record shows that players taken at pick 5 turned out to be, on average, more accomplished than those taken at pick 4?

The answer, of course, is that the value of a pick is not solely and wholly about the players selected there but about the value of opportunity, which must also take into account the players who were available, and not just the players taken with that pick. That's why pick 4 is always more valuable than pick 5, even if pick 5 was shown to have delivered better players in the past.

The first half dozen or so players taken in most drafts rarely throw up a really unexpected selection. Those first handful picked tend to come from a slightly larger sample of draftees. Most clubs and draft experts are on the same page about the majority of those kids and there's really just variations in the order that clubs rate them in based on their observations and list needs. And then from there it quickly diverges and you could look at hundreds of phantom drafts and not one would be even close to getting the order right once you get past that first half dozen picks.

I'm not sure what point this makes.

Of course there are 'variations in the order'. Those variations are the difference between picking Ashley Sampi or Jimmy Bartel with your top 10 pick.

The point remains, Sampi being picked at 6 doesn't automatically diminish the overall value of pick 6 against the value of pick 8, which delivered Bartel. Because WC had the opportunity to pick Bartel at 6. They just chose not to. That has nothing to do with the value of the pick they blew on Sampi.

Yep. But a club wouldn't want pick 4 over pick 5 because they would have better chances of getting a player that's going to be really good and will make it.

Sorry, what?

That makes no sense.

A club would always prefer pick 4 over pick 5 because it is self-evidently and by definition more valuable. Because there is greater opportunity attached to it. In the event that they end up choosing poorly and a better player is picked with the subsequent selection, that has nothing to do with the value of the pick itself. After all, they also had the opportunity to pick that player.

You say the value of a pick is determined by the quality of players left remaining available at that pick. We're all telling you it is based on the chances that you actually pick one of those quality players with that pick.

I said the players still available should be taken into account, rather than looking exclusively at the player selected with a given pick.

Because the value of a draft pick is about the value of the opportunity attached to it, and assessing that properly necessarily involves considering the other players available.

It's very simple.

You are right that assessing a pick based exclusively on a list of players taken with that selection in the past is simple. It's also obviously spurious. So the simplicity of your rationale isn't necessarily a virtue.

 

[Tigersfan35]

I said Hawthorn just based off the players they have and I think there experience might give them a slight edge. Mitchell, Lewis.... Oh wait. Hawthorn have tried to rebuild on the run and whilst it may help them be better in 2017 I don't think they will be able to continue this way further into the future. WC have a brighter future and will do considerably better than Hawthron in 2018. After season 2017 regardless of how it goes they must start a full rebuild. IMO neither of WC or Hawthorn will win it next year and it will either be GWS or the great WB who hold up the historic cup.

 

[Gibbke]

There have only been 30 drafts.

30 National Drafts.

 

[cryptor]

Sorry, what?

That makes no sense.

It would if you didn't selectively quote me so as to change the context of what I actually said.

Not going to bother with you if that's how you're going to try and make your points.

 

[Saint]

Anyone who thinks the Hawks will be as good as 2016 in 2017 is kidding themselves.

At best, they've found replacements for their two best players who are now gone. The rest of the list is following the downward trajectory it was already on. They will all find the going tougher as their teammates all slow down with age and a lack of good young players coming through the ranks thanks to recent success (and the resultant lack of decent draftees).

Not one of their draftees for the last 5 years has shown much beyond a few glimpses here and there. Their main problem over the last few years was clearances and after losing their two highest clearance winners and a ruckman their new players aren't going to have it any easier than Mitchell and Lewis did. It will still be a huge problem. Tag O'Meara (if he's not injured) and their midfield is probably the worst in the league.

Meanwhile their key opponents, Dogs, GWS, Cats, Swans, Crows were all on an upward trajectory last year and there are many more behind those likely to climb. Hawks will be lucky to make the 8.

As for West Coast, they've got the talent, they just need to sort out the game plan and what happens when Plan A isn't working.

 

[Bulldogs Legend]

I think it depends on whether O'Meara can get back to where he was before he was injured - he was the best young player in the competition and if he has recovered from his injuries then during 2017 he will adapt to Hawthorn's plan and in 2018 should be playing great footy. As mentioned above T.Mitchell is a good replacement for Lewis and a fit O'Meara is a good replacement for S.Mitchell. Hawthorn will lose Burgoyne but if they could replace him with Fyfe they'll be right back in it. I expect them to finish 7-12 next year. In 2018 I think it depends on O'Meara and Fyfe:

• 1-6 and in flag contention: O'Meara fit and Fyfe FA
• 7-12: one of O'Meara fit and Fyfe FA
• 13-18: neither O'Meara fit or Fyfe FA

I don't see enough of West Coast to make a decent call.

OMeara was never as good as Sam Mitchell before he was injured and I doubt he will be afterwards. He was a good young player but some of the talk about what he was like is a bit over the top.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It would if you didn't selectively quote me so as to change the context of what I actually said.

Don't be silly. I didn't 'change the context' of anything. I responded at length to what you said.

You bleat about me 'selectively quoting' you - which is unavoidable unless I quote your entire post - but you've ignored my argument, preferring to make an absurd, narrow complaint about being 'taken out of context'. So your objection doesn't hold much water.

Not going to bother with you if that's how you're going to try and make your points.

Eject! Eject!

 

[cryptor]

Don't be silly. I didn't 'change the context' of anything. I responded at length to what you said.

You intentionally picked out the first line of my paragraph to quote and culled the rest of it which is what gave it context. On its own it's just an absurd statement. If you're going to resort to doing that kind of thing it's not worth my time. Guess that makes you the winner of the internet argument. Gold star for you champ.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I've got WC winning the flag next year...

Seriously?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You intentionally picked out the first line of my paragraph to quote and culled the rest of it which is what gave it context.

I quoted multiple parts of your post, which I responded to at length. How can you complain about being 'selectively quoted' while simultaneously ignoring my entire response? That doesn't pass the smell test.

And yes, there was one line in particular that made no sense in your post - the premise was irrational. The 'context' or the subsequent explanation didn't alter that.

Either way, it doesn't justify your wholesale refusal to address any of my other arguments. That's just your excuse to ignore the substance.

On its own it's just an absurd statement. If you're going to resort to doing that kind of thing it's not worth my time.

See above. I responded to various parts of your post at length.

Your complaint that you were 'taken out of context' is simply not credible. This is just a canned line people use when they want to abandon ship. People have seen it a million times before. It doesn't fly.

 

[cryptor]

I quoted multiple parts of your post, which I responded to at length. How can you complain about being 'selectively quoted' while simultaneously ignoring my entire response? That doesn't pass the smell test.

And yes, there was one line in particular that made no sense in your post - the premise was irrational. The 'context' or the subsequent explanation didn't alter that.

Either way, it doesn't justify your wholesale refusal to address any of my other arguments. That's just your excuse to ignore the substance.

See above. I responded to various parts of your post at length.

Your complaint that you were 'taken out of context' is simply not credible. This is just a canned line people use when they want to abandon ship. People have seen it a million times before. It doesn't fly.

Don't care mate. If you want something to chew on here is my last word on the matter:

Pick 14 has shown to not have delivered a player clearly better than Tom Mitchell at all over the past 10 drafts. Yes, plenty of better players have been and could be picked after that pick. That much is almost certainly going to be true. But what this shows - and no, it's not exclusive to pick 14, and no, it can't be used to prove pick 15 > pick 14 - is that despite those players being there the chances that you'll actually pick one, even with a late first rounder, are very far from certain. Hence trading that pick 14 for the known value and quality of a player like Tom Mitchell is a no-brainer move everyday of the week.

/mic drop

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Don't care mate. If you want something to chew on here is my last word on the matter:

Pick 14 has shown to not have delivered a player clearly better than Tom Mitchell at all over the past 10 drafts. Yes, plenty of better players have been and could be picked after that pick. That much is almost certainly going to be true. But what this shows - and no, it's not exclusive to pick 14, and no, it can't be used to prove pick 15 > pick 14 - is that despite those players being there the chances that you'll actually pick one, even with a late first rounder, are very far from certain. Hence trading that pick 14 for the known value and quality of a player like Tom Mitchell is a no-brainer move everyday of the week.

/mic drop

I don't know why you'd 'drop the mic' after repeating an erroneous argument. That's not clever.

If you want to assess the value of a draft pick, you need to do more than simply look at the players taken with that selection in the past.

Because that approach doesn't adequately take into account the value of the opportunity attached to a pick. To do that, you should also consider the players who were available.

If a club chooses poorly with pick 6 or pick 10 or pick 14 or whatever, that doesn't diminish the value of that pick. They still had the opportunity to pick from a bunch of players and it's that opportunity that determines the value of that pick, not the specific selection. Whether the club chose well or chose badly has no bearing on the value of that pick.

 

[demondavey]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously

 

[demondavey]

Don't care mate. If you want something to chew on here is my last word on the matter:

Pick 14 has shown to not have delivered a player clearly better than Tom Mitchell at all over the past 10 drafts. Yes, plenty of better players have been and could be picked after that pick. That much is almost certainly going to be true. But what this shows - and no, it's not exclusive to pick 14, and no, it can't be used to prove pick 15 > pick 14 - is that despite those players being there the chances that you'll actually pick one, even with a late first rounder, are very far from certain. Hence trading that pick 14 for the known value and quality of a player like Tom Mitchell is a no-brainer move everyday of the week.

/mic drop

This is rubbish, utter rubbish. Grant Birchall was pick 14 for example.

 

[yeee_haaaa!!!!!]

West coast will probably finish above hawthorn. Neither will be playing finals tho

 

[demondavey]

OMeara was never as good as Sam Mitchell before he was injured and I doubt he will be afterwards. He was a good young player but some of the talk about what he was like is a bit over the top.

Won't play 100 games

 

[cryptor]

This is rubbish, utter rubbish. Grant Birchall was pick 14 for example.

Grant Birchall was pick 14 in the 2005 draft. 11 drafts ago. I didn't exclude him to improve my point either. Was just going by the list posted a couple pages back. Including him still shows how difficult it is to pick a great player even with a high pick.