Analysis What constitutes a successful draft pick/draft haul?

[murphy2bedabest]

SEN breakfast went through team by team looking at the draft from 2012 (5 years on) yesterday. Talk about a super draft for us, but that’s not what I want to talk about here.

When they where giving their pass marks for teams 1 factor they took into account was if the player was still in the AFL, but at another club.

This got me thinking, How do you judge if they were a successful draft pick. Is it as simple they need to play 150+ games ? Awards like B&F or AA? Premiership players? What if they are a pick 50+ ? Are they judged the same as a top 10 pick?

Then what if they, for what ever reason get traded in a few year? Even if they were the right pick at that time, is that still a success? Or is objective to keep them as a one club player?

Take Jake Stringer as a case study, please I don’t want to make this a stringer thread, but I think this could be a good way to look at successes in the draft.

Now in 2012 Stringer was the best pick for us at pick 5, I don’t think anyone here would change that pick. Only Ollie Wines can be argued as a player that we might’ve missed out on at 5 or 6 but that’s splitting hairs.

In the 5 years Stringer has won AA and been an integral part of our premiership, that alone should be seen as a successful draft pick. Yet he has played less than 100 games and is no longer at the club.

So taking if forward with Naughton, Richards and Porter, how do we judge their picks in 5 years time? Does Naughton need to be one of the best KPD in 5 years to justify pick 9? What about Porter? Is an ok 50 games enough from a pick in the 70s ?

 

[VitalDread]

I based it around player development, so for example
We draft a small forward, then we develop that player over time into a winger/midfielder while still being a deadly forward
Avg games i'm happy with is 35 games which is generally the standard games played nowadays

 

[Golden_6]

I based it around player development, so for example
We draft a small forward, then we develop that player over time into a winger/midfielder while still being a deadly forward
Avg games i'm happy with is 35 games which is generally the standard games played nowadays

I would certainly not be happy if the 4 or so players we took in the national draft averaged 35 games. That's a massive fail.

 

[Igloo]

To be a success, i'd say about 100 games. If they get to 100, they're generally at least a good player. Barring things like injury, of course.
You don't need to win all the awards and stuff to be a good player.

I think once they're drafted, the pick they were drafted at doesn't really matter in terms of judging if they're good or not.
But there is also the part of it that is who could you have drafted instead, and if they're better. I'd put this in a separate category than whether the draft was a success or not.

 

[murphy2bedabest]

To be a success, i'd say about 100 games. If they get to 100, they're generally at least a good player. Barring things like injury, of course.
You don't need to win all the awards and stuff to be a good player.

I think once they're drafted, the pick they were drafted at doesn't really matter in terms of judging if they're good or not.
But there is also the part of it that is who could you have drafted instead, and if they're better. I'd put this in a separate category than whether the draft was a success or not.

this is good, does injury impact how you judge their worth ? From memory Tim Walsh or Tom Williams were both top 10 picks, but both had a bad run with injuries. Does that still make them a fail? Or impact how you judge that player?

 

[VitalDread]

I would certainly not be happy if the 4 or so players we took in the national draft averaged 35 games. That's a massive fail.

Sorry meant to have it for later picks 30+ onwards
anything within the top 30 should be 100 gamers

 

[dogwatch]

"Games Played" is a good rough guide but it doesn't take into account other factors like where the player went in the draft, what player honours that player achieved, whether his career was affected by injury, whether he was already a mature or accomplished player and so on. Even harder is trying to get a handle on what is/was a strong draft vs a weak draft (it's easy to boast you did well if the draft was really strong down to pick 25). And do you count it as a failure if you traded the player after a few years but he succeeded elsewhere? Does it depend on what you got back for him in that trade ... and how do you measure that? And how do you assess the complementarity of the draft with the trading your club did? Those two processes should not be viewed in isolation.

This is all good news because it means we still have something to argue about at length in the pub.

However the idea of coming up with a rough measure of draft success is an appealing challenge. It would never be terribly accurate and could only be used after about 5 or more years but it could show some general trends (which might prove to be statistically significant) or it could highlight some delinquent clubs when it comes to trading eras. We had our Clayton years for instance. Norf, Melbourne and Carlton have all had some bad sequences at the draft. Probably Essendon too. At a stretch it might even help to quantify the impact of the GWS and GCS draft concessions.

As a hypothetical, if we'd drafted Tom Boyd at #1 (instead of trade for him) and within 3 years he was nearly BoG in a GF to help us win our first flag in 62 years ... but never played another game: is he a draft success or a draft failure? Pretty hard to have a single draft index that gives you a neat answer to that. It's the sort of topic that will keep pubs and breweries in business for years to come.

 

[Igloo]

this is good, does injury impact how you judge their worth ? From memory Tim Walsh or Tom Williams were both top 10 picks, but both had a bad run with injuries. Does that still make them a fail? Or impact how you judge that player?

Tom Williams is one of my favourite players of all time for unknown reasons, so he is 100% a success

I think games played is just the simplest way. But then it can come down to something like how long are they on the list. Or how strong the draft is.
Tom Williams is actually an interesting one to use as an example for this thread. The draft he was in was terrible. Outside of the top 10 there were only a handful of players who had a decent career. He managed to be around for about 10 years, yet only played 85 games due to all his injuries.

Realistically, he is a fail. But comparatively to the rest of the draft, it wasn't too bad of a pick.

 

[Sharkey66]

"Games Played" is a good rough guide but it doesn't take into account other factors like where the player went in the draft, what player honours that player achieved, whether his career was affected by injury, whether he was already a mature or accomplished player and so on. Even harder is trying to get a handle on what is/was a strong draft vs a weak draft (it's easy to boast you did well if the draft was really strong down to pick 25). And do you count it as a failure if you traded the player after a few years but he succeeded elsewhere? Does it depend on what you got back for him in that trade ... and how do you measure that? And how do you assess the complementarity of the draft with the trading your club did? Those two processes should not be viewed in isolation.

This is all good news because it means we still have something to argue about at length in the pub.

However the idea of coming up with a rough measure of draft success is an appealing challenge. It would never be terribly accurate and could only be used after about 5 or more years but it could show some general trends (which might prove to be statistically significant) or it could highlight some delinquent clubs when it comes to trading eras. We had our Clayton years for instance. Norf, Melbourne and Carlton have all had some bad sequences at the draft. Probably Essendon too. At a stretch it might even help to quantify the impact of the GWS and GCS draft concessions.

As a hypothetical, if we'd drafted Tom Boyd at #1 (instead of trade for him) and within 3 years he was nearly BoG in a GF to help us win our first flag in 62 years ... but never played another game: is he a draft success or a draft failure? Pretty hard to have a single draft index that gives you a neat answer to that. It's the sort of topic that will keep pubs and breweries in business for years to come.

The other thing that really needs to be taken into account is Opportunity. A player who could be a 100 game player at one club may not get a game at another club. Biggs and Hrovat are examples here where there are just too many players in front of them to get a game.
Webb is one in this situation now and Williams will most likely become another.

 

[Yojimbo]

Adelaide finished 1st on the ladder and made the grand
final yet their draftees combined for 1 game. Brisbane
finished 18th on the ladder and their draftees combined
for 73 games. The moral of the story is there are many
ways to measure success. Success can be a draftee
who smashes his way into a side no matter good or
bad and is selected on merit and not gifted games and
this has nothing to do with the number next to his name
on draft night.

 

[Tommycash]

I agree that a lot has to do with draft pick position and expectations coming in. A pick 1 who plays 50 games for the club will be considered a disappointment. Hell, even if he plays 150 games but never reaches the level that was expected they will be considered something of a disappointment (Jack Watts). \

But I agree with the idea that games played is a poor approximation. Someone like Prudden wouldn't necessarily be considered a failure seeing as he was a late pick and injuries meant his body broke down but coming from where he did, no one really expected him to make it anyway.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

Time!

 

[Mattdougie]

Stringer simply cannot be called a success

To have a player with that much talent and not be able to reign him in is a failure

I would bet every cent I have if he was drafted by the hawks he would be at least a 2 x AA and in the best 20 players in the comp kicking minimum 50/60 goals a year.

 

[murphy2bedabest]

Stringer simply cannot be called a success

To have a player with that much talent and not be able to reign him in is a failure

I would bet every cent I have if he was drafted by the hawks he would be at least a 2 x AA and in the best 20 players in the comp kicking minimum 50/60 goals a year.

I don’t want this to be a stringer thread, but this does highlight an issue that might be there.

Drafting is one thing, but I don’t think we have ever had the right, or enough help in developing these young kids.

Why haven’t we drafted a 200 game key Forward other than Chris Grant? Why can’t we just develop them? Is it as easy as saying we are drafting they wrong ones? What if we drafted Buddy ? Would he be the player he is now? Or would he be another failed Bulldogs key forward?

 

[Yojimbo]

Why haven’t we drafted a 200 game key Forward other than Chris Grant? Why can’t we just develop them? Is it as easy as saying we are drafting they wrong ones? What if we drafted Buddy ? Would he be the player he is now? Or would he be another failed Bulldogs key forward?

I remember 2008 well, Adam Cooney won the brownlow and we
had a young fellow named Jarrad Boumann playing in the
development team for Williamstown in the finals Boumann
kicked 10 goals playing CHF in the last two games. I got all
excited at the prospect of a key forward so i went to see the
Willy seniors play in 2009 only to find Boumann playing in
the back pocket Michael Johnson style. I could not help
thinking another victim of our quasi success with the
small forward line we had going at the time.

 

[Nath09]

Stringer simply cannot be called a success

To have a player with that much talent and not be able to reign him in is a failure

I would bet every cent I have if he was drafted by the hawks he would be at least a 2 x AA and in the best 20 players in the comp kicking minimum 50/60 goals a year.

This is what's called a coward's bet - the kind of bet that can in no way be proven and so is completely worthless - other than for hollow, grandstanding purposes.

 

[Mattdougie]

This is what's called a coward's bet - the kind of bet that can no way can be proven and so is completely worthless - other than for hollow, grandstanding purposes.

Lol dear god another one

This response is what’s called attempted cherry picking.

Trying to pick an easy target in a horribly symbolic attempt to gain easy likes for the exact purpose of grandstanding you accuse me off. The chest puffs out a little more and the ego gains a tiny tickle

Clap clap dear boy clap clap

 

[murphy2bedabest]

I remember 2008 well, Adam Cooney won the brownlow and we
had a young fellow named Jarrad Boumann playing in the
development team for Williamstown in the finals Boumann
kicked 10 goals playing CHF in the last two games. I got all
excited at the prospect of a key forward so i went to see the
Willy seniors play in 2009 only to find Boumann playing in
the back pocket Michael Johnson style. I could not help
thinking another victim of our quasi success with the
small forward line we had going at the time.

I do think having our own VFL side has been our most important move in the last 10-20 years.

We have played finals every year, including winning the 2014,16 premierships and held us in good stead winning the AFL premiership.

You can see that we now play the same way in the VFL and AFL, and develop who we want where we want.

 

[RedWhite&Blue]

A successful draft pick is one that 5 years on is a regular seniors player. One that contributes regularly and when they get injured it's seen as a significant out.

 

[Yojimbo]

I do think having our own VFL side has been our most important move in the last 10-20 years.

We have played finals every year, including winning the 2014,16 premierships and held us in good stead winning the AFL premiership.

You can see that we now play the same way in the VFL and AFL, and develop who we want where we want.

When we were aligned with Willy we mirrored their performance
in that we could only make prelims and never quite win the big
one. I look at Lukas Webb and cannot help feeling confused
at his positional development there seems to be a definite
disconnect as to which position he plays at VFL level and
at AFL level and neither are correct. I am not happy that
we missed out on Ben Long and Mitch Hannan as what is
the point in identifying talent for other teams.

 

[stefoid]

Stringer simply cannot be called a success

To have a player with that much talent and not be able to reign him in is a failure

I would bet every cent I have if he was drafted by the hawks he would be at least a 2 x AA and in the best 20 players in the comp kicking minimum 50/60 goals a year.

Good draft choice, poor development.

But anyway, Bev is ex-hawthorn, and having inherited Stringer, he has decided to boot him out. Lets see what happens...

 

[murphy2bedabest]

When we were aligned with Willy we mirrored their performance
in that we could only make prelims and never quite win the big
one. I look at Lukas Webb and cannot help feeling confused
at his positional development there seems to be a definite
disconnect as to which position he plays at VFL level and
at AFL level and neither are correct. I am not happy that
we missed out on Ben Long and Mitch Hannan as what is
the point in identifying talent for other teams.

Ben long went at 25 after we picked English and before Lipinski.

Hannan went at 46 right before we picked Lewis young.

What are we to do?

 

[TedDougChris]

Ben long went at 25 after we picked English and before Lipinski.

Hannan went at 46 right before we picked Lewis young.

What are we to do?

Much prefer English and Young than Long and Hannan.

 

[BJ06]

Stringer simply cannot be called a success

To have a player with that much talent and not be able to reign him in is a failure

I would bet every cent I have if he was drafted by the hawks he would be at least a 2 x AA and in the best 20 players in the comp kicking minimum 50/60 goals a year.

I agree with you to an extent with the failure to reign him in comment.

But seeing as the question posed was what constitutes a successful draft pick, the fact that the draft team took a risk on a recently seriously injured player in the draft and selected a player who up until about 18 months ago was labeled almost a generational talent by all football watchers. That has to be considered a huge success when looked at purely in terms of a draft selection.

I have no opinion of the Hawthorn comment. Ultimately could've, should've, would've...

 

[BJ06]

When we were aligned with Willy we mirrored their performance
in that we could only make prelims and never quite win the big
one. I look at Lukas Webb and cannot help feeling confused
at his positional development there seems to be a definite
disconnect as to which position he plays at VFL level and
at AFL level and neither are correct. I am not happy that
we missed out on Ben Long and Mitch Hannan as what is
the point in identifying talent for other teams.

My problem with missing out on Hannan and Long isn't directed at the club, its directed at the AFL. They should allow clubs who develop players the opportunity to match the selection at the draft, much the same as father/sons.