Analysis Which 2016 top 20 picks won't make it?

[bungalow_bill]

I would love to see the recruiters perspective on this. My thinking is they pick the guy most likely to make it at #1 or least risk, but as the draft age is so young you find a few guys always end up better.

Yeah the safest bet. McGrath is unlikely to be a bust and chances are he will be a very good player.

 

[JG22]

I would love to see the recruiters perspective on this. My thinking is they pick the guy most likely to make it at #1 or least risk, but as the draft age is so young you find a few guys always end up better.

Think it's more who they think will be the best. Not the least risk.

 

[daffo]

and in conclusion none of us have any idea, either do the recruiters and if a player who has talent fails its going to be more down to bad luck with injuries or the players attitude towards being a professional athlete that will prevent them from succeeding. Additionally the GWS kids might struggle purely because of lack of opportunity, this is an interesting point with the academy kids as to why they would sign up to GWS when they know it will be much harder to get a game, particularly the ones that live on the murray and have no actual connection to the area or the club.

Because they feel it's the best chance to play in a flag.

 

[Laverde2Smack]

All the Essendon draftees will all make it. Outside of them it is hard to say.

 

[beowulf]

What a cynical thread one day after the draft and already judging the players.

Some of the negativity on this site is getting on my nerves. Or maybe it is the kidney stones. Whatever.

I happen to agree with you totally. There guys have not completed half of their first pre-season training and people are betting on their demise. The recruiting process has been probably the most rigorous done yet. That does NOT suggest all of the kids will make it, but it should increase the chances of success as clubs get better at it. And after this length of time, there are some clubs who had better have improved, my own strongly among them!

So, let's get some numbers into this. We look at the top 20 players: n = 20
Let's speculate for a moment. I will suggest that a top draft choice as a 0.8 chance of success (measured by playing more than 100 games). hence their probability of failure is 0.2.
I am probably being generous, but so be it.

So, the probability of them all making it is: 20C0 x (0.8)^20 x (0.2)^0 = 0.0115
That is 1.15% of all 20 making it.

The probability of 1 failing to make it: 20C1 x (0.8)^19 x (0.2)^1 = 0.0576
That is 5.76 % of 19 players making it.

The probability of 18 players making it: 20C2 x (0.8)^18 x (0.2)^2 = 0.1369
That is 13.7 %

The probability of 17 players making it: 20C3 x (0.8)^17 x (0.2)^3 = 0.2054
That is 20.5 %

The probability of 16 players making it: 20C4 x (0.8)^16 x (0.2)^4 = 0.2182
That is 21.8%

The probability of 15 players making it: 20C5 x (0.8)^15 x (0.2)^5 = 0.1746
That is 17.5 %
From there the probabilities drop sharply.

So, using probability the most probable outcome is that 16 players make it and 4 fail to make it.

Are you satisfied? or do you need to work out if it is YOUR club who has recruited a dud? (Not you snozulu: but the rest of the jackals waiting to prey upon the carcasses they wish to appear!)

 

[bergholt]

So, let's get some numbers into this. We look at the top 20 players: n = 20
Let's speculate for a moment. I will suggest that a top draft choice as a 0.8 chance of success (measured by playing more than 100 games). hence their probability of failure is 0.2.

Why speculate? The very first post in this thread - by me - has the full history of how many top 20 picks make it to 100 games each year. It would have to be the best draft ever for as few as 5 to fail, most likely it's more than that. You might find it distasteful but those are the facts.

 

[marty36]

Some of the negativity on this site is getting on my nerves. Or maybe it is the kidney stones. Whatever.

I happen to agree with you totally. There guys have not completed half of their first pre-season training and people are betting on their demise. The recruiting process has been probably the most rigorous done yet. That does NOT suggest all of the kids will make it, but it should increase the chances of success as clubs get better at it. And after this length of time, there are some clubs who had better have improved, my own strongly among them!

So, let's get some numbers into this. We look at the top 20 players: n = 20
Let's speculate for a moment. I will suggest that a top draft choice as a 0.8 chance of success (measured by playing more than 100 games). hence their probability of failure is 0.2.
I am probably being generous, but so be it.

So, the probability of them all making it is: 20C0 x (0.8)^20 x (0.2)^0 = 0.0115
That is 1.15% of all 20 making it.

The probability of 1 failing to make it: 20C1 x (0.8)^19 x (0.2)^1 = 0.0576
That is 5.76 % of 19 players making it.

The probability of 18 players making it: 20C2 x (0.8)^18 x (0.2)^2 = 0.1369
That is 13.7 %

The probability of 17 players making it: 20C3 x (0.8)^17 x (0.2)^3 = 0.2054
That is 20.5 %

The probability of 16 players making it: 20C4 x (0.8)^16 x (0.2)^4 = 0.2182
That is 21.8%

The probability of 15 players making it: 20C5 x (0.8)^15 x (0.2)^5 = 0.1746
That is 17.5 %
From there the probabilities drop sharply.

So, using probability the most probable outcome is that 16 players make it and 4 fail to make it.

Are you satisfied? or do you need to work out if it is YOUR club who has recruited a dud? (Not you snozulu: but the rest of the jackals waiting to prey upon the carcasses they wish to appear!)

Is 100 games making it over your career?

 

[beowulf]

Is 100 games making it over your career?

I don't really think so, but I had to select an easily measureable quantity. I would definitely say that playing LESS than 100 games is a failure.

 

[bungalow_bill]

I don't really think so, but I had to select an easily measureable quantity. I would definitely say that playing LESS than 100 games is a failure.

Unless you're an important part of a premiership winning team

 

[newblueo]

Richard tambling played 100 games so guess he made it

for me I don't rate Griffin Logue at all.just looks a under sized back,i rate Collins higher ... also reckon Taranto won't get past 100 or playing gws flag

 

[Love the Drake]

#6 - Sam Petrevski-Seton

Kid really has an uphill battle
Playing for Carlton
Being from remote area
dreaded pick 6 curse

1. A squeezer who nicknames himself 'the gun' has no credibility.
2. A tosser who uses every thread to bag Carlton has no credibility.
3. A middle-age man who wears an earring has no credibility (surely someone who calls themselves 'the gun' fits this mould).
4. A fool who gets off on antagonising others has no credibility.
5. A reminder that your posts serve no purpose as your posting history shows your lack of credibility.
6. Referring to point 4 - a fool cannot antagonise when the target audience knows he is a fool.
7. I have replied to your post to point out the above. You did not antagonise. You are purely an easy target with your child-like predictability.

FWIW what a ridiculous thread. Yeah, sure, some won't make it but they were all selected in the top 20 for a reason.

Good luck to all of them. Hope they all do well.

 

[THE_GUN]

1. A squeezer who nicknames himself 'the gun' has no credibility.
2. A tosser who uses every thread to bag Carlton has no credibility.
3. A middle-age man who wears an earring has no credibility (surely someone who calls themselves 'the gun' fits this mould).
4. A fool who gets off on antagonising others has no credibility.
5. A reminder that your posts serve no purpose as your posting history shows your lack of credibility.
6. Referring to point 4 - a fool cannot antagonise when the target audience knows he is a fool.
7. I have replied to your post to point out the above. You did not antagonise. You are purely an easy target with your child-like predictability.

FWIW what a ridiculous thread. Yeah, sure, some won't make it but they were all selected in the top 20 for a reason.

Good luck to all of them. Hope they all do well.

So going by your point 1. _ What is it about the drake you Love lol

You are a fool and when you talk about credability , surely you of all the Fools has the least, If you did some research you would work out where my username comes from and why i used that but im not going to bother with stupidity

you will win with experience

 

[mediumsizered]

1. A squeezer who nicknames himself 'the gun' has no credibility.
2. A tosser who uses every thread to bag Carlton has no credibility.
3. A middle-age man who wears an earring has no credibility (surely someone who calls themselves 'the gun' fits this mould).
4. A fool who gets off on antagonising others has no credibility.
5. A reminder that your posts serve no purpose as your posting history shows your lack of credibility.
6. Referring to point 4 - a fool cannot antagonise when the target audience knows he is a fool.
7. I have replied to your post to point out the above. You did not antagonise. You are purely an easy target with your child-like predictability.

FWIW what a ridiculous thread. Yeah, sure, some won't make it but they were all selected in the top 20 for a reason.

Good luck to all of them. Hope they all do well.

Don't feed the troll. It is not worth it.

 

[Love the Drake]

Don't feed the troll. It is not worth it.

Cheers. He/she is just so easy to slap down though. Its like debating with a 6 year old.

In regards to this thread...what a crap thread, I cant believe people would even vote on it .

Would be interesting (and predictable) to go back through who voted for who. I would bet my house on it that none voted for their own recruits..

 

[mediumsizered]

Cheers. He/she is just so easy to slap down though. Its like debating with a 6 year old.

In regards to this thread...what a crap thread, I cant believe people would even vote on it .

Would be interesting (and predictable) to go back through who voted for who. I would bet my house on it that none voted for their own recruits..

BF works much like political parties. Members will always vote along party lines.

 

[HARKER]

So what makes one a better chance of making it than another?

1. Attitude...............No mistaking that attitude takes precedence over aptitude, in the long run.
2. Opportunity.........Regardless of what recruiters say, they will side on needs when push comes to shove.
3. Early selection......Those that have been taken early in proceedings do get afforded more latitude than those that weren't.

Just a few starting points as to who will and who may not make it.

 

[theGav56]

I think Freo have over-compensated.
They were so poor with KPPs last season they have panicked and swung the pendulum too far the other way.

Clearly they haven't pigeon-holed him as a defender. He has midfield and forward capacity, and is a genuine running machine. Mundy and Johnson have limited futures and Fyfe will be the most sought after player, and of course Pavlich has just retired. Pretty good investment.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

exactly... should of had the last pick of the 1st round as their 1st pick. they were rewarded with the no1 pick for being drug cheats...

User name checks out

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Even the much vaunted 2001 draft had plenty of failures in the top 20:
Luke Molan - 0 games
Ashley Watson - 7 games
Barry Brooks - 10 games
Shane Harvey - 14 games
Daniel Elstone - 0 games

What makes interesting speculation is which of the 2015 draft will be failures, because none have yet identified themselves.

Top of the list of likely failures are:

1. Tom Doedee - 0 games in first season. Crows fans do not seem wild with excitement: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/pick-your-team-for-r1-2017.1145965/page-19. So he has done nothing to harm his chances of failing thus far.

2. Harry MacKay - 0 games in first season. Of course he was injured before the season began, is a tall, is still growing and still only 18 so 0 games is no knock on him at all and there is plenty of hype, hope and expectation for him among Blues fans (including me). Plus his supposedly lesser twin brother (pick 21) hasn't played any games at AFL level either but has been given a contract extension anyway so North are not yet suffering buyer regret.

3.Brayden Fiorini - 2 games in first season for the injury-riddled, poorly performing Gold Coast. On the other hand, in those 2 games at the end of the season he averaged 24.5 disposals, 5.5 marks and 6.5 tackles so he doesn't look like he is going to struggle to get a regular game next year and in years to come.

4. Aaron Francis - 3 games. He was long-term injured early but played rounds 18 to 20. 3 nondescript games according to the stats but hardly a vote of no confidence in him.

5. Sam Weideman - 3 games. Long-term injured but played rounds 20, 22 and 23. Nondescript games according to the stats but already averaging 1 goal and 3 marks a game is perfectly satisfactory for a young KPF.

6. Matthew Kennedy - 3 games. No doubt he will make it from what I have seen of his limited exposure, just maybe not at strong GWS.

7. Harrison Himmelberg - 4 games. Blooded last year rnds 17-20 and didn't look out of place in the GWS line-up. His form probably explains why GWS didn't bother recruiting MacReadie.

8. Ryan Burton - 4 games. Serious long-term injury concerns saw him break into the Hawks side in round 21 and was still there in the qualifying final. If he is over his injury there is clearly no doubting his talent.

9. Charlie Curnow - 6 games. Glandular fever after playing rnds 2-5 and then, after returning to the seniors round 17, injured his knee in rnd 18, crueling Blues chances of an upset win over Swans. Will definitely make it.

10. Wade Milera - 8 games in a first season for a side strong in his type of player is a clear sign Crows MC see a future for the lad. So do Crows fans according to the link above re Doedee.

Of the remaining 10 players in the top 20, all have played 10 games or more and clubs don't just "give" 10 plus games to blood kids who don't justify the pick by their performances. On the other hand Kane Tenace (pick 7, 2003 draft) played 12 games in 2004, 18 in 2005 but only 59 career games so it is still possible for failures from this lot.

It is just that I wouldn't bet on any one of the top 20 picks failing (without serious injury) to play 100 plus games. That is damn good recruiting.

If that first game that Francis played that had commentators jizzing about what a star he will be is nondescript then I can't wait til he plays a blinder

 

[HARKER]

If that first game that Francis played that had commentators jizzing about what a star he will be is nondescript then I can't wait til he plays a blinder

In the seniors?
Heard Ox lose himself after a VFL game where he did a couple of good things.

Interesting that he's now listed at 194 * 94. Big boy, if so.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

In the seniors?
Heard Ox lose himself after a VFL game where he did a couple of good things.

Interesting that he's now listed at 194 * 94. Big boy, if so.

Ox got excited after his afl game not vfl. Along with many others.

Yeah he's genuine kp size now, and his body shape is far more afl than it was

 

[Windhover]

Ox got excited after his afl game not vfl. Along with many others.

Yeah he's genuine kp size now, and his body shape is far more afl than it was

Francis was my nominated "pick of the draft", for what that is worth (Brodie this year). I did qualify my comment that his games were nondescript based on his stats. I wasn't in any way having a go at him, just saying he is the 4th most likely to fail in the draft, which tells me how exceptional the drafting was.

 

[Donakebab]

Francis was my nominated "pick of the draft", for what that is worth (Brodie this year). I did qualify my comment that his games were nondescript based on his stats. I wasn't in any way having a go at him, just saying he is the 4th most likely to fail in the draft, which tells me how exceptional the drafting was.

4th most likely according to what metric, a quick glance at stat sheets? Cool we'll just delist him now and get on with it.

 

[Windhover]

4th most likely according to what metric, a quick glance at stat sheets? Cool we'll just delist him now and get on with it.

I am not sure I can help you further with the metrics I have applied in my original post but I can give you the tip I did not use the "I am a *** supporter therefore our first round draft pick must be great" metric, useful as that metric has been in the past with say Kavanagh in 2012.

 

[Donakebab]

I am not sure I can help you further with the metrics I have applied in my original post but I can give you the tip I did not use the "I am a *** supporter therefore our first round draft pick must be great" metric, useful as that metric has been in the past with say Kavanagh in 2012.

You seem to have applied that to Curnow.