this is interesting analysis, and thanks for doing it. However, purely ranking them on the games versus draft position is (in my opinion) only tells part of the story. It doesn't give any consideration to quality of those games. What is more, under your methodology the only way that the number 1 draft pick can be the best value in any draft is if they play the most games.
If I am applying your logic correctly, here are the results from the 2011 draft
Ellis (Rich)
D. Smith (GWS)
Green (GWS)
Adams (GSW/Coll)
C. Smith (WB)
Wingard (PA)
McKenzie (Nth)
Tomlinson (GWS)
Docherty (Bris/Carl)
Sheridan (Frem)
Kav (Ess)
Coniglio (GWS)
Tyson (GWS/Melb)
Haynes (GWS)
Longer (Bris)
Sumner (GWS)
Patton (GWS)
Hoskin Elliot (GWS)
Buntine (GWS)
It almost looks like a random number generator could have produced those results. Wingard should be a clear #1 (IMHO) and there is no way that Kav (Career total 7 games) is ahead of Hoskin-Elliot, Coniglio, Patton or anyone else.
The only objective measure of impact on games (and therefore quality, although it is debatable) is SuperCoach scores or something similar. So if you looked at total career supercoach points that would give some depth to the games played ranking.
Not sure how you would do it, but if you gave weighting to AA selections (BIG weighting) or awards, that would help you more.
By the way, how did you capture Jaeger O'Meara?
Just my thoughts
How is Kav ahead of Coniglio?
Using the methodology from Goaloss
Kav is 19th pick and 19th for games played for a net ranking differential of 0. Coniglio is pick 2 but 6th for Games Played for a net ranking differential of -4. Therefore according to Goaloss methodology Kav is a better pick than Coniglio. I was using this as an example for why the methodology doesnt work without objective assessment of quality of games played.
Kav! isn't anywhere near 19th for games. You may have made some errors in your calculations.
I only did the first 19 players...went until I captured an EFC player
Edit: but agree Kav will drop lower in the ranking as those drafted after have played more games. In hindsight some pretty shoddy work. Will give myself an uppercut
Best and Fairest results versus draft position would be my go to. But I like the idea.
There's half a dozen ways you could do it, and I reckon that's one of the most subjective!
McPhee > Lloyd?
David Teague == Marc Mercuri??
If I had more spare time I'd chuck in the PSDs & rookies to Goaloss's version, I think that'd be a lot more indicative.
Hmmm. McPhee > Lloyd by my system? The Orange cream? Then no. Forget that. I instantly disown that post.
I still think my system has merit judging the efficiency of the draft pick, not so much how good a player is. And it works cumulatively.
Eg: Player X is taken at pick 5 and has 4 top 5 B&F finishes by the time he retires. The player drafted at 11 has 6.
Player Y is taken at 65 and has 4 top 10 B&F. The player taken at 30 has 2.
Arguably player Y is a better Draft pick than X, even though X is a better player.
But you need to factor in games played, injury, impact on games, etc etc.
So, I've redone the analysis to include Rookie and Pre Season draft picks. (The previous iteration only had National Draft picks.)
The new leaderboard is below. This is games played vs draft pick position for 2006-2013 drafts using the same ranking logic as before.
Carlton
Collingwood
Hawthorn
Adelaide
Sydney
Geelong
St Kilda
Brisbane
Fremantle
Richmond
West Coast
Essendon
North Melbourne
Port Adelaide
Western Bulldogs
Melbourne
Some big movers relative- Western Bulldogs -11, North -7, Hawthorn +6, Geelong +8. This suggests that Hawthorn and Geelong get much better value out of their rookie and PSD picks than the Bulldogs/North.
Our overall position is relatively similar to where we were before. This is our year by year ranking:
200615
200713
200811
20094
201013
20112
201215
20136
Overall12
I was suprised that we didn't perform better given this now included our rookie picks. I had the feeling that we had done reasonably well from rookie drafts. So I did some number crunching on the rookie draft. Across this time period, we were also ranked 12th for rookie picks. In terms of sheer number of games, thus is what clubs have got out of rookie picks since 2006.
Carlton905
Fremantle642
St Kilda641
Geelong600
North Melbourne546
Adelaide529
Collingwood520
Western Bulldogs487
Sydney423
Hawthorn419
Essendon368
Richmond337
Brisbane319
Melbourne264
West Coast260
Port Adelaide209
We are 11th on the games played list. Our most productive year of rookie listing was 2009 in which our picks have played 178 games so far, (Howlett/Crameri). By contrast 2006/7/08 have yielded a total of 52 games.
Rookie year / Games Played
200623
200721
20088
2009178
201048
201171
20123
201316
Carlton have done astonishingly well out of the rookie draft - since 2006 they have yielded 4x 100+ game players and another 4x 50-100 gamers. In that time period, we have only rookie drafted 4 players who have played more than 25 games, and two of them are no longer with us - Crameri & Josh Jenkins. I was surprised how poorly we had done from rookie drafts.
In the PSD we have done relatively well. We have got more games out of the PSD than any other club over this time period. - TBC, Hibberd and Hardie in particular. Note that the scale is relevant - in the time period in question across the AFL there has been 523 Rookie picks but only 50 PSD picks, so the PSD data is a relatively small sample size.
Next step is to include Supercoach data as an alternative form of comparison.