As promised in the X Richards thread, a fairly brief/basic overview of draft picks and their “reliability” as indicated by average number of games played
All information is taken from draftguru.com.au
I have excluded any draft picks that have been used in less than 10 drafts as a couple of outliers in picks over 100 really throw off the figures (seriously, how do pick 105 and 106 average 100+ games when the pick has been used 4 and 5 times respectively!?)
I’ve also rounded the numbers cos I hate decimals
First off is picks vs games by draft round.
For the purposes of this I have included 18 picks (representing 1 per team) per round
Round 1 (1-18): 93 games
Round 2 (19-36): 57 games
Round 3 (37-54): 49 games
Round 4 (55-73): 37 games
Round 5+ (74-93): 31 games
Next is picks in allotments of 10
Picks 01-10: 103 games
Picks 11-20: 80 games
Picks 21-30: 57 games
Picks 31-40: 57 games
Picks 41-50: 52 games
Picks 51-60: 37 games
Picks 61-70: 31 games
Picks 71-80: 31 games
Picks 81-90: 30 games
Finally is picks in allotments of 5
Picks 01-05: 121 games
Picks 06-10: 84 games
Picks 11-15: 84 games
Picks 16-20: 77 games
Picks 21-25: 55 games
Picks 26-30: 59 games
Picks 31-35: 53 games
Picks 36-40: 62 games
Picks 41-45: 52 games
Picks 46-50: 53 games
Picks 51-55: 35 games
Picks 56-60: 41 games
Picks 61-65: 28 games
Picks 66-70: 35 games
Picks 71-75: 34 games
Picks 76-80: 29 games
Picks 81-85: 26 games
Picks 86-90: 34 games
Based off that you’d almost say if you didn’t have a top 5 pick, you’d be better off trying to get 2 picks in the 6-20 range even if it mean giving up say 6 and 24 for 12 and 16 or something like that
Picks outside the top 20 all the way up to pick 50 there’s no obvious statistical difference in the quality of player you’re likely to pick up
Statistics are the way of turning individual results into averages.
It’s like having a terrible run on a blackjack table. Every else is pulling 19s and 20s, while you’re pulling 13s. It’s a great table but you’re getting crapped on from a great height.
Like everyone else picking from 6-10 is pulling 150 game players, but your guy is a spud, or gets injured.
I just really don’t think all these numbers getting pulled out of random arseholes mean jack. You do the best you can, using accepted practices, and hope for the best. Excrement occurs but you give yourself the best hope of success.
I want McCluggage because he’s from down here and you can talk to the locals about the local boy. Willem Drew, like Marty Gleeson, is another one, although I don’t know that much about him except he’s played in 3 senior flags and was best on in the one before his draft.
Statistics are the way of turning individual results into averages.
It’s like having a terrible run on a blackjack table. Every else is pulling 19s and 20s, while you’re pulling 13s. It’s a great table but you’re getting crapped on from a great height.
Like everyone else picking from 6-10 is pulling 150 game players, but your guy is a spud, or gets injured.
I just really don’t think all these numbers getting pulled out of random arseholes mean jack. You do the best you can, using accepted practices, and hope for the best. Excrement occurs but you give yourself the best hope of success.
I want McCluggage because he’s from down here and you can talk to the locals about the local boy. Willem Drew, like Marty Gleeson, is another one, although I don’t know that much about him except he’s played in 3 senior flags and was best on in the one before his draft.
I agree that statistics are only relevant to the context in which they’re generated, but given that those figures are over a 32 year period it’s fair to say that they’re relevant to any modern draft
Also doing that type of statistical analysis averages over all teams, which have different draft strategies and abilities.
To be more relevant for EFC you would have to do similar to how our drafting team has performed. SCarey’s analysis of this is pretty good, and essentially says that if a kid does not have experience against seniors don’t choose him with a pick after 30. (Unless he is a special case a la James Hird).
Statistics are the way of turning individual results into averages.
It’s like having a terrible run on a blackjack table. Every else is pulling 19s and 20s, while you’re pulling 13s. It’s a great table but you’re getting crapped on from a great height.
Like everyone else picking from 6-10 is pulling 150 game players, but your guy is a spud, or gets injured.
I just really don’t think all these numbers getting pulled out of random arseholes mean jack. You do the best you can, using accepted practices, and hope for the best. Excrement occurs but you give yourself the best hope of success.
I want McCluggage because he’s from down here and you can talk to the locals about the local boy. Willem Drew, like Marty Gleeson, is another one, although I don’t know that much about him except he’s played in 3 senior flags and was best on in the one before his draft.
Statistics are the way of turning individual results into averages.
It’s like having a terrible run on a blackjack table. Every else is pulling 19s and 20s, while you’re pulling 13s. It’s a great table but you’re getting crapped on from a great height.
Like everyone else picking from 6-10 is pulling 150 game players, but your guy is a spud, or gets injured.
I just really don’t think all these numbers getting pulled out of random arseholes mean jack. You do the best you can, using accepted practices, and hope for the best. Excrement occurs but you give yourself the best hope of success.
I want McCluggage because he’s from down here and you can talk to the locals about the local boy. Willem Drew, like Marty Gleeson, is another one, although I don’t know that much about him except he’s played in 3 senior flags and was best on in the one before his draft.
Statistics are the way of turning individual results into averages.
It’s like having a terrible run on a blackjack table. Every else is pulling 19s and 20s, while you’re pulling 13s. It’s a great table but you’re getting crapped on from a great height.
Like everyone else picking from 6-10 is pulling 150 game players, but your guy is a spud, or gets injured.
I just really don’t think all these numbers getting pulled out of random arseholes mean jack. You do the best you can, using accepted practices, and hope for the best. Excrement occurs but you give yourself the best hope of success.
I want McCluggage because he’s from down here and you can talk to the locals about the local boy. Willem Drew, like Marty Gleeson, is another one, although I don’t know that much about him except he’s played in 3 senior flags and was best on in the one before his draft.
I agree that statistics are only relevant to the context in which they’re generated, but given that those figures are over a 32 year period it’s fair to say that they’re relevant to any modern draft
My point is that averages are averages, and have limited relevance to a single instance.
Statistics are the way of turning individual results into averages.
It’s like having a terrible run on a blackjack table. Every else is pulling 19s and 20s, while you’re pulling 13s. It’s a great table but you’re getting crapped on from a great height.
Like everyone else picking from 6-10 is pulling 150 game players, but your guy is a spud, or gets injured.
I just really don’t think all these numbers getting pulled out of random arseholes mean jack. You do the best you can, using accepted practices, and hope for the best. Excrement occurs but you give yourself the best hope of success.
I want McCluggage because he’s from down here and you can talk to the locals about the local boy. Willem Drew, like Marty Gleeson, is another one, although I don’t know that much about him except he’s played in 3 senior flags and was best on in the one before his draft.
That’s a ■■■■■■■ depressing approach.
Scott Gumbleton
It’s not the “■■■■ happens” part that I was referring to; it was the bit where the strategy is copy everyone else and then cross your fingers. I’d prefer something a little more proactive.
Statistics are the way of turning individual results into averages.
It’s like having a terrible run on a blackjack table. Every else is pulling 19s and 20s, while you’re pulling 13s. It’s a great table but you’re getting crapped on from a great height.
Like everyone else picking from 6-10 is pulling 150 game players, but your guy is a spud, or gets injured.
I just really don’t think all these numbers getting pulled out of random arseholes mean jack. You do the best you can, using accepted practices, and hope for the best. Excrement occurs but you give yourself the best hope of success.
I want McCluggage because he’s from down here and you can talk to the locals about the local boy. Willem Drew, like Marty Gleeson, is another one, although I don’t know that much about him except he’s played in 3 senior flags and was best on in the one before his draft.
That’s a ■■■■■■■ depressing approach.
Scott Gumbleton
It’s not the “■■■■ happens” part that I was referring to; it was the bit where the strategy is copy everyone else and then cross your fingers. I’d prefer something a little more proactive.
You do the best you can, following accepted practices
Is not the f**king same as
Copy everyone else
It means don’t go out on a limb because you want to coach the first Calathumpian to play AFL, and don’t make wild moves
Also doing that type of statistical analysis averages over all teams, which have different draft strategies and abilities.
To be more relevant for EFC you would have to do similar to how our drafting team has performed. SCarey’s analysis of this is pretty good, and essentially says that if a kid does not have experience against seniors don’t choose him with a pick after 30. (Unless he is a special case a la James Hird).
His stats from an extremely limited sample set show a slight bias towards players who have played state league football. They don’t take into account any other variables. You can’t go extrapolating rules from this sort of analysis just because it neatly matches up.
Statistics are the way of turning individual results into averages.
It’s like having a terrible run on a blackjack table. Every else is pulling 19s and 20s, while you’re pulling 13s. It’s a great table but you’re getting crapped on from a great height.
Like everyone else picking from 6-10 is pulling 150 game players, but your guy is a spud, or gets injured.
I just really don’t think all these numbers getting pulled out of random arseholes mean jack. You do the best you can, using accepted practices, and hope for the best. Excrement occurs but you give yourself the best hope of success.
I want McCluggage because he’s from down here and you can talk to the locals about the local boy. Willem Drew, like Marty Gleeson, is another one, although I don’t know that much about him except he’s played in 3 senior flags and was best on in the one before his draft.
I agree that statistics are only relevant to the context in which they’re generated, but given that those figures are over a 32 year period it’s fair to say that they’re relevant to any modern draft
My point is that averages are averages, and have limited relevance to a single instance.
You clearly want some confidence intervals around the mean.
Stats are what they are. They will give you an understanding of the average expectation. You can think you’ll be above average or below average all the time, but the general expectation is that the more shots you take the more you’ll revert to the mean. For every Buddy and Roughead you’ll have your share of Dowler and Thorp’s.
That said, including the early years of drafting will skew the results a fair bit I’d say. I’d draw a line at the TAC cup period, which started in about 97, but then I’d still want to look if there were any trends in the data since then.
What’s the trend of those averages over the 32 years? Are clubs and their choices getting better over that period or does it remain pretty flat? You could speculate on gut feel but it would be interesting to see how the numbers stack up.
What's the trend of those averages over the 32 years? Are clubs and their choices getting better over that period or does it remain pretty flat? You could speculate on gut feel but it would be interesting to see how the numbers stack up.
What's the trend of those averages over the 32 years? Are clubs and their choices getting better over that period or does it remain pretty flat? You could speculate on gut feel but it would be interesting to see how the numbers stack up.
The fact there’s still guys from 2000s drafts still playing skews it, but here is the games per draft year (presumably national, rookie and pre combined) https://www.draftguru.com.au/years