I’d love to know how much of that trend is due to the players picked early in the draft being legitimately better than the guys picked after them, and how much of it is due to higher pick being given more opportunities and development time.
I'd love to know how much of that trend is due to the players picked early in the draft being legitimately better than the guys picked after them, and how much of it is due to higher pick being given more opportunities and development time.
My brain actually hurts at the thought of how much effort it would take to review a “rating per game” of each draft number lol
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 elseIt 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
I’m not trying to be provocative, but I clearly don’t understand what you mean by accepted practices if not those practices adopted as standard by the rest of the industry.
I’d argue that only the last 10 years or do have the remotest relevance to what happens now. Talent identification, testing etc is light years ahead if how it used to be, and recruiting departments are much bigger, more sophisticated, and better funded. Even going back a decade some clubs were still making draft picks based on the gut feel of one guy. It’s very different now, and I don’t think comparing modern drafts to those of 20 years ago is comparing apples with apples.
This does if course complicate the issue of evaluating the likelihood of fetting a long-term player at a guven draft pick because it gives you less data points to work with, and because many recent draftees are still playing so their contribution to the games played average is not complete. But it’s true nonetheless.
And of course there’s a lot more to the success of a player than the number if games they played. But of course you have to choose SOMETHING as a measurement. Maybe you could use brownliw votes instead? But that’d just overvalue mids and undervalue defenders. No easy solution to that one…
Agree.
There’s something to be said for ‘gut feel’, however - especially when that ‘gut feel’ is from someone who has an enormous experience in judging young talent. Never underestimate the unquantifiable human ‘gut feel’.
I'd argue that only the last 10 years or do have the remotest relevance to what happens now. Talent identification, testing etc is light years ahead if how it used to be, and recruiting departments are much bigger, more sophisticated, and better funded. Even going back a decade some clubs were still making draft picks based on the gut feel of one guy. It's very different now, and I don't think comparing modern drafts to those of 20 years ago is comparing apples with apples.This does if course complicate the issue of evaluating the likelihood of fetting a long-term player at a guven draft pick because it gives you less data points to work with, and because many recent draftees are still playing so their contribution to the games played average is not complete. But it’s true nonetheless.
And of course there’s a lot more to the success of a player than the number if games they played. But of course you have to choose SOMETHING as a measurement. Maybe you could use brownliw votes instead? But that’d just overvalue mids and undervalue defenders. No easy solution to that one…
Which is why going through a site like AFL player rating and average games played against the ratings on that (which are obviously very subjective) would be a MASSIVE undertaking
Agree.There’s something to be said for ‘gut feel’, however - especially when that ‘gut feel’ is from someone who has an enormous experience in judging young talent. Never underestimate the unquantifiable human ‘gut feel’.
Aaron Fiora says hi
Richmond is excepted from any of these discussions. They have made some catastrophic single-figure picks.
Richmond is excepted from any of these discussions. They have made some catastrophic single-figure picks.
We’ve picked up a few lemons in the first round as well to go along with some ‘interesting’ speculative picks (Steinberg)
Agree.There’s something to be said for ‘gut feel’, however - especially when that ‘gut feel’ is from someone who has an enormous experience in judging young talent. Never underestimate the unquantifiable human ‘gut feel’.
Aaron Fiora says hi
For every Fiora, etc.
See, this is the the issue with these kind of stats and examples. If you show clear and relevant stats of 1000 players all garnered using the same systems and technology, and if there is a human element - by the same human, then I’ll start to listen. Otherwise, it is largely just mildly interesting water-cooler talk. You’d be a numbskull to select any draftee based on some ridiculous stats of how good someone thought someone was 10 years ago vs some other person from some different era judged by someone else.
Agree.There’s something to be said for ‘gut feel’, however - especially when that ‘gut feel’ is from someone who has an enormous experience in judging young talent. Never underestimate the unquantifiable human ‘gut feel’.
Aaron Fiora says hi
For every Fiora, etc.
See, this is the the issue with these kind of stats and examples. If you show clear and relevant stats of 1000 players all garnered using the same systems and technology, and if there is a human element - by the same human, then I’ll start to listen. Otherwise, it is largely just mildly interesting water-cooler talk. You’d be a numbskull to select any draftee based on some ridiculous stats of how good someone thought someone was 10 years ago vs some other person from some different era judged by someone else.
Well obviously, but the way some people are carrying on its as though they rate pick 30 the same as pick one when both statistically and logically this is not true
Agree.There’s something to be said for ‘gut feel’, however - especially when that ‘gut feel’ is from someone who has an enormous experience in judging young talent. Never underestimate the unquantifiable human ‘gut feel’.
Aaron Fiora says hi
For every Fiora, etc.
See, this is the the issue with these kind of stats and examples. If you show clear and relevant stats of 1000 players all garnered using the same systems and technology, and if there is a human element - by the same human, then I’ll start to listen. Otherwise, it is largely just mildly interesting water-cooler talk. You’d be a numbskull to select any draftee based on some ridiculous stats of how good someone thought someone was 10 years ago vs some other person from some different era judged by someone else.Well obviously, but the way some people are carrying on its as though they rate pick 30 the same as pick one when both statistically and logically this is not true
For sure.
If that were the case, it would mean that all commentators (and subsequently, most selectors) have no idea. Which of course, isn’t true. But it is important to remember that players drive the rankings, not the other way around. That seems obvious, but in peoples’ minds - the more commentary a player demands, the better that player seems to be. Faux-draft rankings are influenced by hype and media yet actual rankings are, by definition, solely determined on actual selections conducted exclusively by selectors - and never ever have anything at all to do with how players are ranked beforehand by commentators. On top of all that, how a player performs throughout their career, is affected by so many things - health, injuries, mental attitudes, relationships, team selections, team positions, actual team, team performance, coaches, development - too many to list - that statistics predicting the outcome are …kinda meaningless. The only statistic I’ll swallow is - if most professionals think a kid has potential - then he probably has potential. And that’s what determines the ranking.