So who are we leading the race for? Has anyone nominated us yet?
1 Like
I just assumed Berry was sliding to us.
On the HS website there’s an article behind the pay wall called ‘Top Rankine: Champion data elevates Izak’ could someone please post it in here?
If that’s a list for champion data points I can’t see how it can be correct, for averages maybe but even then I feel that’s more of a prediction
What has you backside (arsed) got to do with this? Do you mean asked?
Bothered.
Maybe player rankings based on position and “key metrics”, like that AFL player ranking crap.
a few in the 20s that I wouldn’t mind if they slid to 34…
Just got word that it’s their personal rankings, no stats involved
One thing to keep in mind…
We actually need players to slip to about 37+…because that is when our first pick will really occur.
Teams like COLL (Quaynor), NM (Bailey Scott) will be jumping over the top of us…using picks that are later in the draft order than 34, to match bids that occur on their academy players before pick 34.
1 Like
Whichever, just thinking there’s a couple there that I don’t mind the look of…
eg 30 there…
2 Likes
Champion ‘data’
2 Likes
On the other hand rankings, especially beyond the top ten, go out the window when positional needs also come into play.
For example, in that CrapData list of 30, there are four key forwards, one ruck, and two mid-sized backs.(one of which is Quaynor-Coll)
The other 23 are mids/ small forwards.
I can’t believe that all the other clubs (with picks before ours) will choose 23 mids, and not at least try for a punt on a back or two, especially given the way the game is driven from half back nowadays.
That’s without someone pulling a Steinberg as well.
So in rating terms I reckon it will even out - jumped by some Academy picks, but balanced by needs choices of potential backs rated at 40 and beyond.
3 Likes
They had Clarke in the top 30 in his year and Luke Bunker who went undrafted, think they want to go for draft accurate players this time around
No way in hell Sam Sturt has better stats than Liam Stocker
They did clearly state for the Clarke one etc that it had been done based on the CD stats as that therefore “past performance does not guarantee future performance”…or even where someone may be picked. They actually made a huge song and dance about Jack Higgins smashing all of the stats records (or something) before last year’s draft, and being the “statistical number 1”, but made it clear he wouldn’t be selected number 1, or even in the top 10.
I’d actually be disappointed if they just threw out their analytics and took an educated guess in an attempt to be “draft accurate”. it’s much more interesting if CD is using different analytical models to try and identify the best future performers based on exposed stats. (although I’m sure they’re saving the good models of that for those that pay…)
In the end there is only reputational risk for them to go outside the boundaries of conventional wisdom though, so I could understand then taking a look at your rankings before putting anything out there 
1 Like
23 on that list
Can’t see how he gets to us, but would suit very nicely…
1 Like
Fascinating how he has ‘slid’/‘sliding’ so much down peoples predicted draft boards. Probably more a case of others ‘rising’ but agree that Hill would be a perfect fit.
I’d say the Crows, Dees & Dogs would all be having a good look with their picks in the 20s (if he’s still available).
Wonder if Dodo is considering the live trading to try move 34 into the 20s if there is someone still there that we really rate. Might be at the cost of something like one of our 2019 2nds turning into a 2019 3rd/4th.
1 Like
Hill is a very tasty proposition. Certainly fits the bill for a small forward.
While I’m here
28 and 29 on that list