2014 Academy/Father-son Discussion

[Swanny10]

What I want to know is:

Who comes up with these rankings?
How can they be deemed fair and accurate and therefore correct market value?

All draft selections are speculative at best. A kid 3-4 recruiters rate as a top 10 pick may not be in the top 30 for the other 14 clubs. Take Jono Freeman last year for example. Adelaide rated him high enough to taking him worth their 3rd rounder but would any other club have bid on him prior to our pick 4th rounder? If not does this mean Adelaide got it wrong or did the wider Afl recruitment circles stuff up? How would he have been rated under this system?

The bidding system where clubs bid their picks on the players is the only true reflection of a players actual market worth.

 

[jjami15]

From the Age article

'The AFL revealed it had established a working party to further look at the plan to make each draft pick worth a certain number of points. The working party includes respected recruiters Steven Wells and Scott Clayton, the Bulldogs boss Simon Garlick, and Mark Evans and Andrew Dillon from the AFL.'

It looks to be totally over complicated. I like to work by the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) and the more you try to change something the more difficult things become. Hopefully it will become more detailed. Possible rankings of picks, every ten or so. Who knows though? I thought the old father/son system was pretty ok. What gets lost is there is no such thing as perfection and also that you can't make everyone happy.

 

[jjami15]

From the Age article

'The AFL revealed it had established a working party to further look at the plan to make each draft pick worth a certain number of points. The working party includes respected recruiters Steven Wells and Scott Clayton, the Bulldogs boss Simon Garlick, and Mark Evans and Andrew Dillon from the AFL.'

It looks to be totally over complicated. I like to work by the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) and the more you try to change something the more difficult things become. Hopefully it will become more clearer and spelt out and shown to is all, opposite to the top secret formula for priority picks . Possible rankings of picks, every ten or so. Who knows though? I thought the old father/son system was pretty ok. What gets lost is there is no such thing as perfection and also that you can't make everyone happy.

 

[chopperduck]

Alarm bells are ringing. How can you possibly but a points based value on something that is intangible like talent and potential. This is a knee jerk reaction and will have a negative affect overall.

 

[dlanod]

They would have to push them back because in theory you can have as many picks as you want usually list space is the cap on them bit if you had to combine picks you could just give up a whole heap of 5-12 round picks as the never get used and would still have some value

My first thought as well...

 

[Luke Kathutian]

The stupidest thing Ive heard in a long time. How on earth do you rank someone. By combine results?! If your looking at a tall forward who plays in a team of dominant mids where he is the focal point how would you compare that to a tall who plays in a team with a rubbish midfield but has 2 good tall targets. Dont even understand what it is a knee jerk reaction to. Daniher? Heeney? The academies? Sounds like eddie mcguire wants to be the one evaluating worth which is ironic given the nice little discount the pies are getting with moore this year. Pretty sure this is bloody sydneys fault.

 

[dlanod]

Alarm bells are ringing. How can you possibly but a points based value on something that is intangible like talent and potential. This is a knee jerk reaction and will have a negative affect overall.

They don't have to. They build the point value based off the draft pick bid by another team - they leave talent and potential evaluation to the bidding clubs.

The concept of draft picks being worth a certain number of points have been around in the NFL since the early 90s, and used there to facilitate trading down and up during the draft itself. They're based off the historic success rate of particular picks, i.e. the median games played, etc.

Examples:

NFL original - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/news/story?id=2410670
NFL updated - http://www.footballperspective.com/creating-a-nfl-draft-value-chart-part-i/
AFL attempt - http://www.rankingsoftware.com/research/OnTheValueofAFLDraftPicks.pdf

It's not a particularly controversial attempt but it's something that needs to be worked out properly. For example the original NFL values that many teams still use today massively overvalues early picks.

 

[Quigley]

I assume they will still have bidding.

Assume we have pick 5 and we bid for Heeney. AFL look at their wonderful formula and say that is worth 100 points. They then apply the academy discount factor of say 20% so Sydney have to use picks that add up to 80 points. Say their first pick is worth 75 points and their 4th round pick is worth 5 points they would have to use those.

It would be interesting to see if they give the teams the option of using lower round picks to make it up. Assume Collingwood was the only bidder on Heeney and the points required could be made up of either Sydney's first pick or their second and third picks. If a team did not have to use their next pick but could package lower picks together it might actually be an advantage in certain circumstances.

 

[Judge]

I'm resigned to the Academy bidding system being changed to our detriment, but it seem to me that the most important thing is that at least we should retain priority access to the Academy boys.

For example, if we desperately want Ben Keays next year we know that we can definitely have him, it's simply the price which is negotiable.

As I have said before, a points-based system might not hurt too much, if at all, if Qld boys continue to be viewed as second-tier talent due to our Div 2 status.

 

[Quigley]

I'm resigned to the Academy bidding system being changed to our detriment, but it seem to me that the most important thing is that at least we should retain priority access to the Academy boys.

For example, if we desperately want Ben Keays next year we know that we can definitely have him, it's simply the price which is negotiable.

As I have said before, a points-based system might not hurt too much, if at all, if Qld boys continue to be viewed as second-tier talent due to our Div 2 status.

The problem is going to be if we have multiple guys who are worth picking up and whether the points system is going to allow that. For example next year with Sydney having both Mills and Dunkley who are top 5 candidates. Will they be able to get both?

There are a few guys next year who looked pretty promising. If they come on would we be able to get them all if we wanted them? Keays, Mosley, Corvo and Dennis have all shown enough to suggest they could become players. Yusia-Mercic also has done wel in a couple of games for the ressies. If we happen to get a bunch come through at once like in 2006 I would like to be able to grab them all.

 

[chopperduck]

Amongst all the jumping up and down about it being unfair, the only real part of the bidding process that is unfair is when a club gets multiple players worth say a first round pick and end up paying later picks for them. You could make things a lot more fair by simply making clubs choose. If you have 2 first round quality players, you only have 1 first round pick so you can have 1. In turn I think this would also stop teams bidding to force academy teams to pay high, as if you bid and you dont pick them, they are then locked in to that club.

I have to agree with above, that the problem with paying multiple picks for one player is that you are then left without enough picks to fill your list. This also impacts the overall amount of kids drafted and can only be a negative to the draft overall.

 

[dlanod]

I have to agree with above, that the problem with paying multiple picks for one player is that you are then left without enough picks to fill your list. This also impacts the overall amount of kids drafted and can only be a negative to the draft overall.

There's no limit on the number of picks you have - they are purely dependant on how many you do need to fill your list. So if you use multiple picks (Round 1 and Round 3, say) on that academy kid, you get to use a Round 7 (hypothetically) pick instead of Round 3 to fill that last list spot. The same number of kids get drafted as would otherwise be, you just effectively get bumped down a bunch of spots, and to be honest it isn't actually that far.

In 2012 Sydney would've been bumped from pick 65 (their round 3 pick) to 108 (last active pick + 1) but there were only eight live picks in there. The rest were rookie upgrades or passes. 2013 would've dropped from 53 to 95, but only 10 live picks (one of which was Johnathan Freeman).

Edit: The more I look at this the more I think it's actually a pretty good deal as long as you don't have to use your second round pick. Many clubs stop having live picks after the third round, so it won't push out picks all that much while looking like it does.

 

[chopperduck]

Im just skeptical on the ability to assign a value to a pick and make clubs pay a fair value. I have no faith in the people creating this system to not have it fair, considering it is off the back of eddie having a whinge.

 

[Sanchez365]

Im just skeptical on the ability to assign a value to a pick and make clubs pay a fair value. I have no faith in the people creating this system to not have it fair, considering it is off the back of eddie having a whinge.

This is probably the main contention point, as long as the draft pick rating system is fair it mifht now be too bad.

However the percentage discount is my current issue. How is it equivenelent for collingwood to develop one f/s cause they know they can get him, As opposed to the academy which trains and sets up a far greater number of players. Do you get a bigger discount based on that?

 

[chopperduck]

Way too many questions about this system, and I can see them rushing it in because of pressure from eddie and the swans having heeney as well as more players next year. The focus is getting a system in place asap instead of getting it right IMO.

 

[John_Proctor]

I thought the intention was not to force a club to use multiple picks to select one player but to slide later picks back in the draft to get the player.

eg. If Sydney get Heeney at Pick 18 instead of a bid of Pick 5 sydneys later picks would slide out in the draft that value differential between pick 5 and 18.

lets say thats 100 points.

There second round pick (something like 38 this year with copmensation picks factored in) might slide back to pick 50, there 3rd round pick 56 migiht slide to 70 and fourth round from 74 to pick 100.

of course that doesn't actually mean much because after about pick 60 there is a lot of passing, rookie upgrades, speculative picks, etc. and pick 100 might as well be pick 74.

also wouldn't resolve the issue of have 2 quality players in the one draft. lets say for us bidding for Hammelman and Andrews would have us use 3rd and 4th round picks after a late second round pick was bid for both... would the AFL slide our Second Round pick out to match the points balance??? If this were to occur (diluting the value of a high pick) then it would make it very hard for us to take any academy players due to the overall value of higher picks compared to later ones.

all in all it will become a bit of a nightmare for us to factor in the various risks and rewards of matching bids for academy players.

 

[whatboutbob]

From the Age article

'The AFL revealed it had established a working party to further look at the plan to make each draft pick worth a certain number of points. The working party includes respected recruiters Steven Wells and Scott Clayton, the Bulldogs boss Simon Garlick, and Mark Evans and Andrew Dillon from the AFL.'

It looks to be totally over complicated. I like to work by the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) and the more you try to change something the more difficult things become. Hopefully it will become more detailed. Possible rankings of picks, every ten or so. Who knows though? I thought the old father/son system was pretty ok. What gets lost is there is no such thing as perfection and also that you can't make everyone happy.

FWIW, Dillon is the chap who, as head of the working party that designed the expansion team compo system, stated that all clubs would have to make their sacrifices for the expansion clubs. Top clubs would lose their players, he continued, while bottom clubs would lose access to top talent.

I mention this because he and the AFL have a history of creating systems that don't quite go to plan.

 

[whatboutbob]

With Darcy Moore available to the Pies this year, what's the bet the League runs the new (TBD) formula only in parallel with the current system this year as a test, similar to what Evans has been doing with his proposed new MRP system, before adopting it next year - just in time for Keays.

 

[chopperduck]

I dont mind paying for keays, as long as there are 3 of him.

 

[Fatcat08]

What will be interesting is whether you're able to have a choice of whether you give up a second pick or have that pick slide down the appropriate number of places. If Sydney somehow had to give up first and 3rd pick or could choose to give up first and have their second slide 5 positions, that certainly makes it an interesting call. Depending who was between those 5 places and their needs the tactics could be interesting. In the article it flagged it happening on draft day but I don't see how that could work given trade period happens first.

 

[Football Pope]

I dont mind paying for keays, as long as there are 3 of him.

That reminded me of a time walking home from Vic Park and listening to a couple of dejected pie fans in front of me...
"If only we had 18 Renie Kinks!"

 

[John_Proctor]

re; potential for it to happen on draft day, that would make trade period really interesting.

Clubs would need to manage their trading/list management to retain enough live picks in the draft to manage the potential alternatives for player selection.

Clubs could then consider all manner of alternatives. Eg. Pies go into trade week with Picks 10, 30, 50, 70 and they expect to have to use Pick 10 to get Moore. There trade tactics could go a few ways.

They don't rate the draft outside of top 10 so they decide to trade Pick 10 for a Player. That means they then might be forced into using PIcks 30 and 50 to get Moore and be left with Pick 70 to fill the final spot on their list (maybe upgrading a rookie or getting a project player).

They think the draft is deep and have their eyes on two players in the middle range of the draft. They retain Pick 10 and have to use Pick 10 and Pick 70 on Moore leaving them 30 and 50 to hopefully select the two mid-rangers they want.

or any other variation in between.

 

[BuntonRules]

Can of worms.

 

[Ruse]

The proposed system is too complicated. What if there are multiple academy kids with differing level of potential how does picking up an academy kid in the 3rd round work if the AFL changes your 3rd round pick selection because of a previous academy kid that was picked in the 1st round? How does the club prepare in the trade period when there's uncertainty in what picks they'll have to trade with? How does an algebraic formula determine the potential and current ability of a kid when seasoned recruiters can't do it with any decent accuracy? All the northern clubs should resist the change with 4 clubs that represents a serious voting block now we don't have to kowtow to victoria anymore.

 

[whatboutbob]

How does an algebraic formula determine the potential and current ability of a kid when seasoned recruiters can't do it with any decent accuracy?

Presumably the club bidding on the player rates his value. The formula then relates to that pick.