AFL Draft Lottery

[Cobbler]

2 biggest flaws - uneven fixture would skew results and awarding balls at the 'time of the win' also leads to massive swings.

How many balls would GWS get for beating the Swans in round 1?

Hypothetically next year the Giants beat the Saints in round 1 by 100 while Richmond choke against Carlton by 60 to sit 17th after 1 round.

Round 2 the Tigers beat the Giants and earn 16 'pick 1' balls.

As the year goes on the Tigers finish top 4 while the Giants are 2nd bottom.

Seems pretty unreasonable for Richmond to have picked up that many tickets...

Round 1 could be based on finishing positions from the year before. Then it is based on where teams are at after that. I didn't overly think it through, but was just applying what I do in my classroom where you reward effort.

I'm sick of these other classroom where the naughty child gets rewarded after behaving. You're suppose to behave! So I'd rather reward kids who do that.

Biggest flaw in AFL is rewarding teams for being poor, although it has to be done for equality etc.

 

[Cobbler]

2 biggest flaws - uneven fixture would skew results and awarding balls at the 'time of the win' also leads to massive swings.

How many balls would GWS get for beating the Swans in round 1?

Hypothetically next year the Giants beat the Saints in round 1 by 100 while Richmond choke against Carlton by 60 to sit 17th after 1 round.

Round 2 the Tigers beat the Giants and earn 16 'pick 1' balls.

As the year goes on the Tigers finish top 4 while the Giants are 2nd bottom.

Seems pretty unreasonable for Richmond to have picked up that many tickets...

Also in your above situation Richmond wouldn't be in the draw as they finished in the top 8.

What I said only applied to teams who didn't play finals. So in your situation if Richmond did happen to do that and pick up 16 balls and finish 9th then so be it.

Of course there would be massive swings, but again the idea is reward for winning.

Not perfect, but every round, every game would have something more then just the 4 points on offer.

Plus really only the first few rounds would see significant variance, after 3 rounds teams generally not in the top 8 have won maybe a game or two at absolute best and hence wouldn't have picked up many balls anyway.

 

[Matt Stevic]

This I like.

The only real argument against this is if a top team gets pick 1 in a year when there is a dead set gun but we have seen in the last 5 years or so that development is just as important, if not more important, than the kids talent.

Give clubs a 2-3 year heads up that the wheel will start based on the result of the 2017 ladder and run the math for the 18 spots from there.

Once the season is over each club gets their wheel and everyone can plan accordingly.

Fantastic!

The bolded bit still happens in the current draft system. Sometimes we have an average draft but other times we have dead set guns. It's just the way things are and can't be changed. It's just bad luck to have the top wheel pick in an average draft, just like it's currently just bad luck to be rubbish in an average draft...only difference is you know about what your luck is a little earlier.

If we were to have a draft this would be the way to go I reckon. Or if we were to have a lottery, it would involve all 18 clubs, and each would get one ball only. The idea of AFL having a draft is not without merit due to the lack of junior pathways for MOST clubs... but I'll rant about that in another thread.

Maybe it's because I'm a rugby league fan first and foremost, and don't follow any other sports with a draft, but it seems wrong to actually reward a team for being poor.

 

[Cobbler]

What if the bottom team wins 1 or 2 matches for the season against teams right above them on the ladder, They may only have 2 or 3 balls in the draft as opposed to a team who can win on their day (eg the Bulldogs) but is still very raw and inexperienced who could end up with 10+ balls through a few upset wins.

Yep it's a good point and one I was thinking of when I posted. Thought it would take at least 1 hour before someone mentioned that!

Ok, well I'm just brainstorming. So perhaps they do start with a set amount of balls + bonus balls for wins. Hows that sound?

So team 18th starts with 10 balls 17th - 9 balls etc and then they gets additional balls.

That way team 9th has 1 ball plus whoever they beat above them.

I guess this way everyone has a ball, as I did think it might be possible for a team to only defeat teams below them.

The same argument would be raised in that by finishing lower you increase your chances, but you'd think the incentive to beat teams above you would be higher then losing for extra balls. Plus by losing to teams below you, you improve their chances and hand them extra balls.

 

[Pegasaur]

Yep it's a good point and one I was thinking of when I posted. Thought it would take at least 1 hour before someone mentioned that!

Ok, well I'm just brainstorming. So perhaps they do start with a set amount of balls + bonus balls for wins. Hows that sound?

So team 18th starts with 10 balls 17th - 9 balls etc and then they gets additional balls.

That way team 9th has 1 ball plus whoever they beat above them.

I guess this way everyone has a ball, as I did think it might be possible for a team to only defeat teams below them.

The same argument would be raised in that by finishing lower you increase your chances, but you'd think the incentive to beat teams above you would be higher then losing for extra balls. Plus by losing to teams below you, you improve their chances and hand them extra balls.

But if you tank you can win more balls by extending the gap between your ladder position and your opponents. For example, if Freo were to decide this season to be a bust in round 8ish (when we were 4-4) we could easily just lose games against the teams who are lower on the ladder than us (because we don't get any draft balls for beating them anyway) and then playing at our finest against teams like Geelong and Port adelaide in order to maximise our draft position, that way we could finish 10th and have 25+ draft balls, all through tanking.

 

[Cobbler]

Why purposely lose to teams below us? That would give them more balls and hence reduce your chances.

Your reward for beating teams below you is A) 4 points B) not giving your opponent more balls in the lottery.

Wouldn't make sense in your scenario.

Plus doesn't guarantee you anything in the lottery.

I honestly don't see a flaw and for those suggesting the early season variances, this system could easily be implemented after round 5 and the fixtures worked so that the following 17 fixtures you play everyone once.

There is absolutely no reward for tanking in this situation and no way you could 'manipulate' the lottery. Plus when all is said and done it is a lottery.

 

[Cobbler]

However it is done, when the time is right, it needs to make sure that teams can't manipulate their draft order. They of course can do that right now.

Every game needs to have value.

Round 21 as an example. Sydney v Saints. Traditionally an absolute no brainer game. Sydney need to win to perhaps finish first. Saints need to lose to perhaps finish last and get the number 1 pick. Absolutely no way in the world any other result is going to eventuate.

Change that thinking and all of a sudden have the Saints fighting for 17 balls and improved chances in what is now a draft lottery. That game takes on a whole new level although the result would likely remain the same.

 

[Lefthanded]

Yep it's a good point and one I was thinking of when I posted. Thought it would take at least 1 hour before someone mentioned that!

Ok, well I'm just brainstorming. So perhaps they do start with a set amount of balls + bonus balls for wins. Hows that sound?

So team 18th starts with 10 balls 17th - 9 balls etc and then they gets additional balls.

That way team 9th has 1 ball plus whoever they beat above them.

I guess this way everyone has a ball, as I did think it might be possible for a team to only defeat teams below them.

The same argument would be raised in that by finishing lower you increase your chances, but you'd think the incentive to beat teams above you would be higher then losing for extra balls. Plus by losing to teams below you, you improve their chances and hand them extra balls.

I like that you are wanting to reward wins and try to eliminate any possibility of tanking. Think it needs more thought and simplicity though. As I understand it in your original scenario a team that finished bottom with no wins would get no balls. Whilst I think the AFL would (if honest) admit that current system is not perfect any replacement / revised system would still need to meet the obvious objective that all teams can be competitive (it helps revenue for the AFL when selling TV rights etc), hence the current bias to teams that finish low.

 

[Cobbler]

I like that you are wanting to reward wins and try to eliminate any possibility of tanking. Think it needs more thought and simplicity though. As I understand it in your original scenario a team that finished bottom with no wins would get no balls. Whilst I think the AFL would (if honest) admit that current system is not perfect any replacement / revised system would still need to meet the obvious objective that all teams can be competitive (it helps revenue for the AFL when selling TV rights etc), hence the current bias to teams that finish low.

Yep, I didn't think the original scenario out thoroughly.

Fact is we don't even have a lottery system now, but if it were to be implemented they would need to consider what flaws it has is the US system and work around that.

Maybe teams can't receive picks that fall outside a certain range of their finishing point, therefore eliminating the chance of the 9th team receiving the 1st pick or the last team receiving a pick lower then say number 4.

Maybe they do mini lotteries in certain brackets. Example bottom 6, middle 6 and top 6 and adjust the amount of balls accordingly. Ok that wouldn't stop that 11th place team trying to fall into the last bracket and have a chance at the number 1 pick.

Again just brainstorming!

 

[Blackas87]

The 10 teams that miss the 8 should have an equal chance at the top pick.

10 balls, 1 for each club.

But the team that finishes 18th can't have a pick worse the 5th, so if their ball isn't selected in the to 4 then they automatically get pick 5, this counties for the other low finishing clubs.

Worst possible picks:
18th pick 5
17th pick 6
16th pick 7
15th pick 8
14th pick 9
13th pick 10
12th pick 10
11th pick 10
10th pick 10
9th pick 10

 

[Cobbler]

The 10 teams that miss the 8 should have an equal chance at the top pick.

10 balls, 1 for each club.

But the team that finishes 18th can't have a pick worse the 5th, so if their ball isn't selected in the to 4 then they automatically get pick 5, this counties for the other low finishing clubs.

Worst possible picks:
18th pick 5
17th pick 6
16th pick 7
15th pick 8
14th pick 9
13th pick 10
12th pick 10
11th pick 10
10th pick 10
9th pick 10

Getting there, but the 9th best team could still end up with pick 1 and team who finished 8th would have pick 11.

10 picks difference would seem harsh for 2 teams that may have only been separated by percentage.

 

[Slax]

I have no problem with coming up with a draft lottery system, but it would mean changes to the fixture must happen first.
My system:

• All clubs play each other once only in first 18 rounds
• At completion teams are broken into three groups 1-6, 7-12, 13-18. (A modification could be made to have two groups of 9)
• The bottom team in each group gets 6 numbers, 2nd bottom 5, etc.
• A number is drawn so each club is then allocated a pick in that group of 6.

For this to work each team must of played each other once otherwise it fails.
It then eliminates tanking in the final 5 rounds and also gives clubs better planning for the draft.
For instance, if Brisbane were to draw pick 1, then they know automatcially they can recruit a KPF, this mean development in the last 5 rounds can be put into other areas to sort out different problems.
Alternatively if you get pick 6, you need to start thinking about what might be around by that stage in the draft and try developing some players around that.

 

[NeutralFan]

With watching the NBA Draft Lottery tomorrow (because we Boston may have Pick 1 despite being in the conference finals haHA) I have grown towards the lottery idea especially with how equal the competition has become.

My idea is in it's first year the bottom 10 have an equal chance to grab Pick 1, 2 or 3. Then ladder positions on 4-10. However, I think if a club has missed finals for a second year in a row, their odds increase of having a top 3 pick. Again, if they miss a third year their odds increase, and so on until a possible limit. I'm all for a draft lottery, brings unpredictability.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Isn't the competition being equal a good example of the current system working?

 

[Pessimistic]

NBA and NFL draft ready made recruits AFL drafts raw materials

 

[Pessimistic]

Is the revelation that the bottom six teams might be awarded recruitment points a clue that using points will increase in the future drafts? of course some teams can't really use points so how does that work?

 

[NeutralFan]

From what we've seen in the drafts, there isn't much of a difference between the top 5 and even top 10. There is a big difference between players in the NBA, both who can make an impact straight away, and the talent difference between Pick 1 and Pick 10. I've always thought top picks especially used in trades are overrated simply because there has been hardly a difference in the AFL between the talent. I still feel the lottery is a better option than the current system which is very tempting to use to your advantage.

 

[MarkT2]

Isn't the competition being equal a good example of the current system working?

I doubt it given the current system has been bastardised by GC and GWS priority selections, and now academies. I suspect while the AFL will take credit for equalisation the reality is we have come off an era of 3 dominant teams this decade with the two of them that have been denied draft talent as a result will stay down for a while, while the 3rd will improve more rapidly with academy supplements. Meanwhile there will be 3-5 teams down the bottom who are poor and 3-5 at the top who stand out as this year and next year develop.

Right now we are in a state of flux as the top moves down and the bottom moves up but we've been here before. Brisbane, Carlton and Collingwood won't win many games.

 

[Football Tragic]

I think the point system the AFL is suggesting could work in a similar fashion. If we move to the 18-4 season, which now seems inevitable, then it has been mooted that the teams in the bottom 6 will play for extra points to use to bid for players. While its not as random as a lottery would be, biding points would reward good finishes to the year and give the bottom teams something to play for.

Currently at the end of the season, most teams who have no chance of making the finals use the final games to play unproven kids and experiment with players in other positions. This not only hurts the overall competitiveness of the competition but also hurts the standard at the VFL level too where these players are drawn. I would much rather see my team fight out the year for the chance of better recruits and have the younger players develop at VFL level rather than be thrown to the wolves at AFL level where many young players lose all confidence and/or get injured when they are played when they are not ready.

There is a reason that every single AFL coach wants the draft age increased because most draftees are just not ready to immediate compete with the mature bodies and attitudes of the older AFL players. If there was no motivation to play the recruits at the end of a season because teams still had something to play for, then I think that is a positive. Some teams actually use the last stage of the year to 'advertise' or showcase their future talent to the supporters. Again I feel this is very short sighted. Better to give them time and with draft points on the line giving supporters another reason to watch, teams can allow younger players more time to develop in the VFL and out of the limelight.

So while a lottery would add another level of theater and unpredictability to the draft, I feel playing for points will give clubs more to play for and completely stop all talk of tanking. Why tank when the 13th place team could actually get more points than you do for finishing 18th. Time to stop rewarding failure and switch the mindset of the AFL to always aiming to succeed no matter what stage of the season it is.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The lottery, NBA style, does not discourage tanking. In many ways, the current AFL system makes more sense than the NBA lottery.

 

[Coaster2012]

Surely this season shows that we don't need to change a thing?

 

[Furn2]

The only way to avoid tanking is to randomly draw the number of teams from outside finals who go in the lottery.

 

[Baird]

One big difference that needs to be noted between AFL & NBA.

Basketball has 5 players on the court at any time, so the impact of one star player is far greater than in the AFL where there are 18 active players.

Exactly. That's why most AFL number 1 picks only become good players, and are rarely generational talents who can save a franchise like in the NBA & NHL. I hate the draft lottery in the NHL, and it is completely unnecessary in the AFL