Bradley on Crows radar

[Gets!]

Please not pick 38.

Pick 59 is more than worth it.

 

[kingyubbo]

Agreed. Pick 38 is way too much for him. However in saying that, we will probably give up 38 the way things are going this trade/draft season.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

Whatever happened to our "interest" in Danny Meyer?

 

[Southerntakeover]

Whatever happened to our "interest" in Danny Meyer?

Drummond hasnt posted in a while.

 

[Mego Red]

Whatever happened to our "interest" in Danny Meyer?

Was he delisted?

 

[Mego Red]

Please not pick 38.

Pick 59 is more than worth it.

C'mon - what a stupid thing to say. Pick 38 is probably a 20% chance to make it, and is good value for a 21 year old 199cm Larke medallist . He won't be there at 59.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

Worth a punt at pick 59, no way 38. Otherwise we will be probably making a list in 2 years of the players we should of got at pick 38. Im sure some kid will fall down to pick 38 who will look good.

 

[marvin]

C'mon - what a stupid thing to say. Pick 38 is probably a 20% chance to make it, and is good value for a 21 year old 199cm Larke medallist . He won't be there at 59.

97 James Rahilly (Geel)
98 Brendan Fevola (Carl)
99 Cameron Ling (Geel)
00 Michael Handby (Adel)
01 Ashley Hansen (WC)
02 Blake Grima (Kang)
03 Mark Blake (Geel)

{ignoring 04 Damien McCormack (WB), 05 Travis Tuck (Haw) F/Son,
06 James Hawksley (Bris) - too early to call}

Rahilly played 90 games for the Cats. I'd call that pretty close to making it.
Fevola, Ling, Hansen and Blake have all made it.

Pick 38 should be a better than 20% chance of making it.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Marvin - Blake was another F/s selection from Geelong so you should remove him from the list too.

 

[marvin]

I know he was F/S, just like Fevola was an oddball selection as a 17 year old in the 1 17 year old per club era. Even take those out though, and 2.5 / 5 have made it (accepting that it's too early to call the last few years).

For the record, the picks immediately after Blake in 2003 were Rob Forster-Knight (recycled), Eddie Sansbury, Zac Dawson, Matt Spencer (Geelong), Brett Peake (F/S), Ricky Dyson, Amon Buchanan and Michael Pettigrew. Picking a recycled player at #39 doesn't look that wise in hindsight.

I still maintain that picking at #38 (or thereabouts) gives a player with a better than 20% chance to make it.

 

[The Crows Truth]

I know he was F/S, just like Fevola was an oddball selection as a 17 year old in the 1 17 year old per club era. Even take those out though, and 2.5 / 5 have made it (accepting that it's too early to call the last few years).

For the record, the picks immediately after Blake in 2003 were Rob Forster-Knight (recycled), Eddie Sansbury, Zac Dawson, Matt Spencer (Geelong), Brett Peake (F/S), Ricky Dyson, Amon Buchanan and Michael Pettigrew. Picking a recycled player at #39 doesn't look that wise in hindsight.

I still maintain that picking at #38 (or thereabouts) gives a player with a better than 20% chance to make it.

some interesting analysis marvin. just to ensure a sufficient and relevant statistical sample any chance you could also include a couple of picks either side of 38. My gut feel would have been perhaps only 25-35% chance of 'making it' (say either 100 games played or likely to play) at this stage of the draft

 

[marvin]

some interesting analysis marvin. just to ensure a sufficient and relevant statistical sample any chance you could also include a couple of picks either side of 38. My gut feel would have been perhaps only 25-35% chance of 'making it' (say either 100 games played or likely to play) at this stage of the draft

Over that same time frame (97-04). Omitting 2004-2006 because they may still be emergent players. Picks 35 - 41 (i.e. 38 + / - 3).

1997:

Marcus Baldwin (5) Judd Lalich (17) Todd Holmes (7) James Rahilly (90) Matthew Blake (0) Fred Campbell (12) Danny Morton (recycled - 26 at new club)

One moderate career (Rahilly). Give that 0.5/6. (Exclude the recycled player).

1998:

Brad Oborne (5) Danny Jacobs (126 **) Adam Morgan (17) Brendan Fevola (142*) Toby Thurstans (83*) James White (4) Craig Jacontine (16)

Two passed the hundred, Thurstans a good chance. 3/7.

1999:

Patrick Wiggins (12) Rhett Biglands (134*) Mitch Hahn (112*) Cameron Ling (159*) Scott Homewood (0) David Hille (124*) Kane Munro (18)

Four centurions. 4/7.
2000:

Allen Murray (16) Jeremy Humm (23) Guy Richards (39*) Michael Handby (0) Adam MacPhee (126*) Chris Hyde (82*) Andrew Krakouer (102)

Two centurions, Hyde will get there, Richards maybe not. 3.5 / 7. Nice doughnut from AFC.

2001:

Jarrad White (0) Sam Mitchell (109*) Leigh Montagna (73*) Ashley Hansen (54*) Justin Davies (41*) Gary Ablett (F/S 126*) Henry Playfair (52*)

One one hundred gamer (and a good one!), Hansen and Montagna will get there, Playfair maybe will do a Ted Richards at a new club? Exclude Ablett as F/S, 3.5 / 6.

2002:

Scott Bassett (30) Tim Callan (F/S 15*) Brent Staker (90*) Blake Grima (12) Gary Moorcroft (recycled - 7 at new club) Jobe Watson (F/S 53*) Tim Fleming (34)

Exclude the F/S and recycled, and success rate is 1/4.

2003:

Brent Hall (1) Chris Johnson (Melb F/S 21*) Thomas Roach (F/S 11) Mark Blake (F/S 33*) Rob Forster-Knight (recycled 0) Eddie Sansbury (39*), Zac Dawson (14**)

Again, exclude F/S and recycled, and you've probably got 0.5 point for Eddie Sansbury, so 0.5 /3.

SUMMARY:

In the 1997-2003 period, 40 non-father son, non-recycled players were drafted around the 38 mark. Of these, 14 went on to a successful career of 100+ games (or show every sign of doing so) (35%) and a further 4 (10%) had half successful careers (50 gamers or thereabouts).

In the same period, 3 recycled players were picked up around the same draft pick. Between them, they managed 33 games.

 

[The Crows Truth]

SUMMARY:

In the 1997-2003 period, 40 non-father son, non-recycled players were drafted around the 38 mark. Of these, 14 went on to a successful career of 100+ games (or show every sign of doing so) (35%) and a further 4 (10%) had half successful careers (50 gamers or thereabouts).

In the same period, 3 recycled players were picked up around the same draft pick. Between them, they managed 33 games.

great stuff - thanks man

looks like bradley may not be a bargain at 38 based on your analysis - especially considering the crows history of drafting well in the 3rd round onwards

thanks again. cheers

 

[Crow-mo]

97 James Rahilly (Geel)
98 Brendan Fevola (Carl)
99 Cameron Ling (Geel)
00 Michael Handby (Adel)
01 Ashley Hansen (WC)
02 Blake Grima (Kang)
03 Mark Blake (Geel)

{ignoring 04 Damien McCormack (WB), 05 Travis Tuck (Haw) F/Son,
06 James Hawksley (Bris) - too early to call}

Rahilly played 90 games for the Cats. I'd call that pretty close to making it.
Fevola, Ling, Hansen and Blake have all made it.

Pick 38 should be a better than 20% chance of making it.

why? you've seen the stats.

but in case you've forgotten. the ave games played for a pick in the 3rd round is 25 games. which is stuff all.

http://footygeek.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=25&id=264&Itemid=81

the draft is very risky anyway, the idea that the 3rd round provides any sort of predictable return is just crazy talk.

 

[Mismatched]

Whilst all this is interesting, in actuality it means very little as the quality of the talent fluctuates from year to year and i sincerely hope the crows don't use this type of analysis to work out who they pick.

Drafting, and teams abilities to draft well have improved and so there will probably be fewer gems found in rounds 3 onwards. Also, this year has been said to be very lean from about 30 onwards, so Bradely may be a fair pick at 38, especially since if his pre-key position defender form at essendon is anything to go by.

Bradely would be much less of an unknown at 38 than many of the other players and unless there was a definite standout who we needed, Bradley could be a good pick, anyway we would already have picked up 3 young players before the 3rd round. Also there would be no risk of a go home factor you would think with a 22 year old, which will be a problem due to the distinct lack of SA talent this year, plus he would like to play for us.

Would prefer to use 57 on him, but if the Crows pick him up at 38 then they probably see something in him and think he is worthwhile, don't forget we also have a pretty good record at turning rejects into decent footballers.

 

[marvin]

why? you've seen the stats.

but in case you've forgotten. the ave games played for a pick in the 3rd round is 25 games. which is stuff all.

http://footygeek.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=25&id=264&Itemid=81

the draft is very risky anyway, the idea that the 3rd round provides any sort of predictable return is just crazy talk.

The link is from analysis done January 2005. 3 more seasons of footy have been played since, so the analysis may well have changed.

Also, I believe that the stats used in the footygeek analysis date back to the beginning of the draft era (1986), which means the stats are skewed by such things as the player retention scheme and various moratoria for recruiting in different states. That's why I prefer to concentrate on post 1997 draft figures.

The "idea that the 3rd round provides any sort of predictable return" hasn't been put forward by anyone, as far as I can tell. Of course, the draft is a bit of a lottery, and the odds go against you the further you move down the draft. I'm just arguing that a pick in the 3rd round it's a better than 20% hit rate, which is what was suggested, and then responding to a further query around that.

 

[Crow-mo]

The link is from analysis done January 2005. 3 more seasons of footy have been played since, so the analysis may well have changed.

any reason for believing this to be true? other than wanting it to be so?

but if you've got a couple of dozen or so 3rd round stars to offer up from the last couple of 3rd rounds that will change the analysis...

Also, I believe that the stats used in the footygeek analysis date back to the beginning of the draft era (1986), which means the stats are skewed by such things as the player retention scheme and various moratoria for recruiting in different states. That's why I prefer to concentrate on post 1997 draft figures.

by all means. but picking and choosing what to ignore and include is not going to ever present a compelling position. all you do is saying what might be wrong, with a very detailed piece of analysis.

a common falsehood is the statement to the effect of "oh, the past doesn't matter, drafting is so much better now..." etc. now that there is no evidence to suggest any such thing is considered a mere inconvenience by some. my point being: don't fall into that trap.

The "idea that the 3rd round provides any sort of predictable return" hasn't been put forward by anyone, as far as I can tell.

except by you you are suggesting that than a greater than 20% return is likely and probable.

Of course, the draft is a bit of a lottery, and the odds go against you the further you move down the draft. I'm just arguing that a pick in the 3rd round it's a better than 20% hit rate, which is what was suggested, and then responding to a further query around that.

what you are saying is that a 3rd round pick is > than 20%. fine.
but I'm not seeing anything than a pick n choose approach to a couple of names (some deeply unimpressive as well) rather than anything that supports this in anyway. hell the adelaide football club doesn't have a 20% record on first round picks!!!!

 

[marvin]

any reason for believing this to be true? other than wanting it to be so?

but if you've got a couple of dozen or so 3rd round stars to offer up from the last couple of 3rd rounds that will change the analysis...

I don't "want it to be so". If adding in the last 3 years of data does not change things materially, that's fine, I'm wrong, I can live with that.

However, excluding the last 3 years of data is perhaps "picking and choosing what to ignore and include" is it not??

by all means. but picking and choosing what to ignore and include is not going to ever present a compelling position. all you do is saying what might be wrong, with a very detailed piece of analysis.

I'm sorry Crow-mo, but that's just wrong. I'm not sure what profession you are in, but in mine, and many others, that's picking and choosing what to include and what to ignore is absolutely a standard piece of analysis. That's why we have things like underlying and headline inflation rates. Seasonally adjusted figures. All that sort of thing.

a common falsehood is the statement to the effect of "oh, the past doesn't matter, drafting is so much better now..." etc. now that there is no evidence to suggest any such thing is considered a mere inconvenience by some. my point being: don't fall into that trap.

I've not argued that. That's yet another straw man.

except by you you are suggesting that than a greater than 20% return is likely and probable. what you are saying is that a 3rd round pick is > than 20%. fine.
but I'm not seeing anything than a pick n choose approach to a couple of names (some deeply unimpressive as well) rather than anything that supports this in anyway. hell the adelaide football club doesn't have a 20% record on first round picks!!!!

If you don't like my analysis, that's fine.

I'd like to see a counter analysis from you or anyone else that doesn't involve 3 year old data (in a 20 year data set), and a little more substance than throw away lines about things not being compelling, or being unimpressive.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

great stuff - thanks man

looks like bradley may not be a bargain at 38 based on your analysis - especially considering the crows history of drafting well in the 3rd round onwards

thanks again. cheers

Yeah, I also thought marvin's analysis made for good reading.

If this year's draft turns out to be not as deep as expected, then that may lower the % success rate.

Bradley's chances may also depend on the types of players who fall our way with earlier picks.

 

[Mismatched]

a common falsehood is the statement to the effect of "oh, the past doesn't matter, drafting is so much better now..." etc. now that there is no evidence to suggest any such thing is considered a mere inconvenience by some. my point being: don't fall into that trap.

Not sure how you can say this, drafting is, on the whole going to be a lot better these days purely because of the money spent on recruiting and talent identification.

The draft is still a relatively new idea in the world of football and has been around for what 15-20 years and the amount of money/time spent on recruiting would have increased exponentially in that time and so you would hope that recruiters, with both more experience in the game and more money, would be better at identifying talent.

Sliders will still occur as you are dealing with humans, not robots, hence there are a lot of uncontrolable variables which can affect a young player, however, certain variables that can be controlled or in other words areas that can be improved on are, eg. greater amount of matches watched, greaer # of players watched etc.

The past does matter yes, but recruiters learn from it and learn what was done well and what wasn't, e.g. they will look at why blokes like Hird, Grant, Cox, Rutten, Fevola, Pavlich etc slipped through to lower picks and try to learn from this and not make the mistake of passing up on them again.

 

[out of order]

Ditto for me.

Could also play as a tall wingman.

Worth a punt if Freo don't get in 1st with a later pick.

when you're earmarking a guy who is 200cm as a wingman you know something is wrong with him.

but yeah i'd take him too (as a defender). I'd take watts as well if he wanted to come/ankle is ok.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Bradley settled back in Perth and training with Fremantle.

Doesn't mean much ......but are you allowed to train with another club prior to the National draft? .....I know you can after the draft and before the PS ....I assume permission has been granted by the AFL

 

[macca23]

Bradley settled back in Perth and training with Fremantle.

Doesn't mean much ......but are you allowed to train with another club prior to the National draft? .....I know you can after the draft and before the PS ....I assume permission has been granted by the AFL

Has Bradley nominated for the National draft though WW??

Maybe he has cut a deal with Freo to be taken in the PSD, which would cut out the oher most likely Bradley candidate in Adelaide.

He did say via the press that it was good to be back home in Perth.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Has Bradley nominated for the National draft though WW??

Maybe he has cut a deal with Freo to be taken in the PSD, which would cut out the oher most likely Bradley candidate in Adelaide.

He did say via the press that it was good to be back home in Perth.

If he has done a deal with Freo you'd suspect the PSD would be the way.

Maybe Adelaide is plan B

 

[Crow-mo]

I don't "want it to be so". If adding in the last 3 years of data does not change things materially, that's fine, I'm wrong, I can live with that.

my point is you have no reason to believe the last 3 years have skewed the analysis, UNLESS you know. you called this a strawman down below, but the point is argued and put forward here. so yes, if you don't know either way, but assume that the last 3 years will be different then that is "wanting it to be so".

nb. it is 2 years not 3.

However, excluding the last 3 years of data is perhaps "picking and choosing what to ignore and include" is it not??

no not at all. it is a complete data set with a start and end point. which nothing like you are suggesting.

I'm sorry Crow-mo, but that's just wrong. I'm not sure what profession you are in, but in mine, and many others, that's picking and choosing what to include and what to ignore is absolutely a standard piece of analysis. That's why we have things like underlying and headline inflation rates. Seasonally adjusted figures. All that sort of thing.

now this is disingenuous. yes, many popular measures do pick and choose - and are (rightly) criticisd for being cooked because of that very reason!!!!!!!!

it is what makes them wrong, and meaningless for that very reason, not accepted because of it.

I've not argued that. That's yet another straw man.

see paragraph 1.

If you don't like my analysis, that's fine.

no I am asking for some.

I'd like to see a counter analysis from you or anyone else that doesn't involve 3 year old data (in a 20 year data set),
and a little more substance than throw away lines about things not being compelling, or being unimpressive.

for a start it is missing 2005 & 2006. If you hadn't noticed 2007 has not happened yet which makes 2 years, and not your oft repeated 3 years. In the appropriate context - it is questionable that these 2 years have become decisive anyway.

a complete, relevant and recent data set does not agree with your >20% figure, and there are only 2 options: 1. show where this data set is misleading or 2. show alternate, superior data.