Traded Chris Yarran [to Richmond for Pick 19]

[DrMike]

Why is it an exaggeration??

I can comment on what Tigers have stated in here in plain Black and White after he said he was happy to stay.

If you interpret this an an exaggeration that is not my problem and i did not type what your own supporters said.

90% is an exaggeration and anyone that did make a statement like that you have no idea what their opinion was prior to this. Further, I don't think bagging out the opinions of other posters in this thread is appropriate.

 

[Chism]

90% is an exaggeration and anyone that did make a statement like that you have no idea what their opinion was prior to this. Further, I don't think bagging out the opinions of other posters in this thread is appropriate.

Oh god.

O.k i will leave it with you.

 

[DrMike]

Oh god.

O.k i will leave it with you.

Thanks for being the bigger person

 

[Tiger71]

Read through this thread from the last couple of days when the media reported during the week that Yazza was happy to stay.

Sorry, I just assumed with your mod title, you would be more then a troll ?

Did you even hear your very own CEO talk about Yarran on Thursday ? If you did, how can you even make up the story you will keep him is beyond crazy, its downright Carlton.

 

[Tiger71]

You haven't won a final in a decade and you're talking about premiership windows, hows that for evidence!
Total gibberish again... "Use evidence instead of emotion" Seriously

What has that got to do with anything ?

Its like me saying 6 spoons in 13 years and you guys still cant make finals and are still bottom.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Quite a number of people have said this and recently too. It's not that the pick is worthless, just that I think there would be better value found in keeping Yarran than would be generally be available with that pick. Let's say it's pick 35 ... here's a recent history of that pick.

Fabian Deluca, Stephen Owen, Mark Austin, Sam Ried (WB), Jamie Bennell, David Astbury, Ben Newton, Daniel Markworth, Tom Temey, Toby Nakervis, Harrison Wigg.

That's not how you assess the value of a pick.

You should also note who was available at that pick. The value of a draft pick is equal to the opportunity it represents, not the quality of the player eventually selected.

Did pick 1 become less valuable because the Demons picked Jack Watts?

 

[BlueGibbs2011]

That's not how you assess the value of a pick.

You should also note who was available at that pick. The value of a draft pick is equal to the opportunity it represents, not the quality of the player eventually selected.

Did pick 1 become less valuable because the Demons picked Jack Watts?

Oh dear. Pick 35 is as valuable as history shows us. Of course, we can widen that range to take some of the luck out of the analysis...say 32-38. Over history and based on odds; it isn't worth much. Yarran is worth more than that pick lining up the players selected and odds of actually getting an AFL level player at all.

Yarran just isn't worth a first round pick. Stick to that and you will be fine and not considered an idiot by all and sundry.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Oh dear. Pick 35 is as valuable as history shows us.

No. It isn't.

It's as valuable as the opportunity that comes with that pick.

In 2005, Geelong used pick 35 to select Stephen Owen. But they had the opportunity to select Andrew Swallow and Mathew Stokes, among others. You have to take that into account when assessing the value of that pick. A pick doesn't lose value just because it is used poorly.

Yarran just isn't worth a first round pick. Stick to that and you will be fine and not considered an idiot by all and sundry.

I don't disagree on the question of Yarran's worth. But you're wrong about how to assess the value of a draft pick.

Did pick 1 become less valuable because Melbourne picked Jack Watts? West Coast picked Nic Naitanui at 2. Does that mean pick 2 was more valuable than pick 1 that year just because it delivered a better player?

Or course not. Because the value of the pick is about the value of the opportunity that comes with it.

 

[BlueGibbs2011]

No. It isn't.

It's as valuable as the opportunity that comes with that pick.

I don't disagree on the question of Yarran's worth. But you're wrong about how to assess the value of a draft pick.

Did pick 1 become less valuable because Melbourne picked Jack Watts? West Coast picked Nic Naitanui at 2. Does that mean pick 2 was more valuable than pick 1 that year?

Or course not. Because the value of the pick is about the value of the opportunity.

And that opportunity 'needs' to address probability...that's what wrecks it. Probability is massive....probability says that you might have a 1/4 chance of picking a player that makes a team's best 22 if you had pick 35. You are making the mistake of using pick 1 as your example...probability of pick one being a best 22 player is like 9/10.

So what if in the next draft there is another Swan...the odds of Carlton spotting him are less than 5%. The odds of Yarran making Carlton's best 22 next year are 95%+.

Stop.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

And that opportunity 'needs' to address probability...that's what wrecks it.

Sure you do.

So you can't simply list the guys who were taken at that pick and leave it at that. You have to also take into account the guys who were still available and not only the player who was ultimately selected.

Probability is massive....probability says that you might have a 1/4 chance of picking a player that makes a team's best 22 if you had pick 35. You are making the mistake of using pick 1 as your example...probability of pick one being a best 22 player is like 9/10.

Those numbers are obviously arbitrary but that is essentially why early picks are more valuable than later picks, which is by definition the case. With each subsequent pick, the pool of players gets more shallow and the window of opportunity grows narrower.

That's how you assess the value of a draft pick - by what kind of live opportunity remains. Not by simply naming the blokes who were taken at that point in previous drafts.

Also, pointing out that pick 1 will likely land a 'best 22' player doesn't really cut it. Jack Watts has arguably been 'best 22' at Melbourne. But I'm not sure that means it was a successful use of the first pick. Pick 2 was used to greater effect that year. Does that mean it was more valuable than pick 1?

So what if in the next draft there is another Swan...the odds of Carlton spotting him are less than 5%. The odds of Yarran making Carlton's best 22 next year are 95%+.

Again, arbitrary numbers.

But yes, you should take into account the fact that there are often good players available after pick 35. That certainly makes more sense than simply listing the blokes who were taken there without acknowledging the opportunity that existed to select other, better players.

 

[bad setanta]

That's not evidence that's emotional rubbish. If previous years meant you wouldn't get a premiership then Hawks wouldn't have won in 08, Geelong wouldn't have won in 07. If you can't support your comment with anything just say so, but don't go down the path of bagging my club because you're unable to.

What the hell are you on about... take a zanex and have a lay down

 

[bad setanta]

What has that got to do with anything ?

Its like me saying 6 spoons in 13 years and you guys still cant make finals and are still bottom.

Do you really wanna go down that path? it's like you just forgot the last 30 years....hilarious

 

[Monkey King]

That's not how you assess the value of a pick.

You should also note who was available at that pick. The value of a draft pick is equal to the opportunity it represents, not the quality of the player eventually selected.

Did pick 1 become less valuable because the Demons picked Jack Watts?

It is in my book. You can dream of opportunity all you like and hindsight cherry pick the best taken later in the draft, but if you're assessing the probability of value that a pick represents from a risk/reward point of view i.e. this or that, it's more than reasonable to cast your eye over what that pick has consistently delivered in history (rather than the one-off example you gave or some outlier). In this case, I think keeping Yarran presents a far better probability of value. And I'd say if this is what Tiger's posters are happy either, then they agree.

 

[Monkey King]

That's how you assess the value of a draft pick - by what kind of live opportunity remains. Not by simply naming the blokes who were taken at that point in previous drafts.

IMO it's exactly how you assess it, by looking at junior players who consistently rated at that value at the time of the draft and how that later manifested on the AFL arena. Waiting to see which outlier, who was live at the time but selected later or even rookied, then developed to higher expectation, is not relevant to draft day and hence, not relevant to the actual draft selection.

If weighing up which option represents best value, I want to reflect on real-world eventualities. And we have the data right on hand to see what this pick has consistently yielded according to how juniors were evaluated according to their stage of development, at draft time. In doing so, Yarran looks a far less risky option than trying to unlock value at that draft range.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It is in my book.

Well, that's illogical.

In 2008, Melbourne took Watts with pick 1. West Coast took Naitanui with pick 2.

Does that mean pick 2 was worth more that year?

You can dream of opportunity all you like and hindsight cherry pick the best taken later in the draft

I don't need to 'dream of opportunity' or 'hindsight cherry pick' anything. Opportunity is the real metric when it comes to determining the value of a draft pick.

but if you're assessing the probability of value that a pick represents from a risk/reward point of view i.e. this or that, it's more than reasonable to cast your eye over what that pick has consistently delivered in history (rather than the one-off example you gave or some outlier).

Again, that's illogical. You are assessing the value of a draft pick according to the most simplistic method because you can't be bothered to think about it for more than 30 seconds, even though you're wrong.

A pick's value represents the value of the opportunity attached to it. Not the quality of player selected with that pick in the past. That's why pick 1 is always more valuable than pick 2 and so on and so forth. It's because pick 1, by definition, represents a greater opportunity. Pick 2 doesn't become more valuable just because a better player gets picked there sometimes.

Once you understand this basic principle, it follows that the value of any draft pick must be assessed based on the opportunity that comes attached to it, rather than the quality of the players who were ultimately selected with that pick in any past year.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

IMO it's exactly how you assess it, by looking at junior players who consistently rated at that value at the time of the draft and how that later manifested on the AFL arena. Waiting to see which outlier, who was live at the time but selected later or even rookied, then developed to higher expectation, is not relevant to draft day and hence, not relevant to the actual draft selection.

If weighing up which option represents best value, I want to reflect on real-world eventualities. And we have the data right on hand to see what this pick has consistently yielded according to how juniors were evaluated according to their stage of development, at draft time.

This is just word salad.

In 2008, the 'real world eventuality' was that pick 1 delivered Jack Watts and pick 2 delivered Nic Naitanui. Does that mean pick 2 was more valuable than pick 1 that year?

What if, over a period of five years, the players taken with pick 5 turned out to be better than the players taken at pick 4? Would that, according to your logic, mean pick 5 becomes more valuable than pick 4? Because, if it's not about opportunity and is instead about 'real world eventualities', that's where you end up.

If you seriously don't understand that a draft pick is valued based on the opportunity attached to it – and not the player ultimately selected – then I can't help you. But if you think about it for a little bit, it's the only logical conclusion.

 

[Monkey King]

I don't need to 'dream of opportunity' or 'hindsight cherry pick' anything. Opportunity is the reality when it comes to determining the value of a draft pick.

Again, that's illogical. You are assessing the value of a draft pick according to the most simplistic method because you can't be bothered to think about it for more than 30 seconds, even though you're wrong.

No. The reality is not opportunity. The reality is what actually eventuates. Literally, that is reality. Historically, the value of each individual selection is only what that selection has yielded. That is its realised value. It can not be anything else. So yes, in 2008 the realised value of pick two was greater than the realised value of pick one. What this says is that sometimes, pick one is not the most valuable pick in the draft. It's counter-intuitive I know, but forget about opportunity; opportunity here has been converted into reality. A player's development is not steadily progressive and thus, can be somewhat misleading when it comes to unlocking realised value.

So in a real world risk assessment as presented in the post I was replying to, it would be remiss to overlook such a large pool of historical data that demonstrates the type of value consistently realised with such a selection, in favour of a model that focuses on unrealistic concepts of opportunity. The latter seems to largely ignores how player value is assessed by recruiters at the age of drafting and puts an emphasis more on hindsight evaluations based on how players have developed years down the track.

 

[Monkey King]

What if, over a period of five years, the players taken with pick 5 turned out to be better than the players taken at pick 4? Would that, according to your logic, mean pick 5 becomes more valuable than pick 4? Because, if it's not about opportunity and is instead about 'real world eventualities', that's where you end up.

If you seriously don't understand that a draft pick is valued based on the opportunity attached to it – and not the player ultimately selected – then I can't help you. But if you think about it for a little bit, it's the only logical conclusion.

Yes. You can't help me. In this scenario, opportunity only matters to me in how it consistently coverts to reality. Five years is far too small a sample to make an assessment, but if 19 out of 20 drafts yields a player of much higher quality at pick 5 than it does at pick 4, then yes, I would say pick 5 would have consistently shown greater value historically, but here you're talking about a range differential of one, so it's splitting hairs and unlikely to play out that way (better to give range of pick 32-38 in the Yarran trade scenario) but you spread the range over 20+ draft picks and play off the idea of opportunity, it all becomes rather meaningless in assessing what you're actually likely to realise with that pick.

I think you're confusing yourself with opportunity here, as all it represents is the opportunity to select a player, in a certain range, at a certain stage of their development and there may well be inherent issues with how that particular opportunity plays out in reality, because it appears a pretty hit and miss affair.

 

[davis_756]

Why would RFC use a 1st round draft pick for a player:
* Carlton want rid of
* Playing poorly in the 2nd's

If he was playing outstanding football that merited a 1st round draft pick then Carlton would not be trying to trade him.

You are not you are paying a pick downgrade.

I don't care how you want to value him pick 32 is useless to Carlton

 

[Defacto]

Worth a 3rd round at Most

late second round in this draft IMO

 

[HBF]

Super talent with no heart

And he plays like he's made of glass.

 

[HBF]

Would happily offer Carlton our first pick plus a player for Yarran at the Hawks.

But he's a crap VFL player though.

 

[pinot]

Hawks know how to trade.

Tigers are completely bereft on the trade table. Yarran should stay at the Blues as a matter of principle.

 

[RockJobster0312]

No. The reality is not opportunity. The reality is what actually eventuates. Literally, that is reality. Historically, the value of each individual selection is only what that selection has yielded. That is its realised value. It can not be anything else. So yes, in 2008 the realised value of pick two was greater than the realised value of pick one. What this says is that sometimes, pick one is not the most valuable pick in the draft. It's counter-intuitive I know, but forget about opportunity; opportunity here has been converted into reality. A player's development is not steadily progressive and thus, can be somewhat misleading when it comes to unlocking realised value.

So in a real world risk assessment as presented in the post I was replying to, it would be remiss to overlook such a large pool of historical data that demonstrates the type of value consistently realised with such a selection, in favour of a model that focuses on unrealistic concepts of opportunity. The latter seems to largely ignores how player value is assessed by recruiters at the age of drafting and puts an emphasis more on hindsight evaluations based on how players have developed years down the track.

It also comes down to correlation versus causation.

I used to write NBA draft articles for a website a while back. Historically pick 6 has generally yielded a flop. Pick 7 is usually a handy player. Even pick 8 and 9 have a higher level of success than pick 6.

But is the fact that the players who are picked 6 and flops by virtue of where they were selected. Flops aren't caused by pick 6. The data just correlates to that fact.

I know its overly simplistic but looking at all the players at one pick and saying 'look, clearly pick x isn't worth much', you can draw the argument that if the players who were historically picked at the next pick they wpuld have had more success.

Insofar as the AFL draft, I would argue that whomever is the 1st overall pick does not turn out to be the best player of that draft. Does that devalue pick 1? You may argue that it does, but the reality is that it represents the ability for a team to select from every single player in that draft.

So the historical data may show pick 35 selects average players. But is that causation or correlation?

 

[Rich01]

I don't care how you want to value him pick 32 is useless to Carlton

So is Yarran on this years form.