Dalrymple leaves the Kennel

[Cadillac]

We got rid of him but that’s not the point. We still drafted him and it seemingly caused massive disruptions within the group, which was the point of the post.

Do you honestly believe that we employ a ‘no dickheads’ policy in our recruiting and list management moreso than any other club?

No mate. Most clubs I don’t think we do. But I’m 100% confident we put an emphasis on it more than a club who’s desperate for success like Essendon or St Kilda do.

 

[dogwatch]

The no dickheads policy was a myth that people on here made up and was never a thing. We may have in fact had the biggest dickhead in the entire AFL on our list as it turned out.

I thought I read somewhere that Dal was keen on Ollie Wines in that draft and had concerns about Stringer despite the obvious talent. Anyone else remember reading that?
Or is that just a piece of convenient revisionism?

Brendan McCartney was big on bringing in "good people" from good backgrounds/families. He talked about that sort of thing a fair bit and I'd be surprised if it didn't have a bearing on how we refined our approach to drafting during his time as coach. The club (including Dal) talked about the family visits and character checks becoming an important part of our filtering process.

 

[HK_Bulldog]

I thought I read somewhere that Dal was keen on Ollie Wines in that draft and had concerns about Stringer despite the obvious talent. Anyone else remember reading that?
Or is that just a piece of convenient revisionism?

Brendan McCartney was big on bringing in "good people" from good backgrounds/families. He talked about that sort of thing a fair bit and I'd be surprised if it didn't have a bearing on how we refined our approach to drafting during his time as coach. The club (including Dal) talked about the family visits and character checks becoming an important part of our filtering process.

I thought it was the other way around. McCartney wanted Wines because he can't get enough of those tough, contested ball beasts.

 

[Lindsay_Gilbee]

Wasn’t it that McCartney wanted Wines and Dal wanted Macrae... I think both wanted Stringer at 5.

 

[dogwatch]

I thought it was the other way around. McCartney wanted Wines because he can't get enough of those tough, contested ball beasts.

Could be right there. It was something along those lines anyway.

Hmmmm ... if it was Macrae vs Wines it'd be a tough call, even in hindsight. I'm pretty happy with Macrae TBH but Wines would be an asset too.

 

[bullish23]

I’d like to think we would be announcing soonish our new recruiting manager. Almost the most important role at a club these days.

 

[SCRAY72]

I’d like to think we would be announcing soonish our new recruiting manager. Almost the most important role at a club these days.

Nick Austin

 

[dogwatch]

I’d like to think we would be announcing soonish our new recruiting manager. Almost the most important role at a club these days.

Isn't that what Nick Austin was hired for?

 

[bullish23]

Isn't that what Nick Austin was hired for?

Missed that. Thanks

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The no dickheads policy was a myth that people on here made up and was never a thing. We may have in fact had the biggest dickhead in the entire AFL on our list as it turned out.

I was trying to succinctly say that we emphasised personal character as a draftable trait more than the average of other clubs, and more than we used to, with Dal at the helm. A good thing I would think.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The other problem with rating recruiters by "hit rate" is that we don't get to see their entire draft board, therefore we don't get to know whether they were lucky, or just good.

In theory, for example, Luke Dahlhaus was our 4th live pick in the 2010 draft, 6th total after taking Wallis and Libba. That was clearly a good pick in context of him being a rookie pick, and if he rated him highly and that's the reason he took him, then that's a good selection.

On the other hand, if we rated him 80th in our draft board and looked around in exasperation as one-by-one the players we rated higher than him were taken by other clubs, is that really being good, or lucky?

Or to explain it more simply - Sydney took a player, Max Otten, who was similarily a TAC-Cup-playing U/18 player with the pick before. 0 games. What if Dal had Max Otten ahead of Dahlhaus in his draft board, and lucked out to the fact that the Swans took this bloke and not somebody completely differently, we wouldn't have had Dahlhaus and all of a sudden Dal looks like a genius.

In other words, if the purpose of looking at past draft ability/rankings to determine how good of a drafter they are heading into the future, the actual draft picks they took is only one small part of the picture, and luck plays a big part that people are ignoring.

 

[HK_Bulldog]

Could be right there. It was something along those lines anyway.

Hmmmm ... if it was Macrae vs Wines it'd be a tough call, even in hindsight. I'm pretty happy with Macrae TBH but Wines would be an asset too.

Regardless what we think of McCartney. He can pick a good contested midfielder with his eyes closed and both hands tied behind his back.
His fingerprints are all over the Clayton Oliver selection at the Dees as well.

 

[Anja_Nees]

The other problem with rating recruiters by "hit rate" is that we don't get to see their entire draft board, therefore we don't get to know whether they were lucky, or just good.

In theory, for example, Luke Dahlhaus was our 4th live pick in the 2010 draft, 6th total after taking Wallis and Libba. That was clearly a good pick in context of him being a rookie pick, and if he rated him highly and that's the reason he took him, then that's a good selection.

On the other hand, if we rated him 80th in our draft board and looked around in exasperation as one-by-one the players we rated higher than him were taken by other clubs, is that really being good, or lucky?

Or to explain it more simply - Sydney took a player, Max Otten, who was similarily a TAC-Cup-playing U/18 player with the pick before. 0 games. What if Dal had Max Otten ahead of Dahlhaus in his draft board, and lucked out to the fact that the Swans took this bloke and not somebody completely differently, we wouldn't have had Dahlhaus and all of a sudden Dal looks like a genius.

In other words, if the purpose of looking at past draft ability/rankings to determine how good of a drafter they are heading into the future, the actual draft picks they took is only one small part of the picture, and luck plays a big part that people are ignoring.

There’s truth to that but his hit rate over a number of years was definitely good. If they’re a crap recruiter they’ll fluke a few but over time get found out by recruiting more Ottens than Dahlhauses. I don’t think that really happened.

I’m comfortable that he is very good at what he does but the Tigers have done it as well as us in recent times so I think we’ll be able to keep going.

I think Dalrymple has laid a good foundation. We have 20 premiership players on our list still and have the fourth youngest list. Over the next few years we’ll get another crack and the new guy just needs to fill the gaps.

 

[DelRe]

The other problem with rating recruiters by "hit rate" is that we don't get to see their entire draft board, therefore we don't get to know whether they were lucky, or just good.

In theory, for example, Luke Dahlhaus was our 4th live pick in the 2010 draft, 6th total after taking Wallis and Libba. That was clearly a good pick in context of him being a rookie pick, and if he rated him highly and that's the reason he took him, then that's a good selection.

On the other hand, if we rated him 80th in our draft board and looked around in exasperation as one-by-one the players we rated higher than him were taken by other clubs, is that really being good, or lucky?

Or to explain it more simply - Sydney took a player, Max Otten, who was similarily a TAC-Cup-playing U/18 player with the pick before. 0 games. What if Dal had Max Otten ahead of Dahlhaus in his draft board, and lucked out to the fact that the Swans took this bloke and not somebody completely differently, we wouldn't have had Dahlhaus and all of a sudden Dal looks like a genius.

In other words, if the purpose of looking at past draft ability/rankings to determine how good of a drafter they are heading into the future, the actual draft picks they took is only one small part of the picture, and luck plays a big part that people are ignoring.

That logic doesn’t really work based on simple probability. If a recruiter genuinely lacked ability then it doesn’t matter what the previous pick was as the pick they did use would, on average, be no better than 50/50 over the long run. Of course no recruiter is simply tossing a coin and we can be reasonably sure they have substantial depth in the list is players they do look at such that no player picked would ever be random in that way.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

That logic doesn’t really work based on simple probability. If a recruiter genuinely lacked ability then it doesn’t matter what the previous pick was as the pick they did use would, on average, be no better than 50/50 over the long run. Of course no recruiter is simply tossing a coin and we can be reasonably sure they have substantial depth in the list is players they do look at such that no player picked would ever be random in that way.

Nah there's luck involved because there's inherent randomness when it comes to a player's output in their career, ranging from injury to a whole other range of less common factors.

The whole point of not using "hit rate" as a result is its a smaller sample size as a result. The point I'm making is that if you look at their entire draft board encompassing 100+ players that adds up and players can be picked up with the same pick despite being in a massively different part of your draft board. For example if Dal had Dahlhaus 30th on our 2010 draft board (and was 100% confident he'd slip to a rookie pick so we kept passing on him) it's a lot different to having him 60th on our draft board and only taking him begrudgingly as we saw players 50-59 taken in the 20 picks before hand. Yes he saw Dahlhaus' talent more than the other clubs and it's a plus to his name, but we don't know how much of a plus when the size of the plus could vary wildly.

And that's even assuming that your draft board has even ratings difference between each place. For example when Melbourne drafted Trengrove over Martin, we we will never truly know to the extent that was true. It could have easily been barely rating him above - therefore a less bad reflection of their ability to spot talent - or significantly rating him above, therefore significantly worse reflection of their ability to look at talent.

 

[DelRe]

Nah there's luck involved because there's inherent randomness when it comes to a player's output in their career, ranging from injury to a whole other range of less common factors.

The whole point of not using "hit rate" as a result is its a smaller sample size as a result. The point I'm making is that if you look at their entire draft board encompassing 100+ players that adds up and players can be picked up with the same pick despite being in a massively different part of your draft board. For example if Dal had Dahlhaus 30th on our 2010 draft board (and was 100% confident he'd slip to a rookie pick so we kept passing on him) it's a lot different to having him 60th on our draft board and only taking him begrudgingly as we saw players 50-59 taken in the 20 picks before hand. Yes he saw Dahlhaus' talent more than the other clubs and it's a plus to his name, but we don't know how much of a plus when the size of the plus could vary wildly.

And that's even assuming that your draft board has even ratings difference between each place. For example when Melbourne drafted Trengrove over Martin, we we will never truly know to the extent that was true. It could have easily been barely rating him above - therefore a less bad reflection of their ability to spot talent - or significantly rating him above, therefore significantly worse reflection of their ability to look at talent.

The basic premise though was imagine a bad recruiter being saved from their bad pick by someone taking it before them and then fluking a good result with the pick they did make. Perhaps that could happen in a single year but it’s otherwise implausible in theory or practice.

You’re now broadening to say there is some luck involved which of course there is given all the events outside a recruiters control that happen after the player has been recruited but that’s not really a strong argument to ignore basic ‘win/loss’ as a stat.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The basic premise though was imagine a bad recruiter being saved from their bad pick by someone taking it before them and then fluking a good result with the pick they did make. Perhaps that could happen in a single year but it’s otherwise implausible in theory or practice.

You’re now broadening to say there is some luck involved which of course there is given all the events outside a recruiters control that happen after the player has been recruited but that’s not really a strong argument to ignore basic ‘win/loss’ as a stat.

How is it implausible on theory or practise when that thing happens all the time?

We could have easily rated Jimmy Toumpas ahead of Stringer or Macrae, for example, on our draft board. Does that make our ability to draft any stronger than Melbourne's, if we're assessing past evidence to make a prediction of future draft ability, if Melbourne equally rates Stringer ans Macrae as the next best players after Toumpas?

Point I'm trying to make through several examples is that we'd have a lot more information if we're going forward with the idea that we're looking at past drafts to forecast future success, if we had access to ab entire draft board.

 

[DelRe]

How is it implausible on theory or practise when that thing happens all the time?

We could have easily rated Jimmy Toumpas ahead of Stringer or Macrae, for example, on our draft board. Does that make our ability to draft any stronger than Melbourne's, if we're assessing past evidence to make a prediction of future draft ability, if Melbourne equally rates Stringer ans Macrae as the next best players after Toumpas?

Point I'm trying to make through several examples is that we'd have a lot more information if we're going forward with the idea that we're looking at past drafts to forecast future success, if we had access to ab entire draft board.

How do you know it happens all the time when by your own admission you don’t have access to their ordered list of preferred picks? You can’t actually say it happens all the time because you don’t know.

But back to your argument - it is underpinned by the recruiter being ‘bad’ but avoiding their mistake through fluke and then also fluking a ‘good’ pick. Problem is the recruiter is ‘bad’ so to suggest they are consistently ‘saved’ from themselves and then consistently fluke a successful pick is implausible over a period (I acknowledged the possibility in a single year).

Also I’d challenge your broader point that win/loss in recruiting is a poor measure. You’re trying to say that perhaps a recruiter was just unlucky or only had a small margin of error because the superstar that they missed out on was next on their list. Again, over the longer term that means they are getting it consistently wrong - you’re just trying to award ‘points for workings’ but ultimately they are getting the wrong answer.

 

[BEaston]

It is plausible but it would happen to recruiters equally, as such it can be discounted in comparing recruiting records.

 

[BRWB]

It is plausible but it would happen to recruiters equally, as such it can be discounted in comparing recruiting records.

Well unless one recruiter was luckier...or unluckier than any other over a period of years...

Hit rates over a number of years clearly show Dal in the top bracket of recruiters. He is a massive loss, it really is that simple IMO.

 

[Mofra]

Wasn’t it that McCartney wanted Wines and Dal wanted Macrae... I think both wanted Stringer at 5.

I remember reading a concern over Macrae's ability to put on enough size in the AFL environment... until the home visit where they saw the size of his dad.

 

[BEaston]

Well unless one recruiter was luckier...or unluckier than any other over a period of years...

Hit rates over a number of years clearly show Dal in the top bracket of recruiters. He is a massive loss, it really is that simple IMO.

The longer the period of time the less difference there will be between between recruiters which makes it even less of an impact. So like Delre said, possibly in a single year there's an effect but looking over a career it's a neglible consideration IMO.

Agreed on your second point. Over a peroid of years the records can be compared and Dal is high up there against his contemporaries.

 

[Yojimbo]

Luke Ryan (Fremantle) 186 cm 88 kg (11 Games)

The Mature-age recruit from Coburg repaid Fremantle's
faith in spades last year, emerging as a composed
intercept marking half back. Ryan spent the first half
of the year in the WAFL, where he quickly showed he
was above the level, but had to bide his time until
round 11 to gain his chance. Played some outstanding
football late in the year, earning a NAB rising star
nomination after plucking nine intercept marks- one
shy of the record against Gold Coast in round 20.
Claimed the Beacon Award as Fremantle's best young
player and took home the Simpson medal as best
afield in Peel's WAFL grand final triumph.

Pick 18 Bulldogs, Luke Ryan (Coburg). We see Luke as
filling the Matthew Boyd role for years to come.

Four picks Simon, four. (Not that i am still angry).

 

[dogwatch]

I notice there's a Neil Dalrymple who has been CEO of Bowls Australia for the last 10 years after being with Cricket Australia. I wonder if they are brothers. Looking at their pics it seems plausible, Neil perhaps being the older one.

Anyone know?

Recent:


2007:


Simon:

 

[ScragCity]

I notice there's a Neil Dalrymple who has been CEO of Bowls Australia for the last 10 years after being with Cricket Australia. I wonder if they are brothers. Looking at their pics it seems plausible, Neil perhaps being the older one.

Anyone know?

Recent:
View attachment 472518

2007:
View attachment 472523

Simon:

View attachment 472521

Get a life