Analysis Draft Pick Discussion - Do Early Picks Guarantee Success?

[Anzacday]

Some great analysis has been conducted by Scritchyscroony which probably deserves its own thread.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

It’s realist. If we had pick 4, what would you trade for it? Because plenty of other clubs have more than we have to offer. It’s almost guaranteed to be a star player.

Your assertion bolded above piqued my interest. I have no life so I did some research and cracked open my old friend Excel

I was a bit surprised by the results for such a good draft pick:

AFL Draft Picks at Pick 4.
Year	Name	Games Played	Rating
2000	Luke Livingston	46	bust
2001	Graham Polak	111	average
2002	Tim Walsh	1	bust
2003	Farren Ray	209	average
2004	Richard Tambling	124	bust
2005	Josh Kennedy	293	star
2006	Mat Luenberger	137	average
2007	Cale Morton	76	bust
2008	Hamish Hartlett	193	good
2009	Anthony Morabito	26	bust
2010	Andrew Gaff	273	star
2011	Will Hoski Elliot	200	average
2012	Jimmy Toumpas	37	bust
2013	The Bont	214	star
2014	Jarrod Pickett	17	bust
2015	Clayton Oliver	158	star
2016	Ben Ainsworth	115	average
2017	Davies-Uniak	85	good
2018	Max King	69	potential star
	Summary:
	Bust	7/19	37%
	Average	5/19	26%
	Good	2/19	11%
	Star	4/19	21%
	Potential Star	1/19	5%
			100%

So...

No! Pick 4 is not even close to "almost guaranteed to be a star player".

You CAN get a Bont or an Oliver. But you ARE significantly more likely to get a Toumpas, Jarrod Pickett or Anthony Morabito with pick 4. There's WAY more average or bust players taken at that pick than there are stars. 63% of those taken at pick 4 turned out to be busts or just average footballers by my reckoning. Only 21% were "stars". That's 1 in 5! Just under 2 in 5 were stars or good.

Methodology Notes: Obviously this is my personal and subjective assessment of the players... and off the cuff at that.

1. My ratings includes a somewhat subconscious and unquantifiable discount for "The Jack Watts effect" for a few players. This is me, for example, subjectively thinking that Richard Tambling probably played a lot more games than he should have because he was a pick 4. i.e.... The Jack Watts effect. The fact alone that he played over 100 games does not get him in the average player category. Add in his pick 4 opportunity cost and he was a major bust imv.
Would Ainsworth have been played from early on and been given the same opportunities to develop in the seniors despite average form if he was a third round draftee and not a pick 4??

2. I'm sure you can can all argue the semantics all day long around which player should be categorized as average, bust or good. But I doubt anyone will argue that there were any more "stars" than the 4 I chose. And Gaff was a big stretch. From 19 drafts there is 1 all time great, 2 out and out stars plus Gaff and one potential star.
My reasoning for having Farren Ray and WHE as "average players" despite both playing 200+games is because I doubt either have ever been considered in the top 10 best or most important players at their clubs at any time of their careers. For me, both are the epitome of "average player" despite their games played.

3. I excluded the most recent drafts because (Daicos aside),we are still assessing potential output not realised output so it's too difficult to categorize a player this early in their career.

4. Pick 4 is a juicy pick that will get trades done. So using pick 4 on the draft with a less than 2/5 success probability has an opportunity cost in terms of established quality players you might have been able to trade in using it as the currency.

Point being: Drafting teenagers is a lottery .... even as high as pick 4.
and
It surprises me. But at pick 4, the odds of getting anything above a bust or average player are not in your favour....

And don't get me started on pick 6.

 

[sr36]

Your assertion bolded above piqued my interest. I have no life so I did some research and cracked open my old friend Excel

I was a bit surprised by the results for such a good draft pick:

AFL Draft Picks at Pick 4.
Year	Name	Games Played	Rating
2000	Luke Livingston	46	bust
2001	Graham Polak	111	average
2002	Tim Walsh	1	bust
2003	Farren Ray	209	average
2004	Richard Tambling	124	bust
2005	Josh Kennedy	293	star
2006	Mat Luenberger	137	average
2007	Cale Morton	76	bust
2008	Hamish Hartlett	193	good
2009	Anthony Morabito	26	bust
2010	Andrew Gaff	273	star
2011	Will Hoski Elliot	200	average
2012	Jimmy Toumpas	37	bust
2013	The Bont	214	star
2014	Jarrod Pickett	17	bust
2015	Clayton Oliver	158	star
2016	Ben Ainsworth	115	average
2017	Davies-Uniak	85	good
2018	Max King	69	potential star
	Summary:
	Bust	7/19	37%
	Average	5/19	26%
	Good	2/19	11%
	Star	4/19	21%
	Potential Star	1/19	5%
			100%

So...

No! Pick 4 is not even close to "almost guaranteed to be a star player".

You CAN get a Bont or an Oliver. But you ARE significantly more likely to get a Toumpas, Jarrod Pickett or Anthony Morabito with pick 4. There's WAY more average or bust players taken at that pick than there are stars. 63% of those taken at pick 4 turned out to be busts or just average footballers by my reckoning. Only 21% were "stars". That's 1 in 5! Just under 2 in 5 were stars or good.

Methodology Notes: Obviously this is my personal and subjective assessment of the players... and off the cuff at that.

1. My ratings includes a somewhat subconscious and unquantifiable discount for "The Jack Watts effect" for a few players. This is me, for example, subjectively thinking that Richard Tambling probably played a lot more games than he should have because he was a pick 4. i.e.... The Jack Watts effect. The fact alone that he played over 100 games does not get him in the average player category. Add in his pick 4 opportunity cost and he was a major bust imv.
Would Ainsworth have been played from early on and been given the same opportunities to develop in the seniors despite average form if he was a third round draftee and not a pick 4??

2. I'm sure you can can all argue the semantics all day long around which player should be categorized as average, bust or good. But I doubt anyone will argue that there were any more "stars" than the 4 I chose. And Gaff was a big stretch. From 19 drafts there is 1 all time great, 2 out and out stars plus Gaff and one potential star.
My reasoning for having Farren Ray and WHE as "average players" despite both playing 200+games is because I doubt either have ever been considered in the top 10 best or most important players at their clubs at any time of their careers. For me, both are the epitome of "average player" despite their games played.

3. I excluded the most recent drafts because (Daicos aside),we are still assessing potential output not realised output so it's too difficult to categorize a player this early in their career.

4. Pick 4 is a juicy pick that will get trades done. So using pick 4 on the draft with a less than 2/5 success probability has an opportunity cost in terms of established quality players you might have been able to trade in using it as the currency.

Point being: Drafting teenagers is a lottery .... even as high as pick 4.
and
It surprises me. But at pick 4, the odds of getting anything above a bust or average player are not in your favour....

And don't get me started on pick 6.

I think they're a lot more developed and prepared these days, so I think it's gradually become less of a lottery - the last decade is probably more reflective of what you're likely to get and the results seem to be getting from that list better.

 

[Gone Critical]

Your assertion bolded above piqued my interest. I have no life so I did some research and cracked open my old friend Excel

I was a bit surprised by the results for such a good draft pick:

AFL Draft Picks at Pick 4.
Year	Name	Games Played	Rating
2000	Luke Livingston	46	bust
2001	Graham Polak	111	average
2002	Tim Walsh	1	bust
2003	Farren Ray	209	average
2004	Richard Tambling	124	bust
2005	Josh Kennedy	293	star
2006	Mat Luenberger	137	average
2007	Cale Morton	76	bust
2008	Hamish Hartlett	193	good
2009	Anthony Morabito	26	bust
2010	Andrew Gaff	273	star
2011	Will Hoski Elliot	200	average
2012	Jimmy Toumpas	37	bust
2013	The Bont	214	star
2014	Jarrod Pickett	17	bust
2015	Clayton Oliver	158	star
2016	Ben Ainsworth	115	average
2017	Davies-Uniak	85	good
2018	Max King	69	potential star
	Summary:
	Bust	7/19	37%
	Average	5/19	26%
	Good	2/19	11%
	Star	4/19	21%
	Potential Star	1/19	5%
			100%

So...

No! Pick 4 is not even close to "almost guaranteed to be a star player".

You CAN get a Bont or an Oliver. But you ARE significantly more likely to get a Toumpas, Jarrod Pickett or Anthony Morabito with pick 4. There's WAY more average or bust players taken at that pick than there are stars. 63% of those taken at pick 4 turned out to be busts or just average footballers by my reckoning. Only 21% were "stars". That's 1 in 5! Just under 2 in 5 were stars or good.

Methodology Notes: Obviously this is my personal and subjective assessment of the players... and off the cuff at that.

1. My ratings includes a somewhat subconscious and unquantifiable discount for "The Jack Watts effect" for a few players. This is me, for example, subjectively thinking that Richard Tambling probably played a lot more games than he should have because he was a pick 4. i.e.... The Jack Watts effect. The fact alone that he played over 100 games does not get him in the average player category. Add in his pick 4 opportunity cost and he was a major bust imv.
Would Ainsworth have been played from early on and been given the same opportunities to develop in the seniors despite average form if he was a third round draftee and not a pick 4??

2. I'm sure you can can all argue the semantics all day long around which player should be categorized as average, bust or good. But I doubt anyone will argue that there were any more "stars" than the 4 I chose. And Gaff was a big stretch. From 19 drafts there is 1 all time great, 2 out and out stars plus Gaff and one potential star.
My reasoning for having Farren Ray and WHE as "average players" despite both playing 200+games is because I doubt either have ever been considered in the top 10 best or most important players at their clubs at any time of their careers. For me, both are the epitome of "average player" despite their games played.

3. I excluded the most recent drafts because (Daicos aside),we are still assessing potential output not realised output so it's too difficult to categorize a player this early in their career.

4. Pick 4 is a juicy pick that will get trades done. So using pick 4 on the draft with a less than 2/5 success probability has an opportunity cost in terms of established quality players you might have been able to trade in using it as the currency.

Point being: Drafting teenagers is a lottery .... even as high as pick 4.
and
It surprises me. But at pick 4, the odds of getting anything above a bust or average player are not in your favour....

And don't get me started on pick 6.

I think it is a bit of a surprise when you look at when you look at the draft and realise the hit rate. Draft guru is a great site for checking all the numbers

What you need to combine with this info is the thought that the top 5 draft picks are still easily the most guaranteed picks. 5-10 is clearly ahead of 10-20 and 10-20 clearly trumps 20-30. After that the differences drop right off. Some of the individual picks may have slightly skewed results to the rest of their grouping but thats just the vagaries of chance. your pick 6 is a prime example.

To me this makes sense. Elite talent is a pyramid , the absolute best stand out in relative isolation and so can be successfully picked. As you go down the talent pole there are more contenders and the differences and ability to pick successfully start to blur

Pick 1 remains cleary the best pick in terms of games played and awards won but you can still pick a Patton or a Boyd

 

[TW Sherrin]

I think they're a lot more developed and prepared these days, so I think it's gradually become less of a lottery - the last decade is probably more reflective of what you're likely to get and the results seem to be getting from that list better.

without any evidence to back it up, I think the cubs get better every year at drafting. Barring injury pick 4 would be a very good player.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Your assertion bolded above piqued my interest. I have no life so I did some research and cracked open my old friend Excel

I was a bit surprised by the results for such a good draft pick:

AFL Draft Picks at Pick 4.
Year	Name	Games Played	Rating
2000	Luke Livingston	46	bust
2001	Graham Polak	111	average
2002	Tim Walsh	1	bust
2003	Farren Ray	209	average
2004	Richard Tambling	124	bust
2005	Josh Kennedy	293	star
2006	Mat Luenberger	137	average
2007	Cale Morton	76	bust
2008	Hamish Hartlett	193	good
2009	Anthony Morabito	26	bust
2010	Andrew Gaff	273	star
2011	Will Hoski Elliot	200	average
2012	Jimmy Toumpas	37	bust
2013	The Bont	214	star
2014	Jarrod Pickett	17	bust
2015	Clayton Oliver	158	star
2016	Ben Ainsworth	115	average
2017	Davies-Uniak	85	good
2018	Max King	69	potential star
	Summary:
	Bust	7/19	37%
	Average	5/19	26%
	Good	2/19	11%
	Star	4/19	21%
	Potential Star	1/19	5%
			100%

So...

No! Pick 4 is not even close to "almost guaranteed to be a star player".

You CAN get a Bont or an Oliver. But you ARE significantly more likely to get a Toumpas, Jarrod Pickett or Anthony Morabito with pick 4. There's WAY more average or bust players taken at that pick than there are stars. 63% of those taken at pick 4 turned out to be busts or just average footballers by my reckoning. Only 21% were "stars". That's 1 in 5! Just under 2 in 5 were stars or good.

Methodology Notes: Obviously this is my personal and subjective assessment of the players... and off the cuff at that.

1. My ratings includes a somewhat subconscious and unquantifiable discount for "The Jack Watts effect" for a few players. This is me, for example, subjectively thinking that Richard Tambling probably played a lot more games than he should have because he was a pick 4. i.e.... The Jack Watts effect. The fact alone that he played over 100 games does not get him in the average player category. Add in his pick 4 opportunity cost and he was a major bust imv.
Would Ainsworth have been played from early on and been given the same opportunities to develop in the seniors despite average form if he was a third round draftee and not a pick 4??

2. I'm sure you can can all argue the semantics all day long around which player should be categorized as average, bust or good. But I doubt anyone will argue that there were any more "stars" than the 4 I chose. And Gaff was a big stretch. From 19 drafts there is 1 all time great, 2 out and out stars plus Gaff and one potential star.
My reasoning for having Farren Ray and WHE as "average players" despite both playing 200+games is because I doubt either have ever been considered in the top 10 best or most important players at their clubs at any time of their careers. For me, both are the epitome of "average player" despite their games played.

3. I excluded the most recent drafts because (Daicos aside),we are still assessing potential output not realised output so it's too difficult to categorize a player this early in their career.

4. Pick 4 is a juicy pick that will get trades done. So using pick 4 on the draft with a less than 2/5 success probability has an opportunity cost in terms of established quality players you might have been able to trade in using it as the currency.

Point being: Drafting teenagers is a lottery .... even as high as pick 4.
and
It surprises me. But at pick 4, the odds of getting anything above a bust or average player are not in your favour....

And don't get me started on pick 6.

Good overall analysis. However I wouldnt have someone who played 120+ games as a bust and Im a strong believer that anyone who plays over 200 AFL games is at least a good AFL player even if they dont always perform at a good standard. For me it would be anyone who has finished their career.
0-50 games: bust
50-100 games: poor
100-200 games average
200+ games: good
Star is more subjective. Also anyone who has not finished their career would be subjective. I think you have done okay with this portion of players.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

If you seriously want to consider pick 4. I would look at the last 10 years. In this time you have the Bont and Oliver who are stars. Both have been rated as the best in the comp at some point. You also have Daicos, Wardlaw, McDonald, Ash, LDU and King. At least 3 of those will be stars and the rest will be very good players in my opinion. The only bust will be Pickett and Ainsworth will be a very solid small forward. Pick 4 is a very good pick to have next year. At least 5 of the last 10 will be stars. 4 will be very good to good players and 1was a bust.

 

[satanshoof101]

If you seriously want to consider pick 4. I would look at the last 10 years. In this time you have the Bont and Oliver who are stars. Both have been rated as the best in the comp at some point. You also have Daicos, Wardlaw, McDonald, Ash, LDU and King. At least 3 of those will be stars and the rest will be very good players in my opinion. The only bust will be Pickett and Ainsworth will be a very solid small forward. Pick 4 is a very good pick to have next year. At least 5 of the last 10 will be stars. 4 will be very good to good players and 1was a bust.

Agreed, the top 8 in this draft does look very good, I wonder if collingwood are keeping tabs on an early pick for next years draft with Arlo's brother Sid looking like a top 10 pick. That is if Arlo gets another contract.

 

[sr36]

Your assertion bolded above piqued my interest. I have no life so I did some research and cracked open my old friend Excel

I was a bit surprised by the results for such a good draft pick:

AFL Draft Picks at Pick 4.
Year	Name	Games Played	Rating
2000	Luke Livingston	46	bust
2001	Graham Polak	111	average
2002	Tim Walsh	1	bust
2003	Farren Ray	209	average
2004	Richard Tambling	124	bust
2005	Josh Kennedy	293	star
2006	Mat Luenberger	137	average
2007	Cale Morton	76	bust
2008	Hamish Hartlett	193	good
2009	Anthony Morabito	26	bust
2010	Andrew Gaff	273	star
2011	Will Hoski Elliot	200	average
2012	Jimmy Toumpas	37	bust
2013	The Bont	214	star
2014	Jarrod Pickett	17	bust
2015	Clayton Oliver	158	star
2016	Ben Ainsworth	115	average
2017	Davies-Uniak	85	good
2018	Max King	69	potential star
	Summary:
	Bust	7/19	37%
	Average	5/19	26%
	Good	2/19	11%
	Star	4/19	21%
	Potential Star	1/19	5%
			100%

So...

No! Pick 4 is not even close to "almost guaranteed to be a star player".

You CAN get a Bont or an Oliver. But you ARE significantly more likely to get a Toumpas, Jarrod Pickett or Anthony Morabito with pick 4. There's WAY more average or bust players taken at that pick than there are stars. 63% of those taken at pick 4 turned out to be busts or just average footballers by my reckoning. Only 21% were "stars". That's 1 in 5! Just under 2 in 5 were stars or good.

Methodology Notes: Obviously this is my personal and subjective assessment of the players... and off the cuff at that.

1. My ratings includes a somewhat subconscious and unquantifiable discount for "The Jack Watts effect" for a few players. This is me, for example, subjectively thinking that Richard Tambling probably played a lot more games than he should have because he was a pick 4. i.e.... The Jack Watts effect. The fact alone that he played over 100 games does not get him in the average player category. Add in his pick 4 opportunity cost and he was a major bust imv.
Would Ainsworth have been played from early on and been given the same opportunities to develop in the seniors despite average form if he was a third round draftee and not a pick 4??

2. I'm sure you can can all argue the semantics all day long around which player should be categorized as average, bust or good. But I doubt anyone will argue that there were any more "stars" than the 4 I chose. And Gaff was a big stretch. From 19 drafts there is 1 all time great, 2 out and out stars plus Gaff and one potential star.
My reasoning for having Farren Ray and WHE as "average players" despite both playing 200+games is because I doubt either have ever been considered in the top 10 best or most important players at their clubs at any time of their careers. For me, both are the epitome of "average player" despite their games played.

3. I excluded the most recent drafts because (Daicos aside),we are still assessing potential output not realised output so it's too difficult to categorize a player this early in their career.

4. Pick 4 is a juicy pick that will get trades done. So using pick 4 on the draft with a less than 2/5 success probability has an opportunity cost in terms of established quality players you might have been able to trade in using it as the currency.

Point being: Drafting teenagers is a lottery .... even as high as pick 4.
and
It surprises me. But at pick 4, the odds of getting anything above a bust or average player are not in your favour....

And don't get me started on pick 6.

Factoring in the pick opportunity cost kind of defeats the purpose, but I agree with your rankings in general.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Factoring in the pick opportunity cost kind of defeats the purpose, but I agree with your rankings in general.

Yeah I know it just clouds the issue but it is a consideration though when choosing to use a high draft pick if a known quantity player is available for trade at that pick.

 

[sr36]

Yeah I know it just clouds the issue but it is a consideration though when choosing to use a high draft pick if a known quantity player is available for trade at that pick.

Yeah but then you're getting into the competence of the recruiting team who had pick 4 that year.

Basically, there's always a future star available at pick 4. But sometimes you'll draft a dud.

When it comes to trades of draft picks to move up to pick 4, you'd have to compare the combined hit rate of 2 later firsts to the hit rate of pick 4 and a late draft selection.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Good overall analysis. However I wouldnt have someone who played 120+ games as a bust and Im a strong believer that anyone who plays over 200 AFL games is at least a good AFL player even if they dont always perform at a good standard. For me it would be anyone who has finished their career.
0-50 games: bust
50-100 games: poor
100-200 games average
200+ games: good
Star is more subjective. Also anyone who has not finished their career would be subjective. I think you have done okay with this portion of players.

Yeah I debated this with myself. But from players like Ray, Tambling, WHE, the impact per games played would be low. How many of those games did they get votes in the b&f? Not many. They are bottom 6 players (or thereabouts) for most of their careers.
To my mind I just can't rate them as good players. They had good careers in terms of games played. There's a difference.

 

[sr36]

Yeah I debated this with myself. But from players like Ray, Tambling, WHE, the impact per games played would be low. How many of those games did they get votes in the b&f? Not many. They are bottom 6 players (or thereabouts) for most of their careers.
To my mind I just can't rate them as good players. They had good careers in terms of games played. There's a difference.

The thing is you draft for a blokes career and not their peak. 200 games is a very good career - even if the peak wasn't high.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Yeah but then you're getting into the competence of the recruiting team who had pick 4 that year.

Basically, there's always a future star available at pick 4. But sometimes you'll draft a dud.

When it comes to trades of draft picks to move up to pick 4, you'd have to compare the combined hit rate of 2 later firsts to the hit rate of pick 4 and a late draft selection.

True. There's probably 5-6 stars or very good players in every draft. But at pick 4 they are only capturing one every 4/5 drafts. That's come from a sample size of a big chunk of the recruiting teams out there.

It just highlights the difficulty of projecting how teenagers will turn out.

I wasn't suggesting that using the two later firsts in the draft is better. Was saying using them to bring in a known talent rather than upgrade in the draft lottery seems the play by numbers.

I just might do the same analysis for pick 18.

 

[sr36]

True. There's probably 5-6 stars or very good players in every draft. But at pick 4 they are only capturing one every 4/5 drafts. That's come from a sample size of a big chunk of the recruiting teams out there.

It just highlights the difficulty of projecting how teenagers will turn out.

I wasn't suggesting that using the two later firsts in the draft is better. Was saying using them to bring in a known talent rather than upgrade in the draft lottery seems the play by numbers.

I just might do the same analysis for pick 18.

I think clubs would do their analysis by range more than individual pick as individual picks will throw up some anomalies. And I doubt they'd go back as far as you, as the playing field has changed in terms of both recruiting teams and analysis of traits and stats that lead to success and also how developed the kids are. But then ultimately, I think they'd often ignore the analysis when they've got a hard on about an individual player.

There's a few clubs - us included who regularly trade out their second round picks. I suspect our analysis has them over-valued within the league

 

[Scritchyscroony]

I think it is a bit of a surprise when you look at when you look at the draft and realise the hit rate. Draft guru is a great site for checking all the numbers

What you need to combine with this info is the thought that the top 5 draft picks are still easily the most guaranteed picks. 5-10 is clearly ahead of 10-20 and 10-20 clearly trumps 20-30. After that the differences drop right off. Some of the individual picks may have slightly skewed results to the rest of their grouping but thats just the vagaries of chance. your pick 6 is a prime example.

To me this makes sense. Elite talent is a pyramid , the absolute best stand out in relative isolation and so can be successfully picked. As you go down the talent pole there are more contenders and the differences and ability to pick successfully start to blur

Pick 1 remains cleary the best pick in terms of games played and awards won but you can still pick a Patton or a Boyd

Pick 6 is the exception to the general rule. Take a look at it. It's cursed!. The average games played for a pick 6 draftee is almost half that of the others in the top 10.
The fail rate even at top 10 picks is what really surprises me. I think clubs and us fans are over rating draft picks and under rating the number and quality of draft picks needed as compensation for losing established talent in trades. (Given the high probabilities of draft failure)

 

[sr36]

Pick 6 is the exception to the general rule. Take a look at it. It's cursed!. The average games played for a pick 6 draftee is almost half that of the others in the top 10.
The fail rate even at top 10 picks is what really surprises me. I think clubs and us fans are over rating draft picks and under rating the number and quality of draft picks needed as compensation for losing established talent in trades. (Given the high probabilities of draft failure)

Why they're so highly valued by clubs isnt about the average return, it's about the potential for genuine stars. Not many flags are won without having any of the genuine stars of the comp in the team.

Analysis would have to weight the importance of getting some of the very upper echelon of player into your club. You could trade those picks pretty easily to get an on average higher return, but that's not necessarily going to win you premierships, as where are your stars coming from - usually it's the draft - unless you have a recruiting advantage - which the Cats seem to have with their location.

 

[KinderSmock]

Your assertion bolded above piqued my interest. I have no life so I did some research and cracked open my old friend Excel

I was a bit surprised by the results for such a good draft pick:

AFL Draft Picks at Pick 4.
Year	Name	Games Played	Rating
2000	Luke Livingston	46	bust
2001	Graham Polak	111	average
2002	Tim Walsh	1	bust
2003	Farren Ray	209	average
2004	Richard Tambling	124	bust
2005	Josh Kennedy	293	star
2006	Mat Luenberger	137	average
2007	Cale Morton	76	bust
2008	Hamish Hartlett	193	good
2009	Anthony Morabito	26	bust
2010	Andrew Gaff	273	star
2011	Will Hoski Elliot	200	average
2012	Jimmy Toumpas	37	bust
2013	The Bont	214	star
2014	Jarrod Pickett	17	bust
2015	Clayton Oliver	158	star
2016	Ben Ainsworth	115	average
2017	Davies-Uniak	85	good
2018	Max King	69	potential star
	Summary:
	Bust	7/19	37%
	Average	5/19	26%
	Good	2/19	11%
	Star	4/19	21%
	Potential Star	1/19	5%
			100%

So...

No! Pick 4 is not even close to "almost guaranteed to be a star player".

You CAN get a Bont or an Oliver. But you ARE significantly more likely to get a Toumpas, Jarrod Pickett or Anthony Morabito with pick 4. There's WAY more average or bust players taken at that pick than there are stars. 63% of those taken at pick 4 turned out to be busts or just average footballers by my reckoning. Only 21% were "stars". That's 1 in 5! Just under 2 in 5 were stars or good.

Methodology Notes: Obviously this is my personal and subjective assessment of the players... and off the cuff at that.

1. My ratings includes a somewhat subconscious and unquantifiable discount for "The Jack Watts effect" for a few players. This is me, for example, subjectively thinking that Richard Tambling probably played a lot more games than he should have because he was a pick 4. i.e.... The Jack Watts effect. The fact alone that he played over 100 games does not get him in the average player category. Add in his pick 4 opportunity cost and he was a major bust imv.
Would Ainsworth have been played from early on and been given the same opportunities to develop in the seniors despite average form if he was a third round draftee and not a pick 4??

2. I'm sure you can can all argue the semantics all day long around which player should be categorized as average, bust or good. But I doubt anyone will argue that there were any more "stars" than the 4 I chose. And Gaff was a big stretch. From 19 drafts there is 1 all time great, 2 out and out stars plus Gaff and one potential star.
My reasoning for having Farren Ray and WHE as "average players" despite both playing 200+games is because I doubt either have ever been considered in the top 10 best or most important players at their clubs at any time of their careers. For me, both are the epitome of "average player" despite their games played.

3. I excluded the most recent drafts because (Daicos aside),we are still assessing potential output not realised output so it's too difficult to categorize a player this early in their career.

4. Pick 4 is a juicy pick that will get trades done. So using pick 4 on the draft with a less than 2/5 success probability has an opportunity cost in terms of established quality players you might have been able to trade in using it as the currency.

Point being: Drafting teenagers is a lottery .... even as high as pick 4.
and
It surprises me. But at pick 4, the odds of getting anything above a bust or average player are not in your favour....

And don't get me started on pick 6.

Of course it's a lottery, but the chance of picking a good player at four is much higher than at 20+ where we'll be selecting from. Clubs are only getting better at recruitment.

It's a bit harsh to call some of those players mediocre, when most had decent careers. Any player from the expansion years and their selection needs to be looked at carefully - I don't think GWS or Gold Coast gave too much thought to who they selected at picks when they were taking so many and there were pre-drafts/mini-drafts/other drafts to take players at that otherwise would have entered the pool and potentially changed orders.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

The thing is you draft for a blokes career and not their peak. 200 games is a very good career - even if the peak wasn't high.

Do you though? Average foot soldiers aren't the players who win flags. I think you draft hoping for the most outstanding talented and highest impact players ..not with career longevity not for 200 games of mediocrity.
The fact you've managed to last in the system playing 200 games doesn't somehow magically transform you to a good player if you are just an average footsoldier for 200 games.

Of course it's a lottery, but the chance of picking a good player at four is much higher than at 20+ where we'll be selecting from. Clubs are only getting better at recruitment.

It's a bit harsh to call some of those players mediocre, when most had decent careers. Any player from the expansion years and their selection needs to be looked at carefully - I don't think GWS or Gold Coast gave too much thought to who they selected at picks when they were taking so many and there were pre-drafts/mini-drafts/other drafts to take players at that otherwise would have entered the pool and potentially changed orders.

I'm rating them based on how I see them as a player. It's more subjective than how many games they managed to play I know but dammed if I can bring myself to call Richard Tambling or Farren Ray "good players". I could do it for Wilbur though if you like

 

[KinderSmock]

Do you though? Average foot soldiers aren't the players who win flags. I think you draft hoping for the most outstanding talented and highest impact players ..not with career longevity not for 200 games of mediocrity.
The fact you've managed to last in the system playing 200 games doesn't somehow magically transform you to a good player if you are just an average footsoldier for 200 games.


I'm rating them based on how I see them as a player. It's more subjective than how many games they managed to play I know but dammed if I can bring myself to call Richard Tambling or Farren Ray "good players". I could do it for Wilbur though if you like

Tambling and Ray are fair calls. There's been busts at number one. Maybe a better metric is whether they were worth pick four at the time or for their output. The answer for WHE is not at all but he's been a noble servant for the club. Other times, pick four looks like a bargain for the Bont and Oliver.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Ok you guys. Pick the bones out of this!

In the 19 years sample size Pick 18 has produced 1 more star rated player than pick 4 and it's basically even in the other categories.

Summary	Pick 18
Bust	8/19	42%
Average	4/19	21%
Good	2/19	11%
Star	5/19	26%
bust/average	12/19	63%
good/star	7/19	37%
Summary	Pick 4
Bust	7/19	37%
Average	5/19	26%
Good	3/19	16%
Star	4/19	21%
bust/average	12/19	63%
good/star	7/19	37%

PICK 18
Year	Name	Games	Rating
2000	Daniel Kerr	220	Star
2001	Shane Harvey	14	Bust
2002	Kris Shore	0	Bust
2003	Llane Spaanderman	3	Bust
2004	Cameron Wood	88	Bust
2005	Max Bailey	43	Bust
2006	Leroy Jetta	93	Average
2007	Alex Rance	200	Star
2008	Luke Shuey	247	Star
2009	Luke Tappscot	48	Bust
2010	Mathew Watson	23	Bust
2011	Brad McKenzie	37	Bust
2012	Brodie Grundie	194	Star
2013	Luke Dunstan	121	Average
2014	Isaac Heeney	174	Star
2015	Jade Gresham	133	Good
2016	Sam Powell Pepper	135	Good
2017	Brandon Starcevic	92	Average
2018	Xavier Duursma	69	Average
	average games	101.79

 

[sr36]

Do you though? Average foot soldiers aren't the players who win flags. I think you draft hoping for the most outstanding talented and highest impact players ..not with career longevity not for 200 games of mediocrity.
The fact you've managed to last in the system playing 200 games doesn't somehow magically transform you to a good player if you are just an average footsoldier for 200 games.

True. Particularly as the foot soldiers who just fill a role come cheaply in trade as well. You need those early picks for stars - we got lucky with a couple of father sons. But as you pointed it, you need a few early picks to e confident of getting a star

 

[Apex36]

Ok you guys. Pick the bones out of this!

In the 19 years sample size Pick 18 has produced 1 more star rated player than pick 4 and it's basically even in the other categories.

Summary	Pick 18
Bust	8/19	42%
Average	4/19	21%
Good	2/19	11%
Star	5/19	26%
bust/average	12/19	63%
good/star	7/19	37%
Summary	Pick 4
Bust	7/19	37%
Average	5/19	26%
Good	3/19	16%
Star	4/19	21%
bust/average	12/19	63%
good/star	7/19	37%

PICK 18
Year	Name	Games	Rating
2000	Daniel Kerr	220	Star
2001	Shane Harvey	14	Bust
2002	Kris Shore	0	Bust
2003	Llane Spaanderman	3	Bust
2004	Cameron Wood	88	Bust
2005	Max Bailey	43	Bust
2006	Leroy Jetta	93	Average
2007	Alex Rance	200	Star
2008	Luke Shuey	247	Star
2009	Luke Tappscot	48	Bust
2010	Mathew Watson	23	Bust
2011	Brad McKenzie	37	Bust
2012	Brodie Grundie	194	Star
2013	Luke Dunstan	121	Average
2014	Isaac Heeney	174	Star
2015	Jade Gresham	133	Good
2016	Sam Powell Pepper	135	Good
2017	Brandon Starcevic	92	Average
2018	Xavier Duursma	69	Average
	average games	101.79

You could probably exclude Heeney from this. He was bid on at pick 2, just a different system back then.

 

[legendstatus]

The need has change with the game but it’s not pick 4 it’s the selectors

 

[TradeDraft]

Nope.

Still have to Develop the Draftee's