No evidence to support tanking.

[A Living God]

Do Teams Always Lose to Win? Performance Incentives and the Player Draft in the Australian Football League
http://jse.sagepub.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/cgi/content/abstract/10/5/451

No evidence was found that either of the draft order or priority picks have caused clubs to lose matches.

In this study, we have examined whether aspects of the player draft mechanism in the AFL have been associated with perverse incentive effects. Using data on all AFL matches played between 1968 and 2005, the study finds that (a) clubs eligible for Special Assistance during the period where any team that won five matches or less would receive an extra priority choice in the player draft (1997-2005) were no more likely to lose matches in the last six rounds of the season than similarly performed clubs in other
seasons; and (b) clubs eliminated from the finals in the post-draft era are found to be no more likely to lose matches in the last six rounds of the season than similarly performed clubs prior to the introduction of the draft. On the basis of these findings, we conclude that there is no evidence that the AFL player draft has caused an incentive for clubs to lose matches to receive higher draft choices.

 

[Selective Retention]

I'm sure someone on here in the past collated a distribution of number of wins of teams in a season since the priority pick was introduced and the lack of teams with the number of wins right on the cut off limit for priority picks was let's say, unusually distributed.

 

[Zvim]

 

[A Living God]

I'm sure someone on here in the past collated a distribution of number of wins of teams in a season since the priority pick was introduced and the lack of teams with the number of wins right on the cut off limit for priority picks was let's say, unusually distributed.

There is so significant change between the distrubtion of wins after 1997 and distrubtion of wins before 1997

Our feeling about the second response is that properly constructed descriptive statistics in fact provide little evidence in support of tanking behavior by AFL clubs. Appropriate descriptive statistics for evaluating the Special Assistance system should compare the whole of the phase of that system from 1997 to 2005 with a predraft period and need to include both clubs finishing with the equivalent of five-and-a-half or six wins as ‘‘just over’’ the threshold for eligibility for Special Assistance and four-and-a-half or five wins as ‘‘just under’’ the threshold. We do this in Figure 1a, and find that, by comparison with 1978-1985, there is little difference
in the distribution of wins in the Special Assistance phase from 1997 to 2005. In 1978-1985, clubs finished on four-and-a-half or five wins on nine occasions, whereas in 1997-2005, this happened on seven occasions. Clubs finished on five-and-a-half or six wins in 1978 to 1985 on five occasions compared to three occasions in 1997-2005. Figure 1b shows the same data, but expresses the matches won as a percentage of total matches played, to control for the different total number of matches played in each period. The same finding of similarity in the distribution
of matches just below and above the threshold for eligibility for Special Assistance is evident. Hence, our analysis suggests that the Special Assistance system from 1997 to 2005 did not have any impact on the relative number of clubs winning either four and-a-half or five matches compared to five-and-a-half or six matches. It is therefore difficult to see evidence of tanking behavior in this comparison.​

 

[Luc]

But isn't that in itself suspicious, as the draft and salary cap post 97 should have made the bottom teams better performed?

 

[A Living God]

But isn't that in itself suspicious, as the draft and salary cap post 97 should have made the bottom teams better performed?

No, within seasons there has only been a slight increase in the competive balance as a result of the salary cap and draft.

Competitive Balance in Australian
and Japanese Sport
http://www.otemon.ac.jp/cas/pdf/30/anne.pdf

Conclusion
This section has documented the labour market regulations operating in the
rugby league and Australian Rules Football since 1950. These have been linked to measures of competitive balance. The results show that there is some evidence that competitive balance has improved in recent years under the salary cap system in both leagues and the internal and external draft in the AFL. The evidence to support this conclusion is stronger for the NRL than for the AFL. However, it has not been possible at this stage to hold everything else equal in making this comparison so we cannot conclude that the improvement in competitive balance is a result of the salary cap. Other factors such as any gate sharing arrangements and changes in sponsorship deals or factors beyond the control of the relevant leagues may also
account for these changes.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Whilst losing durin the season is negative, during the offseason when publicity is critical, the team who finished last always gets more publicity as they parade their new recruits

so this in itself is a worthwhile cause to tank

 

[The Zebra]

so this in itself is a worthwhile cause to tank

Clarko certainly agrees.

 

[melbournemartin]

I don't need an intensive study to know that James Frawley and Matthew Warnock are not forwards and Brad Miller is not a ruckman.

 

[simba_]

teams tank

don't care about op

they tank

 

[The Fireman]

 

[Cohzee]

 

[Chief]

No evidence

But I saw it... right in front of me!

 

[Hollow Knight]

Steven Levitt would be able to prove it.

 

[St 07]

You want evidence? have a look at what melbourne picked up.

 

[Pixies]

How does the frequency of teams finishing with less than 4.5 wins in the Special Assitance phase compare with the pre-draft era? Does the study mention this?

 

[Rob]

What was it, Fevola and Scotland benched with 5 minutes to go and the scores level?

If that's no evidence of tanking then Martin Bryant didn't do it either.

 

[Atomboy]

Being at the Rd 22 match between the Saints and Dees was all the proof I needed.

Funiest part was when the Dees supporters around us started waving their flags every time the Saints kicked a goal !!!.

Not good for the game.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Would like to know
- the justification for setting the cutoff at the last 6 matches of a season
- whether results since 2005 would influence the conclusion
- the results for clubs on the cutoff (i.e. cannot afford another win) with 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 matches remaining

 

[melbournemartin]

Being at the Rd 22 match between the Saints and Dees was all the proof I needed.

Funiest part was when the Dees supporters around us started waving their flags every time the Saints kicked a goal !!!.

Not good for the game.

Whilst I always thought that the Saints could go up a gear or two when needed, Melbourne did dominate the early part of that game. We had to take Sylvia and Jurrah out of the action to allow us to comfortably lose.

 

[Cyclops]

Teams don't tank

They just de-prioritise winning for a season: like us in 2005

Some clubs have a couple of dips in the well: St Kilda and Melbourne for example.

Carlton found it so rewarding they are winding up for another 5 years on the bottom.

 

[Books]

You can find selected stats to "prove" almost anything.

Clubs would be stupid not to tank under the current rules. Clearly, they are not stupid.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

What was it, Fevola and Scotland benched with 5 minutes to go and the scores level?

If that's no evidence of tanking then Martin Bryant didn't do it either.

I thought that was hilarious. The runner went out to drag Fevola off the ground, but he didn't want to go. You could clearly see Fev had absolutely no idea why he was being dragged and wasn't pleased. After the match he announced he had an injury. One of the more comical things I've seen on a footy field

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

You can find selected stats to "prove" almost anything.

Clubs would be stupid not to tank under the current rules. Clearly, they are not stupid.

I don't mind clubs tanking from a list management aspect, it's a clever thing to do. Unfortunately, this activity can also impact on teams trying to make the top 8. A club plays it's heart out against one team, then tanks against another. It's not all that fair.

It's nothing new though. Years ago, before drafting was an issue, the lower sides always put players with injuries into hospital and played youngsters to have a look at them.

Teams are still doing that, but these days there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

I've said it before. Priority picks should only go to a club who has been genuinely struggling for a number of years and need help. To see a club competing for a finals birth one year, then getting priority picks the next really shouldn't happen. And if they get priority picks one year, then they don't get any more for at least 4 years, irrespective of where they finish.

 

[pinion]

it's just not good for the game. i don't mind the priority pick at the end of the first round to help clubs rebuild rather than give them an almost guaranteed superstar.

particularly with the new teams coming in, it'll be hard for the team that wins the premiership to get a top 20 draft pick. and our game should celebrate the team that wins the premiership, not the team that comes last