"Race" for the wooden spoon

[SkyHawk]

No they're not. Statistically, a pick one is more likely to play more games than a pick two, who is more likely to play more games than a pick three, etc... down to pick six, which is a statistical blip because the draft is only ~20 years old. After about pick 8 the likely number of games played drops significantly. Of course some high picks don't turn into the player you're hoping they will, but the probability that they will is vastly higher than it is for a thrid rounder.

Where are these figures?

 

[Falchoon]

Where you asking questions when you traded out Dal Santo and McEvoy?
Where you asking questions when you gladly saw Watters out for Richardson? And in doing so handed lots of power to Pelchen?
Where you asking questions when the best experienced players you brought in for immediate help where Mav Weller and Shane Savage?

odd thought process you have going there, his question was re the draw, the draw is finalised pre the trading period, and released pre the free agency period and draft day.

You went 0-12 in the middle of the season. You have a percentage around 60% meaning most times you lose you probably score about 50% of what you opponents do, which in turn is around a 8-10 goal loss.

none of which were by GWS and Melbourne, hence his question

It's nice that you don't want to build a losing culture (although you have to ask isn't 4-13 already one) .

a culture change achieved in 17 games? probably not

and that you don't want to be the next Melbourne. But there are about 800 reasons why Melbourne's rebuild of 2007-2009 which then ended up producing an 8-10 win and reasonable teams in 2010-2011 failed. One of them might be the tanking culture but to blame all of that on a bit of experimentation and an after the siren loss to Richmond late in 2009 is giving it way too much credit.

that's nice

 

[Falchoon]

I've put some thought into this 'race'

 

[Falchoon]

One example. Some others?

Collingwood

 

[SkyHawk]

bottom 8, I wouldn't allow Richmond, North Melbourne the team that just misses out on the finals getting the no.1 pick

I had a feeling Richmond would be referred to at some point. Imagine the feral Richmond fans after their team had been seen to be tanking for 9th position rather than trying to secure a position in the 8 and a finals berth...

or the Collingwood fans...!!!

 

[master bate]

Point 1 - Melbourne supporters are the last ones who should be throwing shade about crowd figures.
Point 2 - Just because people weren't at the game doesn't mean they aren't loyal. I was unable to attend this game because of a prior engagement, but I have been to all but a few of our Melbourne games this year, and I would punch anyone in the nads who dared accuse me of disloyalty!

My point about crowd figures certainly wasn't personal and isn't that St Kilda's are particularly bad, they are consistent with most teams having awful seasons and that includes Carl, North, WB, Rich, Haw, Bris, Melb, Port all in the last decade. It's just your bank balance is stretched already and those crowds equal nice cheques written to not from Etihad do they not? The point is that you've invested a lot already in being bad this year.

I see bad footy teams like poor people. The lower the ladder the less cash you have. Now if you think the draft picks are like the dole and you can just collect bigger and bigger payments (in that regard priority picks were like the baby bonus) then you'll never amount to anything. But if you find yourself down on your luck for one reason or another and you have an opportunity to get a big boost to get out of it then as long as you've kept your dignity then why wouldn't you take it?

I'm not saying St Kilda should flat out tank. No teams probably ever done that. Nor should they be as creative with positioning as the dees were against Rich (which we lost after the siren). Or as flippant as the Blues were against us in the Kreuzer cup where they let Travis Johnstone have 40 plus touches and not once tried to man him up. If you really are good enough to win games then you're right you might not need pick 1.

There's no harm in following GWS' lead about getting guys ready for next year. And playing some guys who haven't had much opportunity. And moving Riewoldt up the ground to give some young forwards a chance to show their worth. And you've done some of that and it's led to a tremendous win. If you keep winning like that then keep going for it. But simply grinding out a narrow win against an average side and not really improving your side and then going backwards in the draft, I can't see the sense in that.

 

[master bate]

So far having the top picks near the bottom generally hasn't helped the bottom teams get out of their quagmire of mediocrity. The system I propose gives these bottom teams an incentive to win, rather than tanking, which doesn't work anyway. A bit of fight by them might actually help lift spirits and show them they have potential. At the least it would work as a disincentive to tanking. I hardly think teams would try to position themselves for a 9th position instead of pushing for a finals berth. That is freaking stupid. You might as well call into question the whole finals system if that is the case. Should we make it a top 4 system instead?

See I remember the Saints in the early 2000's going from bottom up. I remember the Hawks, Bulldogs and Pies doing it. I remember even with Terry Wallace the tigers went from second last up a bit, then back down, and under Hardwick went back up to finals on the back of Cotchin and Martin. I remember Port may not have had top 3 picks but Hartlett, Wines, Wingard and Boak seemed to help them. Melbourne (and to an extent Richmond) have been exceptions to the rule and that's due to reasons like finances, facilities, board leadership, stupid CEO's hiring stupid coaches and recruiters.

How exactly does a team just magically show fight and climb up the ladder? Don't you think bottom teams were at least trying for some part of the season? They are on the bottom for a reason!

And go ask Collingwood supporters right now if they'd rather finish a year they are rebuilding in 7th or 8th and lose a final or 9th and win pick 1 and find a key forward to put next to Cloke so they don't have to watch Jesse White. The honest and smart ones will say 9th thanks.

We pretty much do have a final 4 system. It's why most of the talk now is about top 4 and Syd v Haw, not Adel v Coll. The first two weeks of finals (Elim and Semi's) are great for fans and great to dare to dream. Great for a young Port team on the rise or long suffering Richmond fans. But they have next to no relevance to the premiership.

 

[SkyHawk]

See I remember the Saints in the early 2000's going from bottom up. I remember the Hawks, Bulldogs and Pies doing it. I remember even with Terry Wallace the tigers went from second last up a bit, then back down, and under Hardwick went back up to finals on the back of Cotchin and Martin. I remember Port may not have had top 3 picks but Hartlett, Wines, Wingard and Boak seemed to help them. Melbourne (and to an extent Richmond) have been exceptions to the rule and that's due to reasons like finances, facilities, board leadership, stupid CEO's hiring stupid coaches and recruiters.

How exactly does a team just magically show fight and climb up the ladder? Don't you think bottom teams were at least trying for some part of the season? They are on the bottom for a reason!

And go ask Collingwood supporters right now if they'd rather finish a year they are rebuilding in 7th or 8th and lose a final or 9th and win pick 1 and find a key forward to put next to Cloke so they don't have to watch Jesse White. The honest and smart ones will say 9th thanks.

We pretty much do have a final 4 system. It's why most of the talk now is about top 4 and Syd v Haw, not Adel v Coll. The first two weeks of finals (Elim and Semi's) are great for fans and great to dare to dream. Great for a young Port team on the rise or long suffering Richmond fans. But they have next to no relevance to the premiership.

The reason they are on the bottom may be in part due to tanking, which is the whole point of this thread, no - searching for a way to eliminate tanking? My system offers, at worst, a disincentive for bottom teams to tank, rather than an incentive to stay down the bottom.

As for how Collingwood/ Richmond supporters feel about the possibility of hanging around outside the eight just to secure a top draft pick, rather than playing finals...any of these supporters reading this thread? Finals or top draft pick - which would you prefer? If I were in their position, I'd go finals any day...any chance of winning a premiership - even minimal - I'd grab with both hands. It's the whole reason teams play footy!

 

[Roobs321]

Much respect to the Spoon contenders this year, have for the most part stayed competitive. Even if the bottom few clubs have had a torrid month here and there, they keep fighting and rediscover some form.

Realistically, I hope it's St Kilda or Brisbane. They have consistently been the worst (minus the decent start by St Kilda). If GWS or Melbourne were to win it after much better seasons, it would be a little unfair on them. Given Brisbane has had significant injury issues, they have the best excuse if they are lumped with the spoon.

 

[SkyHawk]

Much respect to the Spoon contenders this year, have for the most part stayed competitive. Even if the bottom few clubs have had a torrid month here and there, they keep fighting and rediscover some form.

Realistically, I hope it's St Kilda or Brisbane. They have consistently been the worst (minus the decent start by St Kilda). If GWS or Melbourne were to win it after much better seasons, it would be a little unfair on them. Given Brisbane has had significant injury issues, they have the best excuse if they are lumped with the spoon.

I'd agree on this point - there is no sign of tanking this year.

 

[SkyHawk]

See I remember the Saints in the early 2000's going from bottom up. I remember the Hawks, Bulldogs and Pies doing it. I remember even with Terry Wallace the tigers went from second last up a bit, then back down, and under Hardwick went back up to finals on the back of Cotchin and Martin. I remember Port may not have had top 3 picks but Hartlett, Wines, Wingard and Boak seemed to help them. Melbourne (and to an extent Richmond) have been exceptions to the rule and that's due to reasons like finances, facilities, board leadership, stupid CEO's hiring stupid coaches and recruiters.

How exactly does a team just magically show fight and climb up the ladder? Don't you think bottom teams were at least trying for some part of the season? They are on the bottom for a reason!

And go ask Collingwood supporters right now if they'd rather finish a year they are rebuilding in 7th or 8th and lose a final or 9th and win pick 1 and find a key forward to put next to Cloke so they don't have to watch Jesse White. The honest and smart ones will say 9th thanks.

We pretty much do have a final 4 system. It's why most of the talk now is about top 4 and Syd v Haw, not Adel v Coll. The first two weeks of finals (Elim and Semi's) are great for fans and great to dare to dream. Great for a young Port team on the rise or long suffering Richmond fans. But they have next to no relevance to the premiership.

So they're not honest or smart if they say "no thanks"? I've duly asked them:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/top-draft-pick-or-finals-berth.1070910/

 

[00Stinger]

And your intelligent alternative solution is?

The best theory I have heard is to have every team play each other once in the first 17 rounds and award the bottom say 4 picks based on the ladder position then. Meaning that theoretically teams wont tank that early in the season and that they will take the last 5 games seriously. Having said that, they should just leave it as it is. Surely after Melbourne and Carltons tanking efforts teams should realise tanking doesn't seem to help you.

The NFL do it the same way as our comp and their comp is probably the most even of all world wide completions that have drafts. Any alternative style of draft is going to throw up new and alternative problems.

The biggest problem with yours is that you could have a great team that are cruelled by injuries in the second half of the season missing the top 8 on % and they are rewarded with the 1st pick, hardly fair.

People saying we need a lottery like the NBA need to research it and will find they have teams tanking for the chance at pick 1, so that's not fool proof.

 

[dct66]

I've suggested the following a few times, but doesn't register a blip:

Final ladder position | Draft pick
9 | 1
10 | 2
11 | 3
12 | 4
13 | 5
14 | 6
15 | 7
16 | 8
17 | 9
18 | 10
-------
8 | 11
7 | 12
6 | 13
5 | 14
4 | 15
3 | 16
2 | 17
1 | 18

This would give teams in the lower portion of the ladder an incentive to win games even if their finals hopes had been dashed. If your team missed finals based on percentage (e.g. finished 9th by 0.2%) there would be at least some type of compensation in that they received the highest draft pick.

How about a lottery for the bottom 10 teams giving 9th a slight advantage over 10th and so on until we get to the bottom five who all get the same chance of drawing first pick. The incentive to win games is still there but the worst teams are not penalised too severely. The second round, third round, fourth round etc of the draft and the rookie draft could all be drawn from the lottery so that getting pick #1 doesn't automatically mean you also get pick #19.

The number of the balls in the lottery could work something like this ...

9th | 10
10th | 9
11th | 8
12th | 7
13th | 6
14th | 5
15th | 5
16th | 5
17th | 5
18th | 5

Of course the lottery would be televised live during Grand Final week ... wouldn't want the AFL to oversee the draw in some back room somewhere.

 

[SkyHawk]

The best theory I have heard is to have every team play each other once in the first 17 rounds and award the bottom say 4 picks based on the ladder position then. Meaning that theoretically teams wont tank that early in the season and that they will take the last 5 games seriously. Having said that, they should just leave it as it is. Surely after Melbourne and Carltons tanking efforts teams should realise tanking doesn't seem to help you.

The NFL do it the same way as our comp and their comp is probably the most even of all world wide completions that have drafts. Any alternative style of draft is going to throw up new and alternative problems.

The biggest problem with yours is that you could have a great team that are cruelled by injuries in the second half of the season missing the top 8 on % and they are rewarded with the 1st pick, hardly fair.

People saying we need a lottery like the NBA need to research it and will find they have teams tanking for the chance at pick 1, so that's not fool proof.

True, but they won't be tanking for that position unless they don't value a spot in the finals. I would be surprised if any team deliberately tanked as opposed to gunning for a finals berth, even if 5th - 8th.

The flip-side of this argument with the current system is that middle-of-the-road teams deliberately end up last - i.e. tank - and their position on the ladder is not reflective of where they stand as a team. Effectively the same situation as what you state above, but in this case affecting the lower end of the ladder.

I'm not saying my system is perfect, but it would stop any incentive to tank for bottom of the ladder teams. Middle-based teams tanking would have to contend with the issue of a finals berth over top draft picks.

 

[SkyHawk]

How about a lottery for the bottom 10 teams giving 9th a slight advantage over 10th and so on until we get to the bottom five who all get the same chance of drawing first pick. The incentive to win games is still there but the worst teams are not penalised too severely. The second round, third round, fourth round etc of the draft and the rookie draft could all be drawn from the lottery so that getting pick #1 doesn't automatically mean you also get pick #19.

The number of the balls in the lottery could work something like this ...

9th | 10
10th | 9
11th | 8
12th | 7
13th | 6
14th | 5
15th | 5
16th | 5
17th | 5
18th | 5

Of course the lottery would be televised live during Grand Final week ... wouldn't want the AFL to oversee the draw in some back room somewhere.

Now we're getting somewhere!

I could see this turning into a gimmicky event, however. We'd need a band to play or some rot...

 

[LeverPuller]

And your intelligent alternative solution is?

Order based on time since last premiership for the first round. Subsequent rounds as currently.

1. Dogs
2. Melbourne
3. St Kilda
4. Richmond
5. Freo (entered comp 95)
6. Carlton
7. Adelaide
8. North
9. Essendon
10. Brisbane
11. Port
12. West Coast
13. Collingwood
14. GC (entered comp 2011)
15. Geelong
16. GWS (entered comp 2012)
17. Sydney
18. Hawthorn

When you win the flag you go to the bottom of the pile.

 

[SkyHawk]

Order based on time since last premiership for the first round. Subsequent rounds as currently.

1. Dogs
2. Melbourne
3. St Kilda
4. Richmond
5. Freo (entered comp 95)
6. Carlton
7. Adelaide
8. North
9. Essendon
10. Brisbane
11. Port
12. West Coast
13. Collingwood
14. GC (entered comp 2011)
15. Geelong
16. GWS (entered comp 2012)
17. Sydney
18. Hawthorn

When you win the flag you go to the bottom of the pile.

One instance where everyone wants to be last...

 

[Embleberry]

The reason they are on the bottom may be in part due to tanking, which is the whole point of this thread, no - searching for a way to eliminate tanking? My system offers, at worst, a disincentive for bottom teams to tank, rather than an incentive to stay down the bottom.

As for how Collingwood/ Richmond supporters feel about the possibility of hanging around outside the eight just to secure a top draft pick, rather than playing finals...any of these supporters reading this thread? Finals or top draft pick - which would you prefer? If I were in their position, I'd go finals any day...any chance of winning a premiership - even minimal - I'd grab with both hands. It's the whole reason teams play footy!

Saw the post on the Pies board.
There isn't much point in us intentionally losing and finishing 9th. It is highly probable we will draft Darcy Moore (FS) with our first rounder, so doesn't matter where we finish in that regard. I guess if we can secure pick 1 then it would be worth it since we can get Moore with our 2nd rounder - but none of the other clubs would let this happen...
I'd prefer to aim for the best and hopefully play finals. Have a crack and see how far we can go. If we can have a majority of our players fit and in some decent form there's no reason why we couldn't make a push in finals. Plus we get Moore!

 

[LeverPuller]

One instance where everyone wants to be last...

Exactly. No one will drop a flag for pick 1. Rotates quickly too seeing as Freo are 5th.

 

[dct66]

Order based on time since last premiership for the first round. Subsequent rounds as currently.

1. Dogs
2. Melbourne
3. St Kilda
4. Richmond
5. Freo (entered comp 95)
6. Carlton
7. Adelaide
8. North
9. Essendon
10. Brisbane
11. Port
12. West Coast
13. Collingwood
14. GC (entered comp 2011)
15. Geelong
16. GWS (entered comp 2012)
17. Sydney
18. Hawthorn

When you win the flag you go to the bottom of the pile.

Would be nice to separate it completely from ladder position and how many games are won or lost during g a particular season.

 

[Feerits Elf]

Where you asking questions when you traded out Dal Santo and McEvoy?
Where you asking questions when you gladly saw Watters out for Richardson? And in doing so handed lots of power to Pelchen?
Where you asking questions when the best experienced players you brought in for immediate help where Mav Weller and Shane Savage?

Were on earth did you go to school?

 

[master bate]

Were on earth did you go to school?

That's embarassing. Off morning this morning. 3 hours sleep didn't help. At least I was consistent?

 

[hcd199]

The idea that we need to reverse the bottom 10 and give 9th place pick #1, or have a draft lottery favouring teams at the top of the bottom 10, assumes that the incentive to drop games is a more prevalent force in determining ladder position than teams' actual strengths, which is a very hard claim to substantiate. If teams need to win to get better draft picks, that undermines the whole point of the reverse ladder draft structure in the first place - namely, to give higher picks to the teams most in need of improvement. Tanking ought to be discouraged by the system, sure, but that doesn't necessitate changes to the draft system that undermine its equalisation objectives.

 

[master bate]

So they're not honest or smart if they say "no thanks"? I've duly asked them:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/top-draft-pick-or-finals-berth.1070910/

Yep. They are Collingwood supporters after all. And I didn't factor in that they'll get Darcy Moore meaning they'll get a key forward rated top 5 in the draft anyway which is a huge change. That's an unusual variable. Even still if they had pick 1 they could get Moore in the second round and McCartin with pick 1. Then they could take their time with development and have a super key forward partnership post Cloke (who wont go on forever anyway if big key forwards are a guide).

North are a club hungry for success. It's unlikely they'd do it but they'd be wise to finish 9th and get the future post Drew Petrie sorted instead of winning a final. Their fans are would point to their wins against the top 4 but you don't win prelims after losing to Carlton and Brisbane mid season.

Either way 1 club eventually would do it. And tanking when you are a rubbish side is a bad enough look for the game, but to be honest did it really hurt the game? Compare that to a team tanking themselves out of the finals and the effect that would have? It would be astronomically worse.

And what about West Coast who are pretty solidly entrenched in 11th? Why exactly do they need pick 3? What have they done to deserve it? They've been clearly better than the teams below them yet not up to the teams above. They shouldn't be rewarded with pick 3.

It's nice that you've come up with an idea. Even if I think you are trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. But it's a dud idea.

 

[Bluelegs]

And your intelligent alternative solution is?

Get rid of the priority pick altogether. How many teams were tanking before the promise of a second top 5 pick?